The generally astute and fair Charlie Cook buys the Obama spin on "the Rules:

The Clinton folks shouldn’t be faulted for the arguments they are making: In the big states that will determine the final outcome in November, she has done better than Obama, and she holds on to downscale white voters better than her opponent does. Beyond the fact that both assertions are true, I’d make the same arguments if I were in Clinton’s shoes, as would most of Obama’s strategists if they were working for Clinton.

But you can’t change how the game is played once it has begun. The Democrats have decided that the nominee will be determined by the number of delegates won, not by the popular vote, and that primaries held in direct violation of party rules (in this case, Florida’s and Michigan’s) don’t count. End of discussion.

(Emphasis mine.) There are two problems with Cook's statement. First, the nominee will NOT be determined by the "number of delegates won," (Cook's phrase for the pledged delegates) but by reaching the magic number of TOTAL delegates (Pledged and super), 2214. Second, trying to persuade the Super Delegates to pay attention to the popular vote is NOT changing the rules. Indeed, that is why there is a discussion of the popular vote - to sway the Super Delegates. It is surprising and disappointing to see Cook get spun like that and get the story completely wrong. And a bonus error from Cook - not ALL the contests held in violation of the DNC rules were punished (Iowa, NH and S. Ca also violated the rules, and there is a strong argument that Florida did not) nor did the rules require complete stripping of the delegations).

By Big Tent Democrat.

How sick are you of hearing politicians -- all of them -- talk about change?

The New York Times reports for Indiana voters, talk of change may fall flat. [More...]

My own view is that Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate in November because she is more likely to bring a win in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, she wins in the big states, and she wins with rural, blue collar and women voters. Her win in PA yesterday was a mirror of her win in Ohio.

Barack Obama simply is not connecting with these critical groups of voters.

Lanny Davis today gives his reasons. The New York Times will have this article on who can better win the swing states in tomorrow's paper -- and this one on electability.

Why do you think Hillary is stronger -- or not-- against McCain in November? The superdelegates need to know.

Here's the latest electoral map for Obama. Here's the map for Hillary. (Hat tip to My DD.)

What does John McCain really think about Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania win? Here's the memo his campaign sent out today (no link, received by e-mail.)

To: Interested Parties
From: Rick Davis
Date: April 23, 2008
Re: Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Results

The race for the Democratic Nomination will continue.

Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last night has extended the primary to the next round of contests (Indiana and North Carolina on May 6) and has maintained the competitive nature of the race.

With her 10-point victory, we should expect her poll numbers and resources to increase in the coming days. Primary wins, especially in the 2008 election cycle, have had a direct impact on the national polling numbers for the candidates and when national polling numbers increase, so do campaign donations.

[More...]

The North Carolina Republican party unveiled an ad today against two Democratic gubernatorial candidates. The ad attacks Barack Obama because he remained in Rev. Wright's church. You can view it here.

John McCain and the national Republican party are calling for it to be removed. But, it's nothing compared to the Willie Horton ad by the 527 group the National Campaign Fund (Floyd Brown)attacking Obama for refusing to vote for a bill that included the death penalty for gang members. You can view it here.

Brown says the initial effort, a 60-second spot called "Victims" will be aired later this month in North Carolina and e-mailed to between 3 and 7 million conservatives this week, with a plea for more funding to further spread the message. "All of the efforts I have ever done in my life have been significantly funded," Brown claimed, though he declined to describe the size of the purchase. "This is going to be the most Internet-intensive effort for an ad debut ever."

Barack Obama should be praised for his vote against the death penalty for gang members. Similarly, I praised him for his vote against the federal anti-gang bill here. ABC News reviews his objections to the Illiniois bill:

Since I was one of the first proponents of a Unity Ticket and I was hooted off the stage by both Obama and Clinton supporters for even suggesting it I have to ask; anyone change their mind and agree with me yet? February 8 post calling for a Unity Ticket:

By Big Tent Democrat

Ezra Klein treats his readers like rubes:

In mounting a furious -- but basically hopeless -- campaign, however, Clinton is exposing Obama's weaknesses, but not gaining any real advantage from them. McCain's folks, by contrast, might have previously suspected that they should target white, economically depressed states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, but now they have a precinct-by-precinct map of where Obama underperforms, ready narratives to activate in their negative campaigning (they don't have to grope around to create a line of attack), and a media thats now convinced of his vulnerabilities.

(Emphasis supplied.) You gotta be kidding me. Maybe Ezra did not know about the geography and the demography, but I can assure you the Republicans did. Talk about disrespecting your readership.

No endorsement (I have not had a chance to read it), but here is Lukasiak on the election.

Via Kos and Todd Beeton:

On MSNBC a few minutes ago Terry McCauliffe announced the Hillary Clinton campaign raised $10 million online "with 50,000 brand new donors" since the polls closed in Pennsylvania last night. "The biggest day we've ever had." An impressive amount by any measure and, as I wrote last night, a clear sign that people do not want this primary to be over.

BTW, and speaking for me only, Kos is right that it is ridiculous to claim Clinton is winning the popular vote right now. Excluding the caucus states and giving Obama zero votes for Michigan is absurd. We can get an exact count if Iowa, Nevada and Maine release the numbers they have in their possession.

By Big Tent Democrat

Blogometer cites Right Wing blogger Matt Lewis on the so-called Liberal Media:

A close friend of mine (who also happens to be a liberal) is now a frequent [Townhall.com] reader. Why? She's supporting Hillary, and for the first time ever, she and I see eye to eye on things like the liberal media. She has always viewed herself as a liberal, but now she is seeing first-hand just how quixotic and dangerous the Obama supporters are."

This is bad reasoning. Being pro-Obama as the Media is does not make the Media liberal. The Media shares the Wingnut hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Media is not ideological. They are not conservative or liberal. They are merely biased and incompetent.

There is no evidence that Barack Obama is more liberal (or progressive if you prefer) than Hillary Clinton. There is not a dime's worth of difference on the issues (other than health care) between them and it is undeniable that Obama is the High Broder Unity Schtick candidate. I have said it often, there is nothing more unfathomable to me than the notion that Barack Obama is the Great Progressive Hope.

You might be familiar with my posts on Boehlert's Revenge. I am now adding a corollary to it - when you embrace, encourage and accept the narrative that Hillary Clinton is an atrocious person and public servant that no real Democrat could possibly support, you become open to this interpretation of electoral results:

[T]he implication of Judis's piece is that these voters don't simply prefer Clinton. Rather, they're anti-Obama.

When you argue, embrace, encourage or accept the argument that no one could possibly support Hillary Clinton for any reasons other than racism, you invite the logical conclusion that any vote for Clinton is in fact anti-Obama.

John Aravosis links to a Dr. Jeffrey Lewis of the New America Foundation on the Clinton "umbrella of deterrence" proposal. Aravosis quotes Dr. Lewis saying things that strike me as not only wrong, but nuts. Dr. Lewis provides three rules: [More...]

More essential reading from Adam Liptak -- the lead paragraph says it all:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.

The U.S. leads the world in imprisoning its population: 751 people are in prison for every 100,000 in the population. Russia comes in second, with 627 out of 100,000 behind bars. The numbers for England and Germany are 151 and 88 per 100,000, respectively. Why are the U.S. numbers so high?

Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

How is America's "lock 'em up" mentality perceived in the rest of the world? (more ...)