Some thoughts on Clinton's most recent tale:

• Hillary Clinton did not vet her story: The details strain credulity -- a hospital denying emergency care to a pregnant woman who didn't have $100 to her name? If warning bells weren't going off in her mind, they should have been. We don't need another president who doesn't check the facts.
• Hillary Clinton presented the imaginary elements of this story in vivid detail:  Even though she had not checked to see if the story was true, Hillary Clinton told the story as if she had been there herself. Perhaps she had -- in her own imagination.
• Hillary Clinton is a fabulist:  Tuzla. NAFTA. Superdelegates. Now this. All politicians stretch the truth from time to time -- yes, that includes not just McCain but also Obama -- but Clinton does it with comfort that is terrifying.

This campaign, Clinton has embarrassed herself repeatedly with exaggerations and falsehoods. Voters don't trust her -- and she keeps on giving them good reason not to. Clinton says that she, not Obama, is the candidate who can beat John McCain. Actually, the opposite is true.

This is my obligatory defend the Clinton campaign post of the month...

Newsweek's Andrew Romano posits that up to $13 million of the $20 million the Clinton campaign says they raised in March could be designated for the general election, meaning that they  raised a meager $7 million for the month. If true, that would be a political earthquake and would almost certainly mean the imminent demise of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Only one problem -- Romano's conjecture is totally wrong.

The title of the post is a fitting epitaph for the Clinton era in the Democratic Party. I wish I could take credit for it, but I can't -- the words belongs to Joel Connelly, the top political reporter in the northwest and one of the best in the country. He's now a columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and his most recent column (digg it) is a devastating appraisal of the Clinton campaign as it heads into its final days.

As Joel argues, whether the Clintons are ready to accept the situation or not, Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency is in its closing stages -- and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

The miscalculations and misjudgments -- which likely have cost Hillary Clinton the nomination, and Bill Clinton much of his reputation -- are the campaign's own doing.

In years past, the Clintons showed an amazing knack for getting themselves into binds, then escaping tight corners. It has deserted them.

As the saying goes, it ain't over 'til it's over -- but it's pretty close to over. All that's left is for us to finish the job.

Most people think Obama's going to win, and that took the sting out of James Carville's Judas attack. Losers can't be bullies, and a growing number of people see the Clintons as losers -- and Barack Obama as a winner.

The polls don't yet fully reflect this trend, but it's real. Here are some examples:

1. Grassroots enthusiasm much stronger for Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton

In 2007, Hillary Clinton outraised Barack Obama, ~$121 million to ~$107 million. So far in 2008, Obama has outraised Clinton $127 million to $68 million.

More importantly, Obama's fundraising has come from over one million individual donors. Last month, his average contribution is less than $100 -- a remarkable achievement.

Meanwhile, on the campaign trail Barack Obama is a rock star. He fills arenas, drawing 22,000 to a rally last weekend in Pennsylvania.

2. Obama has maintained the same rationale for his candidacy throughout the campaign

Barack Obama is making the same arguments today that he was making earlier in the campaign. Perhaps the best example: the central message of "The Speech" was exactly the same as his Ebenezer Sermon. True, he dealt with a new wrinkle -- the Wright flareup -- but he dealt with it successfully.

Clinton on the other hand has been forced into a kitchen sink strategy. You never know what she'll come up with next -- and neither does she. Case in point: Richard Mellon Scaife.

3. Barack Obama quelled concerns from superdelegates by forcefully dispensing with Wright flareup, which could have become a full-scale crisis

Barack Obama's speedy and decisive handling of the Wright flareup is the mark of a winning candidacy. It was the most severe test any candidate has faced during the entire campaign and he passed with high marks all around.

4. Barack Obama has stuck with a simple -- and widely accepted -- definition of what it means to win

Barack Obama hasn't budged an inch from his position that voters should determine the nominee. Perhaps he only takes that position because he's leading, but that's not relevant -- his position is the right one.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has tried out just about every argument there is, among them:

• arguing that delegates from some states don't count as much as others
• claiming that Obama is trying to deny voters the right to have their voices heard
• concluding that the process will be over by February 5th
• attacking Obama supporters who say the race will be over in May or June
• agreeing that the votes in Michigan and Florida won't impact the nomination
• saying that the votes in Michigan and Florida should be counted
• arguing that we must count all the votes while urging superdelegates to overturn the judgment of voters
• saying the number of electoral votes that a state has should determine should guide superdelgates
• proclaiming that it's un-American to ignore the will of voters while suggesting pledged delegates should consider switching from Obama to Clinton

This type of absurdity is the mark of a doomed candidacy.

5. Obama's standard for victory has gained wide acceptance, and now even Clinton's own supporters are adopting his standard

It's not just Nancy Pelosi -- a growing number of Clinton supporters are accepting the idea that superdelegates will not overturn the judgment of voters. Specific examples: Maria Cantwell, Ron Sims, Martin O'Malley, Jon Corzine.

These are perhaps the strongest signs yet pointing to the emerging consensus within the Democratic Party: Barack Obama will be the nominee.

6. Barack Obama is closing the gap in the competition for superdelegates

Superdelegates are turning towards Obama. According to today's LA Times:

In December, according to an Associated Press tally, Clinton led Obama by 106 superdelegates. In February, her lead had been cut to 87. As of Thursday, it was 30.

7. Barack Obama has won a virtually insurmountable delegate lead

1,627 is the real magic number -- once Obama hits that number, he'll become the nominee unless there is a coup by superdelegates. And with 1,419 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1250, he's a virtual lock to hit the number, needing just one-third of the remaining delegates.

When all the voting is done, Obama will probably lead by around 150 pledged delegates. But even if he only leads by 100 -- at this point, a worst-case scenario -- Clinton would need 65% of the remaining superdelegates to go her way. Given the growing consensus that superdelegates will not overturn the vote, 65% is unattainable, especially if she loses any of her current superdelegate supporters.

::

Even though there's virtually no chance Hillary Clinton will win the nomination, as long as she remains a candidate, we've got to take her seriously.

Personally, I don't understand why Clinton is remaining in the race. She had a better chance of getting away with the Tale of Bosnian Sniper Fire than she does now of winning.

But it's not my decision to make. Still, saying she's going to lose is not the same as telling her to quit.

And so this bizarre campaign will continue, for another few weeks at least.

It seems that among other things, the Clintons turned their first White House tour into a $109 million bonanza.

LA Times:

In December, according to an Associated Press tally, Clinton led Obama by 106 superdelegates. In February, her lead had been cut to 87. As of Thursday, it was 30.

The Swamp:

McCain acknowledged that he was wrong to oppose creating a federal holiday in honor of the slain civil rights leader.

“We can be slow as well to give greatness its due, a mistake I made myself long ago when I voted against a federal holiday in memory of Dr. King,” McCain said. “I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support for a state holiday in Arizona. We can all be a little late sometimes in doing the right thing, and Dr. King understood this about his fellow Americans. But he knew as well that in the long term, confidence in the reasonability and good heart of America is always well placed.”

Update: Penn says the meeting was an "error in judgment" and repeats claim that Clinton's opposition was not discussed. The skepticsnark in me wonders if Penn's statement might be ripe for some parsing -- perhaps her opposition wasn't discussed because they discussed her support? I still think there needs to be an explanation why the Colombian government, which has close ties to the Clintons, didn't understand what Penn's role was.

Update 2: Calls for Penn's resignation have begun.

::

Everybody is talking about the WSJ bombshell that Hillary Clinton's top campaign aide met with the Colombian government on a trade deal she claims to oppose and that he's working to pass. All sides agree that the aide, Mark Penn, is a hired gun for both Clinton and Colombia. The question is who was he representing at the meeting? Camp Clinton says Penn represented his firm, Burson-Marsteller. The Colombian government isn't so sure, however. The WSJ:

A spokesman for Colombia's President Álvaro Uribe said the ambassador met with Mr. Penn to discuss the bilateral agenda. "There have also been meetings with the advisers to the campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain," he said. "It's the embassy's job to explain Colombia's reality."

The spokesman said he didn't know if Mr. Penn was representing Sen. Clinton or Burson-Marsteller, which signed a $300,000, one-year contract with the Colombian Embassy in March 2007 to work on behalf of the trade deal and anti-drug-trafficking initiatives, according to the Justice Department filings.

A spokesman for Sen. McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, said a team of policy advisers met recently with 20 Latin American ambassadors, including Colombia's. An Obama spokesman and the Colombian Embassy spokeswoman both said the Colombian ambassador had never met with an Obama representative.

Ironically, last month, Hillary Clinton played the victim card when she alleged an Obama adviser had done the same thing Penn did.

Peering at the 50 or so reporters packed into a small hotel conference room here, she added: "I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama’s name and see what you would do with this story ... Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

Clinton's gambit was succesful, I might add. The NAFTA story was a very big deal in the final days before Ohio.

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that on Monday, Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist, met with the Colombian government to "discuss a bilateral free-trade agreement," a trade deal Clinton says she opposes. (h/t: Joe Sudbay)

The agenda of Penn's meeting with the Colombian ambassador was explicit: winning support for a new free-trade agreement.

This is a pretty remarkable act of hypocrisy: during the past month, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly and falsely attacked Barack Obama on NAFTA, claiming that his top economic adviser told the Canadian government to ignore Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric. Now her chief strategist is working with the Colombian government to enact a trade deal she claims to oppose?

It's unbelievable -- literally.

I wish I could take credit for writing the title to this post, but I can't. Those words belong to Joel Connelly, the top political reporter in the northwest and one of the best in the country. He's now a columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and his most recent column is required reading.

Joel Connelly

Clintons -- a last stand that lacks class

AS HER ham-handed handlers insult entire states, and her self-absorbed husband indulges in red-faced, finger-wagging outbursts, Sen. Hillary Clinton soldiers on.

It is a joyless campaign, with stump speeches that carry tales of woe and get delivered in a booming voice that could open a wall safe.

A full three months after the Iowa caucuses, nearly two months after Washington's caucuses, the Clintons seem bent on turning the Democrats' fertile ground into scorched earth.

It gets better from there -- including his Judas line. You can digg the article here -- this is a column people should read.

(For the sake of full disclosure, I should note that I've known Joel since 1994, when I was the Press Secretary for a U.S. Senate campaign that he was covering.)

To give you an idea of how good a reporter Joel is, this past January a few days before the Nevada caucuses, I went to go see John Edwards at a town hall event -- and Joel was at the event. Keep in mind Joel is a Seattle-based reporter and he was doing a more thorough job than many DC-based reporters, most of whom pretended that John Edwards didn't even exist.

We'd be better off with more scribes like him.

In the first three months of 2008, Barack Obama raised $127 million. Hillary Clinton raised $68 million.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, by all accounts Hillary Clinton's most important surrogate, makes Rev. Jeremiah Wright the centerpiece of Clinton's electability argument against Obama during an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper:

"I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."
-- Gov. Rendell on Feb. 12

You don't think the Republican 527s are going to leave this stuff alone do you? You don't think you're going to see 527 ads with the explicit comments Rev. Wright said, about Rezko and the land deal? You're going to see 527 ads about all of those things.

This is a classic FUD campaign -- a strategy to paralyze the playing field by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. (I first heard the term in the 1990s, when it was used to describe Microsoft's business practices in the 1990s. At the time, I was a marketing executive for one of MSFT's competitors.)

Clinton's FUD attack should help dispel the notion that she is giving up, or that she is going positive. Her candidacy may be doomed, but that doesn't mean her campaign will in any way restrain its attacks against Obama.

Can you imagine if a top Obama surrogate like Bob Casey had said that Republican 527s will raise impeachment or Whitewater investigations? It's one thing to attack Obama's credibility on something like energy policy -- that's totally fair game. But using Wright and Rezko as the centerpiece of a FUD campaign is quite another.

Moreover, on the merits, Rendell's argument is wrong. Obama has actually weathered both the Wright and Rezko flareups quite well -- Clinton, on the other hand, took a serious hit after her bizarre tale of Bosnian sniper fire.

The biggest reason for that? Barack Obama is not Jeremiah Wright, and there's nothing to suggest he believes any of it. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, made the sniper fire claims herself.

Everything we've learned during this campaign suggests Barack Obama is more likely to win the presidency than Hillary Clinton. But don't take my word for it. Here's what the voters say:

Few things in politics are less attractive than the sight of Karl Rove challenging someone's patriotism, and unfortunately it's looking like that's where he's planning to go. Undoubtedly, Rove hopes to use FOX News' wildly unfair caricature Rev. Jeremiah Wright as the basis for his swift-boating campaign.

Leaving aside for a moment the essential issue, which is that there is no transitive relationship between Barack Obama's views and Jeremiah Wright's views, it's also true that while Rove, Cheney, Bush are Chickenhawks, Jeremiah Wright proudly served this nation in the armed forces.

There's more on this in today's Chicago Tribune. It's something more people need to know about -- you can digg their article here.

(h/t: jenontheshore)

While John McCain is touring the country to tell his life story, it is worth remembering that he finished 894th out of 899 students at the Naval Academy. From the Des Moines Register's detailed timeline of McCain's life:

Summer 1958: Graduates fifth from the bottom of his Naval Academy class and is commissioned as officer.

That's not very impressive. Obviously, he missed some important lessons.

Update: I just saw on CNN that sources say Clinton raised $20 million. Reupdate: Ben Smith says the same thing.

Joe Sudbay notes the significance of the Clinton campaign's refusal to release its March fundraising numbers, concluding with the key political issue:

The superdelegates should probably be asking about the financial viability of the Clinton campaign. Remember, money was part of the Clinton campaign's inevitability -- and she finished February with lots of debt and unhappy creditors.

Hillary Clinton just inflicted another 3AM ad upon the world, this time focusing on the economy. Of course, the whole idea of getting a 3AM phone call on the economy is absurd, so that raises the question: who would really be calling Hillary Clinton at 3AM? Well, now we have the answer:

Politico's Ken Vogel has the details on Clinton's debt problems, saying that her campaign has earned "a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles." And it's not just the embarrassment of being a deadbeat -- Clinton's money trouble is yet another indicator of a campaign struggling to survive.

Special thanks to newyorknewyork, a Kossack who e-mailed me with the idea of doing a video.

Barack Obama at the 9th Street Italian Market in Philadelphia.
(Photo: Damon Winter, New York Times)

Al Giordano has an excellent post over at The Field detailing three critical reasons why Hillary Clinton is the prohibitive favorite to win in Pennsylvania. (Full disclosure: you have to skip over one of my videos to get to the good stuff.)

The super-short version of Al's post is: (1) There's a lot of Ohio in Pennsylvania. (2) It's a closed primary. (3) Don't forget about the Limbaugh Effect. I know there are polls showing Obama gaining ground there, and no doubt he is, but don't forget, he gained ground in Ohio and Texas too. Bottom-line: stay realistic.

More importantly, Obama doesn't need to win the state -- all he has to do is win at least 40% of the delegates at stake. And even that is a slightly high bar.

The Clinton folks are now portraying this campaign as an epic civil rights struggle, casting Barack Obama as the oppressor and Hillary Clinton as the oppressed.

They say that the small number of people who have called on her to withdraw from the race are denying people the right to vote.

On its face, that's an absurd position, especially in light of the fact that Barack Obama himself has clearly stated he believes she should stay in as long as she and her supporters want.

But the real absurdity is that even the Clinton campaign admits that in all likelihood, the only way Hillary Clinton can win is by overturning the judgment of voters.

There is a slim chance she could end up winning the democratic part of the process, and for that reason I wouldn't call on her to withdraw. The problem is, every indication is that the central reason she continuing the campaign is to give herself a chance to overthrow the will of the voters.

If that's her plan, she ought to think about changing it.

Perfect timing -- I just happened to turn on MSNBC and Barack Obama is on Hardball's college tour. What a reception he got from the crowd. The first question was a tough one:

Matthews: Are you ready to bowl from day one?

Obama: Obviously, I am not!

You know, as a shareholder and director of our company, I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else.
-- Hillary Clinton at Wal-Mart stockholder meeting

Jake Tapper notes this amusing moment captured by by the San Francisco Chronicle:

Bill Clinton's tirade stunned some delegates

The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama. ...

A calmer Bill Clinton: "Chill out!"

According to those at the meeting, Clinton - who flew in from Chicago with bags under his eyes - was classic old Bill at first, charming and making small talk with the 15 or so delegates who gathered in a room behind the convention stage.

But as the group moved together for the perfunctory photo, Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama.

It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade.

"Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted. ...

"It was kind of strange later when he took the stage and told everyone to 'chill out,' " one delegate told us.

"We couldn't help but think he was also talking to himself."

Pretty funny (h/t: Jonathan Martin):

One of the things you hear a lot of is that the contest between Obama and Clinton extinguishing debate over issues that "matter" (like Iraq), or that it's taking away from the campaign versus McCain. There's probably a lot of truth to that.

But the reality is until we have a nominee, the problem will persist. So to those who berate Obama and Clinton partisans for ignoring bigger issues, I have a suggestion. Since you don't think it matters much who we pick, why don't step down from your moral perch and get dirty with us down in the trenches. Help us bring the campaign to a close -- until a winner emerges from the primary, we won't be able to unify the party and start the process of taking on John McCain.

(And no, in case you were wondering, this wasn't a call for Hillary Clinton to quit the campaign. That's a question for her and her supporters. All that I know is that she's going to eventually lose, and the sooner we can make that happen, the better.)

Some funny jokes from the late night shows, plus the fallout from Clinton's Bosnia gaffe continues. From yesterday's Hardball.

The centerpiece of the Clinton argument about Florida is that the January primary date was established by Republicans against the strong wishes of the Democratic leadership. Therefore, the argument goes, Democrats were victimized by Republicans, and the only way to right that wrong is to change the Democratic nomination process in the middle of the game.

Just one thing. The story is about as true as Bosnian sniper fire. Kos has more, including the video.

Aren't interrupters annoying? And don't you just absolutely love Rachel Maddow?

Update II: I've swapped out the video for this extended version, which includes some of Rachel's best moments against the The Interrupter.

Update: Today is Rachel's birthday. Happy birthday, Rachel! (Over at Daily Kos, Liberal Youth also posted her biography, which is damn impressive -- Rhodes Scholar, political activist, radio show host. Simply awesome.)

The Clinton campaign wants to keep the sniper fire story alive:

Straight Shooting From Tuzla
By LISSA MUSCATINE and MELANNE VERVEER

AS staff members who traveled with the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Bosnia in March 1996, we have followed with more than passing interest the extensive news coverage of her landing in Tuzla. Video footage clearly shows that Mrs. Clinton’s assertions that she landed “under fire” and that the arrival ceremony was canceled were wrong. She said so herself last week.

Hillary Clinton says she opposed NAFTA from the beginning. That's not what the record says, and my new video aims to expose Hillary Clinton's NAFTA story as the "sniper fire" nonsense that it really is.

I hope you like it -- let me know what you think!

I'm sure many of you were absolutely crushed and devastated I didn't post anything today, and for that I apologize.

In my defense, I've got a pretty good excuse: I've been offline since shortly after waking up this morning. According to Embarq (my DSL provider), all of southern Las Vegas had an outage today.

So in case you were wondering why I hadn't made any posts today -- that's why. Don't worry, I haven't become a McCainiac or a Clintonite!

Although it really sucks being without the internet, I did manage to use the time offline somewhat productively, putting the finishing touches on a new video that I think you all will like. I'll probably be posting that tomorrow (Tuesday).

(I also saw the key parts of the Mariners' victory of the Rangers, and grabbed dinner with a friend in town for the wireless show, so I guess you can do some things without connectivity!)

Now I have the daunting task of catching up on everything I missed today. I'll do it triage style so I can get some sleep tonight.

Regular posting will resume tomorrow, and just to reduce the risk of another outtage, I decided to order cable modem high-speed service as a backup.

Tomorrow's Wall Street Journal:

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

New Backing for Obama As Party Seeks Unity

By JACKIE CALMES, March 31, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama's side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group -- just one has so far -- before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say.

Helping to drive the endorsements is a fear that the Obama-Clinton contest has grown toxic and threatens the Democratic Party's chances against Republican John McCain in the fall.

How can you look at this and not see the strength of Obama's candidacy? It's freakin' March!

Today's headline in the WaPo: Clinton Vows To Stay in Race To Convention.

It was a beautiful thing to see -- because the moment a presidential candidate is forced to vow that he or she isn't quitting, you know they are toast.

Examples from recent history:

Feb 5: Romney Vows to Stay in GOP Race

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pledged to fight all the way to the Republican nominating convention this summer if necessary, despite being overpowered by John McCain in Super Tuesday contests.

Feb 4: Huckabee vows to stay in race

WASHINGTON -- Mike Huckabee hasn't won a Republican presidential contest in a month. The result: money is tighter, his staff is smaller and he can't seem to get the attention he once did. Still, he says he's sticking around for the long haul -- well past Tuesday's coast-to-coast primaries and caucuses if need be.

Jan 24: Giuliani Vows to Stay in the Race

BOCA RATON, Fla. – Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has staked his candidacy on the Florida primary only to see his standing in statewide polls slip, said here Thursday afternoon that he would stay in the race even if he loses on Jan. 29.

Jan 6: Edwards vows to stay in race to convention

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democrat John Edwards said Sunday he will stay in the presidential race through the party's convention in late August, even if he fails to win any of the early presidential primary states. "This is the call of my life, and I have no intention of stopping," Edwards said on ABC's This Week. "I'm in this through the convention and to the White House." Asked specifically if he'd remain a candidate even if he failed to garner a win over the next month, Edwards said, "Absolutely."

I think breaking 50% in Gallup for the first time warrants a little celebration though, don't you? Especially when it's coupled with a sizable lead in the Rasmussen poll?

So the WaPo discovered an inconsistency in Barack Obama's personal story -- apparently his father came to America during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower, not John F. Kennedy as Obama had previously stated (and apparently believed). In addition, the WaPo notes a well-documented anachronism in Obama's story. He's said in his past his parents met after Selma, but Selma was four years after his birth.

These are the kinds of things people get wrong all the time about their personal histories -- or at least I do. I can't count the number of homes I lived in before college, but I was born in North Carolina, and then lived briefly in Denver, followed by Bainbridge Island, WA, Seattle, WA, New York, NY, and then Philadelphia, PA. Throw in a month or so in DC, a summer in Spain, and an exchange program to Mexico and it gets confusing.

It's similar to Hillary's story about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first to summit Mount Everest. The problem: he did so a few years after she was born.

Just one of those things.

The article itself is very interesting and offers a window into Obama's personal story that make it worth a read, despite its emphasis on incongruities.

And don't get too frustrated with Michael Dobbs, who wrote the piece -- he's the journalist most responsible for exposing the Bosnia nonsense for what it was.

Links (via HuffPo): McCain story | Clinton story

The Huffington Post perfectly captures the essential feature of a couple of interesting stories with this image.

All three candidates actually have their weaknesses on subprime, but the key non-policy difference between Obama and McCain/Clinton is that the latter are surrounded by people whose financial incentives cloud their policy judgments. In the case of McCain, it results in a radical Hooverism; in the case of Clinton, it means that I don't trust a single promise she makes. The people around her are all tied to corporate interests. Moreover, her husband signed the legislation that McCain's guru helped pass into law.

Obama, on the other hand, is much more of an outsider. He doesn't have top lobbyists running his campaign. He has promised to keep them off his White House staff, and if he keeps that promise, he'll end up with a presidency that is much more responsive to the needs of average Americans than any president in recent history.

There's a lot of talk about what the Democratic Party should do in 2012 and beyond to avoid nomination battles like the current one. I actually don't think much needs to be changed beyond the elimination of superdelegates.

If it weren't for superdelegates, the campaign would have been over on March 4, if not earlier. People will suggest that the proportional allocation system is the problem -- it's not. It's actually a good thing. Winning 10 states with 60%+ is much stronger than winning California with 50%+1 and should be treated as such.

The problem we have right now is the possibility that superdelegates could overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses. That's the only reason this campaign is continuing. Without superdelegates, it would be over.

I'll also bet you that all the elected officials who are superdelegates wish that there weren't any superdelegates this time around -- the last thing they want to do is vote one way or the other in August!

A reader sent me this video, which I think is his first video ever, at least on YouTube.

It's a bit goofy in a good way and pokes fun at a slight little math problem that Hillary had the other day.

Is it possible this explains her campaign's delegate predicament?

Let me know what you think.

It's the netroots in action!

p.s.: If you like this homegrown video, be sure to digg it!