First an endorsement of The Cranberries. Man, Zombie, Linger and Just My Imagination are awesome.

Anyway. A lot of diaries have been created decrying how Senator Obama seeks to win the Democratic Nomination.

Welp, that covers this part... oh? Oh... yeah. Oh! Other diaries that at least seek to explain why they're decrying Senator Obama utilize the bogus slam that "Obama can only win by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan." They further say that Senator Obama doesn't want to allow Montana, Puerto Rico and South Dakota to vote, also disenfranchising millions of voters.

Innocent but largely bologna. Diarists are basically moving the goal posts again. Which brings us to tonight's big number.

Utilizing Senator Clinton's comments, we'll come up with just how many states Senator Clinton would have loved to disenfranchise if everything went according to her plans:

It'll be over by February 5th.

It's clear that this election they're having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything

Senator Clinton obviously seeks to not let the contests play out, even after it clearly being "over" by February 5th - or so she hoped and planned. Furthermore, she clearly shows her intention to not utilize Florida or Michigan to cross the threshold of 2,025 Delegates and instead wishes to seat them at the convention, a move similar to the one Senator Obama now intends.

So no contests after February 5th and the exclusion of Florida and Michigan. Just how many states did Senator Clinton intend to disenfranchise before it became impossible for her to win without them and when it became obvious her plans to win by February 5th were thwarted?

Twenty-nine states and territories. Tonight's big number. It of course pales in comparison to the two Senator Obama wishes to not see added since they were unsanctioned and unfair contests - but that's irrelevant, Senator Obama. Your intention to play by the rules is scorned now that the goal posts have been moved by Senator Clinton.

Obviously this Clinton talking point is a joke. There's no disenfranchisement intended by not seeing the contests played out. More often than not, the nominee is decided so soon that these contests are irrelevant. And South Dakota, Puerto Rico, Oregon, Kentucky and yes, even Montana, are irrelevant to deciding our party's nominee (read further down to see why).

Furthermore, there's no disenfranchisement intended by not seating unsanctioned and unfair contests - they're illegal and a poor method by which to gauge support for either candidate. The international standard by which contests are deemed fair requires that candidates be allowed to campaign within the territory, state, province, country or nation. That's why when May 31st rolls around, these contests won't influence the outcome of the nominating process - they'll likely be given half-delegations if anything. Iowa and New Hampshire must remain sacrosanct; even more important, two illegal contests cannot determine who will win.

Simple as that.

Why Winning West Virginia Was Irrelevant

Another big Clinton talking point and one you'll see thrown at hapless Obama supporters looking to disenfranchise people is the following: if Senator Obama is the presumptive nominee, then why can't he win West Virginia or Kentucky? Just why did he get blown out there?

This is a talking point that will be effective if someone can't get a word in edgewise, but once you do, you can point to the history of this nominating process and most importantly, look at the demographics.

Pink/Purple - The Obama Nation. Hah. Get it? Hey... wait a second.
1. The Purple West. Many are caucus states but regardless, even if they were primaries, Senator Obama would capitalize and win here.

2. Oregon. Many people are foolishly helping the media craft another story: that Oregon is close and possibly "within 5" for Senator Clinton. The tough reality is Oregon will deliver big for Senator Obama - and more than 10 delegates, making Senator Clinton's win in Kentucky which was already irrelevant, even more so. Oregon is apart of Obama's demographics and that won't change if Senator Clinton puts a windmill on every corner.

3. The solid, deep south. Lots of African-Americans, lots of "disregarded turf" by Senator Clinton. These are the areas where Senator Obama once again ran up the score. Why? Because Senator Clinton did not contest them. Whereas Senator Obama contested Senator Clinton almost everywhere, Senator Clinton not only disregarded these states but even insulted them as second rate.

4. Boswash and its surroundings. Again, a large African-American community and, further explained below, a demographic that helped keep the contests of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut relatively close.

5. Fucking traitors. I mean. Just a random patch of Obama territory that I'm not in the mood to explore.

Small note: I added Michigan since it's an unsanctioned contest and a contest that would fall into Senator Obama's demographics if he was allowed to campaign there. In fact, he wins the state now. Anytime you have people voting overwhelmingly for uncommitted, you know the person that wins doesn't really speak to them and isn't "one of them".

Green/Lime - Clinton Country
1. The South West and First Lady Syndrome. Areas that would favor Senator Obama perhaps under different circumstances (or Another Universe). Senator Clinton receives these areas because she was First Lady of Arkansas and because of the Latino vote which favors Senator Clinton at a decent clip of 65-35 with minor fluctuations.

2. Kentucky. It falls in Appalachia. Senator Obama could go into this state and give each person one hundred dollars but the likelihood of him winning would still be slim to none. I mean, what the fuck can you buy with one hundred dollars? I mean... oh. Yeah. Back to the topic at hand. If Senator Clinton had dropped out a week ago, this state would still vote considerably for her. It's apart of her demographics and they don't see Senator Obama as "in-tune" or "one of them", yet, and they likely won't.

3. Appalachia. It's hers. It will be hers. Senator Obama failed to pivot to the center fast enough to ever contend here as well as he contended in other Clinton-favored areas.

4. Florida. Supplanted by New Yorkers, filled with Cubans and a large contingent of Jews, this favors Senator Clinton, although, since it's an unsanctioned contest, we don't know how well Senator Obama would contend her. I believe 60-40 is the benchmark and 55-45 is possible.

So this map shows the areas that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton excel in. As you can see, Senator Obama is popular in the deep south, Midwest and purple west. Senator Clinton on the other hand takes the southwest, Appalachia, the Rust-Belt and, if it was 1775, the Middle Colonies.

The point is: Senator Clinton was destined to win West Virginia, regardless of whether it was held on January 4th, February 5th, November 10th or Christmas. The demographics are hers. Appalachia is hers.

Furthermore, Senator Obama supporters aren't trying to say they're winning overwhelmingly. No one is saying Senator Obama is winning overwhelmingly. No one expects Senator Obama to win overwhelmingly.

From the moment those 12 victories happened in February, where Senator Obama went on a winning streak in states that favored him, the realities have been the same: that Senator Clinton is not going to lose by millions of votes or millions of delegates.

But what was predicted to happen was that Senator Clinton would not be able to win a single state that is in Senator Obama's demographics, Senator Obama would not win a single state that was in Senator Clinton's demographics and Senator Clinton would not be able to ever surpass Senator Obama in the one metric by which the Democratic Nominee is decided: Delegates.

Senator Obama played his cards right and spun like mad to sell a very reasonable metric: That delegates represent the will of the people and to "supposedly overturn them" would be akin to overturning the will of the people. Something not true, but which Senator Clinton would never be able to trump because she had a staff filled with failures.

Senator Obama opened up a 150 delegate lead that has done nothing except fluctuate sparingly one way or the other - it currently is in the 160s. Nothing Senator Clinton has done has changed that - in fact, since March, she has won exactly 6 delegates. That's the change from March. The unfortunate part of that amazing accomplishment of netting 6 delegates in twelve contests is that she's lost her Superdelegates lead and has in fact, a net loss of around 50 in the last couple of months.

So the reality on the ground was never going to be "Obama wins every single state out." That's a media fabrication and narrative designed to sell newspapers. The one true reality is that Senator Obama spent the time, the money and the resources needed to win big in his demographics, whereas Senator Clinton dilly-dallied and failed to capitalize in states that favored her. In twelve contests, Senator Obama opened up a 150 delegate lead; in another twelve, Senator Clinton could barely scrape up six.

To showcase this very simple reality, one need look no further than February 5th. This was the evening Senator Clinton "expected" to wrap the nomination up; her arrogance and her failure to choose people who were winners rather than loyalists led to her drawing the night, thus allowing Obama to capitalize later on.

But look at the home states. Senator Obama won his home state by more than 30 points.

Senator Clinton barely managed to get a 15 point swing out of a state that she's representing. Both Illinois and New York are big states. But who capitalized? Senator Obama. If you can't even carry New York big, how can you expect to win the game that's being played: getting delegates.

And Senator Clinton acknowledged this game, although foolishly - that it was about delegates and getting to 2025. Later on, they'd change their tune but by then, it was far too late.

The Demographics in Another Universe

This map just points out three areas that could've differed and in fact, differ now:

1. The Southwest. Despite the overwhelming Latino population, Senator Obama's demographics include these states and, in most polling conducted now, he carries these states, both against Senator Clinton and against Senator McCain, with the exception of Arizona, which is a home state. Senator Obama looks to capitalize in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado (which he carried) to achieve at least 24 Electoral Votes in the fall - enough to win if he keeps the Kerry map. California is one of those states that Senator Obama would have loved to have seen have their primary go later on in the nominating process - it's a state that loves someone like Senator Obama and was trending towards him. Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, Senator Obama favored campaigning in many states and not just California.

2. Missouri and Illinois are places where Senator Clinton would do well if Senator Obama didn't exist, something I'm sure many people wish was true ;). In fact, Senator Clinton polls better than Senator Obama in the bellwether of Missouri now.

3. Boswash. The "megalopolis" that stretches from Boston to Washington D.C. is a span of cities and suburbs that favor Senator Obama - it's why he did well in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Washington D.C. and Maryland. If Senator Clinton didn't exist and he was running against someone as equally difficult from another home state, he'd dominate all states that have a piece of Boswash in them.

There are other areas where in another universe, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton do well. But Senator Clinton and Senator Obama lay claim to unique experiences - one can lay claim to heritage in Kansas, Illinois and Hawaii; the other to New York, Pennsylvania and Arkansas. These are blips that make the demographics screwy - if Senator McCain wasn't from Arizona, for instance, Arizona would certainly be one of those states that would be a battleground state.

So demographics don't explain everything and they don't guarantee victory - but when you have two equal opponents running against one another and the differences are minor, it's the demographics that have remained true despite the media spin. Senator Obama isn't going to win Kentucky; Senator Clinton isn't going to win Oregon.

Senator Obama isn't going to win by 500 delegates and 5,000,000 votes; Senator Clinton isn't going to suddenly be a loser if she can't win South Dakota and Puerto Rico.

She lost in February. Not because she's a bad person - but because she failed to contest Senator Obama in his demographics as well as he contested her in hers. Who's fault is that? Most would love to say Senator Obama. Or caucuses. Or hippies.

But my next section analyzes this with blunt force trauma to the noggin.

The Only Person to Blame is Senator Clinton

Simple. To the point. The only person to blame for Senator Clinton losing the Democratic Nomination is not Senator Obama, Mark Penn, rhinoceroses, marmosets, 9/11 or her being a woman and the media being sexist.

It's Senator Clinton. Any and all excuses lead back to her. Her Iraq War Vote. That was not anyone's fault except hers. The hiring of Patti Soylis Doyle, Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe and the myriad of losers that call the Clinton campaign their home are not anyone's fault except hers. Poor campaigning is Mark Penn's fault, along with Ms. Doyle's but again - those all inevitability lead back to one, single person: Senator Clinton.

And speaking of inevitability? Senator Clinton's fault. She was arrogant; she thought the race would be over by February 5th. She didn't understand the method by which delegates were apportioned half as well as she should have, she dismissed red states, small states and caucus states out of hand and believed that winning the heavy-hitters of California and New York and Massachusetts would lead to victory.

She believed Iowa would be essential; she spent millions there, squandered more on irrelevant and frivolous buys that would make competing elsewhere difficult and finished third behind Senator Edwards.

Some people like to mock Senator Obama, thinking Senator Obama believes it's been over since Iowa.

In reality, it has been. Iowa set the tone; Iowa set the stage. Without Iowa, Senator Obama would be nothing. But because of Iowa, Senator Clinton is nothing. She handicapped herself and never recovered.

So the only person who cost Senator Clinton this nomination is Senator Clinton.

She was inevitable. She was the favorite. She was the most-qualified. She was the most experienced.

But so were the Patriots against the New York Giants. So were the Oklahoma Sooners when they went up against the Boise State Cowboys. So was Goliath against the young Israelite and future king, David.

But as all those aforementioned teams and people showcase, the underdog wins every once in awhile and it's usually because of the hubris of those favorites they face.

Make sure to recommend if you think it's a decent diary! I think too many of the diaries on the recommended list involve the petty and trivial without enough substance; hopefully mine does.

Tune in for Part III which explores the following:

The Myth About Popular Vote

• "One Man, One Vote"
  
• Senator Clinton's Math

Changing Goalposts: An In-depth Look

• Superdelegates
  
• Electability
  
• Electoral Votes versus Delegates
  
• The Real Method by Which to Win
  
• Addressing Threats of `Not Voting'