E-i-e-i-o. When The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal and every other news organization in the world can’t get the tally straight when it comes to who has how many delegates to become the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, it’s time to say what the caucus doodle-doo!

What a quack, quack way of electing a presidential nominee this caucus process is. Yes, there’s something wonderfully historic about caucusing, but the caucus is well past its prime-ary, which is why parties should be uniting-not-dividing under one system as the fair and equitable means of picking its candidates.

In a primary, of course, a candidate wins, the delegates are awarded (OK, the Dems confuse it by apportioning its delegates as to which districts are won), and the results binding. A duck is a duck is a duck.

In the crazy world of the caucus doodle-doo the results are non-binding. Some states hold caucuses that don’t directly determine the national delegates, leaving the delegate counters to decide whether to project delegate counts or wait until the party holds its state convention.

And then there are the superdelegates … here a chick, there a chick everywhere a delegate …

E-i-e-i-ooooooooooo!

There’s been a lot of talk that Senator Clinton has gained most of her delegates from winning in primaries; Senator Obama amassed his delegates mostly through caucuses. This wasn’t by accident.

Clinton’s best road to the nomination will be through the large delegate rich states of the northeast and west: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and, of course, California. Oh, and let’s not forget Texas

Obama knowing he probably couldn’t compete in the large delegate rich states as the new kid in the political chicken coop, went for the caucus states where he could build a constituency and organize them into his voting bloc in a grassroots effort to pluck off delegates. He’s done just that, and brilliantly.

And on his farm he had a…

But there is a negative to Obama’s path to the nomination. First, caucuses measure only a tiny fraction of the state’s registered voters, so a caucuses’ outcome is not a true picture of the state’s electorate.

Clinton voters, for example, older, poorer, working single women might not venture out to caucus. Would these voters support Obama in the general election? Would these voters support Obama in the general election? In the South, Obama’s wins relied on the African-American vote. How would Obama fare in the general election in the true democratic market?

In the great plain states and the interior west the majority of Obama’s wins are in Republican territory, many of Obama’s votes coming from independents, or crossover voters – voters who in the general election will vote for the Republican nominee who is likely to be old McDonald John McCain. And that’s the e-i-e-i-o truth.

Of course, Clinton’s strategy has its own risks as she’s seeing play out now. February is proving to be both a difficult and dangerous month for Clinton. Already, Senator Obama has beaten her in Washington State, Louisiana, Nebraska and Maine, and will likely do the same in the Potomac contests in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., all heavily weighted with Obama-leaning African-American voters.

A win, no matter the inner workings of it, to average Mr. and Mrs. America still looks like a win. The press has done little to expose the fragility of Senator Obama’s position. Obama will look well-positioned to get the nomination come the end of February. Looking like a winner can make a candidate a winner, even when that candidate may not be the most viable winner come the fall.

Senator Clinton is banking on her firewall when on March 4 states more favorable to her, Rhode Island, Ohio and Texas will cast their votes.

Talk about banking on the farm ...

E-i-e-i-o!