if you say it long enough and loud enough it becomes true...

Really, it does.

For instance, we now believe that Hillary staged a stunning comeback in New Hampshire- even though she consistently polled in the lead in that state at all points prior to the election and won by a slim margin. We now believe that Clinton pulled off a coup in Ohio- but again, she was projected to win there as well.

In Pennsylvania, the media (who we have been trained into thinking hate Clinton) have been telling us that Clinton achieved the unachievable. Again, anyone who watched the tracking polls would know that she was expected to win by 6-12 points.

We are also told, consistently, that Clinton 'won big' in Texas. Look again. Clinton won a norrow victory in the parts of the state that held a primary but Obama won in the areas that conduct caucuses. The net gain in Texas delegate count went to Obama- not Clinton.

War is Peace! etc.

Clinton says she is doing this for the good of the party. But now, her most ardent supporters are saying that if she does not get the nomination- they will stay home or vote for John McCain.

Somehow Hillary Clinton has created a paradigm where she can stand during a debate and say, "What I said at that time is inconsistent with what I had written and with what I knew to be the truth." and have noone call her out on the fact that she is admitting to lying (saying something that you know to be inconsistent with the truth).

There was this stunning thing that happened in Pennsylvania advertising that would be missed by anyone who is not a political junkie. Even some of the political junkies would likely miss it. The media certainly did.

Hillary Clinton ran a completely negative ad about Barrack Obama based on flase information about his voting record. Obama's campaign responded immediately with an add which refutes the disinformation ad with the facts- the kind of split screen "Hillary Clinton says.../ but..." ad we hav all seen- the very kind that most of us felt Kerry should have done against Bush four years ago.

The Clintons responded by saying that Obama's ad was 'the most negative ad any candidate has ever run.' That spin was then carried by the Clinton followers who love to argue that 'both sides are being negative.'

More and more, I have come to believe that the Clintons want to win at all costs. They say things like Hillary and McCain are ready from day 1 but that Obama is not and then say that saying such a thing is not negative. They say make comparisons to Jesse Jackson and say they are not being racist. They complain about the unfair obstacles that exist for women in campaigning (including a memorable recent comment from Hillary about how it takes longer for her to put her face on- which btw, if Obama wanted to go negative he could have had a lot of fun with on a variety of levels) and criticize the media and the debate process when things don't go her way. In the next breath they tell Obama that if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen when he raised concerns about the last debate.

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton can do whatever she wants and complain about mistreatment for any variety of reasons. She can punch below the belt and she can create negativity about her oponent even to the extent of destroying his chances in the general election but as soon as Obama or a surrogate tries to point out what she is doing they are being negative and unfair.

So here is the problem. Hillary Clinton has a strong base of support among women. As such they are predisposed to dislike for anyone who would dare to run against her. The media is calling for a knock-out punch. But how can Obama possibly do that? He can't.

To do so would potentially alienate the women he needs for the general election.

People ask me what I like about Obama. Honestly, part of what attracted me to him first is that his last name is not Clinton (My first pick would have been Richardson). But what impresses me today is that he is not Hillary Clinton. He does not allow himself to be defined by how strong he is against his enemies. In fact the language of us verses them is almost completely missing from his lexicon.

In the end, I believe him to be the 'uniter' that Bush claimed to be.

Hillary does not even claim to be a uniter. In fact, she revels in the idea that she is not a uniter- she will fight and fight and fight and fight. That's fine. But what if you are engaged in a conversation with someone who is supposed to be on the same side. At that point, being a fighter who doesn't give up ends up creating distinctions that do not exist and creating divisions that likely cannot be repaired.

So what does the end game look like?

The numbers still work in Obama's favor. But the Clintonistas are working overtime to change the rules- its about popular vote- its about Florida and Michigan- its about picking a name out of a hat- as long as you pick me. Any argument given by the other side will not be perceived as valid.

In the end there are rules. And rules matter. The rules will work in the parties favor if we stick to them. It may, in fact, be the rules that will, in the end, hold the party together.