where Hillary's argument takes us -

I just want to add my bit and maybe hear from others on how crazeee it's gotten. Like many Kossacks my head often has that feeling that it is ready to explode. This symptom is a result of the conflicting ideas and "facts" bombarding us. So I am going to try to lay out the logic of this campaign.

I visited this list of delegate totals at CBS. Obama netted more delegates in Washington DC than Hillary did in Pennsylvania (9 vs. 8). The fact is her win in PA was NOT that valuable.

Jon Stewart's riff on her argument is is so right on. See DJShay's diary. The fact is Hillary's version of logic is pretty well "whatever works today - to hell with what I said yesterday."

My version of the logic of the primary campaign follows:

Hillary wins big blue traditional States. check

These States have big traditional Dem Party organizations. check

These States are reliably Blue in federal elections. check

These big blue States cannot guarantee the election for the Democratic nominee (see election 2000/2004). check

Obama creates excitement and high turnout in some red to purple States. Something Hillary is not capable of doing. check

Winning in a few red to purple states is necessary to win in November. check

Obama CAN ALSO win in the big blue States. check

Well, he can unless our pal Clinton and her cronies really, really, really!!! work him over. So that can be the only logical conclusion to her continuing. She needs to make Barack Obama radioactive.

This might explain his being less than overjoyed at the ABC "debate." It was a game of Gotcha - and Obama was IT. See Toquedeville's diary where [he] outlines how the MSM is going after Obama and why.

The DNC has to turn off the lights because this party is over. Unless the DNC also wants Obama to glow in the dark!

Is that where we're headed?