::

The current wave of attacks against Barack Obama focus on the left-of-center political ideology espoused by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. The video of Wright is so gripping that it is easy to forget that he is not now -- nor was he ever -- Barack Obama's chief political strategist or adviser. Still, the attacks focus on Wright's political views, the implication being that as a member of Wright's congregation (before Wright retired), Obama must share those same views.

Of course, that is blatantly illogical. Many are troubled by Wright's political views, some with good reason -- but they are not Barack Obama's political views and any implication to the contrary is no different than a deliberate effort to mislead.

If David Axelrod or Susan Rice or someone else in a political position in Barack Obama's organization were espousing the same ideas as Jeremiah Wright, it would be one thing. But this is not that thing.

Obama's relationship with his pastor is primarily a personal one -- a private one. It isn't a political one. Wright isn't a campaign staffer or a lead adviser. He does, however, have a role on one mostly honorary committee. Perhaps that formal relationship with the campaign should be severed, just to make it absolutely clear that Jeremiah Wright's political ideology is not fair game for the political attack machine.

But even if it were fair game, Jeremiah Wright's political ideology is clearly not the same as Barack Obama's. Even a five year-old can see that.

There really isn't anything for Obama -- or any of us -- to get defensive about. This is, after all, just politics. That's why you're seeing more and more vulgar words used to describe Barack Obama, just like the one Victor Davis Hanson used. Right-wing scribes like Hanson are no more concerned about Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright than they are about John Hagee or Rod Parsley and John McCain. (Hagee and Parsley are the radical right-wing pastors who have thrown their political muscle behind McCain's candidacy.)

They just see an issue that they think will help them stay in power. So they keep on hammering away at it in an attempt to form a campaign narrative. You can find 28 pages on nationalreview.com about Obama and Wright. There's only seven about McCain and Hagee, and you can't find a single one about McCain and Parsley.

::

It's true that there's an important difference between the McCain-Hagee and McCain-Parsley relationships and the Obama-Wright relationship.

The difference is that the former are political relationships. The latter is a personal, religious relationship.

McCain actively sought the political endorsement of these two right-wing radicals. Politics is about deals, and given the radical ideology of Hagee and Parsley, the public deserves to know what McCain offered to those two powerful men in exchange for their support.

In contrast, anyone who argues that Wright has anywhere near the power of Hagee and Parsley is a staggering, monumental idiot. Indeed, for the most part Barack Obama has every right to expect that his relationship with Wright should remain private. Yes, it's reasonable to explore the ways in which Wright may have shaped Obama's views, but that is not at all what is happening in the media right now.

The media is now exploiting the shock value of some compelling video, whether or not that video has anything at all to do with the presidential campaign. It's actually very irresponsible. I know their medium thrives on images such as the ones on that video, but what I fear is happening is that the media is allowing the demands of their medium to control the public debate.

That doesn't do anyone any good -- except television commercial salesmen.

::

Jeremiah Wright's political ideology is all but irrelevant to this campaign. It might be an interesting topic in the abstract, but it reveals little or nothing about the Obama campaign. Even if it did, however, at worst, Wright is an example of an outdated form of identity politics. The fact that he is retired is consistent with that. His impact on politics is dwarfed by that of Geraldine Ferraro and he's no more a terrorist sympathizer than was Ron Paul.

Yet despite all the accusations thrown Jeremiah Wright's way, he has never been accused of being a violent warmonger -- as have both John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

And the key difference between Wright and those two is that Hagee and Parsley engaged in a political relationship with John McCain that is relevant to the public trust.

Jeremiah Wright hasn't.

::

Barack Obama didn't attend his church to study political philosophy -- he went to Columbia and Harvard for that, and he applied those ideas as a community organizer and elected official.

Indeed, Obama attended church for the same reason as anyone else who attends church -- to worship. That's one thing that I'm not going to judge him on, or anybody else for that matter -- so long as they respect my right to worship however I please, if at all.

There's a reason that our Constitution contains the following text:

No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So far, Victor Davis Hanson and his conservative colleagues have not shown any respect for the principle that gave rise to those words. That's a shame -- but it's not too late for them. They've still got time to show some respect for what made America great: our Constitution.

::

Let's step back and review the facts:

1. As John McCain wrapped up his nomination, more Republicans voted in the Democratic primary. In January and February, 4% of Democratic primary voters were Republicans. By March 4, it was 9%. In Mississippi, the first contest after McCain had clinched the nomination, it was 12%.

2. As these "unemployed" Republican voters participated with increasing numbers in Democratic primaries, Clinton's support skyrocketed, climbing from just 31% in January and February to 48% on March 4 and 75% on Tuesday.

3. As McCain closed the deal, an increasing percentage of Hillary Clinton's support has come from Republicans. On Tuesday, a full 24% of her support came from Republicans -- or, as I'm calling them, Republiclintons.

4. Unlike with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama's level of support from Republicans has been constant, hovering around 4% of his total support throughout the entire primary season.

5. Most of the support Barack Obama has received from Republicans came before March, when the Republican primary contest was still in full swing. Republicans who chose to vote for him had to give up voting in GOP primary -- a strong sign of true support. In contrast, two-thirds of Hillary Clinton's Republiclinton support came on March 4 and March 11 -- when there was far less reason to vote in the GOP primary.

::

All of these data points provide very strong circumstantial evidence that the growing Republiclinton trend is not a sincere expression of support for Clinton. Unless Hillary Clinton has recently found some message that really connects with Republican voters, it certainly looks as if these Republiclintons are voting for Clinton in our primaries without planning to support her in the fall.

Mark Blumenthal's new numbers lend strength to the theory that most Republiclintons will vote for McCain in the fall.

Blumenthal, who obtained exit poll cross-tabs, found that 85% of Republiclintons had a favorable view of John McCain. 58% had a strongly favorable view.

72% of Republiclintons said Clinton was NOT "honest and trustworthy." 62% said she does NOT inspire them, 56% said she has NOT offered clear and detailed plans, and even 41% of them would be DISsatisfied if she were to win the Democratic nomination (!).

Think about that -- 72% of of Republiclintons voted for someone they think is dishonest and untrustworthy. Those people are not voting for her in the general. They'll be casting their ballots for John McCain.

Obviously, Republiclintons are not the kind of voters we want picking our Democratic nominee. If they are not going to be with us in November, they have no business being with us now.

::

In my post yesterday about this emerging trend, I was quick to label Republiclintons as proof of the Limbaugh Effect -- the idea that partisan Republicans will vote for Hillary Clinton in an effort to stretch out the Democratic primary.

It's a theory that makes sense -- but there appears to be more to Republiclintons than just the Limbaugh Effect. Blumenthal acquired more data that he thinks at least partially supports an alternative explanation for the Republiclinton phenomenon. The alternative theory? Republiclintons are motivated by a sincere desire to stop Barack Obama.

Of course, it doesn't matter whether Republiclintons are sincere or not -- if they are going to vote for McCain in the fall, they shouldn't be mucking around in our primary now -- no matter the reason.

However, knowing what motivates Republiclintons is an important part of understanding the overall phenomenon.

And, as I think you'll see, after looking at the numbers this alternative explanation is compelling.

Here are the numbers that Blumenthal got from the cross-tabs:

+ 91 percent said Clinton is more qualified to be commander in chief; only 3 percent said Obama is more qualified.
+ 94 percent said Obama does not inspire them "about the future of the country."
+ 89 percent would be dissatisfied if Obama were the Democratic nominee.
+ 86 percent said Obama is not "honest and trustworthy."
+ 86 percent said Obama has not "offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country's problems."
+ 82 percent said Clinton should not pick Obama to be her running mate if she is the nominee.

The picture that emerges here is clear. Republiclintons are McCain supporters who nonetheless prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary. (But they still prefer McCain in the general.)

Whether they have sincere preference in the Democratic primary or not, they have no right to choose our party's nominee -- unless they will support that nominee in November. And these Republiclintons won't.

It's a chilling trend, because Clinton's campaign tactics could motivate Republiclintons to interfere in our primary to stop Barack Obama -- even though they will not be voting for her in November.

Just look at that commander in chief number. These are voters who were swayed by Hillary Clinton's 3am ad and by her praise of John McCain versus Barack Obama.

Whether Clinton's campaign consciously pursued Republiclintons or not, I have no idea. The Clinton campaign is certainly claiming credit for having done so:

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans - all of which point to a candidacy past its prime. For example...among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin. But now Obama’s support has dropped among all these groups. In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents...Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state? In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama’s readiness to be president.

"Questions have arisen." Ah yes, the passive voice. The last refuge of scoundrels. Obama was attacked. Doubts about him were provoked.

::

The question now is whether Clinton pursued an intentional strategy to generate the Republiclinton phenomenon, or whether it was serendipity.

Whatever motivated the Republiclintons, the bottom-line is that without them, Hillary Clinton would have been approaching Huckabee-like numbers in Mississippi. Oh wait -- at 38%, she already did.

But even though she still only managed 38%, the impact of the Republiclintons on the delegate tally was severe -- costing Barack Obama up to a net of ten delegates.

::

As I wrote yesterday, the emerging trend of Republiclinton participation in our primaries casts a shadow on all the remaining contests. It raises doubts about any new primary in Florida or Michigan, especially if they are held months from now, giving Republicans ample time to change party registrations in the event that the primaries are closed.

It could be a tremendous problem -- not that it already isn't. Hillary Clinton is now winning delegates with coalitions that are 25% McCain supporters. (Yes, she lost MS, but remember Republiclintons helped her win between up to five delegates that she would not have otherwise won.) That net ten delegate swing could prove pivotal.

If Hillary Clinton now somehow secures the nomination, it is almost certain that McCain supporters will have played a starring role.

We can't allow that to happen to our party.

It's time for the superdelegates to take notice of what's going on here.

It's time to see some leadership -- some spine.

It's time to end this thing before it gets completely out of control.

::

Blumenthal also presents numbers that challenge the knee-jerk assumption that these Republiclintons were simply heeding Rush Limbaugh's call to screw up the Democratic Party's nomination process.

Based on Blumenthal's numbers it seems that many Republiclintons were at least as motivated to stop Barack Obama as they were to wreak havoc on our primary process. As Blumenthal's numbers show, Republiclintons have a very negative view of Barack Obama.

+ 91 percent said Clinton is more qualified to be commander in chief; only 3 percent said Obama is more qualified.
+ 94 percent said Obama does not inspire them "about the future of the country."
+ 89 percent would be dissatisfied if Obama were the Democratic nominee.
+ 86 percent said Obama is not "honest and trustworthy."
+ 86 percent said Obama has not "offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country's problems."
+ 82 percent said Clinton should not pick Obama to be her running mate if she is the nominee.

It's important to note that even if many or most Republiclintons were motived by a sincere desire to stop Barack Obama, the fact that their desire was sincere has no bearing on the central issue.

That issue?

John McCain's supporters should not be choosing who the Democratic Party nominates for the presidency -- and it's time that the Democratic Party leadership step up to the plate to prevent that from happening.

::

Update: Ben Smith posts video of the speech at politico.com.

Aside from the questions about why FOX News paid for the video and why they are releasing it now (it was recorded months ago -- note the Giuliani references), there's a couple of substantive issues I'd like to address.

First, there's the IRS question. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be stunned if southern churches weren't even more political than this. Moreover, it's not like Wright was hoping to sway any votes. You gotta' figure the congregation supports the hometown favorite.

Second, there's the identity politics question. I suspect many people will offer this video as a counterbalance to Ferraro's divisive commentary. (Don't forget -- she's a FOX News contributor!) Strictly on the merits, the two statements are interesting to compare -- and they both represent an old style of identity politics, pitting race versus gender. And that's what was wrong with Ferraro's statements, and that's what is wrong with Wright's statements. The subtext of Ferraro's comments was that blacks have it better in this country than women. The subtext of Wright's statements (not just in this video clip but other comments as well) is that women have it better in this country than blacks.

Look, it's not a contest: sexism and racism are both horrible scourges on our nation. Competing over who has it worse doesn't get us anything. In fact, that competition is exploited in the divide-and-conquer strategies employed by the powerful elite -- and typified by FOX News.

As far as I'm concerned, I just don't have any use for what Ferraro said or what Wright said.

The question though is how does -- or should -- this relate to the Presidential campaign?

I'm sure Clinton will try to exploit this FOX News story, but keep in mind that Jeremiah Wright is the retired pastor of Obama's church. He has no role on the Obama campaign whatsoever.

Even if people called on him to resign from the Obama campaign, he couldn't -- because he's not a part of it.

Geraldine Ferraro, by contrast, was on Hillary Clinton's finance committee. She was an active fundraiser for the campaign.

Moreover, Ferraro's comments echoed a long history of divisive politics from the Clinton campaign. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has never said anything remotely like what Jeremiah Wright said.

To the extent that this becomes an issue, it is a perfect opportunity for Barack Obama to once again talk about the importance of working together to battle not just racism but also of sexism. It's an opportunity to talk about the politics of unity.

Throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has appealed to our desire to move past the ethnic, racial, and gender politics of the past. He has tried to exploit our hope -- not our cynicism.

And that is the biggest difference of all.

::

Let's first take a look at the bigger picture.

In January and February, while the Republican nomination contest was still being waged, just 3.9% of Democratic primary voters were self-described Republicans. On March 4, the day that John McCain won enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination, Republican participation in Democratic primaries more than doubled.

As you might remember, a day earlier, Rush Limbaugh had appeared as a guest on several radio shows to encourage Republicans in Ohio and Texas to cross party lines and vote for Clinton as way of sabotaguing the Democratic primary promise. On election day, Bill Clinton gave an interview to the guest host of Rush Limbaugh's show.

Yesterday, 12% of Democratic primary voters in Mississippi were Republicans -- triple the numbers from January and February.

::

As the number of Republicans in the primary has increased, Hillary Clinton's share of the Republican vote has skyrocketed, going from a 69-31 deficit in January and February to a whopping 75-25 lead in Mississippi. Although Barack Obama's share of the Republican vote declined, his absolute percentage did not change much, hovering around 3-4%. In other words, he was simply winning a smaller percentage of a larger pie.

In the abstract, there's nothing wrong with receiving votes from Republicans in the Democratic primary -- as long as those votes come from Republicans who are truly committed to a Democratic candidate. That appears to be the case with Barack Obama, who consistently does well among Republicans and independents in public opinion surveys.

Hillary Clinton's support from Republicans, on the other hand, is coming from Republicans who will not support her in the general election. They are simply wreaking havoc in the Democratic primary, hoping to further divide an already divided party, and perhaps even help Hillary Clinton win the nomination.

How can I be so sure that this is the case?

Well, look at the exit polls from yesterday.

On several questions a shockingly high percentage of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton indicated they did not like her -- numbers that were not reflected in the views of Obama supporters of their own candidate.

For example, 31% of Hillary Clinton's voters said she was not honest and trustworthy. By comparison, just 4% of Barack Obama's supporters said the same.

24% of Hillary Clinton's had a strongly favorable opinion of John McCain -- compared to 6% of Barack Obama's supporters.

Although cross-tabs are not publicly available (at least to my knowledge) these is exceptionally strong evidence that about one-quarter of her vote yesterday came from Republicans were just trying to stick it to the Democratic party.

(I've explained my methodology at the bottom of this page.)

::

What impact does this have?

First, it has an impact on delegates.

Yesterday, Barack Obama won 60.6% and Clinton won 37.2%. If her Republican voters hadn't shown up, she would have won about 28% and Obama would have won about 68%.

The threshold for winning a larger share of statewide delegates is 62.5% -- so the Republican voters definitely cost him delegates.

I don't know exactly how many and will update this blog entry when I've got more numbers.

Here's an update on the delegate totals from the Daily Kos wizard of odds, poblano. According to poblano, net/net Obama might have been able to do as well as 24-9 instead of 19-14. Put another way, he could have netted +15 instead of +5 delegates -- a ten delegate swing. Anyway, here is poblano's comment (and while I'm at it, let me plug poblano's brand new blog, fivethirtyeight.com):

He was very close to the 62.5% threshold to gain 3 out of 4 pledged PLEOs.

He was also close to the threshold for getting 5 out of 7 at-large delegates (he needed 64.3% of the two-way vote to do this).

AND he was close to getting the 70% he needed to win a 4-1 split in CD-3 (he got 66.8%).

AND he was close to getting a 6-1 split in CD-2; he needed 78.6% of the vote to do that, and got 76.3%.

AND he was close to winning CD-1 outright, which would have netted him an extra delegate (he got 48.3% instead of the required 50.000001%).

If Obama had an extra 4% of the vote statewide, he would have surpassed each of these thresholds, and the delegate split would have been 24-9 rather than 19-14.

Second, it has an impact on media perception. One of the key takeaways from the media yesterday was that Hillary Clinton's supporters didn't like Barack Obama as much as Barack Obama's supporters like Hillary Clinton.

They implied racial animus was at the root of this division, nicely playing into the whole Geraldine Ferraro storyline.

They thing they left out was that a full quarter of Clinton's supporters were Republicans! And the Republicans didn't like her either! Because they were gaming the process!

It wasn't race! It was Rush!

Third, Republicans may -- and I qualify this because if they did it was close -- they may have tilted the primary vote in Texas to Hillary Clinton. I estimated that she won at least 65,000 votes from Republicans that she wouldn't have won had there not been an increase in Republican cross-over voting. She won Texas by 100,000. Given the fact that I think some Republicans who are tricky enough to game a primary will lie to exit pollsters and say they are Democratic, I really wouldn't be surprised if Republicans actually won Texas for Hillary Clinton.

::

The bottom-line as far as I'm concerned is that this new trend is symbolic of a Democratic primary that has gone completely haywire.

Not only is there division between the Clinton camps and the Obama camps, but now Republicans are actively intervening in our primaries and caucues to screw with our process.

It's only going to get worse -- Republicans will change parties when there is closed primaries and in open primaries, they will cross-over and vote for Hillary Clinton in increasing numbers.

Effectively, this emerging pattern calls into question the validity of any voting from here on out, even in closed primaries. There's just so much lead time before the next contests that Republicans have plenty of time to register as Democrats and monkey with our primary.

Imagine just how effin' hard it will be to make sure revotes in Florida and Michigan don't end becoming a huge clusterf**k.

::

Ironically, this is exactly the kind of scenario that super delegates can be useful in.

How?

The ones that are on the sidelines who clearly support Barack Obama but have not committed to him -- superdelegates like Nancy Pelosi and others -- can publicly declare their support for Barack Obama.

As you can see from this chart, the fact is that in an ungamed primary, there's absolutely no way Hillary Clinton is going to take over the pledged delegate lead. It's just absolutely not going to happen. Nobody thinks it will -- not even the Clinton campaign.

There's also just about no chance she's going to win enough superdelegates to get the nomination.

The problem is that Republicans whose only goal is sabotage our nomination process are going to make this seem closer than it really is. And that's going to embolden Hillary Clinton to continue to make more attacks on our eventual nominee. And it's going to further divide the party. And maybe even cost us the election.

But if enough super delegates step up now, and declare that they will support Barack Obama it will become clear that Hillary Clinton has no path to the nomination -- and even if she does not withdraw from the race, her support will evaporate, and we can begin the process of uniting this divided party so that we can take back the White House in November.

Barack Obama has all but won the nomination. It's time to make it official.

The Republicans are having a party at our expense. It's time to shut it down.

::

A note on the methodology (skip this if it bores you!):

The exit poll data was taken from MSNBC. You can get it here.

You will notice that none of the numbers I cite in this entry seem to be in the exit poll.

Let me explain why. The exit poll reports the percentage of people overall who agree with each answer to each question. The poll then breaks down how each answer was distributed amongst the candidates. So for example, on the trustworthy question: his Hillary Clinton trustworthy, you learn that overall, 49% say she is and 50% say she isn't. 23% of the people who say she isn't are Clinton backers and 73% are Obama backers. Meanwhile, 52% of the people who say she she IS trustworthy are Clinton backers and 46% are Obama backers. To determine the percentage of Clinton voters who think she is NOT trustworthy, you multiply the number of people who think she isn't trustworthy by the percentage of those people who are Clinton voters, and then divide that by the sum of the same number plus the number of people who think she is trustworthy multiplied by the share of those people who are Clinton supporters. And then you got the numbers. Hopefully that makes sense!

Clinton people will push back against this type of analysis arguing that we only care about these trends because they are now going against Obama.

They are absolutely wrong.

First, the reason why Barack Obama won GOP support was because of his appeal to moderates and independents. The reason why Hillary Clinton won GOP support is because Rush Limbaugh is encouraging his dittoheads to screw with the Democratic primary process.

Second, when Obama was receiving support from Republicans, there was still a Republican primary going on. Any Republican who supported Obama had to give up the opportunity to have a say in the Republican primary process. Now that the nominee is McCain, there is no disincentive for rabid Republicans to not cross-over and help pick their opponent.

Third, and this is the clincher, the number of Republican voters is dramatically higher now than it was before. In January and February, 4% of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses were Republicans. Today, 13% were -- that's more than three times as many as before!

Fourth, the closest Hillary Clinton has come to actually winning amongst Republicans was in Alabama, where she and Obama were tied form a statistical point of view.

This is an important issue for the media to understand, not just because it impacts the delegate count, but also because it impacts their spin.

Here's what I mean: one of the key media spins is that Obama is less popular amongst Clinton supporters than vice versa.

Clinton will use this to argue that she should be at the top of a unity ticket.

But a big reason why her supporters rank Obama lower than vice versa is that her supporters are Republicans who won't vote for Obama -- or Clinton.

Frankly, we shouldn't be listening to anything they have to say, nor should we be letting them impact our delegate totals.

::

Division helps nobody but the wealthy and powerful elite.

FOX news contributor Geraldine Ferraro is a member of that wealthy and powerful elite.

The elite depend on division.

They need to pit us against one another.

That is the source of their power.

We can take away their power.

Yes we can.

::

We want to change all that.

We want something different.

We want unity.

Not unity without difference.

But unity of spirit.

We don't want to hate each other.

We don't hate each other.

We are angry, but that anger will soon pass.

If we stay focused, remember the common dream, we will prevail.

FOX news contributor Geraldine Ferarro is just a distraction.

A bizarre, strange, pathetic distraction on our journey to a better America.

::

Yes we can.

::

I've divided this blog entry into two parts.

First, I answer the question: what percentage of the remaining pledged delegates will Clinton have to win to hit each of four possible goals: having bare majority; being within 50 pledged delegates; within 100 pledged delegates; and within 150 pledged delegates.

The answer to this question reveals how steep of a hill Clinton must climb in the final few primaries and causues.

Second, I answer the question: for each of these possible goals, what percentage of the uncommitted superdelegates must she win in order to get the nomination.

Thus, it's a two-tiered challenge that Hillary Clinton faces -- first she must win as many pledged delegates as possible, and second she must convince superdelegates to support her, even if that means overturning the results of primaries and caucuses.

It turns out that no matter how you slice, it both challenges look to be incredibly tough.

::

Pledged delegates

Let's accept for a moment the concept that "closely trailing" actually means "essentially tied." (It doesn't, but we can fight that battle at another time.)

We'll look at the scenarios for whether or not Michigan and Florida are seated. (It turns out that it doesn't make much difference.)

First, numbers assuming that Michigan and Florida are NOT seated:

+ to gain a majority over Barack Obama, Clinton must win 65% of the remaining delegates. (She has done this once, in AR.)
+ to trail Barack Obama by 50 delegates, Clinton must win 59% of the remaining delegates. (She has done this 5 times in AR, OK, RI, NY, and MA.)
+ to trail Barack Obama by 100 delegates, Clinton must win 55% of the remaining delegates. (She has done this 8 times , adding TN, AZ, and NJ to the above list.)
+ to trail Barack Obama by 150 delegates, Clinton must win 51% of the remaining delegates. (She has done this 12 times, adding CA, NM, OH, and TX to the above list.)

By far the most likely scenario of these four is a 150 delegate spread. A 100 delegate spread is plausible, but very unlikely. Anything closer than 100 delegates is virtually impossible unless Obama completely collapses, and he shows no signs of doing that.

Okay, now let's include Florida and Michigan.

+ to gain a majority over Barack Obama, Clinton must win 60% of the remaining delegates. (She has done this 3 times, in AR, OK, and RI.)
+ to trail Barack Obama by 50 delegates, Clinton must win 56% of the remaining delegates. (She has done this 6 times, adding NY, MA, and TN to the above list.)
+ to trail Barack Obama by 100 delegates, Clinton must win 53% of the remaining delegates. (She has done this 11 times, adding AZ, NJ, CA, NM, and OH to the above list.)
+ to trail Barack Obama by 150 delegates, Clinton must win 50% of the remaining delegates. (She has done this 13 times, adding TX and MO to the above list.)

Assuming we include Florida and Michigan (which I think is likely), she'll have a better chance to get close to the 100 delegate spread, but even that would require a major shift in the campaign. Everything went right for her in Ohio and she barely got more than 53% of the delegates there; to expect her to do better than 53% overall down the stretch is just not realistic.

So still, the most realistic scenario is something closer to 150 delegates.

But let's see what would happen if she did do better than that in the next phase of winning the nomination: closing the deal with the superdelegates.

::

Superdelegates

Currently according to politico.com, Obama has 206 "committed" super delegates and Clinton has 247, giving Clinton 54% of all "committed" superdelegates. I put committed in quotes because of course by their very definition, supers are never really committed, but for the sake of this analysis, I will assume that neither total changes.

Let's first look at the numbers if Florida and Michigan are not included.

+ If Clinton ends up with bare majority of pledged delegates, she would need 52% of the uncommitted superdelegates
+ If Clinton ends up trailing by 50, she would need 55% (more than the 54% of the already committed delegates she now has).
+ If Clinton ends up trailing by 100, she would need 63%
+ If Clinton ends up trailing by 150, she would need 70%

It is highly improbable that Clinton would be able to convince 63% of superdelegates to overturn the results of primaries and caucuses if she trailed by 100 pledged delegates -- and as I showed above, it is highly improbable that Clinton could get to within 100 pledged delegates.

You can do the math -- she's not winning under this scenario.

Let's take a look at what things would be like with Florida and Michigan included. One of the interesting things about including these two states is that it will increase the total number of superdelegates by 54. This seems to benefit Clinton much more than Obama as Clinton has significantly more support from Florida and Michigan superdelegates than does Obama. According to Democratic Convention Watch, Clinton would gain 15 superdelegates and Obama 5. That leaves 34 uncommitted.

+ If Clinton ends up with bare majority of pledged delegates, she would need 50% of the uncommitted superdelegates
+ If Clinton ends up trailing by 50, she would need 53%.
+ If Clinton ends up trailing by 100, she would need 60%.
+ If Clinton ends up trailing by 150, she would need 67%.

Once again, I've shown above it's almost certain that Clinton will not get within 100 delegates, even if we include Michigan and Florida. If she could get the gap down to 50 -- which would be nearly impossible -- she might be able to convince the superdelegates to overturn the results of primaries and caucuses, but even that is questionable.

Certainly at a spread of 100 delegates, especially after changing the process to include Michigan and Florida, I don't see Clinton being able to win over 60% of the super delegates, which is a significantly higher share of the superdelegates than she now enjoys.

Anything beyond that is a fantasy. Moreover, as I've already shown, the idea that she'll end up with in 100 pledged delegates of Obama is also likely a fantasy.

::

After running through these numbers, I've now got an even harder time understanding what Clinton's path to victory is. To put it in poker terms, Hillary Clinton isn't drawing to an inside straight -- she's trying to make a bigger full house. That's tough to do, even in Texas.

Of course, some card players look at it differently. Where you see impossible odds, they see an opportunity to "massage the outcome," to put it euphemistically.

Here's more from the article:

Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain's national finance chairman.

EADS is the parent company of Airbus, which teamed up with U.S.-based Northrop Grumman Corp. to win the lucrative aerial refueling contract on Feb. 29. Boeing Co. Chairman and CEO Jim McNerney said in a statement Monday that the Chicago-based aerospace company "found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal."

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, has been a key figure in the Pentagon's years long attempt to complete a deal on the tanker. McCain helped block an earlier tanker contract with Boeing and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to develop bidding procedures that did not exclude Airbus.

::

Background:

On February 29, in a stunning victory for the European aerospace industry, EADS (the parent company of Airbus) and Northrop Grumman won a $35 billion contract from the U.S. Air Force to replace its aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers. Boeing had widely been expected to win the contract, which would have supported 44,000 new and existing jobs at Boeing and and unspecified number of jobs at more than 300 suppliers in 40 states.

By contrast, the Airbus contract will create just 2,000 jobs in Alabama, although Airbus says it will also support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.

And John McCain is number one reason that Airbus got the contract.

In the fall of 2006, as the procurement process began, the USAF indicated that factor in the impact of foreign government subsidies on any company bidding aerial tanker contract.  The USAF rationale was that it wasn't fair to ask U.S. companies to compete against foreign companies receiving subsidies from overseas governments.

Airbus, which receives subsidies from European governments, firmly opposed the consideration of those subsidies. Airbus argued that Boeing in effect receives subsidies in the form of tax incentives and bloated defense contracts. (Ironically, now that Airbus has won the contract it is beneficiary of tax incentives in Alabama were some of the work will be done, a bloated defense contract, AND subsidies from European governments.)

McCain sided with Airbus.

On September 8, 2006, McCain wrote a three page letter to Gorden England, Deputy Secretary of Defense, sternly arguing against consideration of the government subsidies, and taking England to task for allegedly doing an end-run around McCain.  Ten days later, McCain penned another sharp letter to England. McCain also approached both Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates on the issue.

McCain argued that by considering government subsidies, the USAF would effectively block Airbus from submitting a competitive bid. He presented himself as an impartial actor, interested only in the best interests of the American taxpayer.

On a superficial level, McCain seemed to have a reasonable argument, saying that by factoring the subsides in “the Air Force will risk eliminating competition before the bids are submitted.”

Boeing, on the other hand, argued that it could not possibly compete against a company subsidized by a foreign government. I think most people would agree with Boeing's side: by not factoring in subsidies, they were handed a severe handicap.

Nonetheless, McCain's position won out, and 18 months later Airbus won the contract -- a contract it could never have possibly received were it not for John McCain's active intervention.

And now we know that former Airbus lobbyists are top officials on John McCain's campaign.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

::

2001: The first tanker deal

The story goes back to at least 2001, when the Air Force and Boeing hatched a different deal, this one to lease aerial refueling tankers. McCain pounced on the deal as an example of Washington corruption.

McCain had a point. The deal was a dog. Ultimately, the Secretary of the USAF and the CEO of Boeing lost their jobs, and two Boeing executives were sent to jail in connection with corruption on the case.

By 2004 the deal was scuttled and John McCain boasted of saving taxpayers $6 billion by killing the deal, a claim he proudly repeats to this day.

It is very important to remember that the 2001 Boeing deal is NOT the same as the current deal. When the new process began in 2006, Boeing was a different company and different officials staffed the USAF procurement office.

When McCain is challenged on this issue, he predictably emphasizes the first phase of the aerial tanker issue, but don't get confused by the okie-doke -- the real issue is what has happened from 2006 to present.

::

McCain-Airbus connection in 2001/2?

Before jumping forward, I have one note to add about the original deal. I was a senate staffer, involved in this issue on the periphery.

The thing that I remember most vividly from either late 2001 or 2002 was the strange fervor with which McCain fought against this deal in particular -- and the assertion by one of my colleagues that two or three of McCain's former staffers were lobbyists for Airbus.

I have subsequently tried to validate this, but haven't found anything in the press. It shouldn't be too hard to do though for someone who has the time to go through McCain's staff history and then lobbying registry.

When I saw the news today that three members of McCain's team helped Airbus win the contract -- and that one of them continues to work for Airbus -- it reminded me of what I'd been told several years ago.

We got him -- or at least we're close.

People hate lobbyists and corruption. But they REALLY hate sending jobs overseas.

Mix lobbyists, even if they aren't corrupt, with jobs getting sent overseas.

Toxic. Politically lethal.

Already, John McCain is the target from people who feel screwed by this job-killing deal. As more people hear about it -- especially in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania -- they will get angry.

We've GOT to make him own this issue.

Think it: John McCain sent thousands of jobs overseas and his lobbyist friends got rich.

That's not gonna' play in peoria.

::

People around the country hate John McCain on a bipartisan basis because of this deal

There's a strong reservoir of ill will towards John McCain in Washington, Missouri, Kansas, California, and Illinois in particular.

Boeing backers blame McCain for losing deal By ERIC ROSENBERG P-I WASHINGTON BUREAU

Supporters of The Boeing Co. blame Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, for the company's failure to win the lucrative $35 billion contract to build new Air Force aerial refueling tankers.

The Air Force last week awarded the contract to a team of Airbus parent EADS and Northrop Grumman Corp., triggering a firestorm from Boeing advocates who said the victory by the European-led consortium ignored American national security interests and would cost U.S. jobs.

Boeing advocates say McCain was a major force behind the Air Force decision to ignore the issue of government subsidies to Airbus when the tanker contract was put up for competitive bidding last year.

Rep. Norm Dicks, a moderate Democrat who has the respect of Republicans, blasted McCain:

"The only reason that (Airbus) could even bid a low price is because they receive a subsidy," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose Seattle-area district includes thousands of Boeing workers. "Senator McCain jumped into this and said that they (the Air Force) could not look at the subsidy issue, which I think is a big mistake," he told PBS.

More from Norm Dicks:

"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose state would have been home to the tanker program and gained about 9,000 jobs.

Even Darcy Burner’s opponent sounded off against McCain:

"John McCain will be the nominee and I will support him, but if John McCain believes that Airbus or EADS is the company for our Air Force tanker program he's flat-out wrong - and I'll tell him that to his face," said Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.

A Kansas Republican joined in the McCain bashing:

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican whose district includes a Boeing plant that could have gained hundreds of new jobs from the tanker program, said McCain's role in killing the earlier deal is likely to become an election issue. Both of the leading Democratic candidates for president, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have criticized the Air Force decision.

"I think we absolutely will hear more about it," Tiahrt said. "We'll hear it mostly from the Democrats and they have every right to be concerned."

In Missouri, Kit Bond hasn't criticized McCain, but he has criticized the deal. I haven't seen anything yet from Claire McCaskill, but no doubt she'll be a good surrogate on this issue.

This morning, a political reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote:

But now that the contract has been re-bid several years later, many of those jobs that would have gone to Boeing will now go overseas to EADS. And that could quickly become a liability for McCain in St. Louis and other cities with Boeing facilities.

The more people know about this issue, the angrier they get -- and I mean really, really mad. Last November, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) -- hardly a partisan firebrand said this:

"The other problem is, John McCain hates us," he said, referring to the Republican senator from Arizona. "He hates us, and he is a man who focuses his hatred for a lengthy period of time, not one to give in to the whole notion of bygones and all of that. ... People went to jail, OK. We dealt with it."

This wasn't some potshot at the GOP nominee -- back in November, John McCain was toast, remember? This was a heartfelt expression of fury.

I've followed Adam Smith's career for a long time. When I was growing up on Beacon Hill (in Seattle, not Boston), the older sister of one of my friends who lived next door told me all about him (she was friends with him somehow) and I've kept tabs on him since.

Adam Smith doesn't talk like that often. It's an honest expression of anger -- an anger I share.

It's an anger that crosses party lines. Even if you're not a hawk -- and I'm not, even if you're not sure if we should spend this money on defense, the one thing almost everybody can agree on is that we should not be creating jobs overseas when we're on the cusp of a recession.

Just do a bit of Googling on John McCain and Airbus. You'll see that the anger spreads across ideological lines, across party lines, across regional lines. This thing is a stinker.

This should become John McCain's albatross. It's not just posturing -- he was really wrong to stand up and fight for a foreign company -- especially a foreign company with whom he has close lobbyist connections.

::

Starting to become a campaign issue:

Ever since the contract was awarded 12 days ago, this has started to become an issue on the campaign trail.

McCain’s response has been misleading, shifting the focus away from his 2006 actions and onto what he did in 2001 -- and effectively calling his opponents corrupt.

"In all due respect to the Washington delegation, they vigorously defended the process before - which turned out to be corrupt - which would have cost the taxpayers more than $6 billion and ended up with people in federal prison," he said. "I'm the one that fought against that ... for years and brought down a corrupt contract."

McCain's answer is a total deflection, sidestepping the question of whether he was right to intervene in 2006 on behalf of Airbus to defend their right to make a bid without having their government subsides taken into account.

McCain's implication that his detractors are unethical gives you a window into why so many reasonable members of Congress absolutely loathe John McCain -- and why he wold be such an ineffective president.

::

Don't let McCain confuse the 2001 deal with the 2006 deal

As this issue develops, we can't let McCain get away with the 2001 deflection.

If the media and the Obama campaign (or Clinton if she pulls it out) don't stay focused on the 2006 side of the equation, we will lose.

At the risk of being repititios, the issue is what John McCain did in 2006.

Even if it is proven that McCain's 2001 actions were tied to lobbyists, it still isn't the most fertile ground for us. The key is what happened in 2006 and the jobs it will cost.

It's easy to get confused and forget that what happened from 2001-2004 is separate from 2006. Hell, I've made the mistake myself.

Right in the middle of a recession. All thanks to John McCain. And we still haven't gotten any tankers.

::

Boeing is motivated and will fight back and fight back hard

We will have help from a Boeing on this.

They will not go away quietly. The company is fighting back against McCain, urging an investigation of the deal.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will examine the process by which Northrop Grumman and EADS won the deal.

"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process," Boeing chairman Jim McNerney said.

The GAO, which is part of Congress, will have 100 days to investigate.

Mr McNerney said he believed Boeing submitted the most "capable, lowest risk" aircraft as measured against the air force's request.

For once, a major corporate interest might actually find itself aligned with the Democrats. Strange bedfollows, eh?

And let us not forget that Boeing is an Illinois company. It can't hurt them to have the President coming from their hometown (assuming that Obama wins, which he will).

::

Top Airbus execs gave John McCain $12k:

After winning the subsidies consideration issue, he received $12,000 for Airbus executives in political contributions, not a lot by some the standard of a $100,000,000 campaign, but you have to remember – John McCain isn’t Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton when it comes to fundraising.

::

Final thoughts:

I think this issue presents an opportunity for Barack Obama to begin to engage John McCain as if he were already the nominee.

It's especially powerful for Obama because it gives him an opportunity to turn the table on the underlying message behind the grotesque smears coming from McCain surrogates like Steve King or Mark Shurtleff, the Utah AG.

They are really trying to challenge Obama's commitment to America -- what better way for Obama to demonstrate it than to fight against John McCain's efforts to ship American jobs overseas?

This is the kind of debate we want to be having in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

McCain's position is just untenable.

And the time to hit him is now.

::

Recommended reading:

3/11/2008 - Could Boeing’s loss be McCain’s as well? (St. Louis Post-Dispatch assesses political impact of McCain's Airbus deal on Missouri, in which Boeing has a major presence.)

3/11/2008 - Boeing to protest at tanker deal

3/11/2008 - Boeing filing protest today over tankers

3/11/2008 - McCain Advisers Lobbied for Airbus

3/10/2008 - A Good Deal of Credit to McCain for Stopping a Bad Deal (A misleading NRO article defending McCain that does as much as possible to confuse the 2001 and 2006 deals, like I warned against.)

3/10/2008 - In Tanker Bid, It Was Boeing vs. Bold Ideas (This is a pro-Airbus perspective)

3/8/2008 - Angry Boeing Supporters Target McCain

3/7/2008 - Boeing backers blame McCain for losing deal

3/6/2008 - McCain's Airbus bucks

3/4/2008 - Boeing Boomerangs On McCain

3/3/2008 - Tanker Contract Opposed by McCain Resurfaces

3/3/2008 - Airbus On The Up Thanks To Boeing Defeat

3/2/2008 - Boeing may rethink relationship with Air Force after tanker contract loss (More perspective from Missouri.)

3/1/2008 - Air Force tanker deal could be campaign issue

3/1/2008 - Airbus parent beats Boeing for big U.S. Air Force contract

2/29/2008 - Machinists Union Blasts Tanker Decision

2/29/2008 - Northrop and EADS Win Refueling Tanker Deal

2/29/2008 - Northrop Grumman to Build Tankers for Air Force (Grrr, the gotta get the Airbus/EADS thing in the headline!)

11/29/2007 - Gregoire fetes aerospace industry at Bellevue summit (look for the quote from Adam Smith)

9/18/2006 - A follow-up letter from McCain

9/8/2006 - A letter from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to the deputy defense secretary opposing the inclusion of a WTO subsidy dispute in the Air Force's tanker proposal request

::

Let me be clear: I do not believe candidates should ignore identity politics.

But they should focus on the positive -- not the negative.

This is a historic campaign. We should embrace that fact.

When Hillary Clinton says "I am thrilled to be running, to be the first woman president" or when Barack Obama jokes about being "a skinny guy with a funny name", it's a good thing.

Neither of our candidates are exclusively defined by their race or gender, but there is no denying that race and gender are important parts of their identities.

And that is to be celebrated. Can you imagine this happening in the other party? I mean, they thought that Mitt Romney was too "different" for them. Mitt Romney!

::

There is also no doubt that race and gender play a role in the composition of each candidate's coalitions. African-Americans who have voted in primaries and caucuses overwhelmingly support Barack Obama, for example. White women who have voted overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton.

There is nothing wrong with that. The fact that most blacks support Barack Obama does not mean that Hillary Clinton is a racist. The fact that most white women support Hillary Clinton does not mean Barack Obama is a racist or a sexist.

These demographic trends are expressions of affinity -- not of antipathy.

::

The Clinton campaign's continuing embrace of the idea that Obama has trouble with some demographic groups not only false, it is simultaneously offensive to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- not to mention to the demographic groups in question.

It is offensive to Obama because it suggests that he somehow stands in opposition to that group. It is offensive to Hillary Clinton because it suggests that people don't like her -- they just dislike her opponent. And it is offensive to working class whites because it suggests that they are all a bunch of racists.

Most of all, it is offensive to all of us, because the Clinton campaign isn't just assessing reality -- it is shaping reality.

I don't want to sound too Pollyanna about this; I know there is racism and I know there is sexism and I know it does get expressed in the vote.

But on the whole, racism and sexism aren't the dominant reasons why people vote one way or another.

::

Demographic analysis has an air of objectivity, but it is anything but. The application of any demographic analysis has an impact on the very dynamics being assessed.

For example, Sergio Bendixen, a Hillary Clinton pollster said this in late January:

the Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.

At best, the truth is far murkier than Bendixen's claim.

In fact, the reality is that Bendixen's statement is really a statement about the world that the Clinton campaign hopes to create (or at least mantain) and exploit -- for its won political benefit.

It is an example of ethnic and racial division in action -- and it's not the way campaigns should be run. Fortunately, it's not working.

::

Given the sensitive nature of this subject, I feel obligated to note that Barack Obama's campaign is not 110% pure on this subject, although at this point any comparison between the merits of his campaign and Clinton's tilts heavily in his favor. Specifically, I'm referring to the memo his staff wrote in South Carolina, not all of which was fair. (Though the bulk of it was fair.) And Donnie McClurkin was not handled well. However, and this is an important point, Obama owned up to his mistakes on McClurkin -- and he has not repeated them since. Indeed, before the primary in South Carolina he specifically condemned homophobia while speaking at Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta, Georgia.

::

The only time that I am aware of Obama ever saying that Hillary Clinton might have trouble winning over a group of people he was referring to independents and Republicans who supported his campaign. One can debate whether or not he should have said that, but it had nothing to do with race.

Nonetheless, it is also obviously true that Barack Obama's campaign has been race-conscious. One might even try to say he has exploited race, but when he has done so he has exploited our hopes and dreams for unity.

Even if one mocks Obama's emphasis on unity as shameless hopemongering, at least it's shameless hopemongering for a better future.

::

The Clinton campaign's ongoing pattern of flogging arguments that depict Barack Obama as unable to win support from white or Latino voters go straight to heart of what is wrong with the Clinton campaign.

Instead of embracing the fact that there are in fact some groups of voters who really like her, they feel compelled to talk about how -- in their view, at least -- Barack Obama just has a problem with some kinds of voters.

Fortunately, by and large that "problem" just does not exist.

If it did exist, he wouldn't be winning the primaries and caucuses, and he wouldn't be on the way to winning the Democratic nomination.

::

As irresponsible as Sanchez's performance was, he did have one bright moment which I excluded from the video because it didn't directly relate to false Muslim smear. In that moment, Sanchez specially debunks the false smear about Obama and the pledge.

Good for him on that, but still I don't understand why he didn't do the same for the false Muslim smear.

This comes on the heels a CNN.com poll which posed the following question:

“Does Barack Obama show the proper patriotism for someone who wants to be president of the United States?”

This kind of stuff really is pretty crappy, but we're going to have to deal with it at some point -- and better now than later. There's only so long that political hacks will be able to use "Hussein" as if it were an epithet. Pretty soon, it will be just another name. Already, I bet it tests better in polls than either Bush or Cheney.

More importantly, the substance of these smears is just bull, and at least when the smears get aired out in public it gives us an opportunity to repudiate them in public.

So in the long run, things like this are probably necessary if unpleasant steps along the way to the Barack Obama presidency.

For now, our mission is to call out members of the media who do things like this and at the same time make sure that our friends, family, and associates know that the smears just aren't true.

If you're up to it, write CNN and Rick Sanchez a letter. Here's the link to his contact page on CNN.com.