In another article I just posted, I said this:

Pro-Obama pundits, including Gov. Bill Richardson, are pointing to Obama's "commanding" lead in pledged delegates, the popular vote, and campaign funds.  They also claim that more than half of Democratic voters support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.  Certainly that may be the case after the remaining primaries are recorded, but does Obama really have a commanding lead?

Does Obama really have a commanding lead?  That seems to be a good question worth looking into and answering with some thought.

We have been told by the DNC that Michigan's and Florida's delegates will not be seated at the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver because they did not abide by DNC rules that forbade them to move the dates of their primaries.

Without out any doubt, it seems to be fair to say that the Democratic Party in Michigan and Florida did violate DNC rules, but what is debatable is whether their delegates should be counted in such a close and contentious election.  Should Clinton and Obama reach the end of the primary contests and neither of them have the pledged delegates necessary to win the Democratic nomination, why not come to some resolution to count the votes in Michigan and Florida?

By now, analysts and experts agree that it's too late to hold a "re-do" election in either Michigan or Florida and that to do so would be costly.  The DNC has said that Michigan's and Florida's delegates will not count, end of story.  But what about the potential for defection among Clinton's supporters in Michigan and Florida in November if Obama is handed the nomination after such a close race in which neither candidate has the pledged delegates to "legitimately" win by will of the majority?

We are talking about millions of voters out there that will not be counted in two key states.  In 2004, John Kerry carried Michigan by only 3 percentage points (51%-48%) and lost Florida to Bush by only 5 percentage points (52%-47%).  In a re-do election, Clinton is expected to do very well and some "keepers of the math" say that if they were to be counted, she could easily catch up to Obama in pledged delegates and surpass him by thousands in the popular vote.

That brings me to this point:  what if the Democrats had held a winner-take-all delegate system, like the Republican primaries and the general election?  Here is a breakdown of what we would be looking at today if that were the case:

Winner-take-all scenario
* I created this chart myself, so if there are any errors, please let me know.

As you can see, Clinton clearly leads in pledged delegates, 1,705 to Obama's 1,365, and super delegates, 2,068 to Obama's 1,803.  I even gave Texas' substantial number of delegates to Obama and accounted for two important cases:  one with Florida's and Michigan's delegates being counted and one with Florida's and Michigan's delegates being discarded.  Even without Florida's and Michigan's delegates, Clinton leads in pledged delegates by 27 delegates.  The magic number is 2,025 and Clinton tops that threshold with 2,068 total delegates.

I'll ask again, does Obama really have such a commanding lead?  After all, in the general election, it is winner-take-all and the popular vote is always trumped by the delegation of electoral votes.

Consider the states that make the difference in the scenario picture above, California, New York, and even Pennsylvania.  In a winner-take-all scenario, Clinton is a decisive winner.  Additionally, in a situation in which Florida's and Michigan's delegates are counted, she reaches the threshold for the nomination and even has a lead in the popular vote.

Of course the remaining states are not accounted for, although many have speculated that she will win Indiana and Obama will win North Carolina.

Nevertheless, in the present situation, Obama's lead in delegates and the popular vote is apparent but not indicative of certainty, a word that his supporters in the media are trying to attach to the nomination despite the fact that millions of voters have and will continue to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Obama has yet to "close the deal" for a number of reasons and that will aide Clinton's argument that she is still a serious contender for the nomination.  Her prospects are nearly as plausible, if not more credible, than Obama's, which rest on his accumulation of slightly more delegates and popular votes.  But as we know, neither candidate will be able to get to the threshold, 2,025 any time soon.

We've all heard the phrase that a week in politics is a lifetime and anything can happen at any time to derail the momentum of any candidate.