It's been a prominent meme among Clinton supporters in recent weeks that Obama's recent victories are less than fully legitimate, since it's Clinton, not Obama that's been the choice of committed democrats. Republicans and independents, this argument goes, have put Obama over the top in pledged delegates; with the implication being, I take it, that superdelegates ought to assert the will of 'TRUE DEMOCRATS' and give the nomination to Hillary.

This argument, or one much like it, has been made prominently and publicly by Clinton surrogates in the form of the various 'significant states' comments, and also, less prominently in the claim that 'dems for a day' are attempting to sabotage our nomination by crossing party lines to vote for the weaker candidate.

This 'Clinton is the candidate of committed Democrats' argument did, admittedly, receive some early support from exit polls up to and including 2/5, though Obama and Clinton have since reached parity on Dem support in the remainder of the February primary states. And it may also seem to be supported by Obama's relative strength in red states. But now comes an interesting piece of analysis from the TheHill.Com- Hillary, it seems, is trailing Obama badly in strongly Democratic congressional districts.

Read on for the details...

If polling showed, convincingly, that FL & MI voters were happy to vote again, after some campaigning, would that be a fair solution?

It strike me that it would be, but then, I lean Obama, so perhaps I can't see beyond my bias.

Clinton supporters?

Poll in the extended entry