Political Punch

ABC must be pro Hillary. I saw This Week with George this morning, he of course worked for Bill. George called it wins for Hillary including Texas (of course). What do these morons not understand about it's a count of DELEGATES. Other things might be of interest, especially the spin doctors looking to present their candidate in the best light, but major news selling the public on Hillary's great comeback is crap. At best she put a pause on Obama's meteoric rise. He has followed that pause up with his norm a 60/40 win in Wyoming. He will do 65/35 in Mississippi. Then Hillary will get back to where she was with a gain in Pennsylvania. SO WHAT! She will still be 130 behind. She wants the white Super Delegates to take it away from the first Black guy. She must think the Democtratic Party has a Death wish. They WILL NOT do it. O wins!

The argument that Hillary "won" in Texas rings as hollow as Al Gore's "win" in Florida... especially since in this case, all the votes were counted.

The election has its rules, and what matters is not votes, but delegates.

Hi,

With most of the main-stream media still talking about Hillary's "Big win" in Texas (when the caucus results will probably put Barack in the lead), perhaps it is time for the campaign to use a sports metaphor.
In Texas the primary counted for 2/3 of the total and the caucus for 1/3. Quite similar to football, where a touchdown is 6 points and a field goal is 3. If team A scores 1 more touchdown than team B, but team B scores 3 more field goals than team A, Team B wins!
The only way that team A can claim a win is to convince the refs. to change the rules and to only count the touchdowns.
The Clinton team seems to have succeeded in convincing the refs. (the MSM) to change the rules and to only count part of the score. We cannot allow them to do this.
Perhaps a sports metaphor such as the one above will point out to the public just how wrong this is! (Texas beat Nebraska by one field goal in 2007. I doubt that any true Texan would say that the win didn't count!!).
Sincerely,
Ken Schei

I mean really ... do we want someone so good as sucking up humiliation running the country?

HRC is weak. The GOP knows it.

If Obama is claiming he won Nevada and Texas because of number of delegates... then he has to concede that Missouri was tie because both candidates received equal delegates.

Ironically, earlier on the Obama campaign was running on that he was winning the popular vote.

Additionally, Obama is now resisting even the RE-VOTE in Florida and Michigan because that will add significantly to Hillary's popular vote counts.

I think Hillary can use the continued efforts by the Obama campaign to disenfranchise those two states to help her win even bigger than the first primary contests. The polls have her way ahead in Florida and tied with Obama in Michigan.

And if Obama is the Democratic candidate, you can believe that the McCain campaign will also use that against Obama to get a foothold in these two swing states.

That is the difference... Clinton looks at the big picture of the general campaign while Obama is mired down in only winning the primary and not strategizing for the general... ergo Clinton's argument which will probably be successful.

OK, here is the scenario-Clinton and Obama both knew and agreed to the rules.Show of hands-how many think we should change the rules in the middle of the game ? Thought so-on with the game. Ms Clinton needs to go bake some cookies and iron some shirts, she is done here. Oh, and Obama does NOT want her on his bus-in front or in back-she is too divisive.

Texas:

Obama 89
Clinton 84

The only thing weird is the media facination with popular vote which has absolutely nothing to do with selecting the nominee.

Obama's claim is completely legitimate. Delegates are ultimately what matters, and although some may feel unfair that caucuses give more delegates per capita, there's a reason they set up caucuses in the beginning. People get to discuss the candidates' substances in caucuses and it is a far more substantive measure than just a primary vote. If you view the full results page, Texas is actually highlighted as a tie and it is shown below that Clinton won the primary while Obama won the caucus. Nothing wrong here, it's a much more accurate result

US elections are won with super or pledged delegates; or electoral college NOT about popular votes. 2000, Al Gore won popular vote, Bush won electoral colege vote and the election....

Popular votes are merely used to work out delegate or electoral college votes as the case may be, then discarded.

So, you don’t have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. Forget the media spin...work the delegates maths out yourself......

The winner is.....Barack or Hillary

Weird.

I just went to Hillary's site. I clicked on Michigan on her map. It says "We won Michigan!"

If she can claim she won Michigan and Florida - two states that both campaigns agreed would not have their votes counted or their delegates seated - then I think Obama can claim he won two states in which he received MORE delegates that actually DO COUNT towards his nomination.

The race is for delegates right? You silly person.
Do you think Al Gore has been president for the past 8 years? He won the popular vote too.
By the way New Hampshire was a tie and Obama won super Tuesday.
Please write a big headline and an apology when you realize what you thought was weird is actually true.

The race is for delegates right? You silly person.
Do you think Al Gore has been president for the past 8 years? He won the popular vote too.
By the way New Hampshire was a tie and Obama won super Tuesday.
Please write a big headline and an apology when you realize what you thought was weird is actually true.

Actually, if you include both the caucus vote and the primary vote together, Mr. Obama not only wins the delegate maths, but also the popular vote in Texas. What by tens of thousands of vote cast. If you have a problem with counting the caucus vote in the popular total, then you have a problem with the sate democratic party, not the Obama camp.

Right well hate to throw water on all the Obama fans but there is no way Obama can get to 2024 delegetes required to secure the nomination,even if he wins all the states left.But I'm pretty sure I can figure out the propaganda and the currant blogs shows were its heading.Unfortunatly Clinton has gotten more of the states needed to win the presidancy.Shes also ahead in popular vote.Obama has yet to win a state that only allows the democrates to vote so Pa.will be interesting,whats he going to do with out the republican cross overs or independants.

If the delegates are all that matter here I'm sure Obama wouldn't be demanding that all the superdelegates go with the "will of the people" i think that he needs to wait until the results of the caucus are finalized to claim he won Texas.

There's nothing fuzzy about this math. When Clinton was ahead they said over and over that delegates is all that matters. Obama won more delegates in Texas. Bottom line is that he won.

On the tax return issue, it does us no good to see Clinton's records AFTER the election. What is she hiding? Clinton says she should be elected because she is fully vetted. Then she says she won't release her tax records or records as First Lady. Again, what is she hiding? If there's nothing to hide, why not release them today?

Lastly, anyone that says Obama isn't providing specific SOLUTIONS for our problems is just repeating empty Clinton campaign rhetoric without thinking. Go to Obama's web site or read his book. There are just as many specific plans there as Clinton has provided. Use your brain and quit just accepting everything that Hillary says.

The Republican Hispanic vote.

If Texas goes Democratic in November and this is certainly underreported it will be due to to traditionally Republican vote in our state going Democratic first for Hillary and then in November....Obama should stand down on this one.

I'm from Texas...and while this may be a tactical decision by Obama it is not wise to undermine the votes that were cast in these two states. Smacks of unnecessary desperation.

The delegate system of the Domocratic party needs to go.

Well,
I noticed you all are complaing that Obama should win Texas , But it is officaly that Hillary win Texas last Tuesady, peroid

I believe, Obama`s campgian stole or tore up people`s papers that are voting for Hillary. You never know. They should investigate or maybe they keep their secret for Obama.

Dari:
If we harken back to 2000, if I am not mistaken, Gore won the popular vote AND Bush 43 won the Electoral College which I believe is the equivalent to Delegates in a primary.

So, if the above is accurate; AND in actuality Obama won more Delegates in both Nevada and Texas, he won those states.

Remember 2000. The popular vote did NOT count.

---------
I doubt Dari is a demos, or Gone's demos :)

I noticed Barack Obama alway talks too much on platforms. he talks about Hillary with negatives, peoples are laughing, that `s all. Why not peoples ask him many questions, also why not he tell peoples about his issues. He loves to talk about negative on Hillary and peoples laughing , Are their brain air?

Ooops, I was counting percentage of votes in the Caucus. Obama still comes out ahead though.

Obama won 1 more delegate than Hillary in Nevada. It is projected that he will win more delegates in TX.

Does this journalist know the rules? The magic number of achievement is a DELEGATE number NOT a popular vote number.

Same is true for the national election.

Hillary won the vote in Texas. That is a fact. Obama has a problem with facts.

Obama will win Texas when the delegates are finalized at the State Convention. It should be pointed out in the media that Texas HAS NOT been decided yet.

Barack Obama has the strength and moral fortitude to grow with America into a new era. Clinton has nothing but the same old tired politics we have lived with for far too long. She is the Rovian antithesis - opposite in parallel...the yin to the yang of the dark machine. I will vote against the democratic party for the first time in 20 years if she steals the nomination. I have voted for her family 3 times and finally saw the light when she chose the 'politically expedient' choice of voting us into Iraq. I've simply had enough. - Enough.

To all of you who are assuming that some states are 100% blue or a 100% red, forget it! One of the most exciting achievements of Sen. Obama, whether his enemies like it or not, is that he has been able to defy partisanship, to build a bridge between Independents, Republicans and Democrats. That is where his strength lays, in the support of the people not of a particular party. You may notice that almost no independent or republican will waste his/her vote for HRC because all she preaches is hate, 'hate one another' is her motto. How can we ever survived as a country with such approach?

I am a Obama delegate in Nevada; Obama not only won more delegates in Nevada caucus,Obama picked up more delegates, including most of Edward's delegates, at the County Conventions in Nevada March 12.

Winning the most delegates is what wins the Primary and the nomination.

County Obama Clinton Uncommitted Total
Carson 32 27 59
Churchill 13 11 24
Clark -- --will take palce later
Douglas 30 23 53
Elko 24 10 34
Esmeralda 1 0 1
Eureka 1 0 1
Humboldt 6 6 12
Lander 2 2 4
Lincoln 2 5 7
Lyon 27 27 54
Mineral 4 6 10
Nye 26 29 55
Pershing 2 3 5
Storey 4 2 6
Washoe 329 232 561
White Pine 9 5 14

Obama = 512
Clinton = 388

124 more delegates so far for Obama...

I think Hillary's resume has promise but she's not quite ready to be president.

I want someone with a history of commitment to serving others. Someone who chose a path of service, not a path of self service. Clinton is doing well, in the beginning stages of her political career. Let's see how she evolves.

An Opinion wrote, "Well, she won the popular votes, but he's right.. he did win the "vote twice" caucus in TX.. but does it matter? The big kahuna was Ohio. If he can't win OH, MI, PA or FL he's going to have a hard time. Those are the states that put us over the edge in the general. A democrat is not likely to take Texas."

You haven't been paying attention. This is a whole new Political landscape. Just take the Texas Primary, (leave out the Caucus)
Obama-1,357,683.
McCain-709,431.

In fact, going by the 'votes cast, Obama has lost only 4 States to McCain so far in States where both Parties have held their Primarys, legally.
Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, and Alaska

I live in England. I turned on ‘Larry King Live’ this morning and almost choked on my cornflakes when I heard the disgusting comments made by Kellyanne Conway about ‘Obama getting on the back of the bus’.

Is that the voice of the Republican Party? If so the USA can keep John McCain. Europe loves Obama and we want Obama to be the next President of the USA.

Kellyanne Conway represents all that is wrong with the Republican Party. She should never appear on Larry King Live again. Conway should apologise to the world for the offence she has caused. Her comments were ugly - very ugly.

I think you should demand an apology and an explanation from Conway and CNN. ‘Larry King Live’ should not be made in to a platform where bigots can express their hateful views without being challenged.

Thank you.

There's nothing fuzzy about this math. When Clinton was ahead they said over and over that delegates is all that matters. Obama won more delegates in Texas. Bottom line is that he won.

On the tax return issue, it does us no good to see Clinton's records AFTER the election. What is she hiding? Clinton says she should be elected because she is fully vetted. Then she says she won't release her tax records or records as First Lady. Again, what is she hiding? If there's nothing to hide, why not release them today?

Lastly, anyone that says Obama isn't providing specific SOLUTIONS for our problems is just repeating empty Clinton campaign rhetoric without thinking. Go to Obama's web site or read his book. There are just as many specific plans there as Clinton has provided. Use your brain and quit just accepting everything that Hillary says.

Winning more delegates = winning the state. Those are the democratic party rules.

I agree with the Obama campaign. It's inaccurate to report Clinton as the winner of a state she _hasn't_ won.

If you don't understand this, then check the constitution. The delegate system is similar to the electoral college, which also allocates votes in points, rather than as a popular tally.

Obama DID win Texas AND Nevada! Remember what the Clinton Campaign said? It's ABOUT DELEGATES. Obama won MORE delegates. Simple.

Go Hillary...experience, real solutions to real problems not empty rhetoric smoke and mirrors.

All things being in balance, I think both matters: popular vote and delegates. Therefore, both sides won.

As an fyi, Obama has more delegates in Nevada and will pass Clinton in Texas.

Only the delegates matter. Therefore, Obama won both Nevada and Texas. This is not difficult to comprehend.

The thing that is 'weird' is that neither you nor the majority of the 'MSM' has chosen to report on this yet, most-likely because it hurts Clinton's 'comeback' storyline that is so currently in vogue, and it might suggest to Clinton supporters that your reporting, though factual, has a decidedly pro-Obama slant.

Democratic party is a very undemocratic institution. To them people's vote does not mean a damn thing. They claim to allocate delegates proportionally. Now if there are 4 delegates to be allocated in a district and the vote in that district is 60% in favor of one cadidate, he or she gets 2 delegates and the other candidate with 40% also gets 2 delegates. If my Math is correct the delegate allocation is fifty fifty not sixty forty. In other words the UNDEMOCRATIC party is telling the voters of that district thay we do not care how you voted. I have a sneaky feeling that DNC knew all along that because of this fuzzy Math, the race will be close, no one will get required 2025 delegates before the convention and superdelegates and the party hacks will pick the nominee.

Obama, and apparently his supporters in this comments section, cannot have it both ways, or is it three ways; it's hard to tell with his campaign anymore. He has tried lately to make the claim that the will of the people shoulod be followed in determining who wins the nomination, meaning the nominee with the most pledged delegates should be thw winner, regardless of the superdelegates votes (or the superdelegates should automatically vote along the lines of the pledged delegates). He then takes the position that the number of delegates awarded more accurately reflects the will of the people in a given state than the popular vote of that state, which is ludicrous. Yes, it is the rule, but so is it a rule that Superdelegates can vote anyway they see fit, and it is just as legitimate as more pledged delegates being awarded to the candidate that lost the popular vote. I'm sure if, in the end, he has more pledged delegates than Hilalry, but she has more of the popular vote, which is still quite possible beleive it or not, he will say that the delegates reprsent the will of the people, while were it to be the other way around, which does not seem possible at this point, he would say the opposite. Okay how many positions is that? 2? 3? 4? I'm sure there will be more....

I don't understand why Obama wants HRC's tax records. She said early on that she would release them if she won. How much more clear can that be.

Presidential records are sealed for 25 years. Bill can unseal them, but each page would have to be looked at and anything secret would have to be blacked out or not have the document released. We're looking at 8 years of daily notes here. This is not a quick thing to do.

Just wait until Bush's records get unsealed. That will be extremely revealing, unless of course all the text is marked redacted.

The winner should be decided by the one with the most pledged delegates. Here's why:

1) The strongest argument is that the candidate with the most total delegates wins the contest. The nomination contest is a contest for delegates, not popular votes.

2) Texas has a primary and a caucus. What's sent is the "Texas delegation" and therefore, the only objective evaluation by delegate.

3) One might argue that Superdelegates should be counted as part of the delegation, and therefore the winner of the state is the total of pledged + super delegates. However, as many remain uncommitted, and since even the committed ones may change their mind at an time, there isn't any reasonable way of adding them in at this juncture.

If we harken back to 2000, if I am not mistaken, Gore won the popular vote AND Bush 43 won the Electoral College which I believe is the equivalent to Delegates in a primary.

So, if the above is accurate; AND in actuality Obama won more Delegates in both Nevada and Texas, he won those states.

Remember 2000. The popular vote did NOT count.

MSM should be more mindful of that when reporting.

I had a dream or was it a just another failed desire for all political leaders to be honest with us [the tired and poor] Excuse me it should read the homeless, broke, abused, and ripped off American citizen. It's time to put a woman in charge men! I can guarantee your wife or girl friend will treat you much better if you do. Anyway it's worth a try! If anything goes wrong we can blame it on them. VOTE HILLARY!!!!

Here we are watching the race to be president and here we have a candidate who removed his name from a ballot, so can anyone tell me why he would remove his name from a state thats vote wasnt going to count anyway, (and now hes running around whinning cause it wasnt on the ballot.)Good thing he isnt running on his judgement cause he has none. Kind of defeats the purpose to run for office if your going to remove your name

This is another example of Obama's deceit and the wool pulled over the eyes of his supporters. He has lied as often as it suits him, and behind closed doors his officials tell the truth to foreign governments that Obama's public stances are just "political positioning" (i.e. lies to fool the public into supporting him), and not "a clear articulation of policy plans" (i.e. something he will actually do). This in itself is incredibly troubling, exposing the duality of Obama as someone that would lie and cheat to get himself elected. Now his "positive message" means even lying to his own supporters, fooling them that he won Texas and Nevada when he did not.

"Clinton officially won Texas"... "Officially"!!... officially by who?? You guys are pathetic, the least you should have done is wait (even it take some time) before you declare a winner. The only "Weird" issue is the poor work-ethics by the national media... Only NPR has it correct for now...

and, i love texas, you "derive" caucus numbers that do not exist. looks like you just multiplied the current percentages, based on less than half the caucuses, by 1,000. more fuzzy math. actually, that's too generous. just plain made up numbers.

the caucus in texas is only open to people who voted in the primary. so those of you who are adding the two figures are engaging in fuzzy math. the kind fuzzy thinkers usually engage in. it makes your guy look better, since caucus goers get counted twice and he has more caucus goers, but it's still b.s. i know you obamaites say you're more educated than us ignoramus hillary supporters, so if you don't understand this, request a refund from your college.

Let's do a little math (Primary vote totals from ABC News):

TX Primary Result
Clinton 1,459,814
Obama 1,358,785

TX Caucus Result
Not formally tabulated but if we derive from the available totals we have good approximate numbers
Clinton 440,000
Obama 560,000

Grand Popular Vote Totals (Primary + Caucus)
Clinton 1,469,814 + 440,000 = 1,909,814
Obama 1,358,785 + 560,000 = 1,918,785

Yippieeeeee!

Well, Obama won most delegates in Nevada and Texas. How is that "weird", or confusing? Why is the main stream media not accurately reporting the news. This is starting to get troubling.

Well, what seems really odd is that the media has programmed us to give wins to whomever gets the popular vote, while we all know that it is delegates that matter. Hence, all of the incessant chatter about delegates and superdelegates, and the oh so elusive number of DELEGATES necessary to win the nomination.

Obama got more delegates in Nevada hence the lit up state.

Obama is likely to get the popular vote AND more delegates in Texas, hence the WIN and lit-up state. Looks like he will come out of the caucus with 37 additional delegates to her 30.

You can go here to see the caucus numbers:

http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district

and here to look at the Texas math:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/7/11339/50182?detail=f

Cheers.

Precious people dying in Iraq and all you can find to write about is which states are lit up on a map??!!
Making fun at the campaign of our next President of the United States??!!
FYI..at this stage of the game, it IS about DELEGATES, the one with the MOST is the WINNER!!

Whats the big deal, it's his web site and he did win more delegates, atleast he didn't go there and give victory speeches like mrs. wonderful did in fla.

as a professional, i am really surprised that you would even make this an issue, did you not have alot of toys as a kid?

You wrote that "Obama officially lost," but really the winner of the Texas democratic primary is not "OFFICIAL" until Texas completes their delegate assignment process. When the media says that something is a fact, that doesn't make it "OFFICIAL", it just makes it "generally believed by news organizations."

FYI, though Clinton has talked about how she won on Tuesday, breaking his momentum etc etc, Obama has actually WIDENED his delegate lead over her since before Tuesday's contests.

This includes the Texas caucus, final counts in California, and the superdelagate endorsements he's received this week.

If the media still wants to talk about how "Clinton's back" I think it's perfectly fair for Obama - on his OWN website - to acknowledge that the victories that count are still his.

The primary is all about delegates not the popular vote. Obama did win!

this is for all the brilliant people out there who dont realize that texas has a two part election. that is why everyone was talking about the texas-two step & how confusing it is. when all is said & done barack would have won texas...as for rezko - check out everyone who is indicted & you'll see MANY of the clintons' friends/donors & also mccain's who are friends w/rezko. we're still waiting for so many documents/papers to be released by the clintons but they have mysteriously disappeared, waiting for the irs/whitehouse or just blatantly stated not for public record. i for one am tired of the excuses & would really appreciate a change in our country. also, nafta turns out clinton's playing the wink-wink game not obama - the canadian government has not come to her defense...mmmmm

If you look at the total, he won 28 of 42, which includes the texas caucus.

HRC is given 14 of 42, which includes the texas primary.

Personally, I think that in the prima-caucus, the one who wins the most delegates should claim the victory, if it's to be considered "one race".

After all, the one who wins the nomination is the one with 50%+ of the delegates -- not 50%+ of the popular vote.

"He won 98 to 95 in total delegates thru the 'prima-caucus'. And he is projected to be ahead in the popular vote overall thru BOTH contests by about 7,600 votes.....so yeah, he won Texas but Nevada was a mixed bag. "

If you know the people who voted in Caucuses are among the same people who voted in earlier primary, you understand Obama didn't win more popular votes even if he won some people's second votes in caucues.

If you click on "full results" you see that texas is striped (dark blue/light blue), and he clearly indicates that Hillary won the primary, while he won the caucus.

What would you propose he do on the big map, light it up half as bright? :)

That's so sad...I feel sorry for them.

Jake, Texas has already been projected for Obama as of 6:18 pm EST.

He won 98 to 95 in total delegates thru the 'prima-caucus'. And he is projected to be ahead in the popular vote overall thru BOTH contests by about 7,600 votes.....so yeah, he won Texas but Nevada was a mixed bag.

Does that hurt?

What I find weird is that you're making an issue out of it. We can debate the definition of "won", as it applies to winning the Democratic nomination (that is the prize, isn't it?), all day long, but Obama still won the only thing that matters.

No, what's really weird is that you have a job with a major news organization and have nothing better to write about. What's really weird is that you don't consider Obama increasing his lead a win. What's really weird is that, by your logic, you apparently think that Al Gore won the presidency in 2000, simply because he won the popular vote.

Poor ABC.

If you take away the IRS as an integral universal healthcare component; Hillary is nothing more than McCain in a pantsuit.

However, I do support Barack Obama!

Today the results of the February 5 primary became official. Obama did better than originally thought, Cliton less well.

The final spread in the popular vote between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is 8.9%. Clinton garnered 51.8% to Obama's 42.9%. The final delegates will be 203 for Clinton to 167 for Obama. This roughly averages out to the exact spread in the head-to-head popular vote (Hillary got 54.6% of the head-to-head vote and 54.8% of the delegates), so the convoluted delegate apportionment system worked in the case of California.

O - Yikes, that answer is:

The residents of Mississippi are Americans.

BTW, I hope that will learn you a lesson.

ABC's total vote numbers for Clinton include Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot; all counts of popular votes that do include Michigan show Obama in the lead, and still in the lead when Florida IS counted.

Clinton won the primary PORTION of the Tuesday election. But she lost the caucus PORTION of the election by a much more significant amount.

That's a net gain in delegates for Obama in Texas, so he won Texas.

If the popular vote is all that matters, please put Al Gore back in the White House.

Alex Numbers from ABC on currant votes to date Clinton 13,575,548 - Obama 13,570,501..Honey that means Clinton is ahead on popular votes. Obama currantly leads with 108 delegetes.Now anyone wonder what would happen if Florida and Michigan are added??

Let's rap some things up.

1) Most of the "Big States" Clinton has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.

2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.

In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.

Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.

3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.

4) Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these "advantages" are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons -- many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama's clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party's right wing.

5) Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents -- the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn't vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama's ability to inspire -- by itself -- makes him a much stronger general election candidate.

6) Finally, let's remember that the base of the Republican Party -- cultural conservatives -- is not so wild about McCain. They are accepting McCain with about as much enthusiasm as children take cough medicine. They know they need him, but they really aren't happy about it. The one thing that could energize the Republican base is their inveterate hatred for Hillary Clinton. Clinton would mobilize right-wing base voters the same way that hatred for Bush motivated Democrats in 2006. Why should we help galvanize the Republican base by nominating Hillary Clinton when we have another great choice?

There's every reason to trust Hillary Clinton.

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents," she claimed in Iowa in November. "I'm interested in attacking the problems of America and I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans."

And Terry McAuliffe reiterated the do-no-harm-approach: "We're going to focus on the Republicans. We're going to focus on winning the White House. We're not going to attack our fellow Democrats. That's not what we want to do."

Hillary is SUCH a fine Democrat.

Someone's math is "fuzzy". Obama does indeed come out on top with the popular vote, folks, at 13,000,655 and Clinton at 12,411,705. You can't count Florida and Michigan. Obama didn't even appear on our ballot in Michigan, causing many folks not to even show up at the polls and a RECORD number of people (me included) voting uncommitted rather than for Hillary. So, folks, Obama is on top with both the popular and the delegate count.

The poll numbers below refer to:

MISSISSIPPI

American Research Group has Barack Obama with a phenomenal lead in its first poll of the primary landscape:

Barack Obama 58%
Hillary Clinton 34%

The shrillness of Clinton's supporters has begun to resemble that of the maven herself. Their desperation is palpable. Obama will win the popular vote. He will win the delegate count as well. What will the irrational spin be then? I'm ready to protest the convention if need be. Denver, here I come!