Dr. J.'s Commentary: Hillary's Chances, by the Numbers

So much misinformation in a single article

1) "A common theme in this Clinton-talk is that "the superdelegates," all 800 or so of them, are sitting out there is some totally uncommitted group, waiting to see the outcome of all the primaries." Everyone realizes that a substantial number of the superdelegates have already committed. No one has said, or implied otherwise. The argument about "the superdelegates" because that's who will decide this nomination, there are many undeclared delegates, and even some of those who have declared may decide to change their mind(s), as has happened previously - one of which you specifically mention in your article.

2) The biggest lie of all - The Clintons are trying to break the rules or establish new rules. "I did see one news item that said that the Clintons have accumulated enough votes on the DNC Rules Committee to overturn the previously adopted rules that exclude Michigan and Florida, so they do have that hole card to play in extremis, if they are really intent on destroying the Democratic Party." Care to cite the previously adopted rules that mandate the exclusion of Florida and Michigan, or how they're proposing to break it? Here are the rules just to help you out. http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf . Can't do it, huh? Didn't think so ... because they're not.

The rules do NOT mandate that Florida and Michigan be denied seats, and the Clinton campaign's efforts to have them seated is entirely legitimate. In fact, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion. They have the authority to reinstate ALL of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged, if they wish to do so. Frankly, a re-vote would have been been the best alternative, but Obama obstructed it at every turn. Don't like it? As they say, "Dems da rules!" Think they should be denied a seat, or not be seated until it's too late to matter? Good luck winning in the fall.

3) Obama hasn't gone negative ... "They thought that they could win by playing Rovian politics to win over superdelegates. One of the central planks for Obama is a total rejection of that game, which is why he continues to not respond in negative kind, even there is plenty of ammo there." Seriously? Are you self-medicating? Would you like just a few examples of Obama's negative campaigning?

Personal attacks on Hillary's character echoing the right-wing attack machine, such as: “Disingenuous”, “Too polarizing to win”, ‘Divisive’,“Untruthful”,“Dishonest”,‘Calculating’, “Saying and doing whatever it takes to win”, “Attempting to deceive the American people”, “One of the most secretive politicians in America”, “Literally willing to do anything to win”, “Playing politics with war”. Oh I know .... the character attacks are okay, cause you agree with them, right?

Putting out misleading and outright false flyers negatively attacking Hillary Clinton on NAFTA and health care, which have been subsequently debunked by independent fact-checking organizations. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_nafta_nonsense.html

Attacking Hillary Clinton as "Hillary Clinton (D- Punjab)" - a "racist, xenophobic hit" http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2007/06/15/this-just-in-15/
"full of “hurtful stereotypes" http://www.usinpac.com/news_details.asp?News_ID=64 (Indian American group).

You mean like calling her "Bush-Cheney lite"? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2007/07/obama_i_dont_want_bushcheney_l.html

How about appealing to misogynists? “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out,” Obama said. Then yesterday Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton’s latest attack ad, “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.” […]
"Periodically" ... "... when she's feeling 'down'". No ..... he couldn't have meant THAT ...

How about appealing to the homophobic vote? Maybe when Obama toured SC with “ex-gay” Donnie McClurkin, homophobic “gospel entertainer”. (You can Google him to see what kind of ridiculous vitriol he spews at homosexuals). When asked about it, Obama justified it by saying “a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs.”
http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-great-many-african-americans.html . Oh I get it, it's okay because Obama said he disagreed with McClurkin's views. Wow, could you imagine if Hillary had toured Louisiana with David Duke (stating she disagreed with his views, of course) because "a great many white Americans share his beliefs"?

How about the SC race-baiting memo issued by his campaign (Amaya Smith) that kicked off the "Clintons (and their supporters) are race-baiting and/or racists"? I guess that's okay, since he later apologized for it ... after the damage had been done. (The apology, unfortunately, turned out to be insincere, since only a few days later Obama refused to condemn a radio ad by a supporter stating that Hillary doesn't respect Latinos.)

How about ridiculing Hillary's role in the Northern Ireland peace talks, and then, after being confronted with supporting statements from Ireland Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, Moderate Catholic leader John Hume, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, former SDLP leader John Hume, former senator George Mitchell (who chaired the talks leading up to the 1998 agreement), Inez McCormack, first female president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Geraldine McAteer, Chief Executive of West Belfast Partnership Board, Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam, his campaign was forced to acknowledge she played an important role in the Northern Ireland peace process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA_LBieb8PQ&eurl . Of course, the lie about HC's role in the Northern Ireland peace process keeps popping up on fauxgressive blogs, right bettysdad?

Not good enough? How about his campaign aide telling a reporter to look into Bill Clinton's recent sex life? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama?ca=iQXKMn%2FDF3O7uJqC0c790m7Uvm%2Bnaw3W14%2BdBvJpJDs%3D .

I can keep going .... The point is not to attack Obama, but to point out the willful ignorance and hypocrisy of those who attack Clinton for going negative, while claiming that Obama is above that, or, as you say "One of the central planks for Obama is a total rejection of that game."

4) The popular vote is irrelevant? "Especially for the Clintons, that "outcome" would include the popular vote totals of Michigan and Florida gathered in violation of party rules (as if there were some system that determined the Party's nominee by popular vote)."The Clintons also know that popular votes don't count, so it doesn't matter whether or not the votes of Michigan and Florida are recognized." Can you say "straw man"? Everyone knows the total number of delegates determines the nominee rather than the popular vote. But there's nothing wrong with making the argument to the superdelegates that they should follow the popular vote. Think the number of pledged delegates should be determinative? Which do you think better represents the "will of the people"? Most people think the popular vote should decide. http://tinyurl.com/39wm8d . Guess people believe in that whole one person, on vote concept. Weird, huh?
Oh, and trying to delegitimize Hillary's votes by weak references to the imaginary effect of "Operation Chaos"? Have any data to back that up? No .......... didn't think so. BTW - You do know that Obama has received far more of the crossover vote than Clinton, right?

Finally, love the elitist, condescending attitude. "Enough experienced politicians seem to know that yes, Virginia, there is a chance that a highly intelligent candidate, speaking to the American people with the confidence that they too can vote intelligently ..." Strange .... I was always skeptical of the old adages about the arrogance of doctors.

Guess you're not too concerned about getting the votes of the 47% + Dem voters in November, huh?