I want to discuss this phenomena a little more broadly than just as it pertains to the shameful Christine Flowers. I have heard more than once that because Obama is an inspiring speaker but an empty suit. In fact, in our debate with the College Republicans, Mulgrew kept whining "Where are his ideas? Democrats have no plans!"

As I pointed out to Mulgrew, just name the issue and it takes all of 0.04 seconds to google the information you're looking for. Or better yet, go to the candidates websites, and click the buttons that say "issues." I mentioned this in the debate, but if you go to Barack Obama's website and click on the Energy page, a topic important to me personally, you see a detailed overview of his plan. Sen. Obama has an 11 page pdf that you can download that highlights the points of his plan is significant detail. Similarly for the environment page, which offers an 8 page pdf plan.

When you click over to McCain's page, you can find only a single page that covers both energy and the environment, and it is indeed filled with empty platitudes. It contains five short paragraphs that offer no specifics, only vague generalities about protecting the environment and becoming energy independent. I ask you, who is the more serious candidate with the serious plans?

Of course, Mulgrew ignorantly snorted that you "shouldn't use candidates websites for research" (about where the candidates stand? Can someone explain that to me? Mulgrew? wtf?)

Even allowing for Mulgrew's virulent ignorance, I've heard this basic sentiment expressed before. I've even whined about it before on this blog. The bottom line is that when you whine that a candidate doesn't offer enough specifics in a particular speech, you sound like an idiot for not doing some basic research to discover what the candidates positions are. Sen. Obama has a 64 page "Blueprint for Change" that outlines his major policy proposals available to download right there on his website. In fact, here, download it now.

So please, don't let me catch you saying that Obama (or Hillary, but I havn't heard anyone say that) is long on rhetoric but short on details. It only betrays ignorance, and if I catch you, I will call you out! Right Will?

P.S.- I noticed that at the bottom of all of Christine Flowers' op-eds it says "Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer." Does anyone else remember SNL when Tracy Morgan would play Star Jones on The View? "Did I mention I'm a lawyer?!"

Here is the Obama campaign's projection of the post-super tuesday races.



So let's look at his projected numbers versus the actual results since last Tuesday. I compared vote totals rather than delegates because most of the delegates have not been awarded yet. However, the delegates will roughly follow the patterns of the votes.

	Projected Vote %		Actual Vote %		Difference in Spread
	Obama	Clinton	Obama	Clinton	%
Nebraska	60	40	68	32	+16
Washington	60	40	68	31	+17
Louisiana	54	44	57	36	+11
Maine	49	51	59	40	+21
D.C.	58	42	75	24	+35
Virginia	50	48	64	35	+27
Maryland	53	46	61	36	+18

In every single race since last Tuesday Obama's margin of vistory was at least 11 points larger than projected, and often much bigger (I didn't even include the Virgin Islands, where he won 90% of the vote and all three delegates, compared to a projected 2:1 split). I haven't tried to compare delegate totals yet, becuase the actual totals aren't entirely determined yet. Furthermore, only 80% of the vote is in in Maryland, so those numbers may change slightly.

The pattern is clear, however. Sen. Obama has been winning these states by such wide margins that his delegate lead is becoming substantial (substantial, of course, is a relative term in this remarkable primary). CNN's delegate projection has Obama by 25 delegates even if you include super delegates, who are unpledged and amongst whom Sen. Clinton has an advantage. Sen. Obama leads the pledged delegates 1059 to 956. That 103 delegate margin has crossed the important 100 delegate threshhold, where superdelegates would be hard pressed overturn. Sen. Clinton is now in a very precarious position, where she must not only win Texas and Ohio, but with 60% or more of the vote.

You all know I'm an Obama backer, but I want to say a few words regarding my admiration for Sen. Clinton. I'm an admirer of Clinton, and if Obama had not been running, she would have had my vote; an empty pledge, but it's true. I think that she has been an excellent senator, disappointing me only in as far as she has been a cautious leader in anticipation of her presidential run. I wish Sen. Clinton well and hope that she sees Obama's succes not as a rejection of her but as an acceptance of his message. My dream ticket is Obama for President and Clinton for Senate Majority Leader, another position waiting for a female trailblazer.

Oftentimes I only know how I really feel about a decision after it's run its course. When Sen. Clinton lost Iowa I was excited with Obama's win, but I was disappointed for her, personally. However, when Obama lost New Hampshire I felt no personal sympathy for him. Instead, I felt disappointmed for me. That's when I knew I had made the right decision.

Ready to go.

Remember, going into the contest, Obama's team was trying not to lose. They wanted to lose by fewer than 100 delegates, and hopefully win one or more of some key states, including NJ, CA, MA, or MO. Well, it was a mixed bag. Obama lost MA, CA, and NJ by double digits, although this was inline with most of the polling ahead of time. He did manage to squeeze out the narrowest of victories in MO though. Also, he won CT and DE, both east coast states that were going for Clinton not too long ago. The big story for Obama was that he won most of the other states; 13 in all, and 14 if Clinton's 115 vote lead (out of ~130,000 total) in New Mexico can't hold up to the absentee ballots. Clinton, meanwhile, won 8, 9 if she holds onto NM.

Furthermore, Obama won his states by much bigger margins than Clinton won her's, and in our proportional system that's important. Obama had 60% or more in 8 states, including 70% or more in 3 states. Clinton won only Arkansas, her home state, buy more than 60%. This was what allowed Obama to actually win the delegate count despits losing by double digits in CA, NJ, and MA.

Overall, this was probably a very big night for Obama, although that's a testament to how close this race is. Super Tuesday was a favorable landscape for Clinton to knock out Obama early, and he managed to hang around and stretch out the race, even emerging with more delegates.

The good news for Sen. Clinton was that she won pretty solidly in CA, and that her leads amongst women and hispanic voters are holding. She will need that coalition to remain strong in the race, and if she had bled much support from either of those demographics she would have had a REALLY bad night.

Going forward now, things get interesting. Obama has some favorable states ahead in February, and then on March 4th Ohio and Texas vote with their large delegate counts. Clinton has been leading in both states since the race began, but it all depends on how the race plays out. Does Obama rack up a bunch of wins in February and roll through March 4th (mini super tuesday) with the momentum of a freight train? Or does Clinton win some important victories in Wisconsin, Virginia, and Maryland and blunt his attack. We'll just have to wait and see.

In the meantime, it's worth pointing out that Clinton raised only $13.5 million in January, while Obama raised $32 million, which will allow him to advertise and campaign much more aggressively than her in the upcoming states. On top of that, today it was announced that she will loan her campaign $5 million dollars, which is a move that doesn't exactly telegraph strength.

Here is a quick roundup of blog-o-sphere thought on the state of the race. Check these out, they're worth a read, and I had to read a lot of analysis to distill the entire internet into these few links.

Kos says it wasn't a tie, and that the Clinton campaign is "reeling."

Chris has the total delegate breakdown for all the states that have voted so far, including pre-super Tuesday. He doesn't include the projected totals in the chart, only confirmed delegates, but does offer that "It look like Obama will win Super Tuesday by a handful of pledged delegates, and maintain an overall lead of about 20-25."

Booman is taking a very optimistic view for Obama, and lays out how he thinks it will go down. This is more optimistic than I would be, but Booman has been a consistently thoughtful voice, not prone to hyperbole or exaggeration.

Back at OpenLeft again, Chris has tempered his fears about a brokered convention. If you've been wondering how this will all play out with superdelegates and Michigan/Florida, this is a must read.

You can keep track of the final results as they trickle in at the CNN Election Center, but keep in mind how they are allocating delegates.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the Republicans. I guess I would write more, but it doesn't really matter who won last night. After all, does anyone remember which states Bob Dole won on Super Tuesday? Nobody will care about McCain's gains last night either once he loses to the Democrat in November.

The other striking thing about the rally for me was the innovative organizing technique the campaign employed. When my brother and I got through security, there were Obama volunteers handing everyone a piece of paper. It wasn't a fact sheet or a supporter sign up card. Rather, it had a name, a phone number, and a polling place.

As the 5-10 thousand people inside the secure area waited for Obama, a couple organizers took the stage and explained to everyone that the names on the papers were registered democrats who have voted in the last two general elections but not in the primary. They told everyone to take out their cell phones and make one call for Obama.

It was brilliant. A 10,000 call phone bank in 2 minutes. It would have taken 100 dedicated volunteers at least 2 hours to accomplish the same thing. I've never heard of this, and it struck me as a really innovative field technique. Of course, my voter hung up on me, but all through the crowd there were positive anecdotes. He probably earned a few hundred extra votes there, at least. Furthermore, it made everyone at the rally instantly feel like they were a part of the movement, not just a spectator.

Has anyone ever heard of this technique before? I certainly don't remember Kerry doing anything like this.