Only Hillary can represent the will of the people.

How can you possibly argue that Obama was supposed to win Ohio? I just don't get that. Clinton was ahead by 20% just two weeks before the primary. He didn't quite catch up. Momentum is inexistent in this race and always was throughout the primary. Both candidates have their demographics that support them and they are different depending on what region you are looking at. They haven't changed at all though. Obama's demographics are just a tiny bit larger than Clitons, hence, he is ahead and will be at the end of the process.

What the supers base their decision on is whole other story. I guess most of them will go with the pledged delegate leader though, just because that seems to be the safest way out for them.

And Obama didn't have the news cycle, sorry, that is not true. Clinton dominated the last few days on the news, he only had bad news. That's why we saw a 10% margin instead of maybe a 5% margin.

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

Senator Clinton:  "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."

From Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/120062/page/2 .

This came after Harold Ickes. who's responsible for the MI and FL debacle.  This is the Politico story of what Harold Ickes said.;
"On a conference call with reporters, Clinton aide Harold Ickes noted that pledged delegates aren't formally bound to vote for the candidate they're elected to support.

'That binding rule was knocked out in 1980,' he said. Ickes didn't actually suggest that the Clinton campaign would court pledged delegates, something they've disavowed; he just stated the rule. Still, an interesting note."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 308/Ickes_Pledged_but_not_bound.html

And that came after this, which was the result of a conversation that Roger Simon at Politico had with a Clinton aide;
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.
This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides."  Roger Simon, Politico.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8583.html

And, finally, the big industrial state myth is a joke. You are really saying that primary votes = GE votes? So blue collar workers would decide that McCain is better for them economically than Obama? Highly unlikely. They do like Clinton better than him, because, mostly (that's a guess) they still think very well of the Clinton years. That's their right and they should vote accordingly - but to conclude anything about the GE from that seems quite strange.

Obama has not suggested that SuperDelegates should be required to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, rather his campaign (and many others) have pointed out that if super delegates (party insiders) overturn the choice that VOTERS have made, it will divide the party like nothing else.

Suggesting what superdelegates should do is not akin to "changing the rules" (like repeatedly saying that FL and MI's delegates should be seated).

Also, losing a state to a rival democrat in a primary is not akin to losing it in the general election. Do you think Obama would lose California or New York if he were the nominee??

Ohio was Hillary country, and she had 20 point leads just 3 weeks before the primary there. To say that Obama should have trounced Clinton there is ridiculous.

The only path Clinton has to the nomination is through attacking Obama to the point where superdelegates might see him as unelectable and be compelled to move en-masse to her side.

Want to have trouble winning a GE? Try pissing off about half of your party by destroying their candidate and robbing him of the nomination.

Obama has won caucuses, because Clinton's voters are not as represented in them, and the Obama supporters are bullies, heard that they attack Clinton supporters claiming why don't you support Obama, are you a racist?  In the privacy of the voting booth the voters can and do make a different choice.  Also women may vote for Hillary without their husband's knowing in the voting booth.  Obama has shown that he doesn't appeal to the down scale democrats, if he cannot pull them in now, how can he do it with McCain in the race?  Obama actually needs Clinton not the other way around.  If he were not in the race even the AAs would be voting for her, so he is appealing to youth voters and the far left anti-war voters who didn't have a problem voting for Kerry even though he supported the war in 2004.  This war vote is such a myth anyway  In the GE being anti-war makes you a wimp to a lot of voters.  No one wants to vote for someone who says America is wrong, no matter how badly we want out of Iraq, a man who blames America just can't win the GE.  It has been proven in the past with a anti-war candidate who lost miserably in the fall.

What we need is someone telling Obama that he should accept the VP slot, he should do that because if he doesn't and he gets the nomination, he will lose this fall.  There are just too many reasons to vote against him, but not having enough experience will do for most voters.  The presidency is won or lost with older voters, not far left and kids.  It disn't work in the past and it won't work now.  Obama is too arrogant by half and people see it, people like my mother who is not a political junky but said to me she couldn't stand Obama for that reason, how many people would he lose for one reason or another.  He needs more experience.  The VP would be just what he needs to become acceptable for those voters down the line.

Abide by all rules or abide my none.  Applies to both candidates.

Clinton
1.  "Not as inspiring or likable  ..." BUT she is inspiring in that she would be the first woman POTUS.  Also, her lack of likability plays into the role of a Woman of Strength.  Most people I KNOW both like and dislike women of strength.

2.  "There is also the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton problem."  Yes - I know people who say that in and of itself signals "more of the same" and people want this country to go in a different direction.

3.  "Her husband also seems to be a liability."
One assurance:  she will be head of the CIA and FBI and if Bill "acts up", I'd get him to do a test about waterboarding, first hand inspection of its effects.  Also, he might be very beneficial in inspecting those "rendition" camps.  Oops, anybody know where Bill went?

4.  "She will unite Conservatives and precipitate a larger Republican turnout."  IMHO, either will precipitate this.

5.  "The vote in 2002 to give Bush the authority to use military force plays heavily against her in certain parts of the Democratic Party ..." as in this person!  She HAS to explain her rationale.  Personally, I made the same decision Obama did - and I didn't have an NIE to read either.  So "my gut" and "Obama's gut" agree.  I'VE HAD ALL THE POTUS WINGING IT AND GOING BY HIS GUT THAT I WANT TO HANDLE!  Give me intelligence in the White House or give me ..... Jack Daniels!

6.  "A loss in Pennsylvania will play heavily against her claim on the nomination."  Yes, as in the majority of the Democratic party leadership will tell her to take her marbles and go home.

This is so much more fun and pleasant than that "other blog".

It represents he will of the people + superdelegates. I wrote a diary to this effect yesterday:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/9/61045 /52783