Since the Pennsylvania primary finished up the night before last there has been a dizzying tornado of spin from pundits about Obama's continuing, "problem," of not being able to break into Hillary's constituency. The loudest of these cries came from Republican pundits, like Pat Buchanan or Joe Scarborough,  incessantly crowing that Obama losing Pennsylvania is somehow indicative of greater problems within his campaign and will surely doom, DOOM him in the fall. This same sentiment is echoed so frequently by the Clinton campaign and its surrogates one would assume it to be a HRC4Prez-approved talking point. Before I get to exactly what about this phrase nearly induces an aneurysm in my brain every time I hear it, I want to take a second to examine Pennsylvania and Hillary's win.

John McCain has prided himself time and again on his, "straight talk," and his no-nonsense attitude when answering questions and delivering policy. In fact, one of his largest complaints about Barack Obama is Barack's tendency to make opaque and unclear generalizations regarding his plans for the country:

To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

His unwavering commitment to specificity is precisely why his latest campaign produced web advertisement is so strikingly bold in it's content:

       Main Stream Media has been grossly exaggerating Hillary Clinton's position in the race for the democratic nomination. They have oft been quoted as saying that the magic number is 2024 and that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can reach this number without the aid of superdelegates (or automatic delegates, depending on which way you're spinning). This argument is flawed in two respects. The first: the current total delegate counts have Obama at 1571 delegates and Clinton at 1470 (according to DemConWatch, but varies slightly depending on who you choose to get your numbers from) with 599 delegates remaining. Speaking purely mathematically, it is possible for both Obama and Hillary to reach the "Magic Number" via the pledged delegates. It is not likely, as he would have to win about 76% of the remaining delegates in every state left (a large margin even by his blowout standards), and Hillary would need to win a whopping 92.5% (if Mississippi splits evenly her required margins increase to 95%). The second flaw in this argument is the fact that it is hypocritical in its composure. Both Obama and Hillary's current totals, and more importantly the ultimate goal post, already factor superdelegates into the equation: 203 and 244, respectively, and 795 for the total. The MSM is trying to frame the discussion about who can run up the majority of pledged delegates while using the superdelegate mile markers. To put this into perspective: in order to get to 2024 if superdelegates had no say whatsoever (which they technically do not) up until Denver, the victor would have to win a pinch more than 62% of the vote, which is obviously a good deal more than a simple majority. This becomes problematic when trying to describe who has won in terms of popular opinion, because the number make it seem like NEITHER candidate has. A few minutes thought can poke the holes in this presentation, seeing as there are only two candidates in this contest, and one has a significant lead, so one must be holding a majority opinion by pure logic.