"I don't think FL & MI will be accepted as is, and there is no guarantee a new vote will give any better results."

In fact, the opposite is virtually guaranteed: The results, popular vote-wise, would be worse for Clinton, as explained well in that TAP link I posted a page ago. (It's a very worthwhile read. The upshot is this: Clinton wants to prolong the uncertainty in FL and MI, because certainty in any direction cements a losing scenario for her. That's why her House Dem allies killed a mail-in vote, etc.)

In Michigan, Obama would obviously get more votes than the first time, because his name would be on the ballot. So that's + Obama.

In Florida, Clinton could do better than the 50% she got the first time. But, now that it's no longer a 3-person race, Obama is much more likely to do better than the 32% he got the first time around. Since the most likely outcome is a 55-45 or 60-40 split, the change in popular vote would be almost negligible. Clinton may win by more than she did the first time, but Obama would pick up a lot of votes too.

"You simply cannot write off a large proportion of the population as being beneath consideration and still call yourself a liberal."

I would agree. You should e-mail that to Sen. Clinton, next time we hear a variation of the "small states/caucuses/red states/black states/Obama states/all states but OH and PA don't matter" argument.

As for my own remarks, I'm not writing off a large proportion of the population, or are you telling me a statistically significant segment of the population has posted in the Tribune Rezko thread? That comment board, by nature of the subject matter, wiil be flypaper for Clinton dead-enders from all over the Internets, not a representative sample of the general election sentiment in Middle America. That was my point.

In other words, arguing that that comment board -- or any comment board on the web, frankly -- gives you any indication of how the election is playing out "in middle America" is patently ridiculous.

"So you think Hillary is only waiting around for Obama to step in doo, or to stage a coup?"

Yep, that's about it -- the step in doo part, not the stage a coup part. It's the "hope Obama gets hit by a meteor" strategy, basically. Didn't work for Huckabee. Won't work for Clinton. But at least Huckabee tried to keep the internecine fighting to a minimum while he prayed for an Act of God. Clinton, not so much.

But, I'll give 'em credit. At least the Clinton campaign is aware of the math and their no-win situation. Which is more than I can say for the Clinton supporters here and around the Internets.

I just wanted a chance to explain the FL/MI math here, since it seems all too any Clinton supporters in these pages must have it explained again and again. (Not that it seems to make much difference.)

Abe, yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Thanks for stating it so clearly.

"You're essentially saying the same thing KcM said: anyone who doesn't approve of Obama is unbalanced, full of hatred."

Sigh...there you go again. That's pretty obviously NOT what either Abe or I said. In fact, we said exactly the opposite. What we said is that the angry sorts who post vitriolic screeds on comment boards are no indication of Clinton supporters on the ground, and thus of the election as it stands in "middle America."

You seem to have a continual habit of ginning up reality to suit your pique.

Regarding Rezko and that Tribune article, did you happen to read their follow-up editorial? They seem pretty happy about what they heard.

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.

The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did...

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

"Charisma is okay, though it can be dangerous. Character and sound qualifications, on the other hand, are vital. I'll take Truman over Dewey any day."

Truman was considered far more charismatic than Dewey at the time. That's one of the main reasons HST won, because he became "Give 'em Hell Harry!" while Dewey just lied there like a bump on a log, running a "civil but dull" campaign.

"Obama only has one militant black preacher endorsement...Hillary needs to close this gap ASAP."

Does this guy count?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

"@KcM Where do you guys find this stuff???"

The Internet sees all. Its gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. You know of what I speak, Fester. A great eye, lidless, wreathed in flame.

It's right next to the story about Obama's 9 new delegates in Iowa.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obamas_gains.html

Or +10, as the case may be.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=898