See, I knew we'd overlap. (And, as you'll see, I had your back.)

I do agree that the game is played on multiple levels, and, as I said about the UADs (unpledged add-on delegates -- see my earlier post), the Obama campaign understands this, and he's winning them, as they've won so many primaries and caucuses.

That's why it's over. Obama planned for a gutter fight. Clinton planned for a coronation. If you disagree, look at the caucus results.

And, with all due respect, if you understand politics as much as you (and the Clintons) claim to, then how did Obama blow out every caucus thus far? Mind you, I don't think that's what going to happen in Wyoming tomorrow -- the Clinton Machine finally caught on -- but that doesn't excuse the fact that THE RACE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IS OVER, because Clinton sucks at caucuses, clearly. So, if you want to make a case on the rules, as you seem to be making, you'd almost have to lean Obama.

That Obama quote about FL delegates is a reach, and I'm sure you know it. It wasn't even substantiated that the new rules had gone down at that point, and he was just crossing the street to get some cameras out of his mix. Seems pretty clear, but if not, I can provide some links.

As for caucuses, they are what they are. On my own website, I said before they even started in Iowa that they're probably a lousy way to figure all this out (http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/005160.html.) But, they are what they are, and Obama won them, and -- c'mon now -- would we really be having this conversation if Clinton had won them? Not to preempt your answer, but I think we both know we wouldn't. But feel free to sort me out if I'm wrong on this contention.

I don't know what your game is, but ljwalker wasn't patronizing me in the slightest. It's cool. If you're an Obama supporter, look to the links I posted a page ago, and find happiness in the fact we've already won this. There's no reason to be a punk about it. Magnanimity is the answer. We need Clinton supporters' votes in the general, and we're all on the same team.

Why would Obama supporters be in "sore loser" mode? Perhaps you're terrible at math, but Obama has already won the nomination.

"Please, Obama supporters: when, oh when, are you going to admit that your candidate does not inhabit a superior moral plane?"

Ok, I'll admit it. He's just a man -- we're all aware of that. But, I'm not supporting Obama because he inhabits a superior moral plane. I am supporting Obama because his record on campaign finance and ethics reform is much stronger than Sen. Clinton's.

Now, when, oh when, will Clinton supporters admit that their candidate has already lost the nomination? Do the math, people. It's not that hard. As I said before, Clinton supporters keep talking about an "Obama cult", but then they keep spinning magical happy thoughts for their candidate in full defiance of reality. IT'S OVER.

With all due respect, your solution sucks. Particularly given that Hillary has already mathematically lost the nomination. The closest she'll be getting to the White House is if President Obama deigns to let her on some kind of Health Care Task Force. Which, frankly, is probably a bad idea, given that she ran the last serious attempt at health care reform right into the ground.

"if this is so, why is she getting the votes of those who most appreciate and stand to gain from those values - women, blue collar workers, those with lower incomes...the core Democratic base?"

By women, you mean white women, presumably? By blue collar workers and lower income voters, you are also speaking of Caucasians?

I would presume so. And I'm not sure how you're going to square the argument that African-American voters aren't [a] progressive or [b] the core Democratic base.

I didn't say you were racist. But the argument you made, that women and blue-collar, lower-income voters overwhelmingly support Clinton doesn't hold up to reality, unless -- of course -- you were only talking about white people (in a handful of states.)

Putting the mathematical loser on the top of the ticket does little to nothing for party unity.

As for Michigan and Florida, they knew the ramifications of their respective decisions and moved up their primaries anyway, so I have very little sympathy for them.

That being said, given their importance in the general election, I'd expect they'll get a do-over of some kind. Fine, so be it. They still don't make Clinton mathematically viable at all. Please, look at the math before you begin suggesting we grant Sen. Clinton 4 years for running a terrible campaign.

What blinders are you speaking of?

I really don't need to hear, nor care, if some of your best friends are black. Just so long as you realize that the argument you were trying to make falls apart, unless you reduce your voting sample solely to white people in Rust Belt states.

[a] Not having any game plan whatsoever after Super Tuesday, and [b] basically conceding every caucus and every contest in February until Sen. Obama built an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates are the hallmarks of a terribly-run campaign. In fact, as Frank Rich and others have noted, the Clinton campaign is reminiscent of the Iraq War architects in their catastrophic myopia, "greeted as liberator" hubris, and total lack of Plan B.

In any case, putting Clinton at the top of the ticket to conciliate the fringiest of her supporters is, I'm sorry, a lousy idea. When she loses the primary -- and she will; mathematically, she already has -- Clinton voters will unfortunately have to suck it up. It's no fun, I know. I did it in 2000 after Bill Bradley lost, and in 2004 when Edwards lost. But that's how politics works.