So you are saying:

If Obama had lost 14 out of 17 contests.

If he was so behind in delegates, popular votes and states to the point that coming back in even one of those metrics was almost impossible.

If his campaign was in the red at the end of February

That not only would he still be in this but that the media wouldn't be pointing out the fact that he was done?

Riiiiiiiiiight

Um actually, that's not true. The re votes would not result in much change of the delegate count (remember her win in Ohio that's now been rendered moot as far as delegates go.)

The Hillary campaign needs these votes to sustain the various narratives that she's using to try and sway the supers.

Even if she got her re votes basically she'd just be doing it to try to pull ahead in the popular vote and thereby get supers to switch based on that. Except that of course she would be once again trying to change the rules that she agreed to just to suit her current situation. She is quite the lawyer isn't she?

Oh and as far as 'counting every vote' her campaign is also asking that the superdelegates to look only at how Clinton performed among Democrats who participated in the primaries and caucuses rather than the total number of Democrats, independents, and Republicans who voted in them when considering popular vote.

This whole argument is so skewed it's absurd.

Did you get Mark Penn to write that for you? Why don't you just call him a Muslim who was educated in a madrassa and get it over with.

By the way, I am not sure how democratic it is to keep trying to count a primary where one guy wasn't even on the ballot.

And as far overturning the will of the people, isn't that pretty much the only chance that Hillary has right now? I mean since she is behind in delegates, the popular vote, and states won and very very likely will remain so.

On the other hand, 'let's keep voting till I win' sounds like a very democratic plan.

I believe the Soviets won the gold medal in Olympic basketball in 1972 following the exact same strategy.

Its pretty obvious that this a pretty much nothing-to-lose attempt now to throw enough mud and hope that it sticks. I am not comfortable with either candidate proclaiming that the other is a non-viable general election candidate but it seems that this is the argument that they think will resonate with the supers.

This type of nasty back and forth doesn't help anyone but John McCain.

That would be dumb. As would be not pointing this out to the supers. However, the Clinton campaign is smart enough (amazingly) to realize that being too ham fisted could turn off the black vote that they would presumably need to win in November.

We do all remember that right? Without a strong energetic black turnout Hillary has about as much chance of being president as Rev. Wright does.

All in all, this is fair game.

Yes, you are right. I guess I should have said, "do you want to be republican lite or do you want to be something better?"

And for those in Congress, I guess I would have said, "Please go and ask Bill Foster what having Obama stump for you and what having his volunteers work for you can do in a race."

Ultimately, that's probably what's going to sway the supers more than anything.

They are doing their jobs. Unfortunately for them, Obama then went ahead and made the most thoughtful, searing and beautiful speeches on race in America since in at least 40 years if not ever.

I am not saying that the Wright thing didn't hurt Obama enormously. But, it did show how he could take a hit and come back with integrity, honesty and make his case to the American public. And isn't that what the Hillary campaign has been saying all along that he couldn't do?

I think the argument I would make (as an Obama supporter) to the supers is this:

"After watching that speech, it seems like the democratic party and its candidate just might be able to become something really special, something we haven't seen for a long time. Whether you like Obama or believe him or not, he inspires people and asks us (more than any politician has in a long time) to become something better than we are.

do you really want to give up that opportunity so that we can maybe get an administration that reflects the current thin congressional majority we have - a group that really hasn't made life much better for anyone and which can sometimes be referred to as republican lite?

I sure don't.

Yes, it will take some guts to make Obama the nominee. Just like it takes guts to talk about race in a way that's real. Just like it takes guts to talk to people in a way that doesn't pander through sound bites and us vs. them rhetoric.

But, if this party is to stand for something then let's make Obama the nominee and this time really make America be America again.

Hey there's always the hope that Hillary's riveting "I dodged sniper fire with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow" might just take hold of the nation.

Sorry but at this point I could see Hillary taking her own sniper rifle to Obama to get the nomination and people like you making excuses for her doing it

That's just it! Maybe just maybe he didn't apologize because it was going to get him something. Maybe he apologized because IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

This is exactly the type of thinking that turns people off about Hillary. Hmmm what will an apology 'get me?'