Though the tortured logic of the Clinton campaigns efforts to move the delegate-count goalposts has been laughably transparent - bordering on pathetic - it seems that football is, perhaps, the wrong sports metaphor to use.  

George Will, of all people, says it best . .

She may think, or at least would argue, that when she was 12 her Yankees really won the 1960 World Series, by standards of "fairness," because they trounced the Pirates in runs scored, 55-27, over seven games, so there.

Unfortunately, baseball's rules -- pesky nuisances, rules -- say it matters how runs are distributed during a World Series. The Pirates won four games, which is the point of the exercise, by a total margin of seven runs, while the Yankees were winning three by a total of 35 runs. You can look it up.

Now we'll leave unaddressed the question of whether the Yankees are hers or not . . . let's just chalk it up to one more politically expedient misrepresentation of the truth.  The best parts of Will's scathing deconstruction of Clinton's 'logic' is further along.

More unexpected Will humor after the jump.

This from HuffPost

Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.

I like what I heard this morning on NPR.  Its possible to like the candidate but hate the campaign.

Can someone explain to me how it is that we can collectively ridicule the Bush administration for sequestering themselves inside the echo chamber of their own message machine and then question the value of Obama and Clinton going on Fox News?

Is it wise to allow our animus toward the messenger to blind us so thoroughly that we forsake the possible benefit of reaching out to those (the viewers) who we may not otherwise reach?

It is counterproductive to declaim - repeatedly and shrilly - that Barack Obama's imperfections as a candidate for President of the United States are inconsequential, or the fabrications of his opponents or of the media, traditional, faux, main stream or otherwise.  
It is dismissive of the electorate who votes for Clinton in the primaries.  It is unresponsive and dangerous to imagine that voters' reluctance to fully endorse Obama is not real and heartfelt.  It needs to be addressed.

Peggy Noonan says it bluntly in the WSJ:

Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem.

Jimmy, I love that Bill Richardson is fighting back.  I love that someone has the vertebral fortitude to tell you that you have become a caricature of yourself, that while once you fought for principle, now you have become the enforcer of some kind of code of personal loyalty rather than our collective self interest.

What is the greater good here Jimmy?  Do you really believe it is acceptable to destroy your fellow democrat in a desperate attempt to nominate your patron?  How can you allow yourself to so quickly abandon your sense of what is RIGHT in pursuit of what is EXPEDIENT?

Say it ain't so . . .

I'd say that we bloggers are, collectively, in the vanguard of political analysis and critique.  Let's keep up the good work and continue to shape the dialogue.

I posted the following diary on 11 March, four full weeks ago.  The points I made then about Obama's superior strategic vision and organizational skills, are now being distributed as original thinking by the MSM.

ORIGINAL DIARY

Changing the Obama v Clinton meta-narrative
by RadMod [Subscribe] [Edit Diary]
Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:16:28 AM PDT

Who was more ready on Day One of the Primary Season?  Who had a more effective strategy for assembling enough delegates to secure the nomination?

The candidate who'd been running for 5 years or the new guy?  Who has been consistently outflanked by a tactically superior, innovative operation?  The answer is obvious, look at the delegate count.  Yet . . . . .

The rest of the original diary after the jump. . .

We need a plan of ACTION, not words.  

I do not believe that Hillary Clinton will concede before the convention.  It is not in her nature.  It would run counter to everything we know about her.  She intends to use every tactical and procedural option at her disposal to secure the nomination.  She is proving, with her actions, that she is, has always been and will continue to be a formidable opponent.  

As a liberal who welcomed the election of Bill Clinton to the Presidency, after what seemed like an eternity wandering in the electoral desert, I appreciated her and Bill's strength in standing up to the 2nd generation Atwaterites who tried to bring them down.

It is possible to simultaneously admire her single minded pursuit of her goal in the face of overwhelming odds and dislike her for the very same reason.  But that doesn't mean that I want her to be my nominee . . .

I am white, male, careening toward 50 . .. . the demographic at which, I imagine, the latest Clinton / Ferraro race-baiting strategy is targeted.  I'd like you to know, Senator Clinton, that I'm having none of it.  I'd also like you to know why.  Not that you care.

There is plenty in my life to suggest that I'd be sympathetic to the idea that a black man has gotten an unfair leg up.  Neither of my parents, the children of immigrants, went to college . . hell, my father didn't graduate from high school.  I grew up among other Italian-Americans in a town almost completely white and Catholic, surrounded by the casual racism that arises from ignorance and ethnic isolation.  I recall, as a little boy, attending mass in another town and seeing a black family in another pew.  I'd never seen a black person in church, and asked my parents, in the car on the way home, if they were Catholic.  I was five.  And I was blessed . . .

Admit it, you're a little worried.  Can he . . . will he counterpunch . . . . effectively?  Has Clinton exposed a chink that can be successfully exploited, first by her in the next six, debate free weeks and eventually by the Republicans, even if she still falls short?

Stay with me here . . .

Who was more ready on Day One of the Primary Season?  Who had a more effective strategy for assembling enough delegates to secure the nomination?

The candidate who'd been running for 5 years or the new guy?  Who has been consistently outflanked by a tactically superior, innovative operation?  The answer is obvious, look at the delegate count.  Yet . . . . . .

Take it from a NE Patriots fan, you have to play the game for 60 minutes, whether you like it or not, regardless of your previous record. If you don't, the team from NY might pull off a miracle and send you home deeply disappointed.

Blame who you will, (evil Clintonian wedge politics, neophyte Obama operatives, the MSM interest in supporting the Democratic catfight storyline etc.) but fact remains that the meta-narrative of the Democratic primary has shifted to favor Clinton.

What I hold most dear about this Republic of ours is its stability.  Like a great ship, it can be buffeted by global storms and tidal currents but for the most part it stays steadily on course.  It does not turn on a dime at every election.  It does not lurch from extreme to extreme.  The body politic will not allow it.  It lumbers on toward the horizon, making minor course corrections.

So how does this relate to gerrymandering? . . . . . .

Let us dance briefly in celebration  before beginning to dismantle and repudiate the vast Rovian mechanism of arrogant cynicism, hypocrisy and divisiveness