Jane Hamsher, who I otherwise enjoy reading, gave this obtuse sentiment voice last week with a piece for the Huffington Post. It was a rather insulting piece, accusing Richardson of "political opportunism" (a foolish claim, as his endorsement would have been much more valuable before Texas) and talking out of both sides of his mouth.

I have long thought that this argument was self-evidently absurd, but since not everyone's as clever as I am, let me explain. Richardson, and other advocates of the "vote-with-your-state" idea, want ALL super delegates to honor the will of their states. Does Hamsher really believe that if all the other superdelegates signed a pledge to do that that he wouldn't as well? Of course not! Richardson, and every other superdelegate, won't unilaterally disarm, however. Is Hamsher advocating that superdelegates vote as they wish, unless they are Obama supporters, then they have to vote with their state? I should hope she isn't, and yet, it's effectively what she is asking of Richardson.

Now, up until now, when I heard people saying this I didn't make a fuss, and just chalked it up to a zealous defense of their candidate. Sure, when I heard bloggers write it and think they had discovered a clever nut I just made a note to take them less seriously in the future (See: Armando; Armstrong, Jerome; Marsh, Taylor). On Monday, however, I read that Clinton had actually dismissed Richardson's endorsement by making precisely this argument, in a meeting with the Daily News editorial board. She called it the "Obama Theory."

This all made me curious as to how the superdelegates would breakdown if they all did abide by what Clinton dismissively called the "Obama Theory." I took the superdelegate list from Wikipedia, so caveat emptor, but it jived with the DemConWatch blog and the Politico's.

There are a number of ways to run the numbers, so I present three scenerios. The first, is for only states that have already voted, the second is for all the states, with upcoming states allocated according toBowers' projection, and the third is the most generous scenario for Clinton, using Bowers' projections again, but giving her wins in Indiana, Oregon, and North Carolina.

These numbers are if all superdelegates vote according to how their state voted, regardless of the position of the superdelegate. That means that Governers, DNC members, and Congressman vote according to their state. If you wanted to dice it up finer, and count them by there precise constituencies (ie states for governers, districts for representatives, etc) be my guest, but I certainly don't have that kind of time. Here is how it breaks down:

	Obama	Clinton	Diff.
States that have already voted	316	297	Obama by 19
All states, likely projection	365	360	Obama by 5
All states, Clinton wins IN, OR, and NC	324	401	Clinton by 77

So, considering that Obama will be going into the convention with a 100+ pledged delegate lead, he will still win the nomination under Clinton's "Obama Theory."

The next time someone chides John Kerry or Ted Kennedy for endorsing Obama, ask them if they really want all the superdelegates to embrace this option.

One of the earliest arguments that I remember in favor of Sen. Clinton was that she would run a capable campaign and not let down Democrats in October and November. The argument I heard from Clinton supporters was as follows:

• The media, as it has done in the past, will jump on any minor misstep or gaffe by the Democratic candidate in the fall, and turn a body gesture or awkward phrase into the downfall of the candidate.
• Obama is inexperienced as a candidate on the national stage, and thus is more prone to making an amateur mistake.
• This country will suffer four more years of "surging" in Iraq, inaction on global warming, and right wing supreme court justices all because Obama slipped up in late October.
• Sen. Clinton has been under the media spotlight for so long that she understands the danger in minor embellishments or how small mistakes can take down candidates, and under such high stakes, we should go with the candidate who won't fumble on the one yard line.

Now, after nearly four months of primaries I haven't heard this line as frequently from Clinton supporters, but it's still around. Obama has shown himself an able candidate who handles crisis deftly. It has been observed frequently recently that had Sen. Kerry addressed the despicable swift boaters similarly to how Obama handled the Rev. Wrigth media flap, he'd be up for reelection right now.

This Tuzla episode, however, should sow real doubt into the minds of Democratic Clinton supporters, in my opinion. The obvious consequence of her running on a platform of experience is that she has had to embellish what is, frankly, not a career built on foreign policy. She will be under even more pressure to pad the resume against Sen. McCain, a man who has been on the foreign relations committee so long that he actually does remember the Alamo.

It would be the height of tragedy if Sen. Clinton won the nomination and then lost the general election (you know, the one that really matters) because the media discovers another dramatically enhanced tale of Clinton's foreign adventures. All the concern about Obama fumbling on the one yard line has been for nothing through four months of an intense primary. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton is playing out my nightmare for the general.

Of course, I'm sure that Armando, Jerome Armstrong, and Taylor Marsh weren't making that argument. Actually, come to think of it, I should check their archives...

Here's the Tuzla story from CBS:

We all remember the Brooksian red state/blue state dichotomies. This op-ed was entirely unremarkable in that regard, and at the time I didn't feel it needed a response (although the following week a rebuttal was published). So I forgot about it. Until last night.

Because last night was a fitting retort to the op-ed, and indeed to the recent years of corrupt Republican rule. For Mr. Mulgrew, Hastert was the picture of America while Pelosi was an out of touch aristocrat presiding over a party doomed to irrelevancy. My, what three short years can do!

Democrats won back both chambers of congress in 2006 of course. In the process we learned just how morally corrupt the Republicans were, including that Dennis Hastert had covered up Republican congressman Mark Foley's attempted child molestation. We also learned how Hastert, as Speaker, used a federal earmark to build a highway through property he owned in IL, earning him a hefty $1.5 million profit at taxpayers expense.

Of course, we could go on, but you get the point. We are now at a place where Republican politicians and their morally bankrupt agenda are so toxic that they can't even win the vacated seat of their former speaker in a solidly "red" district.

Bill Foster is an accomplished scientist, having worked at Fermilab and on the IMB proton-decay-detector (which also helped confirm the existence of the neutrino). He is a the perfect example of the Democratic support for science and rational governence, contrasted with Republican faith-based-corruption. Congratulations to him for his victory, and to Senator Obama for his victory in the proxy fight with Mccain.

The only way I could possibly end this post is by quoting, in it's entirety, the final paragraph from Mr. Mulgrew's op-ed three years ago.

Keep up the good work, Dems! You're only making our job easier. In '06, there are more Democratic senators running for re-election in states Bush won than Republican senators running in states Bush Lost. Good-Luck!"

This other part of their endorsment also struck me as petty and foolish.

But during Thursday's debate, Obama made a major gaffe in incorrectly stating that he had received endorsements from every major newspaper in Texas. We may not be considered a "major" paper to many, but we represent a crucial constituency of close to 50,000 young and enthusiastic voters, and we've been scrutinizing every move of the candidates leading up to today's endorsement. Sure, Obama took many under his spell when he graced our city with his presence early in his campaign, but we think he prematurely considered his work in Austin done.

The Daily Texan may have a large student readership, but let's be clear; newspapers don't represent anyone, they just reach people. The Daily Texan does not speak for students at UT at Austin. Those students did not join a club or sign a paper authorizing the Daily Texan to speak for them. The editors would be advised to recognize their appropriate and legitimate role, and not claim to speak for whom they do not.

Now, I am personally supporting Sen. Obama in this primary, but I want to emphasize that my displeasure does not stem from the endorsment, but the petty and immature reasons behind it. It they had endorsed Sen. Obama for in such a manner I would have reacted similarly, and listed reasons why I support Sen. Obama. So in that spirit I would like to list a few reasons that one might support Sen. Clinton.

1. She is indisputably comfortable with the complexities of her policy proposals. Sen. Obama is clearly also a bright man with a firm grasp of the details, but Sen. Clinton is a wonk at heart.
2. Sen. Clinton was a workhorse, not a showhorse in the senate. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton had the opportunity to spend much time in a Democratically controlled senate before the campaigns began, so neither had a real chance of enacting major legislation. However, Sen. Clinton is by all accounts a deft legislator (although Obama was quite accomplished in the Illonois statehouse).
3. Sen. Clinton has withstood the Republican attack machine. Voting for Clinton would be a move to deny the right-wing smear machine a scalp.
4. Her close personal experience in the White House was probably functionally equivalent to being Vice President for 8 years.

Of course, I have chosen to support Sen. Obama for a number of reasons, of both policy and politics, but that is neither here nor there. My point here is that the Daily Texan wrote an embarrassingly immature endorsement of Sen. Clinton, and I have confidence that Drexel's student paper, The Triangle, wouldn't make such a silly move.

Newspaper endorsements can only ever influence people if the editors describe the reasons behind their endorsement, and someone finds those reasons compelling. No one in their right mind would decide to support a presidential candidate simply because their student paper has chosen to. If anything, this endorsement will lead members of the University of Texas at Austin community to take the editorial positions of the Daily Texan less seriously, not more.