Political Insider

How has he lost control? He has a majority of the popular vote, pledged delegates and total states won, and it's nearly impossible that any of that could change before the convention. He also consistently has more of her supporters on board for the general election than she has of his, and is crushing her among independents, moderates and the young, who will ultimately choose the next president.

This is a ridiculous line of reasoning.

Here are the delegate totals from last week:

Obama Clinton
OH 66 75
RI 8 13
VT 9 6
TX 99 94
WY 7 5

Total 189 193

In addition, Obama gained 4 additional delegates out of California, based on updated tallies, he gained 3 super delegate endorsements, plus the election of the House candidate he backed in Hastert's old seat.

So in short, he increased his delegate lead over Clinton in pledged delegates, and narrowed her lead in superdelegates. How is that a bad week -- except that he lost control of the media narrative.

But the media narrative has been remarkably wrong in this election season.

I agree with Toby, by accounts of what we're supposed to be measuring, delegate wins, he's ahead. I think this needs to become the new narrative. He should play off of 2000, when Al Gore so graciously accepted defeat, based on how the system works, he didn't have enough delegate votes, and neither does she.

He should begin to frame her as a spoiler and sore loser by staying in the race when she's behind in the count and unlikely to catch up.

The question is, how do you sew the seeds to get this message out and dominate the media story again?

Sometimes I wonder why, Mr. Goddard, in your posts I perceive excitement on your part by the prospect of the candidate with fewer pledge delagates using "confusion" as a tactic to come from behind to win the nomination, or playing hardball politics over the next six months in order to win at a brokered convention. What kind of narrative is this that brings a Democrat to victory? The chances that it will work are slim and it's really hard for me to feel any enthusiasm for that kind of public power struggle.

Neither of these tactics seem to me to be building blocks that will help a Democrat win in November. If we really want to rid our country of Bush policies and politics, how does this behavior help the cause? Is a Clinton nomination that important?

Can you explain this to me? I just don't get it.

What are you talking about??? His response to her offer of VP for him was just right. He's ahead and she's offering him second place!!!! Just another dirty trick from the Clintons who are an embarassment to our political system.

It's offering a house for sale that you don't own.....

I actually liked Obama's response to the VEEP offer...if he is not qualified to be prez, why would he make a good VEEP. I think an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is a disaster. They cater to the same general audience--rabid dems, who will vote for either anyway. Just like McCain would be an idiot to pick a ring winger like Romney (and I pray he does do just that) the Dems need to expand the appeal with the VEEP pick. Obama should pick Richardson (moderate Governor of a purple state) and Clinton should pick Evan Bayh (moderate governor/senator of a red meat state).

I agree with you that he needs to again have large audiences. However, there may be security concerns at this time. There are might forces who do not want Obama's message of Unity/Hope to suceed as that would be too powerful and they would be unable to control the masses.