I've decided that I am going to employ Hillary Clinton logic to declare that I am by far the most active blogger, and that since I have the most blog posts on this site, I am the most logical candidate to be declared the Supreme Ruler of Popehat. Explanations after the fold…
It should be made clear that 68.754% of my support for Sen. Barack Obama is derived exclusively from my intense loathing of Sen. Clinton as a human being. But even for someone like me, that just can't stand this woman or her husband, you have to give her some points for effort. We all know that she's been making the case to super delegates that she is the most electable because if you only count the votes in states that she approves of, she has more popular votes than Barack Obama.
“I’ve been closing very strongly since Feb. 20,” she said, referring to the day after Mr. Obama won Hawaii and Wisconsin. “I have won more votes and won more states than Senator Obama. All the independent analyses break in my direction. A lot of the key states that we have to win, I win those states.”
Really Senator? If we throw out the first 38 states that voted in this primary season, you've won more states? That's your argument?
How about addressing the fact that you don't seem to be the stronger candidate because you can't even win your own party's primary. Does Harold Ickes have some faux outrage to express on that question?
If I was Obama, I'd be damn sure that I had 25+ currently uncommitted supers on that stage with me tomorrow night so that I crossed the new magic number during my speech.