I have been searching for a way to convey to Clinton supporters how offensive her attempts to change the topic from the Tuzla Fables to the Wright sermons ever since the former undercut her campaign.  If fanning the flames of white racial resentment against Blacks is her only path to victory, she has no path to victory.  It has struck me the old consciousness-raising technique of recasting acts based on race, gender, sexuality or religion as if they reflected one of the other dimensions of difference, may shed some new light here.  Being a Jew who originally wanted Russ Feingold to run for President (despite some misgivings about his electability), it occurred to me that we can examine the legitimacy her actions are by imagining how they might translate to a situation where religion, not race, was the concern.

Join me, then, in the parallel universe where it is Russ Feingold rather than Barack Obama who won Iowa, drove John Edwards out of the race, and now had an insurmountable pledged delegate lead over Hillary Clinton.

In this universe, controversial sermons from Feingold's rabbi have recently come to light.  How might the Clinton campaign respond?

Hard positions have been staked out regarding what the Democratic superdelegates should do if they are mathematically able to determine who wins the nomination for President.  Obama supporters argue that if the popular will -- presumably such a will that supports Obama, and putting aside for now the question of how clearly it can be ascertained -- is overturned by superdelegates, they will leave the party forever.  More credibly and more importantly, they argue that the large number of new voters who appear to be energized by the Obama candidacy -- young Democrats, independents, etc. -- will not come out for Hillary.  Clinton supporters argue -- here, if not as regards Florida and Michigan -- that rules is rules, and that the superdelegates' untrammeled right to choose the President they prefer cannot be taken away at this late date.

Full disclosure: I've been an Obama supporter since shortly after Edwards was held to 5% in Nevada.  I try to be fair about it when it comes to superdelegate voting ethics, though, and I think that there is some room for agreement between these sides.  While many argue that it simply won't come to this, that superdelegates will not overturn the popular will, it certainly seems possible to me that it might.  I expect Clinton to pull back ahead in the delegate count, with the help of Ohio even without the help of Texas, by the time Pennsylvania's votes are counted on April 22.  While I believe that Obama should do well enough in the primaries in May and June to finish with a delegate lead, it's possible that it won't happen, or certainly possible that that lead will be slight.

By considering what the different possibilities are, I think that we can at least narrow the debate.  We won't find completely common ground, but we should find more than one would expect after watching this week's news.  More below.

X-posted to Docudharma

I stand by my pessimism that Hillary Clinton can be driven out of the race prior to substantial losses in the likes of North Carolina, Indiana, and Kentucky in May.  I stand by my pessimism that the Clintons would be better positioned to twist arms in a brokered convention, and that Hillary would win in part by offering Obama the poisoned apple of the Vice-Presidency, which he will turn down.  But it has occurred to me that there is one way that Obama would be able to win over a brokered convention, and it would coincidentally lead to the best ticket and the best government we could rightfully expect.

He can convince Al Gore to become his Vice-President.

x-post from Docudharma for the sake of convenience for readers, as I'm about to go argue with Booman in his diary.

Here are some observations on yesterday's vote.  (There will be more in the days to come now that I have some time back after making around 1000 calls for the Obama campaign.)

Talking about Hillary is the main course in this diary, but would you like to start with an appetizer?  Let's talk about Huckabee.  The venerable NYT announces that Huckabee has been revived with a solid showing in the South.  This is stupid.  Why?  Well, let's take a look at the GOP primary map.  Huckabee is running out of South!

See, the problem with winning mostly just one section of the country is that after that section has voted in its primaries -- it doesn't vote again.  (Michigan and Florida will, I predict, be exceptions to this rule, as the Democrats let them vote again in late May or early June, or perhaps hold caucuses or choose delegates at state conventions.)

So if you look at that map and try to find "South," you'll see that Huckabee has Louisiana coming up on Saturday (I predict he'll win), Virginia (only semi-South these days) next Tuesday, Texas (again not fully South) on March 4, and Mississippi on March 11.  Even if he lasts that long, he won't last long enough to see North Carolina, Kentucky, or (counting the bottom part of the state) Indiana vote in May.  So, Huckabee is not "revived" -- he has, instead, "shot his wad," although I don't think the NYT would include that in a headline.  But they need a storyline, so there they go.  Romney will still finish second when push comes to shove.  I don't think either one of them will be on the ticket, though: look to Govs. Pawlenty or Crist or (my dark horse, if Rudy can swallow it) Pataki for that.

Is anyone else running out of a precious electoral resource?  Why, yes!  Pretend you didn't already read the title and look below the fold.

First diary here!  Crossposted on dKos and MLW.

This post by Atrios, commenting on a post by the sheepishly repentent former pro-war liberal Belle Waring, has got me thinking about Iraq in a slightly different way.  (This may be plowing old ground for many of you, but it's nice to plow again every once in a while to see if anything new pops up.)

I think that Belle is right that "once-hawks" are still often seen as righter than "never-hawks," and among other things that is obviously harmful to the Democratic Party.  For my analysis as to why; follow me beneath the fold.