*I think you get the point of this article, which is to suggest that there’s no real good measure,*

Indeed, I’m emphasizing it. It has NEVER been about the popular vote, that’s a talking point Clinton used to emphasize how much trouble she could cause, and to boost her buyout price. The award of MI delegates to him was arbitrary, but essentially meaningless. The supers were waiting for the end of the primaries to declare, but their minds were made up before then, and had he not gotten the MI delegates he would still have gone over the top this week. Had that not already been settled, MI delegates would likely never have been counted at all…until the convention, after Obama had sealed.

http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/04/hillary_whered_it_all_go_wrong_6933.php

I think you get the point of this article, which is to suggest that there’s no real good measure, because once you start down this rabbit hole, well, “How about giving Obama all the Michigan uncommitted votes since he got all the uncommitted delegates? And what about those caucus states?”

Also, Hillary should have stopped at this line, “there are large numbers of the party not on Obama’s side, and that she has some significant sway with them.” I would have been fine with that, but she didn’t stop there, and she’s proven that once again in this campaign she’ll make a completely intellectually dishonest argument to try and fool the voters.

You don’t get from A to B without claiming votes that were not cast for Obama. Not that it matters–delegates are what counts, and Clinton’s pounding on the popular vote has never really been a quantitative argument at all, other than one of size, where close counts almost as much as ahead.

The point Clinton has been making all along is of course that there are large numbers of the party not on Obama’s side, and that she has some significant sway with them.