Fyi, all that we know is that Clinton won the State Delegate count (prior to the weighting for rural counties that will favor Obama). We do not know what the popular vote was, but Kos has been speculating it was far closer. So people here talking about Clinton's win ought to at least acknowledge the ambiguity here. While it is probable Clinton won the popular vote, there is no reason to believe it was a 6 point victory (actually 5.5). It was probably much closer than that.

The reason why I know believe this result confirms that Clinton has won the nomination, (and by consequence, the Democrats have lost another Presidential election), has nothing to do with her state delegate count. It's the exit polls, stupid. The Clintons mastery of identity politics has worked- write off the African Americans because there aren't anywhere near as many of them as people who fear a 'black president'. What a wonderful day for American democracy.

Where to start. First of all, I think the thrust of my point was not what the Clintons said about Regan when he died, (although, as you'll note, there wasn't a need to fall all over themeselves as they did, if they truly didn't feel that way), nor was it even about the praise that Hillary Clinton has given Ronald Regan unsolicited, but about the far more damning actions of Bill Clinton whose most significant actions in two terms as President were in implementing Regan Revolution ideas.

I should also ask, though I know from experience not to ask a Clinton supporter to back up their fallacious rhetoric or otherwise banal distortions, what's the source for this, "Obama, on the other hand, volunteered what a great political force he was--someone who changed the country"? Where did he say how 'great' it was?

That's the trouble with you Clinton supporters- either too trusting, or altogether untrustworthy.

So Robert... there were only 10,000 participants in the Democratic Caucus and Obama lost by 600 votes- phew, that was close! Talk about embarrassing- if this is the quality of the Democratic electorate no wonder we're going to be saddled with more Clinton.

Listen, I never said we knew what the popular vote was or even that it was likely that Obama won it, so please climb down and pick up your toys. Of course, we don't know what the numbers are, but I read at Kos that the gap was closer than the 51-45 state delegate count.

The percentages reported for this race, by the way, aren't popular vote figures. Truly bizarre. They're based on the number of state delegates awarded. So while no one thinks Obama will win the popular vote, the percentages should be a lot tighter when the actual popular vote numbers are released.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/19311/1279/671/439708

...or was that the impression many objective observers had, and perhaps the shucking and jiving strategy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/09wed1.html?scp=1&sq=unite

Mrs. Clinton ran an angry campaign in New Hampshire, and polls showed that voters noticed. She won narrowly, but came perilously close to injecting racial tension into what should have been — and still should be — an uplifting contest between the first major woman candidate and the first major African-American candidate.

In the days before the voting, Mrs. Clinton and her team were so intent on talking about how big a change a woman president would be — and it surely would — that some of her surrogates even suggested that it would be a more valuable change than an African-American president. Mrs. Clinton managed to energize the women’s vote in New Hampshire to win the contest, but the Democratic Party should be celebrating its full diversity, a refreshing and notable difference from the field of Republican contenders.

In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done. ”

Why Mrs. Clinton would compare herself to Mr. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam into a generational disaster, was baffling enough. It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. She pulled herself back from the brink by later talking about the mistreatment and danger Dr. King faced. Former President Bill Clinton, who seems to forget he is not the one running, hurled himself over the edge on Monday with a bizarre and rambling attack on Mr. Obama.

Mr. Clinton has generally been a statesman as ex-president, and keeping up this sort of behavior will undermine his credibility and ability to do more good.

We understand, and usually admire, Mrs. Clinton’s determination. Allowing her team’s wearyingly familiar strong-arm instincts to take over would be damaging for the Democrats in the fall, no matter who gets the nomination. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that Democratic voters liked all of their candidates — they simply chose one. It would be a mistake for a politician whose unfavorable ratings across the nation have long been stuck in the 40 percent range to erase that good feeling about her party.

That was on January 9th, before any memo and before Obama had so much as muttered a syllable on the subject. I presume next you'll be telling me how the New York Times Editorial Board are Hillary Haters?