Obama won every county in Washington, even counties with majority and near majority Latino populations. It is being downplayed, I assume, because no exit polling was done to verify. That said, in what scenario does Clinton win the Latino vote in those counties but lose the county? None that bode well for her chances in the remaining contests, I can tell you that.

The right reason to carry on with the primaries is because it has been energizing the party and the American public and every state should get a chance to vote until there is a clear winner.

The wrong reason to carry on with the primaries is because you are counting on identity politics and racial strife to inch you past the finish line.

If someone told you that, as a result of Feb 5, one of the parties had a presumtive nominee and the other party had a close race on their hands, and they didn't tell you which was which:

What party would you guess had the presumptive nominee based on the returns from the last four days?

What exactly is it that Clinton supporters think Obama has done to lose Latinos other than not let Clinton win?

One of you experts on identity politics should be able to point to something.

Looking at the states (not counting tonight) where CNN still needs to project delegate counts:

(State - Delegates Available - Obama %/ Clinton %)

Louisiana 1 57%/36%

Washington 28 68%/31%

Alabama 11 56%/42%

California 5 42%/52%

Colorado 27 67%/32%

Georgia 2 67%/31%

New Mexico 1 48%/49%

57 Availble delegates belong to states that Obama won by more than 30%.

1 to a state he won by more than 20%

11 to a state he won by more than 15%

1 to a state that is still tallying votes

5 to a state Clinton won by 10%

75 pledged delegates out there in states that were mostly won handily Sen Obama. I don't claim to be an expert on these thing but more likely than not a significant number of these are going to Obama.

Granted, WA delegates pick delegates through a three tiered process via the county and state conventions, but given that Obama won EVERY county, I can only assume that he will get at least a proportional amount of delegates. (I might guess the more likely scenario, especially if it looks like Sen Clinton tries for a brokered convention, is that she loses delegates in Washington state at the state convention.)

If the delegates break out according to proportion it would be about 48 to Obama and 27 to Clinton, a net gain for Obama of 21.

You'd think that if the media were biased towards him, CNN would have the delegate counts reflect that. Or at least that it would be highlighted more clearly.

In former "Red" state Virginia had twice as many people voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican.

The whole Red/Blue state idea is a cop out. The right candidate could win any state.

Also CNN analysis of Obama's support:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/dem.polls/index.html

Looks like identity politics isn't going to be that good of a strategy.

1.6 million Democratic voters showed up to vote in a primary with only one candidate and that would not result in any delegates.

To be clear: Republicans, in a heated contest that would help determine the nominee could only must 400K more voters than a meaningless Democratic contest.

Now lets work on getting FLA and MI to put on real contests so that their voters can get a real say.

Considering the record turn outs in almost every state I'm not sure how many people are left out there that "really, really, REALLY wish we still had ANY of the other candidates still around to choose from." Clearly both candidates have energized voters. As long as both sides keep in mind the real problem (Another 4 years of Republican leadership) a long primary season is just free press for the progressive agenda.

I think whether you support Sen Obama or Sen Clinton you should still get out and vote. Delegates are based on proportiation so every vote counts.

How is Clinton going to do better than Obama on national defense when she voted for the biggest exercise in reducing our national defense: The Iraq Invasion. Sorry, not going to let it go. She did the politically expediant thing and not the right thing, it comes with a cost.

What evidence is there that Obama can't stand up to the Republican smear machine? He's already swatted down the "Madrasa" and "He's secretly a Muslim" smears pretty hard.

not "proven to be realistic"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/

Really? She can't just say they were well fought contests, congratulate Sen Obama, and look towards the Maryland, Viginia, and DC primaries? She has to marginalize the 19 states that voted for Obama? I mean seriously, Oklahoma and Texas are more competative for Democrats than Kansas? That must be news to Kathleen Sebelius.

I've yet to see Obama use identity politics to explain a loss, certainly not as blatantly as Clinton.

This is what I don't like about the Clinton/DLC mindset: The idea that some states are gimmies, others aren't worth fighting for, and only a handful are worth courting.

Not only is it a strategy that hurts and marginalizes wide swaths of citizens in this country, it has proven to be very realistic. Howard Dean has shown that a 50 state strategy can secure a legislative majority. Hopefully Barack Obama will show that it can work in a national election.

The character of a politican is more important to voters than the color CNN says your state is.

Shocking!

BTW, what make my support of Sen Obama that of a cult of personality and others support of Sen Clinton not? It is just because I don't believe fours more years in the Senate trumps voting for the Iraq war?