That in mind, in the wake of the decisive Pennsylvania primary we have some spectacular facts on our side.

1. *More people voted for Hillary.*

Note that it's presumed, as it should be, that every state counts.  It's not incument on us to argue the self-evident and wholly intuitive notion that a comprehensive American vote tally includes Michigan and Florida.  Why wouldn't it?

Rather, it is incumbent on Obama proponents to explain why, contrary to democratic instinct, a partisan credentials committee has discretion to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida (again!) to help Obama because their (GOP) legislatures scheduled the primaries on a different day of the month than the party would have liked.  Further, let Obama's proponents explain the benefit of augmenting the popular vote tally with magic numbers derived from statistical fairy tales about how caucus states may or may not have voted had they held primaries instead of caucuses (as if they didn't already unfairly skew the race towards Obama to begin with!).  

End result:

Hillary supporters note "she got more votes."

Obama camp responds, "2 + 2 = 5."

Win = Hillary.

2. *The popular vote matters more than pledged delegates.*

This should need no elaboration.  Although a diary was recently front paged on Dailykos to arm Obama supporters with the sleights of mind necessary to convince the media that people's votes don't matter, not only was it flawed in its scope (by failing to explain how "pledged delegates" is a more convincing indicator of people's will) but its convoluted pseudo-intellectual narrative rendered it the exact type of technocratic attack on basic universal truths that has come to caricature the far-left.  Fortunately, as many polls have indicated recently, the public and superdelegates are not digesting this reasoning, let alone swallowing it.

Hillary side, "The one who gets the most votes should win."

Obama camp, "2 + 2 = 5."

Winner = Hillary.

3. *Obama is the big risk.*  

The superdelegates' unbridled discretion to pick the nominee of their conscience was instilled into the selection system to prevent a rerun of 1972.  Hence electability is a major concern.  Superdelegates will not want egg on their faces in November for having sanctioned the nominee who is probably the only nominee capable of losing this tailor-made-for-Democrats general election.

Demographics are reality.  Barack Obama is disfavored by women, the largest gender demographic.  He is substantially disfavored by the white, Latino, Asian, and Jewish voters comprising nearly 90% of the country.  His ability to appeal to centrist voters, even in the Democratic party, appears to be highly compromised.

Barack Obama puts the entire rock-solid-Democrat Northeast into play as a battleground, fails to be competitive in Ohio and Florida, and offers nothing in exchange except for a bigger albeit meaningless Democratic margin of victory in the upper midwest and Pacific coast, and an equally meaningless GOP margin abatement in the deep red south and Great Plains.  

His national strengths are conentrated in areas that don't help the Democratic party in the Electoral College.  We can win Illinois by 30% (instead of 15%) and lose Alabama by only 15% (instead of 20%) and still lose the electoral map by deadful figures.  We can't risk New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, forfeit Ohio, Florida, West Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas, and pretend that "having a better chance in Colorado and Virginia" makes up for it.  When you can't even appeal to the center in your own party, how can you appeal to the center at large?

The next time a convoluted explanation of the new Obama electoral map emerges, the response is simple.  He's a huge risk.  How a man who can't even appeal to half of his own party is expected to win the electorate at large is beyond me.  His "new" way of politics (ship that sunk in Pennsylvania, I guess), his "new" changes for government (what are they again, specifically?), his "new" electoral map (lose lots of blue states and try to win Virginia)... it's all hot air.  

"Big risk."

versus

"2 + 2 = 270"

Winner = Hillary

4.  *Obama peaked in February.*

Like an idolized child superstar, Obama rocketed to political celebrity early in the nominating process and experienced an incredible level of awe, support, and admiration.  A tabloid favorite, darling of Hollywood gossip circles, fad-frenzied  college students, academic high society, and all bandwagons of mass trend and fashion, Barack Obama engendered a hysteria so electrifying it has been described repeatedly as "fanatical" and "cultlike."  Like Leif Garret, Macaulay Culkin, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, and others preceding him, Barack enjoyed the rush of limelight and responded with several rock-star quality public performances affirming his seemingly unstoppable charisma.

But we are all familiar with the axiom describing the human & media fascination with "building them up and tearing them down."  In the past few weeks, we passed that inevitable cusp.   As the glitter begins to fade and Barack Obama is confronted with an increasingly pervasive aura of adversity, the enthusiasm has vaporized and he appears unerringly fatigued, agitated, and unable to muster the inspirational tone that set his sky-high standards for eloquence only months previously.  It only gets worse then he's disarmed by the lack of a teleprompter and prepared speech.  Both in the last debate and in interviews in the latter part of Pennsylvania's primary campaign, Obama demonstrated a repeated inability to answer questions off the cuff, suffering through long pauses and uh...'s only to procure some of the most rudimentary and unconvincing responses I've heard on this campaign.  

His own visible dissatisfaction with his now tarnished public image only serves to accelerate his decline.  And, as any of the above washed up child superstars can attest, once the avalanche begins, there is no turning back.  What goes up must come down... and the bigger they are, the harder they fall...

I can't blame him for simply being human.  But when you're only distinguishing attribute in a nomination race is a charismatic allure that better qualifies you to play President on TV than to actually serve in the executive role, it's only a matter of time before the illusion of grandeur and bubbles of eloquent hot air are scrutinized and pierced.  By November, Obama will be looking less like the second coming and more like a political sideshow of "Where Are They Now?"  

So stop that spin dead in its tracks!  And without fuzzy math, decimal point arguments, and junk-academic illogic.  

The themes are simple:

Obama is a big risk.  He peaked in February.  Instead, the candidate with the most votes should win.  Hillary Clinton received the most votes.  

And...

2 + 2 = 4.

Thank you for reading.  

Poll Caucuses are: Suspicious Inherently Biased Anti-Democratic Antiquated Intimidating for ordinary Americans Hard to attend for single mothers Hard to attend for the elderly Downright Weird Votes: 10 Results : Vote Link : Polls