Obama Winning The "Important Big Swing States"

More great news for this morning. Remember all that Hillary spin about Obama not being able to win "big states that matter" because she won the primaries in a couple of them (she included Florida you may recall, even though that primary didn't mean anything)? We now that the primary is finally over, and now that Obama has actually had a chance to focus on the issues and actually campaign in Florida, his numbers have shot up, just as I said they would all along. Let's take a look at the latest numbers from Quinnipiac:

Florida (This one is for all those skeptics that had written off Florida for McCain. I told you so!)
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 43%

Ohio (So much for Obama's much-hyped "blue collar problem")
Obama (D) 48%, McCain (R) 42%

Pennsylvania (Yeah, remember all the "problems" he supposedly had there? Weren't real.)
Obama (D) 52%, McCain (R) 40%

For some reason most of the pundits and analysts keep underestimating Obama's performance in countless states, like those above, and keep referring to them as "leaning McCain" or Florida, "strong McCain", when in fact they are toss-ups, or even likely wins for Obama. I always thought those showed a not so great analysis of the likely electoral breakdown, so hopefully this poll will help make the predictors put these states into the "toss up" category at the very least, or maybe even "leaning Obama".

Hillary's Lead In Ohio Cut To Single Digits

The official results from Ohio were just released, and as is usually the case Obama got more votes that originally reported by the media (and as is always the case the media will never mention the change). Originally it was thought that Hillary won by 10.4%, but after they counted provisional ballots her lead dropped to only 8.8%, the difference? Her proclaimed double-digit lead versus a single digit lead, in a state that was made for her. Just like Texas which she actually lost, yet it was reported that she won. Just like Pennsylvania which it was reported that she won by 10%, when she actually won by single digits. The numbers aren't all that different, but the perceptions are important, especially for the media spin.

Going forward what does this mean? It means that in the total popular vote Obama has gained 26,022. Will these get included in the "official" numbers? Doubtful. Will these be included in Hillary's measures of the popular vote? Hell no. It raises a question though, in so many races Obama has gained after ALL the voters were finally counted, and this was a significant amount in many places, like New York and California. But were the updated numbers added to the "official" popular vote totals used by the mainstream media? Who knows, but I really doubt it, that is a little too "nuanced" for the media.

Update (5/12): My prediction was confirmed, this morning the Today Show made a passing mention of Hillary's "10% win in Ohio". But hey, I guess it isn't the job of the media to keep their facts straight.

Update (5/13): Obama gained two pledged delegates from all this.

About Last Night…

Last night proved a couple of things:

• The media is weak, and when Hillary throws a fit about the media being unfair (even when they haven’t been) they try to compensate by dutifully throwing every bullshit attack they can at Obama, using talking points straight from the Hillary campaign.
  
• After last night’s wins for Hillary, the same media bias that allowed her to still be taken seriously after 11 straight loses (by big margins) kicked in again to make her small victories last night seem like a big deal. It is more true than ever that the media is PATHETIC at putting anything into its proper context and giving the public the full picture.
  
• Voters are idiots. They are easily manipulated by lies and deception, mostly because they don’t pay attention, so they don’t really know what is going on. This is nothing new, the Republicans have been exploiting ignorance like this for decades, and now Hillary has found that she has a knack for the same kind of lies and exploitation (to say nothing of blatant fearmongering).
  
• No one in the media or the Clinton campaign can count to 10.
  
• Hillary will keep on stabbing our party in the back, while continuing to distort reality, and in the end, all for nothing.

So first, the context. After his Super Tuesday wins, Obama won the next 11 states in a row. He won these by large margins, the smallest of which was 17% in Wisconsin. He won states all over the country, and even Democrats overseas. He expanded his existing pledged delegate lead to around 160, which doesn’t sound like much in the big scheme, but it is really huge given that getting a delegate advantage is hard because it takes big wins. So after all these defeats Hillary said defiantly, “Meet me in Texas!” and then a few days later when it became clear that her Texas firewall was not really a firewall anymore, she said defiantly “Meet me in Ohio!”. These were supposed to be her big comeback states, her impenetrable firewalls. Back just a few weeks ago, before Obama had set foot in either state, Hillary had big leads over Obama, 15-25% leads. In just a few weeks, despite Hillary throwing every dirty cheap shot and lie she had at him, Obama managed to cut those 15-25% leads down to the wire. As far as goals went, going into the March 4th contests Hillary needed huge 20+ blowouts in BOTH Texas and Ohio to even have a chance at turning it around (and even then the math didn’t favor her).

So now the results. Obama only lost Texas by four points, and that is just the primary, with the caucus added he is likely to win MORE delegates than Hillary in Texas. Texas was supposed to be a big comeback, a firewall, and she almost lost it. Obama lost Ohio by 10 points, which in context was very impressive given it is a populous state, tailor made for Hillary’s target demographics, and given that just a few weeks before he was more than 20% behind. So Obama won big in Vermont, pretty much canceling out Hillary’s less impressive win in Rhode Island. Texas is basically a draw in delegates, or even a net gain for Obama, so that doesn’t save Hillary from delegate oblivion. And her Ohio win will give her a small handful of delegates. At the end of the day, Hillary’s delegate gain is probably in the single digits. Assumptions are that she’ll end up about 150 behind Obama, and with the two biggest post-Super Tuesday states spent, she doesn’t have any more cash cows to try to milk. Essentially she is worse off than she was yesterday morning. Dylan Loewe recently summed it up nicely over at the Huffington Post:

But Hillary's spin, and the media adoption of that spin, will do little to change an even starker reality this morning: Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama's pledged delegate lead was substantial before Texas and Ohio and will remain materially unchanged in its aftermath. He has cut Clinton's super delegate lead in half since February 5th, and is expected to roll-out as many as fifty more throughout the next few weeks.

So why is it I turn on the TV and hear nothing but pundits regurgitating Hillary campaign talking points like they are going out of style? This morning I heard almost nothing but talk of "Hillary’s big comeback", how this "changes everything", how it is now "anyone's game", how "the momentum is now with Hillary", and how "Obama maintains he is still winning" (said exactly as if they were reporting that Mike Huckabee still maintains he is going to make a big comeback, despite the fact Obama is still obviously way ahead). So really, what the hell is going on? The math is even more against her today than it was yesterday. Three small cosmetic victories after 11 huge loses (none of her victories last night, even her easy win in Rhode Island were nearly as big as his smallest victory in that 11 win streak), with barely any measurable change in the numbers against her, and all of the sudden the media is playing this like Obama got his ass kicked, like voters are questioning Obama now, like voters have rejected Obama, even though he wasn't even supposed to come close to beating her in these states just a few weeks ago! The media also likes to point out how Obama outspent Hillary 2-1 in these states, as if that somehow makes her wins in her firewalls somehow more impressive, and Obama's defeat somehow more stinging. I wish they could use their flair for context by pointing out he had an uphill fight against her and Bill in two states that were strongly tilting for Hillary just weeks ago. But no, I’m sorry, that would show a huge media bias in favor of Obama. It is kind of the same way the media saying there are no WMDs in Iraq is liberal bias in favor of Democrats (and coincidentally anti-American and pro-terrorist). But the media is so afraid after Hillary’s tirades about bias and two stupid and ridiculous SNL skits, that they need to overcompensate some more by biasing everything ridiculously in Hillary’s favor. I’ve previous written about how the anti-Hillary media bias argument is total rubbish, and that if anything the media has been utterly submissive to her campaign by failing to so much as question her experience argument (the foundation of her entire campaign) at all. Now these complete and utter distortions of reality are further proof of those in the media tripping over each other to see who can do their job the least effectively. They have gotten to the point where they are doing little more than repeating words straight out of Hillary’s mouth.

Here is a fun example of something the media has been parroting today. Last night in Hillary’s 3/4 victory speech she said "We need a candidate who can win swing states”, and went on to list every state she won (of course, all important, and all swing states apparently -- what happened to the 27 contests Obama has won, who knows?). Now I couldn’t agree more with Hillary, we DO need a candidate who can win swing states. However, I’m sorry to say Hillary, that isn’t you. While the media is hard at work making Hillary’s superior electability "conventional wisdom", lets try a different approach and actually use our heads. So here is Hillary’s list of swing states (states that matter) according to Hillary:

• Florida – A swing state, yes. One that Hillary can win in November? Not according to the polls. But then neither can Obama according to the same polls. What is important here is that Obama hasn’t campaigned in Florida yet, so his numbers are likely to rise significantly in the general, whereas Hillary and McCain are already well known there. So it says something that even given all of the advantages in Florida that Hillary enjoys, she can’t do any better against McCain there than a lesser known Obama.
  
• Michigan – Even though Hillary "won" Michigan unopposed, she can only hope to tie (44%-44%) McCain there in the general, while Obama wins Michigan easily 47% to 39%. So much for primaries equaling general election chances.
  
• New Hampshire – Not what I’d call a swing state. But since she brought it up, according to the polls Hillary can only beat McCain there 43% to 41%, while Obama can easily beat McCain, 49% to 36%, not even close. Again, the data doesn’t back up Hillary’s ridiculous claims.
  
• Nevada – Not a swing state, that’s a red state, and neither Democrat needs to carry it. But for the record, Obama can, and Hillary can’t, once again. Obama beats McCain easily, 50% to 38%, while McCain easily deposes of Hillary, 49% to 40%. Again, Hillary is dead wrong.
  
• Arizona – I hate to break it to you Hillary, but Arizona is a red state, and home to John McCain, do you really think you are going to carry that in November? Don’t think so. And it isn’t a swing state anyway.
  
• Arkansas – Not a swing state, another red state. This is her home state, if she could carry it, great, if not, oh well, doesn’t really matter. I haven’t seen any polls on this, but it really doesn’t matter.
  
• California – Am I supposed to be impressed you can carry California in the general? Dennis Kucinich could carry California in the general. Just because you beat Obama by a not very big margin (especially considering her boost from the early voters), doesn’t mean Obama can’t easily win California. And for the record, Obama actually does better than you in California. Hillary beats McCain by 23%, Obama beats him by 27%.
  
• Massachusetts – Not a swing state, same as California, any Democrat could carry it so I’m equally not convinced it matters.
  
• New Jersey – Same as California and Massachusetts.
  
• New Mexico – Not a swing state, but for the record, even though Hillary barely won their primary, she loses the state bad to McCain (50% to 38%), while Obama actually has a decent chance of winning this state (tied, 44%-44%). Again, Hillary is trying to deceive voters by saying she is more electable because she won these primaries.
  
• New York – Definitely not a swing state, and even though Hillary won the primary here, and even though this is her “home” state, Obama actually does much better in NY than Hillary! Hillary only beats McCain by 11%, whereas Obama beats him by 21%. Ouch..
  
• Oklahoma – Not a swing state and there is no way in hell either Dem will carry Oklahoma in the general.
  
• Tennessee – Basically the same as Oklahoma.
  
• Ohio – An actual swing state, woo! But uh-oh, even though Hillary just won here, Obama actually does better in the general! According to the polls Obama narrowly beats McCain, 48% to 47% (I bet he can do better in the general though), while Hillary loses 51% to 47%. There goes that theory Hillary!
  
• Rhode Island – Not a swing state and either can easily win this.
  
• Texas – Not a swing state, it is red and neither need to win it, and neither probably can.

So as we can see, Hillary’s argument that she is the best to beat McCain in the general based on her winning "swing" states, or "big" states, or "important" states, simply does not hold any water whatsoever. It is obvious she can’t carry the states she has won nearly as well as Obama can, and most of the states she has won are either states any Democrat could carry in the general, or states that she can’t carry in the general. Yet nevertheless, no matter how obvious it is that her "states that matter" argument is, the media dutifully eats it up, shits it out, and serves it to the voters like it is gourmet. My question is, why? Are they really that stupid? Do they not know any better? Are they so lazy they don’t do any research? Or are they purposefully dropping the ball to help Hillary, or, are they doing it so Hillary doesn’t yell at them again or so the big bad SNL doesn’t make fun of them again? It is hard to say, because the media has always been incompetent, even in matters totally unrelated to politics, but at least in the beginning of this race, they were equally incompetent and lazy toward both candidates. However, now that Hillary has attacked them for apparently not being lazy enough, they are working overtime to pander to Hillary, while they recycle every bullshit anti-Obama non-story or accusation that comes out of the Hillary campaign in order to overcompensate for some pretend past lapse in scrutiny. And so we have them going after Obama based on distortions and conjecture, while there are tons of painfully obvious questions they should be asking Hillary, but refuse to, for instance:

• What exactly about your “35 years of experience” is so superior to Obama’s experience? And be specific.
  
• When have you been tested in the sort of crisis situation you refer to in your “3am ad”? (and after she can’t come up with an answer) Then do you think it is unfair to attack Obama as being untested when he has been tested just as much as you?
  
• Why do you refuse to release your tax returns before you secure the nomination? Obama released his months ago, why do you refuse, especially considering you put $5 million of your money into your campaign?
  
• Nearly all of the general election polls have consistently shown you would have a hard time beating John McCain even in blue states, like Minnesota, the only state to vote against Reagan in 1984, whereas the same polls consistently show Obama easily beating McCain. Give this, how do you explain this contradiction with your claims of superior electability, and if you really had the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart, wouldn't you want them to nominate the most electable candidate?

But anyway, we can’t really count on the media to do its job, so what can be done? Well I’ve been trying to do my part, as have other bloggers, by trying to set the record straight. Obama has done an amazing job at running a clean campaign, no matter how many dirty shots Hillary, Bill and their campaign take at Obama, he takes the high road. People often fail to realize that he has basically done all of this with one hand tied behind his back, because unlike Hillary, he cares about what is best for the Democratic Party, and doesn’t want to stab a colleague in the back. Well now there is evidence that the gloves are coming off (or I guess you could say he is going to untie his other hand). From campaign managed David Axelrod last night:

If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.

Uh-oh, the obvious response to her bullshit attacks against Obama: let’s take a look at what’s in the Clinton closet! Here, according to the Associated Press:

A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama's team will respond to Tuesday's results by going negative on Clinton -- raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons' past.

Now I don’t like it being called “going negative”, because unlike Hillary, they aren’t seeking to make up issues, or distort facts, deceive the voters, or resort to the other types of underhanded negative tactics of the Clinton campaign, they are simply going to start pointing out the obvious facts that the media has failed to do, and that they have avoided doing up to this point for the most part. Asking her about the tax records isn’t negative, it is fair. Asking where their money is coming from since they are financing parts of their campaign with it isn’t negative, it is about transparency and accountability. Obama has also directly indicated that he intends to start pressing the obvious questions that Hillary has gotten a free pass on:

I hope people start asking, what exactly is this foreign experience she is claiming," he said. "Was she handling crises during this period of time? I haven't seen any evidence that she is more equipped to handle a crisis.

She made the experience argument and her ability to handle a crisis, so I think it is important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it," he added. "She has made the argument that she is thoroughly vetted. If the suggestion is somehow that on issue of ethics or disclosure or transparency that she is somehow going to have a better record than I have or could (better) withstand Republican attack, then that should be tested.

I couldn’t agree more. Fired up! Ready to go!!

Kucinich Still Feels The Love

The big winner of last night's election: Dennis Kucinich (and John McCain, but I'll get to that later). He was able to easily hold his Congressional seat against attacks from multiple non-progressive assholes. Ohio continues it's long sucking streak, but at least they kept Dennis around, that was much more important than a cosmetic victory for Hillary.

Wake Me When It's Over

I can't stand to hear the punditry try to spin this race into cotton candy.

These are the facts:

• Hillary lost 11 races in a row, and lost them bad.
  
• Hillary is so far behind in delegates, that even if she won Texas and Ohio by 10 points each, she couldn't even begin to start catching up to Obama.
  
• Almost all of the states ahead favor Obama, tonight was Hillary's last chance to pick up a lot of delegates, and she didn't do it.
  
• Hillary positioned Texas and Ohio as firewalls, they were supposed to stop Obama dead in his tracks and be her big comeback. It turns out he either did beat her, or nearly beat her, in Texas, and came pretty close in Ohio. That's not a firewall, that is tissue paper.
  
• The pundits are tripping over themselves to ask if this is a repudiation of Obama, a rejection (this is mostly Joe Scarborough, a Republican douchebag), a sign he can't seal the deal, while they are overlooking the obvious fact just a few weeks ago he was behind in both of these states by 20-30%, and now he has all but destroyed that margin, and just in a few weeks, while Hillary was desperately throwing everything she could at him. That is NOT a repudiation, that is NOT a loss of momentum, he kicked her ass considering where he was just a short time ago.
  
• The pundits won't shut up about needing to win big states in November, while totally overlooking the fact that winning a primary doesn't reflect the general election outcome. Look to the polls (and use a little common sense), and while far off, they still show that Obama is MUCH stronger in almost every state (with the exception of Florida, where Obama hasn't been able to campaign yet) than Hillary against McCain. I don't know if these people are trying to be deceptive, or if they really are that stupid.
  
• The pundits are right about one thing, Hillary staying in this race is hurting the Democrats, and if she keeps this up until Pennsylvania, it is going to tear the party apart. Someone said it, I don't remember who, probably Olbermann or Matthews, but someone raised the question, if Hillary goes on, does this not show that she cares more about herself than she does about the party. Thank you for catching up, that much has been obvious for weeks now.

Having said that, I have to get up early tomorrow, I can't stand to hear these idiots try to find any reason to say Hillary's campaign has an ice cube's chance in hell of winning, so I'm going to try to sleep. I'll go over the results in the morning..

Hillary Takes A Page From Bush's FEMA, Fakes The News

So it turns out that the Hillary campaign has come up with yet another unethical underhanded tactic in this campaign: faking the news. Apparently there is a radio ad out in Ohio meant to sound like a news report from the Associated Press.

The fake news ad proceeds to distort the facts surrounding the hyped up factless Canada-NAFTA "controversy" in an attempt to make it sound like Obama has been deceiving voters, even though there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. The "news piece" also fails to point out the Clinton campaign was implicated in the original report for the exact same reasons (to be fair, equally without evidence). Details details. The "new document" in question is nothing more than a memo written by a low level official at the Canadian consulate in Chicago describing (erroneously according to the Obama advisor in question) a conversation with an Obama advisor concerning many things, one of which was NAFTA. The Clinton ad makes it sound like they were quoting the Obama advisor, when in fact they were just quoting the words of the low level Canadian official, which the Obama advisor in question has said in no way reflect what was actually said.

The Canadian Embassy has backed up the Obama campaign's side of the story, and Liberal leaders in the Parliament angrily accused conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper of helping to leak documents that misinterpreted Obama's position. PM Harper has since distanced himself from the memo in question. CTV, the Canadian network that originally broke the story, has also changed its story multiple times, further diminishing the credibility of the claims. Democrats in the US have accused the Right-wing Canadian government of trying to interfere in American politics in order to help the Republicans win the election. Yet despite all of that, Hillary is not only lying to voters about the story, she is now trying to make voters think these lies are coming from a trusted news source. Here is the transcript of the fake news report, with my commentary added:

This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP (deception). While Senator Obama has crisscrossed Ohio giving speeches attacking NAFTA, his top economic advisor was telling the Canadians that was all just political maneuvering (lie). A newly released document from the Canadian government (exaggeration) shows that Obama’s senior economic advisor met with the Canadian Consul General and made clear (lie) that Obama’s attack on NAFTA were just, quote, “political maneuvering,”(lie) not policy (lie). Political maneuvering, not policy (lie repeated). In fact, the document shows (lie, it actually "shows" nothing) that Obama’s advisor also assured the Canadians that these attacks against NAFTA would not continue (lie). Obama would not want to be, quote, “fundamentally changing the agreement.” (deceptive, neither of them want to "fundamentally" change the agreement, this is consistent with what Obama has been saying all along) As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada (lie). How will Ohioans decide whether they can believe Senator Obama’s words? We’ll find that out on election day. Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President. (true)

(lie by omission: Hillary was implicated as telling the Canadian government the same things:

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.")

I don't know which is worse, completely misrepresenting what amounts to hearsay in an attempt to smear a fellow Democrat and likely nominee, or resorting to faking a news report to do it. Probably the former, but only because there is little worse than backstabbing your own party out of spite and damaged pride.

Update: There has also been questions swirling around whether or not Hillary's campaign darkened Obama's image in their ads in order to make him look "blacker". Interesting. I know better than to put anything past them now. Check it out. It should also be noted that the ad itself is one giant (and hypocritical) distortion, as usual. Honestly, would we expect any less?

"Meet Me In Texas--err Ohio--errr...Somewhere!"

Before the dust had even settled in the Potomac after her crushing one-two-three defeat there on February 12th, Hillary had a new challenge for Barack Obama: "Tell him to meet me in Texas. We're ready." Beyond Hillary characteristically diminishing the worth of the states she had just lost (which we've come to expect), she even managed, in one sentence, to diminish the worth of two states she hadn't lost yet, Hawaii and Wisconsin. Burn.

So Hillary was all set to make her last stand at the Alamo. "We're ready" she taunted, with arrogance strongly reminiscent of Bush's ill-fated "Bring ‘em on" taunt to the Iraqi insurgency just months after invading Iraq. Cut to 5 years and 4,000 dead American soldiers later, it seems the arrogance was a little presumptuous. And as with many other instances as of late, as goes Bush, so goes Hillary.

By the morning hours of February 22nd, just 10 days after her "meet me in Texas" taunt to Barack, she sounds a little different: "You know, I'd love to carry Texas but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee." Quite the change in rhetoric from the person who just a week before was explaining to the country that people in Texas represent most Americans more than the people in places Obama has won. So what happened in those 10 days that caused Hillary to throw Texans under the bus before they even realized they were supposed to count? Well it turns out a lot of things.

First, for a candidate running on the message that only one candidate (her, supposedly) has the experience to be "ready on Day One", she has run a pretty horrible campaign. She somehow managed to start the race off with every possible advantage, and lose it all to a candidate who came into the race with nearly every possible disadvantage, and she managed to lose it bad. In Texas this failure first took the form of not knowing, until recently, about the unique Texas prima-caucus system that was going to make it nearly impossible for her to rack up a strong delegate lead over Obama there (oops). This isn't too surprising coming from the same person who failed to read the NIE report on Iraqi WMD (or lack thereof) before following Bush like a little sheep and voting to allow him to invade Iraq. Next, her organizing in Texas has been crap, just as it has been in most other states. Their on the ground effort in Texas has been described as chaotic, aimless, and more colorfully, "a clusterfuck". The Clintons also seemed to have the benefit of one of Texas’ historically black universities having its polling places taken away, yet in an amazing display of democracy in action, thousands of black students marched over seven miles to the nearest poll to vote and protest disenfranchisement.

Secondly, she again underestimated the unmatchable appeal of Barack Obama (while at the same time vastly overestimating her appeal). In state after state we have seen that she can only lead in places where he hasn't spent much time, but as soon as he sets foot on the ground and starts meeting with people, they love him. The most time the Clintons spend around people, the opposite happens. In Texas, Obama quickly went from being behind by double digits to shooting ahead of Hillary in the span of a couple weeks. He also got the endorsement of all five major Texas newspapers. In less than two weeks, Obama has made what looked like a safe, if narrow, win in Texas for Hillary, into a very possible win for him. So where does Hillary go from here after both Bill and Chelsea have said that Texas is a "must win" state for Hillary (no matter how many times her campaign denies ever saying it is "must win")?

Well the very next day after diminishing the importance of Texas in her grand strategy, Hillary gives us a hint of what’s to come: "Meet me in Ohio!!"

You can't make this kind of irony up.

Oh, and Ohio isn’t looking all that great for her either.

Wait for "Meet me in Rhode Island! We’re ready!!"

"Encuéntreme en Puerto Rico!"

Any day now…

Update: The trouble keeps on piling on for Hillary. Former Democratic Texas governor Mark White endorsed Obama today saying he believes Obama has "essentially become America's candidate. You see people from all walks of life, rich and poor, every color reflected, every ethnicity. There's enthusiasm, hope. He will not only be nominated, he will be elected president. He will be America's president."

Update from the Future: Well, Hillary ended up just narrowly winning the primary in the firewall of Texas, yet got her ass kicked in the caucus, so really Obama won Texas, came out with a couple more delegates, yet the media reported it as a huge Hillary win. Now it is "Meet me in Pennsylvania!"