Did you not understand the Dubya analogy? You just say it's unfair "fearmongering," whatever that means, without looking at its substance. Like the Dubya folk, Clinton supporters represented here, such as yourself, are more often than not basing their worldviews to wishful thinking, not the facts on the ground. "False hopes," my Senator might say. Well, it's time for an intervention.

"It isn't "over" by any stretch. You can repeat it ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it so and it isn't."

It isn't'? Riiiight. Ok, then, here's today's exercise. Break out a delegate calculator (Slate has the one used by most: http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/ ) and show me a viable scenario where Clinton regains the pledged delegate lead and thus the nomination. Good luck with that.

Throw in Michigan and Florida if you'd like. The Clinton team would just prefer they remain in limbo, of course. Certainty destroys what's left of Clinton's candidacy, since no realistic scenario gives them the margins they need. (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=why_clinton_doesnt_want_a_revo) But, answers will be accepted if you can spin a viable scenario where they're included.

Sorry, answers relying on a superdelegate bailout will not be accepted as, again, that's fantasyland stuff. Total wishful thinking. Consider [a] Pelosi, Biden, Richardson, Clyburn et al have already stated that the supers will back the pledged delegate leader, regardless of the popular vote [b] undecided supers will follow the lead of the super-supers, for political cover if nothing else, [c] supers have been breaking universally to Obama in 2008 (and since March 4), and [d] Obama remains more electable against McCain in every poll out there. So, that dog's not going to hunt.

K, get to it. Let's see what you come up with. And if you can't find a viable scenario where Clinton regains the pledged delegate lead, short of Sen. Obama being hit by a meteor, then perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand and begin to survey the facts on the ground. It's over.

Your hopemongering snark doesn't nearly answer the question. I ask you again, give me pledged delegate count scenario that makes any rational sense.

By the way, mid-America is not up in arms. That's more wishful/delusional thinking. Mid-America is perfectly happy with Sen. Obama, just like the rest of us. I suggest you take a look at the general election polling numbers for places like Pennsylvania, where Obama still beats out Clinton against McCain (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/13/good-news-for-obama-hillary-s-killing-him-in-pennsylvania-seriously.aspx), just as he has been all along (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_2008_presidential_election)

As for that Boss Tweed stuff, please. It doesn't come close to passing the smell test. It's pretty clear which candidate has been the aggressor this cycle, which is one reason why Speaker Pelosi has brought the hammer down.

Still waiting for that real-world scenario where Clinton wins the nomination...

TAP's Mark Schmitt recently explained why FL and MI are merely a smokescreen: "Contrary to the gullible media's belief that 'time' is a 'powerful ally' on Clinton's side, in fact, Clinton's only ally is uncertainty. The minute it becomes clear what will happen with Michigan and Florida -- re-vote them, refuse to seat them, or split them 50-50 or with half-votes, as some have proposed -- is the minute that Clinton's last 'path to the nomination' closes. The only way to keep spin alive is to keep uncertainty alive...Penn can claim that there is a path to the nomination, but under any possible actual resolution of the uncertainty, there is not...

"[T]he specific resolution doesn't matter, because whatever it is, it will introduce certainty and finiteness, and without the comfort of ambiguity, the Clinton spin-campaign cannot survive. The Clinton campaign began -- unwisely -- by spinning inevitability; it ends, equally unwisely, by spinning cosmic uncertainty. In between the two spin campaigns, they apparently forgot to give people enough of a positive reason to actually vote for Senator Clinton."

If big italicized paragraphs offend your senses, here's the upshot: It's over.

(http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=why_clinton_doesnt_want_a_revo)

Yes, Katetex, because the loons who troll the columns of a Rezko story at the Trib (such as yourself, by your own reckoning) represent, I'm sure, the heart of Middle America.

Fester, I'd agree that the popular vote is where the Clinton team is staking their play. They said as much to the Sunday Times last week (and also conceded they'd lost the pledged delegate count.) But, the popular vote is a huge reach anyway even if they did manage to take it, given that [a] some caucus states don't even have an official vote tally and, more importantly, [b] Speaker Pelosi shot it down specifically yesterday (to air on This Week tomorrow.) The relevant passage:

"But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos. 'But it's a delegate race,' Pelosi replied. 'The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee.'"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/pelosis-delegat.html

Those RCP numbers are missing the 4 states that haven't released popular vote totals. (IA, NV, WA, ME) Working back from the delegate count to extrapolate from those, the popular vote seems to be bigger:

Obama: 13,614,204 (+813,051)

Clinton: 12,801,153

But, again, a moot point, for the reasons I noted below.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=892

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/13/134235/517/95/475879

(Also, to the powers that be, I know it's only 8 years into the 21st century and all, but how about a comment board the recognizes href tags? That'd be great.)

That should be comments of a Rezko story at the Trib, not columns. My b.