Except that she didn't. She lost. No matter how you count.

How did she win?

The only explanation I've seen requires a person to accept each of these things:

(1) Hillary gets a handful more popular votes - because you give her every single vote she won in Michigan but give Obama zero.  

Somehow, this is supposed to be very important, because it reflects the true desire of Michigan voters.  Of course, we don't care about counting Michigan voters who supported Obama, because he took his name off the ballot.  On the other hand, we care very much about voters who supported Clinton, even though Clinton and the DNC agreed that the election would not count, nobody campaigned there, and turnout was much, much lower than you expected.  (Ds turned out at a lower rate than Rs - a huge exception to the trend in January.)

But that's only the beginning.  Because to believe that the result is not fair you must also believe:

(2) It does not matter that Obama won a majority of pledged delegates - even if MI and FL are fully counted;

AND

(3) It does not matter if he wins a majority of all delegates, once the supers register the fact that they prefer him to Clinton.

Of course, the fact that everybody agreed that delegates were what counted, that the primaries all had different rules - making a popular vote count a highly dubious measure of popular will - and the fact that even if you give Hillary the benefit of every doubt she won by a handful of votes - none of that matter.  She wuz robbed.

Last point, about Florida in 2000.  Nobody cared about Florida because counting the chads would tell us who won the most votes nationwide.  We already knew the answer to that question: Gore did.  We cared because the winner of Florida also won the Electoral College.  Strangely, nobody - even the sternest critics of the electoral college - said we should change the rules mid-election.

that the Obama blogswarm has migrated from dKos to MyDD.

The first thing I did after reading the title was to check the blogger's history, which has already  been exposed further down the comment list.  But since you've been a part of the blog swarm and are an early commenter here, I wanted to I congratulate you directly on your contributions!

I'd look at this diarist's history and judge for yourself if s/he actually ever supported Hillary Clinton. If you come a conclusion similar to what I've come to, you might reconsider before you post a comment. Do not feed.

Um...you do realize that even if you give her the most optimistic and unfair delegate apportionment that includes Michigan and Florida AS IS, he still wins?  Are you too lazy to look at the math, or do you just ignore it when it doesn't fit what you want?

I'll even concede the popular vote to you.  Good luck with it.  I hope it gets you through the night.

Now that's scary.  One primary, from his home state, and that was a reason to get back in?

O K

Looks like the comments of a real democrat with facts on her side expressing true concerns.  Something that you wouldnt know much about.

Carry on...

Here's my next post... gotta get another account under Obamafor2008:

Why Can't We Just Win One, For Goodness Sake

I love Obama. I believe in his message of CHANGE and HOPE, but after the recent DISASTERS in the heartland swing states it has become clear to me that WE CAN NOT WIN THE ELECTION with this pillar of all that is good and wonderful, and we need to GET REAL. That is the reason that I am changing my support for Obama to Hillary. She may be just another tough as nails politician, but with two Supreme Court vacancies at least coming up I've decided that the stakes are just too high. I remember how amped I was for McGovern and Dukakis. We can't let that sort of electoral disaster happen again. So regretfully I am casting my support to Hillary For 2008. Just win baby!

by Obamafor2008 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:34:44 PM EST

there isn't one. The only calculation that shows a Clinton lead is the one that includes MI (where Obama was not on the ballot) and excludes the four caucus states that don't declare numbers. The bigger problem is that caucuses and primaries work differently - some states pick caucuses because they are simpler and less expensive and others because they find they build party enthusiasm, but the general pattern is that the total tallies are higher in primaries. If popular vote were the true measure,  then no states would choose caucuses.

I for one don't care what the poster's history is.  Truth is truth, even from the mouths of sinners.

your craziness is soooooo delicious.

Deceptive tactics, huh?  "He took his name off the election to sabotage and delegitimize an expected loss."  You know that Hillary said Michigan wouldn't count, right?  I'm guessing that would be pretty delegitimizing behavior.

So you knew that and you still posted this distortion.  My guess is you're not a Hillary supporter at all but someone most interested in continuing the fight.

So don't vote for him, who gives a shit?  The Democratic Party has had record turnout thus far, which in the end, will far outweigh the 1000 or so malcontents and whiners on here, taylor marsh's dumping ground, and the loonies at hillaryis44.  It is a waste of time to continue trying to bring people into the tent that have no respect for our candidate or his acheivements against a (basically) rigged system.  I get that, it is what it is.  Take your toys and go home...

I was at a caucus in Texas.  Clinton and Obama supporters worked together to make sure our precinct's process was fair.

I thought it was a beautiful example of democracy.

Maybe you just had some a-holes at yours, but we even welcomed the admitted republicans who caucused for Hillary and laughed their ass off while doing it.

She won our precinct.  No one cheated. My husband was the precinct chair and kept things in order.  Maybe you all just needed a leader.

he's using an argument that doesn't hold water, but if it somehow does, if somehow every person younger than thirty-five votes and for him and every African American in a state we can win votes and votes for him, I don't know, he acts like he doesn't need me and maybe he doesn't. Maybe that electoral map that she beats McCain in and he loses to McCain in doesn't take into account that every single younger person and very single African American and every single professor of modern literature will vote for him.

Nowhere in the primary rules does it say "Delegate count determines the nominee, unless a fringe of the party is kooky enough to belive that they have all the knowledge and are more informed than said majority of the earned delegates to know who it really should be."

As if NO ONE but liberals and Afrian Americans votes for Obama.

That is obscene in its ignorance.

Yeah Obama is as hopeless as Clinton was in 1992.  Remember this one from The New York Times?

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Governor Criticizes Process That's Turning to Clinton

By MICHAEL DECOURCY HINDS,
Published: April 24, 1992

With Pennsylvania's primary only days away, the state's Democratic Governor today criticized his party's Presidential primary process -- and its likely nominee, Bill Clinton -- saying the process had produced a front-runner who could not win. He urged the party's uncommitted delegates to remain neutral so that a stronger nominee could be selected at the convention this summer.

"We have to recognize reality," Gov. Robert P. Casey said in an interview today. "The primary process is not producing someone who has a good crack at winning in November." Pennsylvania Democrats hold their primary next Tuesday.

Referring to low turnouts in earlier primaries, Governor Casey said, "We've got a tiny minority of Democrats voting for Bill Clinton, and he's winning every race without generating any sparks, any enthusiasm, any momentum."

Mr. Casey spoke highly of the Arkansas Governor's resilience and intelligence, but added: "People have a tremendous unease about him. He's got a tiny, fly speck of support."

He said the Democratic Party should consider a strategy of having all uncommitted delegates to the convention in New York in July remain uncommitted so that they could consider nominating another candidate should Mr. Clinton fail to win more support.

You say Barack cannot win with his coalition of liberals and african americans, but you seem to think that Hillary can win without them.  Good luck with that.

For me it is the other way around.

I used to like Hil (even thought her cute- (her college photos are scarily like a favorite girlfriend) , but the more I've watched her in this campaign the less affection I am able to retain.

Oh Please!

Everyone knows what is going on with the SDs.  They are ALL for Obama. They are rolling them out as they please.  They just don't want to come out in mass until the primaries are over, because if they came out sooner, it might be perceived that they GAVE it to Obama (even though he has the most pledged delegates.)

Everything Hillary has done recently has pissed off the Supers and DNC.  She has little support in the party elders.  And Bill... he is even more loved by the Supers right now with his antics.  The DNC just loves it when a big-wig in the party alienates one of the largest voting blocks in the party.

Ha, what a crock.  I assume you are a feminist, based on your other posts.  And yet you go right to the "Barack is attractive" crap?  Please.

And as far as Obama losing his likability, you might want to tell that to the superdelegates who continue to move to him in droves.

Um...since Super Tuesday, he has gotten more. He's completely overcome her superdelegate lead.

Dear, at this stage it is likely the campaigns are controlling the SD release. The fact that Clinton has been unable to match the steady trickle of SDs since super Tuesday casts serious doubt over any assertion that she has many SDs to roll out. She wouldn't allow herself to arrive in this position unless she has little control over it. All evidence points to her being in critical trouble no matter what the RBC decides.

time to move on and win in Nov.

Um...

There are 200 superdelegates left. 86 pledged delegates. She needs 246 delegates total to clinch as of right now.

So... again... how does this work? Let's split the 86... 43. She needs more than 200. There are not more than 200 superdelegates left.

She's done.