The Morning Dose---5/18

Today's Morning Dose comes from a post written by Jerome Armstrong at MyDD concerning a conference call with the Clinton campaign and his take on the 2008 election. 

________________________________________________________

I listened in on a CC with Hillary Clinton, and took a few notes. She's going to continue her campaign, undoubtedly, because she thinks she can win, or as she said: "I believe I will win; I believe my opponent could win."

The one thing that I was going to ask of Clinton, but didn't get my question in, was to ask that she push for reform of the primary process. I am fine with states choosing caucuses, but not if they are also having primaries. And if they do have caucuses, they should have less delegates, so the delegate to vote ratio is more closer.

Here was her message, and my extrapolation, in the call:

1) She's leading in the popular vote. Period. This isn't a procedural argument, but a moral one. Yes, they voted in FL and MI, that was their only chance at voted. It may not be what is used for distributing delegates, but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count...

2) Count the delegates of MI & FL. This is a procedural argument. Whatever the committee decides, they decide. They better damn well not punt. I think it does signal a turn in the race, on June 1st, after they've been allocated in whatever fashion they determine. We will then have a clear marker on which both candidates agree, and the contest is decided.

3) Clinton makes the argument that she's won the states with the EV's that matter. The heart of this comes back to her claim that 'she will win, and Obama could win'. As she said: "Its the map not the math".

That was the gist of the argument, which I'm sure she's telling the SD's too.

I don't think either of them is a given against McCain, but that Clinton does have a better shot currently at winning the GE than does Obama. You can look at the EV maps here on MyDD, of the lastest poll in each state, to come to the same conclusion.

Paul Maslin has a good post that goes through Obama's chances.

To start, to grant Obama the states of Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (only two of which Obama is leading in today) gets Obama to 255 EV's, according to Maslin.

For the last 15, Maslin includes Ohio & New Hampshire as toss-ups, which they don't seem to be at the moment. Ohio demographics make an uphill climb for Obama, and NH just marginally as McCain has some strong pull in the state historically; in my view, both are leaning McCain states.

So Obama is left with going out west, taking Colorado (9); Nevada (5); New Mexico (5); for a total of 274 EV's. Yes, Obama 'could' win, but lets not pretend that he's not a battleground candidate-- he's just changed the battleground states, given his weakness in Ohio/WV and in Florida.

I've said it many times, and it bears repeating. I'm not a Clinton fan by choice. I've come to support her through attrition, as the one left who I see could win. If or when she is out, I'll support Obama, and hope that the GOP's use his variety of gun stances and his proposal to raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent, doesn't work against Obama out west, and that somehow, Latino voters, whom didn't support Obama in the primaries, decide they will over McCain, whom is probably the most favorable Republican to Latinos at the moment, in the GE.

The odds of the Democratic nomination greatly favor Obama. Obama's odds in the GE are a toss-up.

The Morning Dose---5/4

Today's Morning Dose comes from The Oregonian, urging the Democratic candidates to take on the issues facing Oregon ahead of its primary later this month.

__________________________________________________________

(...) Leading candidates generally like to avoid debates, for the reasons listed above and because debates cannot be completely controlled as to content or performance. There is always the chance, in other words, of committing a fatal blunder.

Gerald R. Ford did it in 1976, when he asserted bizarrely, in a debate with Jimmy Carter, that Poland had not fallen under Soviet domination in the Cold War. You could almost hear the "sproing" as his campaign began falling apart.

You may remember, too, that Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis lost big to George H.W. Bush in 1988. Dukakis kicked out the pebble that started the landslide in his answer to this debate question: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [the governor's wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied flatly, without emotion: "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."

His polling numbers dropped seven points that night and his campaign never recovered.

In recent days, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign has made a point of challenging Sen. Barack Obama to a debate at every opportunity. Her Oregon campaign also has pushed the idea in connection to the May 20 primary here. Clinton's people argue that a debate in Oregon would give citizens of this state their only opportunity to see the candidates jointly address issues of regional importance. They also argue that the viewership numbers suggest few Oregonians have watched the earlier televised debates in the other primaries.

The Obama campaign argues that Americans have had plenty of chances to see the candidates face to face and that enough is enough.

We agree with the Clinton arguments.(...)

(...) An Oregon debate between Obama and Clinton would be good for democracy here and the country generally. As a general principle, voters should be given the chance to compare the candidates, face to face, in at least one televised event.

If there is a race to be run in Oregon, let it be a strong one, but let it be punctuated by a real face-off between the candidates.

The Morning Dose---5/3

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Indianapolis Star and its endorsement of Sen. Hillary for President:

_______________________________________________________ 

Obama offers an attractive vision for the way things could be. He speaks eloquently of hope and change. He connects with voters, many who formerly felt disenfranchised, on a level few political leaders have attained.

Clinton offers a clear-eyed view of the way things are. She offers nuanced positions on how to address the war in Iraq, trade with China and economic expansion. Her depth of knowledge is remarkable.

As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His inexperience in high office is a liability.

Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage.(...)

(...)Yet, one thing is clear: The next commander in chief will take office at a time of extraordinary risk for this nation, both at home and abroad. The challenges -- including those posed by a sagging economy, rising energy and food costs, the gap in health care, wars in two countries and threats from Iran -- are complex.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the better choice, based on her experience and grasp of major issues, to confront those challenges. She earns The Star's endorsement in Tuesday's primary.

The Morning Dose---4/22

This morning, just hours before the polls close in the keystone state, the Morning Dose comes from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, urging Pennsylvanians to vote for Clinton in today's primary:

_____________________________________________________________

(...)If Barack Obama does well here or pulls an upset, the Democrats' leader in states, delegates and popular votes could be propelled to de facto victory.

If Hillary Clinton wins as expected, she should be able to fight on to the convention -- and a double-digit victory might give her momentum to seize the nomination.

For Pennsylvania Democrats, the smart choice Tuesday is Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama's appeal with many Democrats is undeniable. He is the "rock star" of this election year; some supporters at his rallies have fallen into a swoon.

Those who have endorsed Obama have rhetorically swooned, too, designating him the future of American politics, while denigrating Clinton as a relic of politics past.

How ironic, since Obama owes no small part of his success to the grooming and support of Chicago's old-line Daley political machine.

In policy terms, relatively little may separate these two. Obama ranks as one of the most liberal U.S. senators, but Clinton is no conservative. Determining how they differ is difficult, though, because Obama is long on soaring rhetoric yet painfully short on record.

He has spent just three years in the U.S. Senate. Before that, he spent just eight years as one of 177 state legislators in Illinois. Before that, he was a university lecturer, a community organizer, a civil-rights lawyer.

Quite simply, this is no portfolio for a president, the world's most powerful leader. The presidency is no place for on-the-job training in the best of times -- and certainly not when the nation is at war, the economy is struggling, and federal governance in general is adrift.

More disturbing is what seems to be Obama's private view of America.

Start with the "God damn America" diatribes of his one-time pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (Obama claims he didn't know of these, even though he sat in Wright's church for 20 years.) Add his wife Michelle's remark about being proud of America for the first time in her life only because of her husband's campaign.

Now we hear Obama himself disdaining small-town, Middle-America attitudes and values -- a "clinging" to God, guns and bigotry -- as a legacy of bitterness.

Everyone utters stupidities now and then. Yet taken together and uttered repeatedly, they sound like a pattern of thought in the Obama household. It's a pattern the nation can't afford in the White House.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government -- as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right.

She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder.

Many of her views on domestic issues are too liberal for us, but on others she seems to have moderated. She told the Trib she opposes raising the cap on Social Security taxes, and she is less eager to raise income taxes than Obama.

More important, she is extremely knowledgeable on crucial foreign issues. Meeting with Trib editors last month, she ticked off an impressive list of international challenges and the solutions. (In Wednesday's Philadelphia debate, Obama praised George H.W. Bush's foreign policy -- apparently not realizing that one of its architects was then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, a man he regularly excoriates.)

As we noted at the time of that meeting, Clinton's decision to sit down with the Trib was courageous, given our longstanding criticism of her. That is no small matter: Political courage is essential in a president. Clinton has demonstrated it; Obama has not.

She has a real record. He doesn't.

She has experience of value to a president. He doesn't.(...)

The Morning Dose---4/17

The Morning Dose comes to us today from Taylor Marsh, reviewing the debate last night, in a blog post titled, Just How Soft Obama's Coverage Been?:

_________________________________________________________

Down pillow soft.

Baby's bottom soft.

So no one should be surprised that Obama had a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.

So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating Democratic circles is not impressing me much. In fact, it's a laugh out loud moment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to blame the traditional media for piling on a Democrat, which they do often. But do these progressives now crying fowl really believe they could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign? Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror! Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn't be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election? If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he's going to handle this stuff if he's our nominee. Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack's greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative gifts.

Mind you, this is questioning I've been doing for a year and getting excoriated for it. So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd.

The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.

This is the reason we lose elections.

What, did Obama's adoring fans think they could hermetically seal him and protect him from the meanies out there, then simply deliver him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because "he's the one?" Good grief.

If Obama would have been put through his paces last fall, he might have been past this by now. If his own campaign had faced up to his associations long ago, head on, he wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Again, I'd blame Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but it's not their fault that someone, anyone finally asked questions that have been out there for months and months. It's not tabloid to ask about Ayers any more than it was tabloid to question Bill Clinton about his past. Hillary's been asked about everything more than once, as they reload to ask it all over again.

Oh, and as for Keith He's No Edward R. Murrow Olbermann, don't send a sportscaster to do a political analyst's job. Talking to Howard Wolfson, with Olbermann whining about the questions about Ayers, isn't doing us any favors either. He's just giving Obama fans a false sense of security. It's as if the only people dealing with reality and preparing for the Republican attack machine is the Clinton campaign. Olbermann is on planet Zen if he thinks that Ayers won't be part of the dialogue come September. (You know, because you never roll out a new campaign in August.)

We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that's what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.

No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.

The Morning Dose---4/12

Today's Morning Dose comes from Christy Macy of the Baltimore Sun, titled, "Clinton Offers a Bold Vision for American Foreign Policy":

_____________________________________________________________

While she clearly erred in her recent description of what happened at an airport in Bosnia years ago, the incident has been blown out of proportion. As one who has worked closely with her, I can say that Senator Clinton's experience and work overseas point to something far more significant: a new direction in American foreign policy, which is in desperate need of change.

When I was on her staff, Mrs. Clinton pursued a daunting schedule of foreign trips. She addressed the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, exhorting the world's business and governmental leaders on the importance of international development as a foundation for civil society. She understood that peace in Northern Ireland depended on the engagement of citizens at the grass roots, especially women - a point she stressed in the Millennium Lecture at the University of Ireland in Galway. And she stood on the stage at the Palermo Opera House in Sicily, speaking passionately about the critical role of citizens' movements in the quest to defeat organized crime and reclaim communities.

For me, the depth of her commitment to these issues was evident not only during her moments in the spotlight. It also emerged behind the scenes, as she pushed us off the beaten track to consult people about their everyday lives and struggles. Over the years, in nearly 80 countries, these personal experiences and conversations deeply shaped her policy agenda and explain why she believes we must invest our prestige, power and dollars in human development.

One such occasion remains vivid: Mrs. Clinton's visit - up five flights of stairs - to a small women's legal clinic in Beijing. It was hot and stuffy, but the room was packed with women eager to meet with the first lady of the U.S. In a totalitarian country, where women's rights were still marginal at best, these women lawyers worked tirelessly to help others claim their rights on such issues as divorce and housing - often at some risk to themselves. They were stunned at Mrs. Clinton's knowledge of the issues they faced. After a lively discussion, one woman stood up. "You have no idea," she said, "what it means that you are here today with all of us. We will never forget this." And she began to weep.

A long drive to an isolated school in rural Morocco offered another example of Mrs. Clinton's immersion in grass-roots issues around the world. She believes that no nation can fully advance with half its population left behind.(...)

(...)What struck me about these numerous visits and conversations was Mrs. Clinton's unwavering commitment to identify and promote strategies with positive effects on people's lives. Wherever she went, she searched for concrete solutions to lift people out of poverty, create stronger communities, and bolster democratic institutions worldwide.

Mrs. Clinton has the interest, experience and credentials to reverse the incalculable damage that the Bush administration has inflicted on America's standing in the international community. We need a commander in chief who understands that American leadership depends on balancing military strength with our nation's heritage as a beacon of freedom and hope.

With Hillary, I think we get that balance - and more.

The Morning Dose---4/8

Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post is today's source for the Morning Dose. In her latest article, Anne highlights the facts concerning Clinton and her hospital story, which despite what many in the Obama-loving media would have you believe, was true:

_____________________________________________________________

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

For weeks, Clinton repeated an anecdote she heard in Ohio on Feb. 28 involving a young woman who lost her baby and later died because she lacked health insurance and did not have $100 to gain access to a nearby hospital.

But over the weekend, Clinton came under fire when officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, after reading about her remarks, demanded that she stop recounting it because the patient, Trina Bechtel, was admitted there and did have insurance.

That part, it turns out, is true. But so is Clinton's claim that Bechtel did not get care at another hospital that wanted a $100 pre-payment before seeing her, according to the young woman's aunt, Lisa Casto. "It's a true story," said Casto, 53.(...)

(...)Casto said her niece, who suffered from preeclampsia during her pregnancy, did not seek care at the first hospital she when she fell ill because she knew she did not have the $100 out-of-pocket she believed she would need to be seen. Instead, she went to O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, where her baby was stillborn. Bechtel was later flown to Columbus and died there. She was 35. 

Casto said she has been stunned by the amount of negative attention her niece's story generated, and that she was sorry it had hurt the Clinton campaign. She was, and is, she said, a supporter. "Did I vote for Hillary?" she said. "You'd better bet I did."

Anne's article, important to note, also clarified the issue on the patient's insurance situation. The woman did not have insurance originally, as Clinton correctly noted.  At the time of her death, however, she was insured, but, "the damage", so to say, was already done to her health from not being able to be treated originally.  

The Morning Dose---4/7

Today's Morning Dose comes from New Jersey Governor and Democratic superdelegate, Jon Corzine.  In a article that Corzine wrote for the Huffington Post, Corzine argues why listening to the will of the people in Michigan and Florida is not just an issue of process, but an issue of Democracy:

________________________________________________________

There have been some who have tried to read my comments last week on CNBC's SquawkBox as stepping back from my support of Senator Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.(...)

(...)I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivocally support her candidacy.

My point on SquawkBox was and remains that superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their final decision, particularly after the primaries and caucuses have run their course.

Clearly, the cumulative delegate totals must be considered. Absolutely, the cumulative popular vote is important. And, a practical analysis of electability and the electoral map must be weighed.

For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted. Practically, that popular vote should include participation of the fourth and eighth largest states in the nation. Most Democrats agree that ignoring the voices of Florida and Michigan is a mistake and threatens to impact the outcome of the fall elections.

Like many, I fear that not considering the wishes of millions of Democratic voters in those states will taint the attitude of voters everywhere about our ultimate nominee. Early polling in Florida has already indicated as much.

Without a "do over" for those states, the short-term gain could well come with long-term pain for our nominee, the party and the nation.

The party should be responsible and raise funds for a primary "do-over" in a way that doesn't give the competitive edge to one candidate over the other.

I believe, as I think most Democrats do, that the popular vote is the most democratic way to select a candidate. In fact, I recently signed legislation in New Jersey that joins the state in a compact to choose a president by direct popular vote.

When we listen to all (emphasis added by me) of the people in our party, we end up choosing the person the entire party can support.  

The Morning Dose---4/5

Today's Morning Dose is from Quinnipiac University, taking a look at the key general election swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:

_________________________________________________________

...In general election match ups of the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College, the survey finds:

-Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46-37

-Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42%

-Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 -39 percent

"When it comes to November, Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength is a big edge over Sen. Barack Obama among white voters, who have not given a majority of their votes to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute." 

More than a third of voters in the three states think Obama's race is an advantage, more than twice the number who think it is a disadvantage. By contrast, roughly a quarter of voters say Clinton's gender is an advantage, and about the same number think it is a disadvantage. 

"Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Obama's race has helped his candidacy finds some support among the electorate," said Brown. 

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama. 

"Roughly one in five Democrats in the three states say they will vote for McCain against Obama, but less than 10 percent say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. Among white Democrats, 23 percent defect to McCain in a matchup with Obama, but only 11 percent defect when Clinton is the Democratic candidate." Pennsylvania...

"Her strength is her clear advantage among white voters - blue collar whites, less educated whites, economically hurting whites, that group known famously as Reagan Democrats in the Keystone State."...

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."... 

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Brown. "She gets 38 percent to 50 percent for McCain, but Obama loses to the Arizona senator 54 - 27 among white voters. If Obama does get the nomination, how he fares with whites will be crucial to his chances." ...

The Morning Dose---4/2

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and is entitled, Not so fast: The Clinton-Obama race still has a way to run:

_______________________________________________________________________

Just when Pennsylvania is about to have its moment in the presidential primary season, calls have been made in the Democratic Party for Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out and concede to Sen. Barack Obama in the interest of unity.

Mrs. Clinton says she will fight on -- and she's right to do so. We say that not because of Pennsylvania's interest in holding a relevant primary on April 22. Simply put, this fight isn't over.

To be sure, Mrs. Clinton is trailing in the combined totals of delegates and the math looks bad for her chances. Even so, Mr. Obama hasn't clearly won. What we have now is something of a stalemate, one that is likely to harden before it breaks. As Sen. Bob Casey said of the candidate he endorsed Friday, Mr. Obama is "the underdog in our state." Gov. Ed Rendell, who supports Mrs. Clinton, believes the race will tighten.

All of this speaks to the larger picture: It's premature for Mrs. Clinton to quit while the race remains competitive. These calls to step down by Obama supporters are no more realistic than the earlier ones floated by the Clinton camp that Mr. Obama would make a great vice presidential nominee on a "dream ticket."

While Pennsylvania has a late primary, it is not the latest. Among others, the voters in Indiana and North Carolina (May 6), West Virginia (May 13) and Kentucky and Oregon (May 20) will still have to be heard from after Pennsylvanians go to the polls three weeks from today.

As Major League Baseball starts another season, a bit of hardball wisdom from Yogi Berra applies to the Clinton-Obama race: "It ain't over till it's over."

The Morning Dose---3/30

Today's Morning Dose comes from the Washington Post and is entitled, Don't Stop Campaigning:

_____________________________________________________________

The growing chorus among some Democrats and other interested observers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to get out of the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for president is troubling. We're not promoting Ms. Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), or either of them over Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), for that matter. A time may come when someone should gracefully bow out. But their extended contest informs the electorate and serves to battle-test them both. We don't see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast and two qualified candidates believe themselves to be the best potential Democratic nominee...

One proffered justification for ending the campaign now, in fact, is the assumption that we know pretty much how everything will turn out. Ms. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will carry North Carolina and so on. But throughout this campaign, just about everything we've "known" has been wrong: Mr. McCain was finished, Ms. Clinton was inevitable, Mr. Obama had New Hampshire locked up. No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates -- but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?

Last week they tackled the economy and the mortgage meltdown. But there are plenty more questions for voters to consider. How would the candidates pay for their billions in increased spending on health care, energy and education? With diplomacy toward North Korea faltering, how would they handle its nuclear ambitions? What's the future of affirmative action? The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate....

And this contest is far from over. While Mr. Obama leads Ms. Clinton in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates, it's assumed that neither candidate will win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

The Morning Dose---3/29

Here's a new series, The Morning Dose,  which I would like to continue every few days, where I take an interesting article and simply post excerpts from it.  Instead of commenting on the article in my post, I'll let you, the reader, form your own opinion on it.  If necessary, I'll post a comment I have on it in the comments section.  

The Morning Dose today comes from Mark Ambinder, over at the Atlantic.  It's titled, How to Count the Popular Vote:

___________________________________________________________

So -- my fairly conservative calculation has Clinton netting about 446,000 votes between now and June 3. Under all scenarios that exclude Florida and Michigan votes -- and count the votes of Washington's primary -- Obama still retains a popular vote lead of not more than 330,000 -- or an advantage of less than one and a half percent.

Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent.

Which scenario is "right?" Under DNC rules, until the credentials committee figures out which delegations to seat, Florida and Michigan do not exist. But the voters in those states certainly do in the existential sense -- and if we're answering the question by figuring out how many Democrats voted for Obama versus how many Democrats voted for Clinton.

Are there historical precedents? Well, Democrats like to count every vote. So -- advantage Hillary? But there has to be some tempering factor to account for Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot. Ok, but then there has to be some tempering factor to account for the fact that Obama's campaign made the decision to stay off the Michigan ballot as least as much because they feared losing the state to Clinton as they wanted to make a statement to Iowans about the integrity of the calendar process.