Hillary's Shady Claim to Winning the Popular Vote

A glaring shortcoming of Hillary Clinton's '08 presidential campaign is neatly summarized by her claim to lead in the popular vote: At best, her claim is disingenuous and based on shady math. At worst, it's incorrect and blatantly dishonest.

After her primary win in Puerto Rico, Hillary Clinton claimed that she's "winning the popular vote" over rival Barack Obama. And today, her campaign began to run a TV ad boasting of holding the popular vote lead.

Problem is, without some torturously illogical math, Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton, has the popular vote lead, per RealClearPolitics calculations.

As fully explained by The New York Observer in Popular-Vote Math Made Easy, here's how the Clinton camp crunches the numbers to Hillary's favor:

• Count all officially sanctioned primaries and caucuses in which exact popular-vote tallies were maintained.

• Entirely exclude caucuses held in Iowa, Washington and Maine (which were all won by Obama) because exact vote counts are traditionally not reported to the public.

• Entirely exclude the Nevada caucus (which Clinton won by a very narrow margin, and for which the two candidates earned equal delegates) for the same reason.

• Add Clinton votes in the Michigan primary in which Obama's name was not on the ballot. And give NO uncommitted votes to Obama.

• Add Clinton and Obama votes in the Florida primary, in which neither candidate was allowed to campaign. The Clintons are extremely well known in Florida, while Obama had little opportunity to introduce himself to Florida voters.

• Assume that Clinton has a net gain over Obama of 100,000 delegates in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota (a chancy assumption given low voter turnout in Puerto Rico).

• Per Hillary Clinton, the sum of these adjustments and assumptions support her claim that she is "winning the popular vote."

Problem is... this illogical math is hogwash.

Concludes Gary Langer, longtime director of polling for ABC News:

"The national vote count, of course, has nothing to do with winning the Democratic nomination under party rules - that's done by delegate counts. Clinton nonetheless has found her claim of an advantage in total vote a useful talking point. The problem: It doesn't quite add up."

And yet, Hillary Clinton continues her dishonest claim seemingly as a last-minute tool to persuade superdelegates that she's the Democratic candidate of popular choice.

But superdelegates aren't that stupid as the party machinery proved at its Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting two days ago when party leaders demonstrated that they no longer take marching orders from Bill and Hill.

So why, then, does the Clinton camp persist in arguing the fantasy that Hillary leads in the popular vote? I believe the answer is this: To keep her base in line. To fan her supporters' anger. Perhaps to preserve her future chances at the presidency. Certainly to put a dent in Obama's White House run in 2008.

Explains Newsweek's Jonathan Alter in Popular Vote Poison: How Hillary's latest math hurts the party :

"The shorthand many Clinton supporters are already taking into the summer is that she won the popular vote but had the nomination "taken away" (as Joy Behar said on "The View") by a man.

"What a helpful message for uniting the Democratic Party.

"If the Obama people have any sense, they will demand in their negotiations with the Clintonites that Hillary cease and desist in her specious claim to have won the most popular votes."

Bottom line is: Once again, smart, capable, vibrant, compelling Hillary Clinton resorts to trickery and clever manipulation to keep the loyalty of her followers, rather than relying on her formidable intelligence, talents and leadership skills.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Hillary Clinton is not the '08 Democratic nominee for the presidency.

Because voters, like superdelegates, are not stupid. Our nation has just undergone eight truly terrible years under one of the most dishonest administrations in U.S. history. In 2008, most Americans are repelled at the mere whiff of more D.C. dishonesty...

Besides, it was never about the popular vote.

As commenter Alex Epstein explained at the New York Observer:

"The rules are delegate count, not popular vote count. You don't win a baseball game by how many bases you ran. You don't win a football game by yards gained. You win by points scored.

" If the contest were about popular vote, everyone would have campaigned differently. Sen. Clinton is trying to change the rules because she's lost according to the rules. It's as simple as that. "

(Photo taken on May 31, 2008: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)