Here on MyDD I've read innumerable diaries about the meaning of the popular vote (or lack thereof), and there has been a lot of discussion about the value of the caucuses to the democratic nomination process (or the lack thereof).

Sadly, the discussions seem to play themselves out in the same way over and over again.  Clinton supporters talk about 'counting the votes', and Obama supporters point out that the Democratic nomination process is a race for delegates, not votes.  Occasionally someone comes in and claims that Obama won in caucus states because he cheated somehow.  If not, it is at least claimed that the caucus process has disenfranchised somebody's brother, sister, or grandparents and is not democratic or representative.

In defense of caususes, it has been stated on numerous occasions that while primaries are good measures of the breadth of a candidate's support, caucuses measure the depth of a candidate's support.  But this never fully crystalized with me until I thought about the value of MyDD's own Alegre to the Clinton campaign.  The passion, committment, and dedication that Alegre brings to the campaign of her candidate is the perfect example of why some states use caucuses.  Having an Alegre on your team is probably worth a hundred of almost anybody else.

Put simply, Alegre's vote for the democratic nominee should count for more than mine.  And if I understand correctly, she lives in Washington where they had a caucus, so her vote did count for more than mine.

No, this is not snark.
And no, I am not calling out Alegre.

(more below the fold...)

ZOMG DID YOU HEAR THAT BARACK OBAMA LIED?!?!?!11/!!?

He has totally jumped the shark!  This is what our girl has been wating for!

Here is what Obama said yesterday:

"I had an uncle who was one of the, um, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps. And the story in our family is that when he came home he just went up in the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."

YES YOU READ THAT RIGHT!!!!!1!!!

He lied about having an uncle.  An exhaustive record search indicates that Obama's mother was an only child!  He is so f#@#ing busted!!!!!!!  This makes me sick.

It's obvious to anyone paying attention that he was trying to ingratiate himself to the uncle-having segment of the population.    Those of us who don't lie about the uncles we may or may not have will think long and hard about pulling that lever for him again!  And seriously, can we trust someone without an uncle to be ready on day one?

Hey supers, listen up!  Do you really want someone so willing to lie about his own family to be the Democratic nominee?  This thing is going to the convention!

Update [2008-5-28 1:15:45 by chinapaulo]:

I am so offended at the blatant sexism shown in this thread that I have notified the moderators. You'll be sorry!

Earlier today, juliewolf wrote a scathing diary criticizing a dishonest graph posted on MyDD's front page.  In the spirit of juliewolf's brilliant excoriation of the dishonesty that has become so typical around these parts, I'd like to have some fun with graphs!

Here are some graphs I came up with.  All of the data is legit.  I will use them to distort the truth and mislead my readers, while maintaining that I am being honest because the data itself doesn't lie.

(graphs below the fold...)

Apparently the Alaskan Democratic Party had its state convention this weekend, and with the convoluted ways in which delegates are elected at the various levels, Obama ended up getting one delegate that was previously thought to have been Clinton's.

According to DemConWatch:

[I]n Alaska, a caucus state, Obama picked up a few more delegates to the state convention, putting him over the 75% threshold, and therefore splitting the state-wide PLEO pledged delegates 2-0 instead of 1-1. Green Papers has confirmed the change, and the sidebar tables have already been updated.

This increases Obama's lead by two delegates and brings Obama one delegate closer to the 2025 delegates that Hillary Clinton and Howard Wolfson have long told us are required to secure the nomination.  Just over fifty to go.

As of 2:14PM here on the west coast, MSNBC is reporting that John Edwards is endorsing Senator Barack Obama! Woo hoo!

Apparently Geraldine Ferraro has resigned from the Clinton campaign.

Is there really any question about which statement was worse?

Geraldine Ferarro:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Samantha Power:

She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything... You just look at her and think, 'Ergh.' But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.

When will Hillary denounce and reject Ferraro's support?

In case anybody missed it, CNN has finally called the Texas caucuses for Barack Obama.

[T]hough Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the primary, 65 to 61, Obama's wider delegate margin in the caucuses gives him the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 -- or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.

Now, I'll be the first one to say that there's really no such thing as 'winning' a state in a proportional system.  In the general election, a candidate can win a state by 1 vote and get all of the state's electoral votes, but in the Democratic Party primary, winning by one vote doesn't get you anything.

That's because it's all about the delegates -- and I mean both pledged delegates and superdelegates.  Delegates are the single definitive measure of victory in the Democratic Primary.  Nothing else matters.

To be sure, undecided superdelegates may decide to base their vote on any number of criteria -- including, as many people have suggested, the popular vote totals.  But while the rules within the states may be complicated, the rules at the Democratic convention are simple: The candidate who reaches 2025 delegates wins.

So to the extent that anyone can actually 'win' a state in the Democratic Party primary, Barack Obama won Texas.

When Hillary won the primaries last Tuesday in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas, it was as if everything had turned around for her.  If you bought into the media narrative, she was making her 3rd big comeback in this race after 11 straight Obama victories, and she had succeeded in knocking Obama down a notch in the eyes of the public over the issue of experience.

It didn't matter to the media pushing this 'comeback' narrative that Hillary was way ahead in both Ohio and Texas and that Obama closed the gap in both states pretty significantly.  And it didn't matter to some enthusiastic MyDD diarists who posted gleefully that Obama Has Lost The Nomination and that Hillary is "Our Comeback Champion".  My favorites are the ones that claim that Obama's pledged delegate lead doesn't matter or claim that 'math' is not a convincing argument for Obama's nearly-certain nomination -- as if the math involved was some sort of high-level calculus instead of basic arithmetic.

But winning three states after the horrible month of February definitely meant something.  (Even though in a proportional system, there's really no such thing as 'winning' a state.)  After all, last Tuesday was the first single day of this entire campaign when Hillary Clinton actually won more delegates than Barack Obama.  On every other election day, Obama has either maintained the size of or increased his delegate lead.  And Ohio was truly a convincing victory in a bellweather state.

Shortly after Hillary's victories on Tuesday, things started to look even better for Hillary.  The daily national tracking polls showed Hillary back on top again, where Obama had taken a lead just the week before.  The idea that Hillary might actually be getting some momentum back seemed to have some credence.  And on Wednesday morning, she smartly jumped on her momentum and started talking about a possible Clinton/Obama ticket.  Then on Friday, a gift:  Samantha Power, an unpaid Obama advisor was quoted as saying that Hillary was 'a monster', and the Clinton campaign called two press conferences that day to exploit the Obama campaign's foolish blunder.

Clearly, the week of March 4 was the best week that Hillary has had in this campaign.  She stopped Obama's winning streak, won two big states, posted her first single-day delegate victory, bounced back in the national polls, and deftly made the most of a gaffe by the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, in the only count that matters -- delegates, both pledged and super -- Hillary lost the week.

With thanks to Kos, here's what actually happened in terms of the delegates last week:

• Obama picked up 4 more pledged delegates in California (delegates that Hillary lost, making a swing of 8)


• Obama picked up 13 super delegates (compared to Clinton's 4)


• Hillary won a total of 3 pledged delegates out of the contests in OH, RI, VT, TX and WY (counting the unpledged WY delegate that will go to Obama).

By my count, Obama added 16 delegates last week to his already-considerable lead.

My point is simple: If on the best week of her campaign, Hillary Clinton manages to fall behind by an additional 16 delegates, how can she possibly win this thing?