Speaking of which, I'm betting on an Obama/Clinton ticket simply because a couple weeks ago Broder said in one of his columns that the two would never be on the same ticket.

Now certainly more people would have voted had there been a primary rather than a caucus. One can say that in a certain respect that the caucus is undemocratic, but it's certainly more representative of the general opinion of Democrats in Hawaii than one Senator's opinion. Now, Sen. Inouye can think that his job is not to represent Democrats' choice, but to represent his own. That's an entirely different issue. But the arguments for this cannot be based upon the idea that one person's opinion is just as democratic as 36,000 persons' opinion. Clearly an imperfect caucus is more accurate of general sentiment in the state that one man's opinion. The argument for superdelegates going their own way must be based upon the idea that superdelegates should overrule their party member's decision when they think it is best.

We do agree on one point. Clinton has been about 100-150 delegates behind since OH-TX and it doesn't look like that's going to change throughout the rest of the nomination process. She will gain some in Pennsylvania and Obama will make it back up in NC. And we'll be right back where we were before TX and OH, with Obama leading in the pledged delegate race but with many millions of Democratic dollars having been spent to beat up other Democrats rather than the Republican nominee.

God. What a great piece. I will have this article in mind all year, as I read how “Obama is going down” or “McCain is finished” or “It's all over for Hillary”.

You have made my day, GeorgeSorwell! Thanks.

I immediately Googled Slate+Bush is toast, and got a hilarious read. It should be required reading for everyone during elections.

Yah, Slate has a liberal bias. Somewhat to the left of the NYT. But it is the definitive tone that is striking. I recall similarly how definitive the media was in 1992 about George Bush Sr. being unbeatable after Desert Storm.

Wonderful read. Here is Saletan in Sept. 2000:

“Yes, in principle, Bush could win. The stock market could crash. Gore could be caught shagging an intern. Bush could electrify the country with the greatest performance in the history of presidential debates. But barring such a grossly unlikely event, there is no reason to think Bush will recover. ….it's practically impossible to turn those numbers around.”

Bhahahahahahahahahahahahaha…..

Not funny.

The counter argument? – The importance of the pledged delegate plurality has been undermined by Oama winning more delegates than Clinton in states that she won the Primary (like TX) . It just proves what a travesty the caucus process is and how undemocratic the pledged delegates are. The will of the people was thwarted by Obama and his supporters in Tx, and by blocking revotes in MI and FL the Obamba campaign has further undercut the value or meaning of a Superdelegate plurarity. In fact, blocking the revote makes it legitimate for Clinton to count the MI and FL popular vote in her totals for the counter argument to the Superdelegates.

Despite wishful thinking by Obama leaning Pundits and bloggers, nothing has changed since OH/TX and nothing will change until after PA, IN, and Puerto Rico (assuming Obama fails to win any of those big states like he has failed to win any previous big states except IL). Then the superdelegate argument will take place. Whether this happens at the convention or a pre-convention superdelegate primary is irrelevant. The winning argument will carry the day. May the best woman win.

It is the same dynamic and nothing meaningful has changed since I wrote this post Is the Clinton Campaign Undead?”

Hillary Clinton accepts the VP from McCain.

McCain dies of old age in the office and Hillary Becomes president.

What a country!!

In 2000, they said “Bush is toast.”.

And how long did that thing for Gonzales go on? Two years?

This may be a good sign for Clinton.