If people are worried about Obama being swiftboated, they should hear the clips from his town hall today.  He's been impressive, showing the emotion that he sometimes seems to suppress too much.

He kept linking George Bush and John McCain over and over again.  "If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate on protecting America, that's a debate I'll be glad to have happen."  "Our Iran policy is a complete failure...  I'm running to change course, not continue George Bush's course"

Moreover, he's on top of things.  He pointed out the McCain Hammas video that's been making the rounds on blogs.  He mocked McCain's 2013 ad, pointing out that McCain pointed to goals but didn't say how any of them were happening.

It was great.  It's going to be fun to watch over the next few months.  

Like most of you, my reaction to the ending of the same sex marriage ban was mixed.  Most of me was excited than an obvious case of discrimination was struck down.  A small part of me was still worried about November.  We've already seen the God and guns; here comes the gay issue.

Of course, even if this meant President McCain, I couldn't say this ruling was wrong.  You can't keep oppressing a minority out of fear of the voters.  In that case you won't stand for anything other than winning.  Fortunately though, I think this time, it's not going to be that big of a deal.  Follow me below the fold for the reasoning.

People have been talking about this for a while now, the party has some serious divisions which lead to normal supporters wondering if they can even vote for the standard bearer for President, let alone donate money.

Today though, the posts aren't coming from the Democrats.  In an installment of, "I'll go there, so you don't have to," let's look at some leading Republican blogs.

Want evidence that this will not go on to the convention (well if you need any more), James Carville said that Obama is going to be the nominee most likely:

"I still hear some dogs barking," Carville said, according to The State newspaper. "I'm for Senator Clinton, but I think the great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee."

"As soon as I determine when that is, I'll send him a check," he added.

If you're looking for signs that the Democrats will unite around Obama, Carville offering to cut a check is a strong one.  Hopefully, things will start to calm down soon.  

I know that 2209 is the new talking point, but if - as expected - Obama hits 2024 before the rules committee meets, 2209 isn't going to matter.  Why?  Once again it's math.

In the first place, the odds of a new magic number being 2209 is minimal.  The rules committee is likely to at least enact the Republican 50% penalty which would lower that number.  I'm going to assume the best case for Clinton and give the states no penalty.

OK, let's look at how Obama got to 2025.  He needs 159 more delegates now according to DemComWatch, let's say he gets 60 from OR/KY/WV (a pretty achievable goal) and 25 from add ons (again low balling his likely total), and 74 superdelegate commitments after he clinches the pledged delegate lead.

So he's at 2025, the rules committee meets, and says FL and MI counts in full.  He's doomed, right?   Wrong.  Remember, Obama is going to get some of those delegates.  Michigan's recent plan - not the Obama camp's plan mind you, but Michigan's - would give him 59 delegates.  In Florida, he earned 67 delegates.  So immediately he'd be at 2151.  He also has 6 superdelegate commitments from those states (5 from MI, one from FL), so he's be at 2157. Moreover, the elections aren't over.

Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota would still vote.  Of those 86 delegates, Obama would receive close to 40.  That gets him to 2197.  

So with conservative assumptions, even with MI and FL counted in full, Obama would be within 12 delegates of the nomination with 164 superdelegates left to commit (remember the number is higher because I'm giving FL and MI their superdelegates).  Clinton would not be able to reach the magic number herself even if all of them committed - the remaining Edwards delegates would block her chances of getting to 2209 - but the fact is that they're not going to go 153-11 against Obama barring the kind of disaster that would prevent Obama from getting the nomination without MI/FL counting.

So 2209 or 2024 doesn't make much of a difference.  If Obama can get to one, he can get to the other.

According to DemConWatch, even before adding today's SDs (4-0 in favor of Obama), Obama needs 164 delegates to win the contest.  Why is that number important?  It's also his lead in the race.

Obama is now closer to the finish line than Clinton is to Obama.  Moreover, it's easier to come up with ways where Obama will receive chunks of delegates (Conservative totals for Obama give 8-10 from WV, 20 or so from KY, 30 or so from OR, 20 or so from PR, 10 each from MT and SD plus at least 20 more add ons, which is 128 of the needed right there) than it is to come up with metrics where Clinton achieves large net totals.

This is why, even prior to WV/KY/OR, people are pivoting to the general.  Clinton should have a great day on Tuesday.  I expect her supporters to enjoy it.  However, after OR, Obama will have at least a 140 delegate lead with only 86 more pledged delegates up for grab.  It has been a hard fought race, but we really are in the end game.  Now it's time to get McCain!

I'm not surprised that Clinton rejected the 69-59 proposal.  If she's still trying to win, that doesn't help her in the slightest.  Obama would gladly sacrifice 10 net delegates in order to take that problem off the table, take away an argument for the general, and look statesmanlike at the same time by willing to take on a handicap that he wouldn't be compelled to do so.  For Clinton, though, it wouldn't help her with her delegate issues.  It would make Obama look stronger with superdelegates without actually changing things in her favor.

So accepting a compromise like that isn't going to work for her. There's one additional problem though.  She can't leave the vague situation out there either.  Why not?  Scheduling.

I've been watching Clinton's strategy for the end game and like her strategy for the , it confuses me.  It looks like she's more or less willing to hold serve, beat Obama in IN, lose in NC, beat him in WV and KY, lose in OR, beat him in PR, and hope for maybe an upset in SD or MT.  
March primaries
What strikes me about that strategy is that that's a way to not lose, not a way to win.  I play that way in poker tournaments sometimes and just try to outlast people, and the thing is that that's a great way to get into the money, but it makes it next to impossible to actually win.

So how can Clinton win?  Well it's still a longshot, but this is the chance that I see.  Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong but this is a good faith effort so try to keep the insulting to a minimum.