(Cross-posted at Raising Kaine and Cobalt6)

...I was volunteering in Phase I of the Virginia Democratic Party's ground game.  I laugh at myself and think of it as "Webb 2.0" (heh), because my first protracted and sincere canvass efforts were for Jim Webb two years ago.

Today, I joined the ranks of the very early canvassers and it was absolutely fascinating.  Details over the fold.

I saw an email message come across my Blackberry about 20 minutes ago.  I found it unbelievable, frankly.  When I was able, I opened Daily Kos to see if anyone else had written about it.  When I saw The shocking email I wish I'd never seen by KeepingItBlueKrstna at the top of the rec list (as of this writing), I clicked on it, assuming she had written about the same message I had received.

She wrote - brilliantly - about something totally different.  Which means that my shocking email was something else altogether.  Time to write.  Follow over the fold.

Did you automatically connect to what the NAO is when you read the title?  Amid all the talk of FISA and the USA Patriot Act and surveillance, it should ring a bell.  McJoan wrote about it here.  Granny Doc sounded a warning about it here.  I can't find anything else written about the NAO since April of this year - but hey - it's been a busy year politically speaking.

Yet I ran across an article today in one of the trade magazines that I browse on a daily basis that referenced the NAO, spy satellites, and the "holding of the line" by our Congres (yes, this Congress).  Flip.

"I'm Right."

"No - I'm right."

"No - I AM. [Insert candidate name here]'s vote on [insert highly important single issue here] makes me question whether s/he is really qualified to lead.  If [Insert candidate name here] can't even vote [yea or nay] on [insert highly important single issue here], I may have to vote for [insert either candidate with NO chance or candidate who stands for virtually everything you oppose here]."

RIIIIGHT.

I'll never forget The Sixth Sense.  I can still hear and see Haley Joel Osment saying "I see dead people".

Yesterday, as I was driving, I saw something that made me utter out loud, "I See Scary People".  More over the flip.

Disclaimer: "McCain Supporters" is a generic, non-specific euphemism for any individual who has decided that they will vote for John McCain in November for any reason under the sun.

I have to vent, McCain supporters.  Mainly because not nearly enough McCain-oriented venting has broken through the Primary Paralysis experienced across the universe of Democratic/liberal/progressive blogs of late.  But secondarily, I have to vent because your guy is so... horrendous as a prospect for the Presidency.

Venting, over the fold.

I'll stop harping on the Clinton campaign and its surrogates, particularly Harold Ickes, when they stop going on the air and saying patently ridiculous things, things that condescend to voters and generally demean the entire Democratic process as we have seen it in this primary cycle.

Ickes is clearly making the rounds of the network and cable news shows.  Gone is the vaguely hilarious checked, gingham-like shirt and in its place is a suit, seemingly to underscore the "gravity" of what he has to say.  I've been watching him closely - his tone is indicative, to me, of what the Clinton campaign is thinking.  The more bombastic the tone (ala the RBC tirade he embarked upon in response to the Michigan ruling), the worse the signal.

But today he just - well, he shit all over the nominating process and the serious attempts, being made by serious people, to pull the party back together.  More on the jump.

(Promoted from the diaries by kos)

I'm sorry.  I simply can't take some of what I'm hearing on cable news as they cover the Clinton win in Puerto Rico and continue to repeat Clinton campaign talking points in her "rationale" to secure the Democratic Presidential nomination.

In the past three or four hours I have heard Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliffe, and Bill Schneider (CNN political analyst) repeatedly assert that Clinton is winning the popular vote.  I have further heard each refer to the 1972 Democratic nominating process, where Humphrey won the popular vote yet McGovern won the delegates, and McGovern was resoundingly shellacked by Nixon (what that has to do with anything, I don't know, but they're saying it).  Yet there was only one caution, from Anderson Cooper, that Clinton's popular vote "lead" over Obama comes with substantial caveats on the part of the Clinton campaign.  So I've done my own math.
Up-Front Disclosures

First, it's important that I clearly spell out what I am and am NOT counting in the math I've done.  I've based my calculations on two basic arguments the Clinton campaign is making:

1. That she is more electable in November;

2. That the popular vote she claims to lead is indicative of electability.

So here is what I have excluded from MY math:

Democrats Abroad
Guam
Puerto Rico
American Samoa
Virgin Islands

None of these groups/Commonwealths/territories are afforded electors in a general Presidential election.  So going with Clinton argument #1 above, they are excluded as electors are not assigned.

The Clinton Math

Here's what the Clinton camp is basing their assertion on.  With the exception of PR, all vote totals were taken from CNN's Election Center.  Use the drop-down box to scroll through each state's primary to confirm totals.

NOTE: The Puerto Rico estimate is precisely that right now - an estimate.  I heard on both CNN and MSNBC that the highest estimated level of turnout was 435,000.  I've been VERY generous in this assessment and have given Clinton a 70%-30% victory.  This is what the vote totals in PR are based on.

CNN reported as well that Clinton is waiting, after the PR vote totals are finalized, to release two new ads touting having gone over 17,000,000 total votes.  Her surrogates will continue to push the "Clinton Math", which is now clearly outlined above.

Just for giggles, here's what is excluded from the Clinton Math:

Alaska
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Texas (Caucus only)
Washington
Wyoming

ANY popular votes for Obama in Michigan

MY Math

Again - my math is based on the two core assertions of the Clinton campaign (electability and popular vote lead).  First the primary states:

You'll note that I gave "Uncommitted's" popular vote back to Obama because it's ludicrous to assume that NO ONE showed up to vote for Obama (eye roll).  Yesterday's ruling regarding Michigan in the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee backs me up on this.

Under MY primary math, Obama is still slightly behind Clinton in popular votes.  But remember - there are FOURTEEN states that held caucuses which are NOT included in any of the math so far.  So I went out and did some estimating.  Democratic caucus turnout estimates for Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, and Wyoming were found here.  I had to stretch on estimates for the remaining three caucus states.  I used this mention for Hawaii's turnout estimate, this mention for Texas' caucus turnout, and this mention for Washington's turnout estimate.  I recognize that this is imperfect on my part - but at least I'm WAY ahead of Clinton's campaign in that at least I'm trying to base my estimate on some objective, fair fact.

So here's my chart:

The key thing to look at on this chart is the percentage won by each of Clinton and Obama (pulled from CNN's Election Center) and the estimate of turnout.  The "popular votes" (e.g., people who showed up) assigned to each candidate is simply the total turnout estimate multiplied by the percentage won in each caucus state.

So you can see, in MY math, the totals for the primary contests and then the totals for the caucus contests.  So pulling it ALL together (drumroll please):

When you use Clinton's own criteria and apply that criteria fairly, Obama clearly wins the so-called "popular vote".

A Closing Note

Of course, there's only ONE math that matters:

But as long as her campaign wants to distribute misleading (and frankly dishonest), cherry-picked "popular vote" figures, I wanted to set the record straight.

Enjoy your Sunday!

I've seen a lot of great comments in a host of RBC threads lauding Robert Wexler's statement and Q&A with respect to what to do with the Florida Democratic delegates (if you've been living under a rock, Wexler was representing the Obama campaign before the RBC).  People are talking about sending love letters and just loving on Wexler.

So I humbly request that you DO show Wexler some love, and do it in a meaningful way.  Flip over and out.

My mom rocks.  I don't know if you read the diary I posted late (LATE) Wednesday night, but it was brought on by a phone call from my mother, received at 10pm, inquiring as to whether or not I had seen the article (linked in the diary itself) in The Washington Post about the master Clinton-takes-it-to-the-convention plan/theory.  I had not.  So, because my mom rocks (she has a UID here - MsDilloSC - mojo her up if you run across her), I immediately went and read the article, became utterly incensed, and penned (typed) the diary linked above.

She's done it to me again - she sent me a link to Peggy Noonan's latest column in The Wall Street Journal.  Yes, yes - I KNOW Noonan is considered a conservative and I KNOW that she probably has Hillary Clinton issues out of the box - but that doesn't make what she said today any less true.

More after the fold.

I agree with something Rachel Maddow said on MSNBC's coverage of Kentucky and Oregon last night (paraphrased, because the transcript post-11mp EDT is not yet available):

"They're going to have to push her [Clinton] out."

The Washington Post is the first to start writing about what the Clinton campaign is likely really doing, as opposed to what they want you to think they're doing.  I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat here, folks.  And it's best we entertain the possibility (probability) that Clinton has absolute plans to carry on way past June 3rd.  WaPo's article and more stuff over the fold.

I've had an unbelievably busy few days since last Thursday.  Work has been through the roof, and I had two gigs this weekend to boot (for those who don't know already, I sing in a band).  In a way, it's been a forced break from the punditry that dominates network and cable news.

I was exhausted last night, and found myself thinking that I might need to post an apology diary of sorts.  My last diary generated a LOT of responses - from Obama and Clinton supporters alike - and much of it was critical of me personally (and perhaps rightfully) for "stirring the pot" when it appears Obama is so close to securing the nomination.

This morning that wavering changed for me - again - when I listened to Howard Wolfson himself on Morning Joe.  Over the fold with you.

I was greatly disturbed by the "news" coverage I heard on both CNN and MSNBC last night following the highly-predictable Clinton win in West Virginia.  What I can see occurring is the media aiding and abetting what I consider a likely Clinton scenario: to further divide the Democratic party by attempting to define it in terms of race while simultaneously positioning for the May 31 Democratic Rules Committee to literally steal this nomination from Barack Obama.

Today, without a hint of sadness, I declare unequivocally that I, a resident of a swing state, will NOT pull the lever for Hillary Clinton if she successfully steals this thing.

More over the fold.

Like many here, I was totally elated by the time I collapsed into bed on Tuesday night (actually, Wednesday morning - about 1am EDT).  I didn't necessarily think Obama would wind up winning Indiana, but I knew it was close enough.

I woke up, tired, without haing had enough sleep, on Wednesday morning and started going about my day.  I work from a home office and had some solid, legitimate office time planned to catch up on work.  I had MSNBC on in the background and they cut to Hillary Clinton giving a speech at a rally in Sherherdstown, WV.  They cut from there to Andrea Mitchell talking about being on the plane with Hillary Clinton after the IN and NC results had been tallied.

Stay with me over the fold.

I didn't write the headline, nor do I particularly read The New York Post - in fact, I don't think I've EVER read it.  But on Morning Joe earlier today, they held up (as they always do) a variety of newspaper front pages and this one summed it all up for me.

Some explanation after the fold, and perhaps not what you'd expect (or maybe so).

I had a very, very interesting conversation recently with a person I would describe as an undecided (and somewhat detached) moderate voter who would describe himself as an independent.  This has been a running conversation over the past two months, I would say, where my friend would ask me, for example, Obama's position on transportation and I would communicate back some specifics (totally incidental - this friend, who works in the transportation industry, thinks the gas tax "holiday" is not only wrong but dangerous, and he's in a position to know).

It finally came to a core question from him, where he sat back and wondered aloud at the passion behind my support.  This led to the question of what bred that passion.  And interestingly enough, to explain my passion, I went back to the beginning, to before I supported Obama (or any candidate).  I realized in articulating this that it was also my case to the superdelegates (not that I count for anything).  My argument in the extended entry.

This diary is going to be brief because honestly, there isn't much to do with it other than to tell you about it.

The YouTube generation includes superdelegates - and they're asking you to help them to decide whom to endorse.

Flip it baby.

I do.  I know what you did.  I know because I literally just took an hour and went through every last comment in my diary of last night.  And I'm going to TELL YOU what you did - each of you.

So go on.  Click the link.