RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY DANIEL FINKELSTEIN IN THE TIMES
I think you are correct, Daniel, the math favors Obama.
Many of the public do not understand that when they announce victories in these primaries, it is not the same as the system of the outdated Electoral College in the actual election - that is, winner take all in each state.
These primary delegates are shared proportionately to the vote, so, for example, Clinton's slim "victory" in Texas means she made no gain at all on Obama.
There will be a "marketing" kind of pitch made about who can pull in big states if things are close later, but that is a less-than-convincing kind of argument.
You must always consider that Clinton has been on the national scene for fifteen years. Most of this is not experience of any meaningful kind, but it translates into what marketers call "name-recognition."
As of two or three months ago, Obama was virtually unknown to Americans in general.
His rise in this regard is nothing less than spectacular.
Clinton's latest results are truly only a bump in the road, not a fundamental change in direction.
But an unfortunate one if she maintains her ugly attack style of content-empty campaigning.
The Republicans will record every word and gesture for editing and playback later.
