It's too early to talk about Hillary's withdrawal.

The calls to wrap up the Democratic primary race show a similar amnesia. To suggest that March 5 marks a late date in the calendar ignores the duration of primary seasons past. Indeed, were Hillary Clinton to have pulled out of the race this week, Obama would have actually clinched a contested race for the party's nomination earlier than almost any other Democrat since the current primary system took shape--the sole exception being John Kerry four years ago. Fighting all the way through the primaries, in other words, is perfectly normal.
We should also bear in mind that Obama holds a much slimmer lead over Clinton than McGovern, Carter, and Mondale held over their closest challengers--or, for that matter, than any of the nomination-bound front-runners in the elections since. As of this writing, Clinton is actually tied with Obama among Democratic voters nationally in the Gallup daily tracking poll.

Ok, ok, 76,000 people in Vermont voted and he won the majority of those. Not all. But a good majority. Enough said.

The point is, if you have the most money and the biggest momentum and still lose, talking about delegate numbers doesn't wash until ALL the states have voted.

Hillary may need 60% of those, but as long as the voters are given the opportunity, she could easily get 60%. Perhaps more.

Until they vote, we won't know.

Does this remind any of you of Al Gore and him being a good guy and conceding the election before all the votes were counted and the people spoke? "For the good of the country."

Well, it didn't do the country much good, did it?

So, for Dean and Donna to decide this before ALL the votes are counted is to once again disenfranchise the voters.

Isn't that what we complain Republicans do, and maintain Democrats don't do? Won't do?

As far as the polls telling us who is more likely to beat McCain -- Clinton or Obama?

Face it. Polls can be askewed SO easily to reflect whomever the Republicans want to run against McCain. They do NOT reflect who has the best chance of beating him.

Because as long as the Democrats don't disenfranchise Florida and Michigan, EITHER candidate will beat McCain in a landslide.

But if you disenfranchise Florida and Michigan?

Clinton can argue that she ought to be the nominee because she has won the big states, she has won the most important swing states, she has won the popular vote (maybe), or whatever other argument she chooses to advance.  Maybe people will buy it, and maybe they won't, but either way our nominee will be just fine.  If the superdelegates reject those arguments and decide that Obama's ability to bring in new voters is more important, Clinton's argument will simply become irrelevant.

Obama's argument, on the other hand, has the potential to hurt the party because he is actually claiming that it would be illegitimate for the superdelegates to crown anyone other than the pledged delegate leader.  Every day on the blogs, you see threats that the party will be torn apart, there will be blood in the streets at the convention, and so forth, if the superdelegates don't behave as the Obama campaign wants them to.  This is a direct result of supporters taking their cues from the campaign.  And if the superdelegates ultimately accept the Clinton argument, and give her the nomination despite a thin lead in pledged delegates by Obama, some number of Obama supporters will inevitably decide this amounts to election theft and refuse to support the party in November.  Thus Obama's fallacious argument ends up hurting us all.

The caucuses are what they are, and Obama won most of them. I would never argue that they shouldn't count. But I fail to see how an ability to get a small core of dedicated supporters to overwhelm a caucus translates to "the will of the people."  

Insisting that your opponent should drop out in the middle of a close race is really weak. If Obama's the nominee, and he has a half-point lead in the polls in October, will he start demanding that McCain drop out, because a contentious election will "wreck the country"?

You continue assert that Obama has not shown he can win any of the "big" states that are important in the general election.  But you confound winning the primary in those states with winning the general.

Greater popular vote?  

Greater popular vote with Florida and Michigan counted?

Greater popular vote with just Florida?

The underlying problem with every single scenario of either candidate winning is that the other candidate is going to have legitimate claims to make as well.  

And, more importantly, no matter who wins, the vitriol that each side has for the other is going to be damaging in the GE.  

How does this legitimacy work to win the GE? In other words, even if the Dem party is able to create the conditions for Clinton to become the legitimate nominee, how does this translate into a significant advantage over McCain in the key states?

An important part of Obama's pitch is that he can be the president of "the UNITED States of America." This pitch (whether you buy it or not) has worked to legitimize him with independent voters and a large number of Democrats. Isn't it precisely this legitimacy which has led to a number of superDs switching? Moreover, isn't the potential damage to this legitimacy by a long, ugly battle what is vexing so many who are working very hard to bring a Democratic majority in November?

This all changed when a number of folks such as I kept pointing out that Clinton had a slim lead in total votes at the time and the Obama camp moved to the new spin line.  

Before the Wisconsin primary, the Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, became the first Obama interlocutor, whom I heard, who artfully articulated this new spin over "popular will."  The media, of course, ignored/was too dumb to tumble to this ploy.