(Before I begin I will acknowledge that the "they" in question -- the Clinton campaign -- have been making (stuff) up for a while now, as the Tall Tale from Tuzla sure illustrates).
But the latest claim, from some guy named Daniel Baer, stretches a key point of this campaign beyond its breaking point.
In the course of an opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, Baer, identified as a Clinton supporter, claims that the primary/caucus season is producing nothing more than a "virtual tie."
The direct quote is as follows:
In wooing superdelegates, Obama's campaign must make the case that he can go the distance, withstand Republican attacks, and reach beyond the core demographics that have supported him in caucuses and primaries thus far.
Here's where the Clinton campaign's counterargument comes in: Her wins with key Democratic constituencies in large states and swing states, and a possible popular-vote edge, provide a compelling reason for superdelegates to tilt her way.
But this, too, is only part of the story. The popular vote, like the delegate tally, is likely to be a virtual tie. And while her wins in critical swing states are significant, it is difficult for either candidate to make conclusive arguments about general election viability based only on performance in primaries or caucuses.
Let's go to the counts and do some math:
Per CNN, Obama has a 1413-1242 -- or 171 delegate -- lead the pledged delegate race. If you want to go by percentages, that's a 53.2% -46.8% split.
I think the "popular vote" count is somewhat tangential to the story -- if it were popular vote that ultimately mattered, we'd just hold a single, national primary -- but Obama, as we know, has a large lead there as well: per RCP, Obama has a 13.4 million-12.6 million vote lead -- good for a 49.5% to 46.9% margin.
Folks this isn't Florida coming down to a hundred votes one way or another. This is a competitive race with a solid victor emerging. And to return to that Florida analogy, it is clear that Clinton wants the superdelegates to play the role of Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O'Connor, and Kennedy. As we know from 2000, that's thievery, not democracy. To quote the clown those guys elected (the guy in whose footsteps Clinton seeks to follow):
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . . uh . . . we won't get fooled again.
It is a puzzle is how such drivel made its way onto the op-ed page of a reputable newspaper. What's more, Yahoo picked up the piece as well. (And Yahoo is typically terrible about distinguishing "news" from "opinion").
At any rate, at least the CSM has a "contact us" link through which one can let them know what you think of this.