Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments in Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Craig Hickman — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:58:00 -0000

Clinton's only way to win is to bleed Obama. The best way to do that is via the obvious stage that the Rezko trial presents. With so much attention focused on Tony, Team Clinton may be able to slip the dagger in without anyone noticing that the info surfaces in a strange way. The path to a superdelegate's vote is through a Chicago courtroom.

Two things:

1) The talking heads are already saying that Obama will be back on a roll if he wins in Mississippi. They are also saying that Obama may have a bigger pledged delegate lead than he had before March 5. And we need to start telling the truth: Obama will win Texas when all is said and done.

2) The Clintons are just as connected to Tony Rezko as is Obama, if not more so. That's why they haven't really pushed that line of attack too much. Tony Rezko's fingers are deep in both the Dems and Repugs cakes and there's no two ways about it. He's a corrupt figure who's associates have donated to the Clintons as well. And the Clintons have to answer to all the income from Canada, Saudi Arabia and China.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

GoldenAh — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:40:00 -0000

I'm going to look at this from a different angle. The Billary hanging on until the end (Dem. convention) actually benefits Obama. He needs to get smacked around and toughen up a bit.

Billary's correct that the Repubs are going to be worse (hah!). They will be using the same material (muslim, tribal stuff) against him (see Mark Steyn and H. Hewitt).

This long contest helps him cover all 50 states. His team is well managed, organized and getting better daily. I believe they will be ready for the general election, unlike Billary's team (see NYT on the disorganization), or even McCain (no money).

McCain's problem right now is a disappearing news cycle. As someone remarked before, the longer Billary stays the more hate she generates. I know some wm who are seething with rage at her, and they are die-hard former supporter Dems.

Frankly, I've been stunned by how well Obama has run this race. A year and half ago I never heard of this guy, and now he's beating the "inevitable" candidate(s). For a novice, he's giving the Billary team a damn good fight, and as a nice guy.

This is a campaign for the history books. He'll do alright.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Caged Lion — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:31:00 -0000

From a recent trip to Europe, I have seen more disbelief than outright fear. I visited Europe around Dec/Jan, and Obama was making the front page in Parisian newspapers after his Iowa win.

On a subway, a woman saw me staring at her newspaper as I was coming to the realization that Obama may have won (I don't read french). She had a bemused look on her face; I couldn't tell if it was fear or hostility, though.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

MZ — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:21:00 -0000

That's crazy about Spitzer. WTF!? I'm relieved he was a Clinton supporter.
Did you guys see this? http://www.politico.com/blo...

Obama is starting to respond to Clinton nonsense

“Now first of all with all due respect, with all due respect," he said here during a town hall meeting. "I won twice as many states as Sen. Clinton. I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don’t’ know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now."

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:13:00 -0000

As far as a FL & MI re-vote, NAH!
They should simply split the delegates. You CANNOT reward these 2 states for not following the rules!

Other states would then follow suit

and move their primaries up. Even if there is a re-vote, the delegates will most likely be split. It is a waste of time and money

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Ronnie B — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:03:00 -0000

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has admitted to being involved in a prostitution ring. How long, and to what extent is unclear right now.

If he was financially involved, that's significant. Spitzer was and is a HUGE supporter of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Did Spitzer make monetary donations to Clinton's campaign?

Did he co-mingle state and personal funds in his involvement?

Did Hillary Clinton have any knowledge--even unconfirmed--of Spitzers actions?

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Ronnie B — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:54:00 -0000

One thing that surprises me on this race is that Europeans are afraid of an eventual Obama's win. Does any of you fallow any European news agency?

Ironically, there are plenty of European Americans who are just as afraid of an Obama presidency. And they also are part of our news agencies.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Ochyming — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:42:00 -0000

One thing that surprises me on this race is that Europeans are afraid of an eventual Obama's win. Does any of you fallow any European news agency?
Thru BBC only you will find this "fear" disguised in bad journalism, often partial toward Clinton.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

cinco — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:01:00 -0000

@ b-serious; and @ Adam and others;

I agree with so much that has been said. I believe that Obama likes to appear naive and 'unfamiliar' with the political game. Since the 'end' is afar off, I think he's choosing his 'battles' carefully. It's not urgent to him to 'fight' 'verify/deny' every sentence the Clinton/camp spews. I hope this strategy works. He has a narrow road to manage on...he can't appear too naive or too aggressive, yet I think the country is ready to see a candidate that doesn't always have to argue over/about each little thing.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Felicia — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:00:00 -0000

Offering the VP spot is a way of saying, take this or I'll have to take you out.

I think if the Clintons had something on Obama, they would've dumped it on him already. Have we not forgotten the pictures from Obama's Kenya visit and their Kitchen Sink Strategy?

The Clintons wanted this thing over by Super Tuesday, but it didn't happen. If they had something on Obama, they would've released it by now to secure the nomination so they could begin working on McCain. This extended race, as much as Hillary lies and says it's fun, doesn't benefit her and is only driving up her negatives.

There are a lot of folks who like Obama, but have concerns about his experience. By telling these voters that Obama will be in the White House in some capacity, the Clintons are "alleviating" these voters guilt, and the Clintons hope these folks will vote for Hillary in the primaries instead of Obama.

Also, offering the VP to Obama is a psy-ops tactic. The Clintons are pushing the narrative that Obama is not really the frontrunner. If this narrative is repeated, people begin to believe it.

I don't think the Clintons are monsters or zombies, as Samantha Power and Andrew Sullivan claim, but they are great politicians.

I have faith in Obama and Axelrod, though--hell, they weren't supposed to be this far. These guys are on top of things. Obama's surrogates (Kerry, Daschle, and Hart) were on the Sunday Morning News shows questioning Clinton's experience as First Lady and nixing the idea of Obama being VP. Just sit tight everbody. Do what we can do. For example I just fired off an email to the DNC asking them to reconsider the mail-in do over for Florida and Michigan (I mentioned my concerns in an earlier post). Let the Obama camp do what it can do. And pray.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Angela — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:22:00 -0000

fyi

Mon Mar 10 2008

Departments

Election Issues

Did Republicans give Hillary her victory in Ohio?

by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman

March 8, 2008

Hilary Clinton's larger-than-expected victory in Ohio may have been won with votes from Republicans, and from independents who usually vote Republican.

Much has been made of Rush Limbaugh’s other far-right commentators’ pleas to Republicans to cast their ballots for her in open primary states like Ohio and Texas. Part of the strategy is to slow down Barack Obama, who analysts argue will be harder for John McCain to beat this fall. Others, like Ann Coulter, have gone so far as to say they actually PREFER Clinton to McCain. Such voters would certainly also prefer the former first lady to Obama.

Whatever the case, there is concrete evidence in Ohio that Republican cross-over voters did, in fact, play a significant role in delivering the Buckeye primary votes to the Senator from New York.

Ohio has a classic open primary. Party affiliation can be whatever a voter states upon entering the polls. Both of this article’s writers, who usually vote Democratic or independent, chose to vote Republican in the 2006 primary, essentially because of a desire to oppose J. Kenneth Blackwell, the sitting Secretary of State, because of his role in his voter suppression during the 2004 election. In 2006, though our previous party affiliations were Democratic, each writer merely informed poll workers that we wished to cast a Republican ballot. Raised eyebrows notwithstanding, there were no problems getting them. The same opportunity allowed voters to cross-over last week.

There is clear statistical evidence that many Republican voters did cross-over. The Democratic Party “won at least 141,785 new voters in the four-county region” of Warren, Clermont, Hamilton, and Butler counties according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told the New York Times that in Clermont and Summit Counties, paper ballots ran out mostly due to a large number of independent and Republican voters crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary.

In Warren and Clermont counties, in southwestern Ohio, the number of votes cast in the Democratic primary are telling. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that in Warren County, for example, there were 12,440 registered Democrats (9.49%) and 41,377 registered Republicans (31.57%) and 77,237 nonpartisan voters (58.94%). In Tuesday’s primary, 27,855 voters (48.53%) asked for Democratic ballots, representing 223.91% of the registered Democrats in that county.

Warren County is notorious for a “homeland security” alert called by county officials on Election Day 2004, causing the ballots to be diverted to and counted in a restricted unauthorized warehouse.

In Clermont County, there were 14,496 are registered Democrats and 37,714 registered Republicans, as reported by the Enquirer. In the primary, 26,279 people voted Democratic. One Clermont County presiding judge reported running out of Democratic ballots and turning away at least 30 people, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Election observers on 2004 claimed that 100 or so ballots in Clermont County has stickers over John Kerry’s name, that would have caused the vote scanner not to register a marked Kerry vote.

In 2004, Warren, Clermont and nearby Butler County gave Bush some 140,000 more votes than Kerry. Bush’s entire margin of victory in Ohio was less than 119,000 votes.

Dr. Richard Gunther, professor of political science at Ohio State University suggests that other factors are in play in Ohio. He sees a likely shift of independent voters, similar to the elections of 1930, 1932 and 1934. In those elections, spurred by the Great Depression, independent and Republican voters shifted their loyalties to the Democratic Party and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, causing a fundamental realignment in politics that lasted for fifty or so years.

There were some technical issues with voting machines in Tuesday’s election. The Enquirer reported on power outages in Darke and Hamilton counties and reports of electronic touch-screen voting machines problems in Montgomery County. Voters at one precinct in Lucas County (Toledo) voted on paper ballots after the electronic voting machines failed, according to the Toledo Blade.

Secretary of State Brunner has made significant strides toward guaranteeing freer, fairer and more transparent elections. In the wake of massive irregularities under Former Secretary of State Blackwell in the 2004 election, Brunner has committed the state to paper ballots. In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), she forced the resignation of Republican Board of Elections (BOE) Chair Bob Bennett, along with the rest of the board. Bennett forced the county to spend $20 million on electronic touch-screen voting machines, which proceeded to crash in the 2005 primary. Among other things, they registered a 14% vote count error, according to a BOE study.

This spring Brunner ditched the machines in Cuyahoga County in favor of paper ballots. Ironically, the county ran out of the Democratic ballots, indicating a higher than expected turnout of voters for the Democratic primary. In response, a federal judge ordered several Cleveland polling stations to stay open until 9pm so everyone could vote.

In Franklin County (Columbus) a survey by the 16-member election protection team from the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism showed that it took an average of 15 minutes to vote in inner city precincts such as ward #5 and #55. These two precincts had lines between three to seven hours long in 2004.

Restrictions on absentee and early voting were not present in this year's voting as they had been in 2004. Co-author Harvey Wasserman got his absentee ballot in the mail without incident this year, whereas it took four phone calls in 2004. The Franklin County Board of Elections opened with extended hours on the Monday before the primary to give voters greater flexibility.

Two days before primary election day, Brunner forced the resignation of Franklin County BOE Chair Matt Damschroder. Election officials told the Free Press that Damschroder met with Bush, Blackwell and Karl Rove on election day 2004. Misallocation of voting machines and other irregularities caused inner city residents to wait up to five hours to vote in his bailiwick. Prior to that election, in his BOE office, Damschroder accepted a $10,000 check for the Franklin County Republican Party from a representative of the Diebold voting machine company. Inexplicably, after Damschroder resigned, the Franklin County BOE, including two Democrats, voted to retain him as a "consultant" at over $11,000 per month salary.

Anecdotal evidence from Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote in the Democratic primary, also indicates Republican and Republican-leaning independent cross-over voting may have had an impact. While losing the popular vote by a narrow margin, Obama won that state's caucuses, and emerged from Texas with more Democratic delegates than did Clinton.

Evidence in general would suggest that the intrusion of normally Republican voters into the Democratic primary may signify what statisticians call an “asymmetrical entrance” of new voters. Such a phenomenon could signal malicious cross-over voters or signs of a Democratic realignment, or both. This would also cause errors in pre-election polls. The post-election exit polls may have been affected by the so-called "Bradley Effect," in which white voters casting ballots in an election where a white candidate is running against a black one tend to mislead exit pollsters about how they cast their actual vote.

This fall it is virtually certain that Ohio will once again play a key role in choosing the next president. Except for John Kennedy in 1960, no candidate has won the presidency without carrying the Buckeye State since the 1840s.

This spring, the Buckeye State has also played a critical part in the race for the Democratic nomination. And it would appear that Ohio Republicans and independents who generally vote Republican were key in handing the state to Hillary Clinton.

--

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008 (www.freepress.org). With Steve Rosenfeld they co-wrote WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO? from the New Press. This article was originally published by freepress.org

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Submariner — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:05:00 -0000

Enough!

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Ronnie B — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:00:00 -0000

I think the Obama campaign is just laying low while Clinton trots out inflated claims about her experience (N. Ireland, Kosovo), which have already been shot down by people outside the official campaign. I think the Obama campaign is letting the American people see what Clinton's old-style politics really are, and they are going to come back, point this out, and lead by example to a non-divisive way of doing things.

MZ, you're likely correct. I should know better.

Barack is doing his thing, and doing it the right way.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:46:00 -0000

Senator Obama brushed off a Hillary rally in Wyoming on Saturday and won the cowboy vote and all the delegates. He will almost certainly will crush her in Mississippi tomorrow.

Clinton's Rush-powered wins in Texas and Ohio can't obscure Clinton's awful record in match-ups against Obama in more than a dozen states, and she cannot possibly catch him in delegates before Denver.

So either she concedes or the the Dems writhe right through the first ballot in Denver, more than five months from now. Obama has won the voting, and his lead in total votes cast like his lead in delegates won in elections cannot be erased.

The only way for Hillary to win the nomination is to destroy Obama's reputation among the super-delegates to such an extent that they will fear a ticket led by him will result in a crushing loss in November. Team Clinton has to be digging deep into all things Rezko as well as every aspect of Obama's life and political career.

Clinton's only way to win is to bleed Obama. The best way to do that is via the obvious stage that the Rezko trial presents. With so much attention focused on Tony, Team Clinton may be able to slip the dagger in without anyone noticing that the info surfaces in a strange way. The path to a superdelegate's vote is through a Chicago courtroom.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Adam — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:34:00 -0000

The thing that bugs me about Ronie B's comment is that it implies that Clinton is some sort of super villian with a bag full of tricks and traps destined to work while Team Obama is nothing but a bunch of naive little lambs calming waiting for the ax.

I think what the Obama people know is that nothing they can say or do now is going to get Clinton to drop out the race before at least Penn and probably the convention.

So since this battle is destined to be fought over the next 6-16 weeks there is no need to unleash all the heavy weaponry at once.

And just FYI as other have talked about one of those new weapons is Bill Foster, a new Congressman from IL that won in no small part because of Obama's help.

Don't think Obama is going to take that victory to the supers as an example of what he can do for them.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:32:00 -0000

Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia has endorsed Clinton.

"African American, 50 years old and elected last year as mayor of Philadelphia on a reform platform, Nutter has in many ways experienced a political rise similar to that of the Illinois Democrat vying for his party’s presidential nomination.

But presidential elections aren’t fought on paper, and Nutter isn’t a supporter of Obama’s. Instead, he has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and insisted in an interview late last week with The Fix that she is well positioned to clean up in both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in general when the Democratic race makes its way there on April 22.

“There’s the regular season, and then there’s the playoffs,” Nutter said of the nomination fight. “We’re now in the playoffs.” Extending the football metaphor, Nutter compared Obama to the New England Patriots, who were undefeated during the regular season and the playoffs, and Clinton to the New York Giants, who ended that winning streak in the Super Bowl. [snip]

Despite that history, Nutter said he weighed his options carefully before deciding to endorse either candidate. He spoke with Obama and Clinton several times, knowing that he wanted to make an endorsement. (”You are either on the field or on the sidelines,” Nutter said. “I am an on-the-field guy.”) In the end, he went with Clinton because “I thought she had the best ideas [and a] tremendous track record.”

Nutter’s endorsement of Clinton in December seemed inconsequential at the time. After all, no one in the political world believed the race would last beyond Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.

But, as the race has gone on (and on), Pennsylvania has become more and more relevant, and Nutter has emerged as a far more central figure in the ongoing debate over whether black elected officials should line up behind Obama and his potentially history-making candidacy.

Asked how much pressure he has come under to reconsider his endorsement of Clinton, Nutter responds curtly “none” before noting: “I don’t know if anyone is asking Senator Kennedy or Senator Kerry, who happen to be white, whether they are getting any pressure from their constituents for their endorsement of Senator Obama.”

Nutter takes it as a point of personal pride that he plans to stick with Clinton no matter what the future holds for her candidacy. “I take my time, think about what I am doing and then stick with it,” he said. “I don’t care whether it’s just me and them left.”

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:29:00 -0000

While the Clintons realize the supers are not likely to overturn the will of the voters if there is a clear leader, they might go against the front-runner if she can narrow Obama's lead.

One uncommitted superdelegate, for example, told The Washington Post, "If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don't think there's a great deal of significance in that."

Cutting his lead to fewer than 100 is realistic, and it's why Clinton is pushing hard to get do-overs in Florida and Michigan. Those states offer her a chance to close the gap in both the popular vote and delegates.

That's her game. Get it close in delegates and maybe win the popular vote, then turn to the supers for a majority. Meanwhile, she wants to get the party faithful salivating about a happy ending where they can have both Obama and her, as long as she's on top.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

MZ — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:21:00 -0000

I think the Obama campaign is just laying low while Clinton trots out inflated claims about her experience (N. Ireland, Kosovo), which have already been shot down by people outside the official campaign. I think the Obama campaign is letting the American people see what Clinton's old-style politics really are, and they are going to come back, point this out, and lead by example to a non-divisive way of doing things.
I think the best thing *we* can do is focus on winning in PA.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:16:00 -0000

Is it cheating if your opponent is forced to withdraw due to scandal?

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:14:00 -0000

I hate to think it, but she's either delusional(I wish) or she's GOT to have something on Obama. She's holding it, and when she drops the bomb, all the pledged delegates will have an out, and be free to switch.

Offering the VP spot is a way of saying, take this or I'll have to take you out.

It just makes no sense for her to be speaking this way, unless...

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:35:00 -0000

Per Mark Halperin, Hillary seems to raise the possibility of de-pledging pledged delegates again in this Newsweek interview:

How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you?

It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process.

She is just so brazen...makes me think ronnie b may be on to something. Being from Chicago, I know how politics work in that town...they keep it all in the family...but it doesn't mean you still won't get 'whacked.'

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

Ronnie B — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:54:00 -0000

Something is amiss. Call it my aching knee; call it my (adopted) Hawaiian tribal instinct. Something's up.

I think they've got something on Barack, and they (the Clintons and their media surrogates) are holding it over his head until he eases off the gas, and lets Clinton pass him.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:49:00 -0000

my last comment was directed @ anonymous.

@ black american princess

Thanks, I'll see what I can do.

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:38:00 -0000

Arguing the popular vote over delegates is like trying to argue the popular vote over the electoral college. It ain't gonna fly. Everyone knew the rules, and the rules say it's delegates, not popular vote.

And Hillary can't try the Al Gore argument. Think back to 2000. The problem people had did not center around the popular vote; it focused on the electoral college.

People were upset that Bush stole Florida from Al Gore via the Supreme Court. Democrats didn't argue the popular vote because everyone knew it all came down to the electoral college.

In essence, Bush used a biased Court to steal Florida, which gave him the necessary electoral votes to win the White House. It had nothing to do with the popular vote.

Even if I conscede the popular vote argument, Obama's still got twice as many states and more elected delegates. That's a best 2 out of 3 scenario - which means a stronger argument both on a practical and moral basis.

6. I conscede that the super delegates are within the rules to use "judgment."

But know this . . . there will be hell to pay if they reverse the will of the people.

Give the nomination to Hillary on those grounds and watch half of the Democratic Party stage a walk-out on national television at the Democratic Convention in Denver.

Go ahead. Alienate your strongest base (African-Americans) prompting a shift in American politics not seen since blacks began moving to the Democratic party after the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Go ahead. Lose an entire generation of young voters (ages 18-30) just to please Hillary Clinton.

Go ahead. Alienate Democrats in red states and watch Democratic candidates fall like dominos on the down ticket. Let's see Hillary pass universal health care after she (like her husband) loses the Senate.

Sure, super delegates are within the rules. But you'll destroy the Democratic Party in the process. Super delegates know this. The only question is whether enough of them will be strong enough to stand up to the Clintons and do what's right.

7. Finally, Clinton's "big blue state myth" requires a suspension of all logic and critical thinking.

Mark Penn has gone on record as saying that winning a primary doesn't equate to winning in the general (I think he used this argument when Hillary was losing 11 straight by an average of 33%).

If you give the "big state" argument, then you must convince the super delegates that Obama can not win Democratic strongholds like NY, CA, MA, NJ, etc.

Fact is, the second place Democrat has often received more votes than the first place Republican in a lot of these contests. So it's disingenous to suggest that Obama couldn't beat McCain in these Democratic strongholds.

As for swing states, I'll see your Ohio and raise you Missouri. And don't forget about Virginia, and Colorado (just to name a few).

Where do Clinton's rural working class white voters go in the general election? My guess is McCain has just as good, if not better, an opportunity to peel them away from Hillary.

In a McCain/Clinton matchup, add those rural white voters to McCain's strong hold on Independents; an anti-Clinton Republican base; and depressed Democratic turnout in the African-American community and you've got the perfect formula for defeat in November.

A lot of these arguments have already been shot down:

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

Re: Obama Wins Wyoming Caucus

B-Serious — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:36:00 -0000

@anonymous

1. If Obama's lead is so "tiny," then Hillary would have no problem overcoming it. But she can't do that - she can't overtake Obama in pledged delegates. Therefore, Obama's lead is not "tiny," at all; it is quite substantial. That spin don't work.

2. Hillary has an outside shot at the popular vote total. But it's still unlikely.

Even if the DNC caved in to Clinton and counted the elections in MI and FL as is, Hillary would have a slim popular vote lead of about 50,000 or so.

Now, you give do-overs and Obama adds to his popular vote total. Don't forget, Obama got zero votes in MI because 40% of the people voted "uncommitted." They voted uncommitted in the dead of winter with no name on the ballot. That 40% is likely to increase once its just Obama and Clinton. Plus, where do those Edwards supporters go? Obama could get a healthy portion of those votes as well.

Same goes for Florida. Hillary would probably still be the favorite there, but things have changed since January. It wouldn't be a vote on name recognition. Both candidates would likely campaign there. And, again, where do those Edwards supporters go.

3. Hillary would still have to blow Obama away in PA, MI, and FL to make up that popular vote gap. She won Ohio by 10% (roughly 230,000 votes). She'd have to repeat that type of performance in at least two of those three states just to draw even. Once again, it's not like Obama stops getting votes. He's going to be getting large vote totals as well.

He'll also have an opportunity to pad his leads by taking Mississippi and North Carolina.

4. If caucuses were less representative (or as some Clinton supporters claim, undemocratic) then the DNC would simply hold a nation-wide primary.

But they don't. And states have the right to either hold primaries or to caucus. Those states award their delegates based on their system.

Hillary doesn't get to ignore caucuses just because she's not organized enough to win them. Hillary has the same opportunity to win a caucus as Obama. But she loses because it's clear that caucuses never factored into her campaign plans. That's on her.

Her arguments against caucuses are weak. She claims that people can't get off of work when a majority of the caucuses were held on Saturdays. She claims that the elderly can't get out of their homes to caucus, but somehow can (amazingly) muster the exact same amount of energy to get out of the house to vote in a primary.

One could argue that caucuses are more democratic. It's more than pulling a lever. You have to actually argue your case and, at times, even persuade others to vote for your candidate.

5. All of this is besides the point because the nominee is not chosen by way of the popular vote. The nominee is chosen by DELEGATES. Hillary Clinton has gone on record saying that it's all about the delegates.

Issues like momentum, etc., only come into play if the frontrunner does a complete tank-job (meaning some type of scandal, etc.,) making the candidacy unworkable and unwinnable.