Washington caucuses are closed. You can only participate if you are a declared Democrat. I know this because I participated in mine.

Both candidates have won open primaries, both candidates have won caucuses, and both candidates have won closed primaries.

More importantly, every candidate had the ability to know the whole system going into this. There was no reason not to know that caucuses require organization, there was no reason not to know that Michigan and Florida would not get to seat delegates based on the results of the January contests, there was no reason not to understand the Texas two-step, and there was no reason to not have a full slate of delegates in Pennsylvania when your good chum the governor gives you an extension. Both candidates stepped onto the same playing field.

Now that Hillary is losing we are getting all sorts of parsing: This state is too red, this state has caucuses, this state has open primaries, this state is too rich, this state is too liberal, this state is too black, blah, blah, blah.

I don't see Hillary dismissing her Ohio win and her Texas split decision because they are open primaries or her Nevada win because it is a caucus.

The caucus complaints are just sour grapes. Don't believe that caucusing is easy? Well don't take my word for it, ask Hillary Clinton circa 2007:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=racTAiemEQU

Michigan had exit polls?

BTW how did the white vote break down in Washington, Alaska, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Delaware, Vermont, Iowa, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, and North Dakota?

If this race was really split along racial lines Clinton would have walked away with this contest a long time ago due to the demographics of this country.

Plus there is the record-breaking level of pure silly it takes to try to claim that the "white" vote in Mississippi reflects the "white" vote in the rest of the country. Every state is a different contest with different voters with different priorities.

The thing with the Ferraro comment, which she repeated, had said back in Feb on John Gibson's radio show, and back in 1988 about Jesse Jackson; is that it is a coded to appeal to the group of white people that feel that they have been denied jobs because a less qualified minority was used to fill a "quota". Unless my life experience is really aberrant, that is not a small cohort.

This is aside from the fact that the statement just isn't true. Black men don't get anything easier than white women in this country, unless you count speeding tickets. I'm surprised this would have to be explained the to the political giant that was half of the ticket that delivered the Democrats Minnesota in the 1984 election.

I can't decide if it is chutzpah or an autopilot response that the campaign is claiming that it is Obama bringing race into the discussion. Again, the discussion started when a Clinton fundraiser explictly, in no uncertain terms, said that Obama was winning because he is black.

At least the prior smears had an element of deniability when accused of racism.

"What do you mean the 3 am ad has a racist element? Sure it features blond haired, blue eyed white women being threatened at night by a black man, but it about national security. If you see a racial element that is your issue."

"Sure we altered a video featuring Obama that made him look darker. We don't think there is anything negative about having a darker skin tone. Maybe you are the ones with the problem. We certianly aren't trying to play on some people's base prejudices."

"That picture of Obama in traditional African garb that we sent to right wing hack Matt Drudge? We just felt terrible about our attacks on his international experience and wanted to highlight his trip to Kenya. You think it was a ploy to prop up the smear being circulated via email claiming that Obama is a muslim? Clearly _you_ can't seem to tell the difference between the different cultures that wear turbans. We believe that the average rural voter in Ohio is cosmopolitan enough to not jump to any conclusions about Obama's religon. What wrong with being Muslim anyways?"

"Yes, Bill Clinton did dismiss Obama's victory in South Carolina by comparing him to Jesse Jackson, but it wasn't because they were both black. It is just that they both won South Carolina. It is pure happenstance that he didn't compare Obama to John Edwards 2004 campaign."

Just enough cover that they dare you to call it racialy motivated so that you can be accused of trying to play the race card. But Ferraro didn't even have that cover! She flat out said that Obama is winning because he is black.

Anyways, the new math maybe tomorrow. At this point I'm probably going to figure out what Hillary needs to "only" hold Barack to a 100 pledged delegate lead and the percentage of superdelegates she would have to capture to get the nomination.

Meanwhile, if her current situation could be represented symbolically as a photo it would be this one:

http://failblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/dangerous-bike-lane/

For future reference- imagine the line in that photo moving an inch to the right for every remaining contest where she doesn't win by a 15 point margin.