onegoodmove

So, she won the state and decreased Obama's lead of 144 delegates to 138. Why does this fail to impress?

I spent some time in penn. and have to admit that if Obama can narrow a double digit lead there, he stands a good chance of getting elected in the General.

I thought both speeches were, for the most part, very good, each characteristic of respective strengths and appeal of the candidates.

However, with 98% percent reporting, Hillary won 54.7% of the vote, Barack 45.3%. So she won by 9.4 percent.

Now we can argue over whether it's 'double digits' or not, 9% or 10%, but the 'double digits' mark was a media fetish in any case. What she needed was a blowout to balance the math, to have so much as a chance, and there is now truly no way, mathematically no way, for her to catch up. It is time for this ridiculous, tiresome, and destructive charade to be over--she started from a 20-25 point spread and lost it. That she would explain this as a 'victory' due to being outspent--because she is broke and in debt from having mismanaged her own campaign--is absurd.

It is about time Obama began to focus on McCain, who is the real competitor.

In the Obama video, lower right, next to the frat boys playing on their cell phones...

Is that Larry David?

Adam,

I dunno, Hill's speech reminded me of Al Gore trying to be funny. And she cribbed Obama's "Yes We Can" to show that she is a can Do kinda lady. but it came off as unorigional. A person who is grasping at the leaders. Like the issues and words she borrowed from Edwards, it does not speak to a leader 'ready at 3am on day one'.

With the 'outspent' line she played herself as the underdog who was being picked on (again). Wtih the most popular president in 20 years behind her, washington contacts going back to the 70's, mroe money from lobbyists than any candidate, including millions of her own, how is the the underdog of anything?

Obamas speech scares me sometimes. He starts using the 'We believe in..." statements and people are a littel too happy to cheer mindlessly for him. I like that he moves people (we do need that right now), but it frightens me. The chanting really does remind me of early hilter rallys.

I think both would make fine leaders. If Obama gets tapped, I am very interested in his cabinet. That will be the thing that makes his presidency work. He will also need to actively counter the forces that worked against the Clintons. Stay on the offense.

I still wonder what makes Hillery so ready to lead on day one. Would Nancy Reagan be a good pres? Ladybird Johnson? Jackie Kennedy? Hmmm...

Obama's folks (of which I am one) and Chris Matthews keep saying she can't win. It's highly unlikley, but yes, she can. Check out CNN's tool for counting delegates at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html. And the NY Times has a list of the names of superdelegates who have endorsed both candidates at http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html. I've only checked a few states, but in the ones I've checked, Clinton has the state's more recognizable names, the folks I'd consider the heavier hitters, who can lean on their colleagues to switch to Clinton. Rumor has it her team is already in Texas, lobbying delegates, telling them that lots of folks who voted for Obama have had second thoughts, and that now is the time to come over to the Clinton camp, long before Denver.

I'll give her this: if Kerry had known how to fight like Clinton does, he'd have won handily. She's finding new ways to fight a close race. I hope Obama's camp does not underestimate her wiles.

This Democratic primary is turning into a Republican´s wet dream of divide and conquer. Let´s have it on record that I haven´t said one derogatory thing about Hilary. I think that Hilary or Obama would be a huge improvement over the loathsome leadership provided by the other guys these seven long years. Whether or not your choice for the Democratic nomination wins or loses, remember who we are up against ultimately. At some point we are going to have to circle the wagons and start fighting the McCain camp—the sooner the better. Hilary is letting ambition cloud her judgment about what is right for the party.

I don´t know if it is the newest version of quicktime or my new Windows Vista (fucking awful) but I no longer get a toolbar when I watch a video here at OGM. This means I can´t go directly to a spot on the video of my choosing. Anyone else with this probelm?

I dunno, Hill's speech reminded me of Al Gore trying to be funny. And she cribbed Obama's "Yes We Can" to show that she is a can Do kinda lady.

I though it was a good speech over all, although she always is a bit grating. Her campaign did a great job of putting her in an energized crowd. you couldn't help but think she had won something big when watching.

Did folks catch Paul Begala on CNN? He remarked on how humanizing the speech was because Hillary had talked about her family. When I remembered her line, she yelled in a monotone, "I want to thank my family for all their love and support" I had to think, what the hell was Begala talking about? He of course was reading a talking point on CNN like it was honest commentary and reading it even after his candidate had read her humanizing lines like she was a 1950's robot.

Why do we even make an attempt at thoughful analysis when in reality is , life is just one badly done high school play?

Obama's folks (of which I am one) and Chris Matthews keep saying she can't win. It's highly unlikley, but yes, she can.

Her nerve and shamelessness are terrifying. She has no pride, nothing embarrasses her. She will pander to anyone, and beg for money during a victory speech if she has to. Anything to reach her goal: TO WIN!!!!!!!!!!!

When watching her appearance on Olbermann, I was literally creeped out by her face when he was first introducing her. She's smiling, but her eyes - holy shit! they were saying, "Yeah, I'm here, motherfucker." Like a big ol' game of chicken, it was. I'll bet Keith peed a little bit. I know I would've.

Obamas speech scares me sometimes. He starts using the 'We believe in..." statements and people are a littel too happy to cheer mindlessly for him. I like that he moves people (we do need that right now), but it frightens me. The chanting really does remind me of early hilter rallys.

Comparison to Hitler, AGAIN? Look, chants can be heard practically anywhere these days -- mainly at events where young people are (sports arenas, concerts, rallies).

What about the chanting during the Clinton speech didn't scare you?

For as much rhetoric as she cribbed from Obama, I wonder if the pundits will make a day of claiming she'd plagiarized him, as they (and she) did over his speech a few months ago.

What's it matter if she wins Red States that will most likely go Republican in November? Honestly, she won Texas and Penn. WHat are the odds it won't be double digit win for Republicans in these states?

Phidippides: This delegate counter is fantastic. Thanks for the links.

Now, using the delegate counter, I have determined that for Hillary to win by just 2 delegates (that is, barely: 1830/1828), she would need to win 67% of all the remaining delegates, leaving Obama with an average of 33%. Impossible? No, perhaps I shouldn't have said "mathematically no way" because the math depends upon political realities. In terms of those realities, yes, almost impossible.

I'll give her this: if Kerry had known how to fight like Clinton does, he'd have won handily.

I will give Hillary this: if Al Gore had fought like her, Bush would never have been president. I frankly think the central reason many people supporter her, in spite of her nastiness, is because she will (try to) win at all costs, and they think this will help in the upcoming election. Democrats are tired of being right while watching the Republicans fuck shit up. I understand that very well. I simply disagree both that her winning against McCain is likely, looking both at the national polls and how she manages a campaign, and that winning with Bush-Rove tactics is worth it--not, as a deontological matter, in principle not worth it, but for purely consequentialist reasons, namely, because that kind of victory will characterize the kind of administration she has and the kind of country she would govern.

Her talking points about flag-pins, nuking Iran, 'experience', being a bread-and-butter American that understands working men and women, and dearly, dearly loves her guns--none of that, which has helped her so much, will be worth a damn against McCain--because it is a Republican strategy, because McCain has exponentially more 'experience', and because he too thinks we should 'bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iraaaaaan...we'll get you nukin and ah-cookin', bomb Iran!'

Maybe she could join him in a Beach Boys pastiche at the Republican National Convention as running mate? They've both passed the 'threshold', you know.

I can't imagine having to listen to Hillary Clinton speak for the next 4 years... like fingernails on a chalkboard.

she makes me cringe.

It's ironic how Hillary discussed the "War on Science" an then spoke about tackling autism. Autism is genetically determined and thus tackling it is kind of impossible. Scientifically speaking.

Yo E,

re: hitler comment. Watch his vid again and look for times he tells the crowd what they believe. Now, I've watched a few crowds in my day and been part of amazing football audiences, but there is a different furvor going on here.

One time, at KSU, there was a riot. Big win at a football game, thousands ran to the drinking part of town with goal posts in tow. Happy day.

Then things went bad.

People threw bottles, ran down cops. Then found a VW Bug. They played with it. turned it upside down. The owner, a freshman woman, came out and tried to stop them. She got on top of the car, pleading. We saw gas spill out and pool. She hugged her car and screamed as a hundred people yelled and lunged around, spinning the car.

Suddenly a chant emmerged. A chant accompanied by gas fumes and drunk men with lighters.

"burn the bitch"

"burn the bitch"

"burn the bitch"

I was there. Took half an hour for happy people to chant murder.

She ran. The car burned. Later it was placed gently through the window of a movie theatre lobby.

I'm not compairing Obama to Hitler. I support him and voted for him.

But the crowd...

Before Penn she needed 59% of all remaining races and super delegates to win. After Penn she needs 60%. She's behind the curve. Hell of a fighter, but unless she breaks the 60% mark, she's loosing.

For Robinson, a quotation from To Kill a Mockingbird

A mob’s always made up of people, no matter what. Mr. Cunningham was part of a mob last night, but he was still a man. - Atticus Finch

Not sure how apropos that is, but I had it handy, and this seemed like a good excuse to play it.

Yeah, the masses are scary, and it's hard to let the air out of them once when they get mean. It takes a Scout to say "Hey, Mr. Cunningham, I know your boy."

I'm sure if "Hill-Rod" runs a few more negative ads against Obama with Bin Laden in them, she might be able to keep closing the gap.

Of course, to keeps scaring voters she will need to keep borrowing money to keep up her attacks.

Kind of like our current President.

It's expected to see MSNBC, CNN & FoxNoise exploit the democratic race between these two candidates by going out of their way to pit them against each other. I honestly like Obama, Hillary & Bill and I will support either democrat that makes it to our national vote. But I continue to be amazed at the lowbrow pitting that this blog is doing. Okay, you like Hill better, but please don't start supporting Obama when he gets the nomination, otherwise this might as well be a flip-flopping news program like you know who. This blog is a perfect example of what not to do right now. Remember "Anyone But Bush"? Let's revisit and go with "Anybody But McCain". I'm going to keep in touch, Norm, to see how your opinions change in a matter of months.

If the New York Times is telling you to get out of town...

Time to pack up your carpetbag.

hideous. how odd. i don't like her. i don't like her. this is an apolitical post. my gut tells me she's all excited to give the order to drop some bombs. anywhere. oh boy, gimme power. i want power. i deserve power. i must have power. that's how she come across, to me, the more i see and hear of her. ross perot's voice was more pleasant. ronald reagan had more integrity and his message was more consistent.

why do i bother with such an unsupportable, purely emotional post? see above. the first heading: Clinton wins. true, fair, ok. then we have: Obama loses. not so true, he's still ahead. next heading should be "Norm gloats." no offense but that's how the choice of words comes across. well, far be it from me to criticize for an imprecise choice of words today.

scrolling down further i see the hitler bit - it barely justifies comment, it's so purely ridiculous. obama is drawing huge crowds, and they're excited. so why not compare him to mick jagger? it would be just as ridiculous. this is a unique phenomenon specific to our time.

back to my original point. i would not care much about all the details of clinton's voice, her attitude, her unrepentant following of the political winds for any chance to win. i wouldn't care, if i liked her position on actual issues. what are her positions? you don't know. everything she says is fluff. because it is calculated to make you vote for her, and serves no other purpose. so you might as well roll the dice, you have no idea who you are supporting if you support clinton.

obama's positions are clearly defined, and he doesn't change them at every campaign stop.

after so many years of an awful, grating, dishonest voice emanating from our high office, i sure hope we get an honest, warm, intelligent voice to represent us to the world. that is so obvious, and i encourage my fellow citizens to get behind the one candidate running who is not part of the old ugly machine.

Check this out: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

General Election Polls:

Who Does Better Against McCain State by State?

Electoral Votes: Obama 269 McCain 254 Ties 15

Electoral Votes: Clinton 289 McCain 239 Ties 10

Check this out: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

General Election Polls: Who Does Better Against McCain State by State?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr23.html

Electoral Votes: Obama 269 McCain 254 Ties 15

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr23.html

Electoral Votes: Clinton 289 McCain 239 Ties 10

(Sorry for the double post. I hit 'post' instead of 'preview'.)

I'm sorry, but for the first time I'm coming close to being a "stay-homer" unless she really starts to backpedal on her "nuke Iran" stance. Hell, at least McCain only said "bomb-bomb bomb iran" rather than "massive retaliation" and "umbrella of deterrance".

Dog save the queen.

*I was unclear to say that If Hillary becomes the nominee, I'll be a stay homer..

her "nuke Iran" stance

Hey, Calling for xenophobic genocides are a key issue for Blue collar voters. If Obama was serious about winning in the fall he would threaten to turn the sands to glass as well.

Any Democrat, regardless of who the eventual nominee is, that stays home is a fucking idiot.
That was impolite, wasn't it? It is nevertheless heartfelt.

Hitlery Clinton.

"amorphousblob"

I agree with sub-amoeba-blob, about the grating voice, ugly machine, but really now, in any Realistocracy of real Reality, as opposed to social construct save-face "reality" (including one's own face, tip to "Polskiy" Nietzische), Nader would be the only viable candidate this time around.

By the way, Barry O. went to the same O. college as did my hero, the Inhumanist poet Jeffers. Those memorably meditative ministries, er,... concerts I attended at "Heretic" Chapel were a real... panacea in my life. A life of detachment and contemplation, of sensitivity to....grating... choices.

The devil wears intricately detailed di-lemma horns, rereiterated ad now-see-'em:

Mr. O. is much more about... love, than was the hateful hurter* Hitler.

.

.

*passively, ergo actively.

Any Democrat, regardless of who the eventual nominee is, that stays home is a fucking idiot.

I'll go you one further:

Anyone, regardless of who the eventual nominee is, that stays home is a fucking idiot.

Little Mickey sad:

When watching her appearance on Olbermann, I was literally creeped out by her face .

So was I. I could barely stand to look at her in her bright red suit and lips lathered in bright-red lipstick. She had a super creepy look on her face. I could perfectly well imagine her issuing orders to nuke Iran.

As the editorial in the NY Times that Magnolia linked to said, and this from the newspaper which endorsed her!

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Hitlery Clinton. "amorphousblob" I agree with sub-amoeba-blob, about the grating voice, ugly machine, but really now, in any Realistocracy of real Reality, as opposed to social construct save-face "reality" (including one's own face, tip to "Polskiy" Nietzische)

When watching her appearance on Olbermann, I was literally creeped out by her face . So was I. I could barely stand to look at her in her bright red suit and lips lathered in bright-red lipstick. She had a super creepy look on her face.

And you complain that I'm unfair to Barack. I can imagine the reaction if I used similar language in describing him. Your partisanship is showing and it's ugly.

She had a chance to be the party's nominee in 2012 if Obama loses in November.

Now... not so much.

She should go away for a decade and do some important work so she does not have to PAD HER RESUME when she runs again.

And you complain that I'm unfair to Barack. I can imagine the reaction if I used similar language in describing him. Your partisanship is showing and it's ugly.

Sorry, but that's the way that I feel.

Your partisanship is showing

And your partisanship is not showing?

Anyone, regardless of who the eventual nominee is, that stays home is a fucking idiot.

It is quickly changing from silly season to frighteningly absurd.

You know what frightens me is how fucking stupid our leaders think we are and how little they seem to care.

So if you have some perspective on how fragile peace and democracy, look at Kenya, and many other countries around the world you know exactly how fragile this stuff is.

CIA and corporations rely on how easily disrupted democratic systems are. And any of these senators and former administration officials are briefed on this stuff, so they know.

We have had a nice long streak of peace and prosperity, but a little depression and a few fraudulent elections and this county is marching with guns in hand to sack some federal buildings.

Yet look at how oblivious our leaders seem to be. 2000: a stolen election, 2004: a questionable election in Ohio, 2006: Fraud and Diabold problems in a number of places.

Yet here we sit on a primary that cannot be won by Hillary Clinton, with the MSM discussing how she might overturn the election based on late momentum. Michigan and Florida decide to go forward with unsanctioned primaries and then lots of folks jump on the wrongly disenfranchised voters, Blame the national party, count unsanctioned primaries bandwagon.

In a world full of gasoline our leaders and media seem fine with playing with matches for their own egos and profits.

Maybe I am just paranoid this morning.

Reality checks: as I said above, Hillary can still pull it out. Obama's lead is not unassailable. A scathing revelation at this point is unlikely, but a misstep or a manufactured scream-like event, a la Howard Dean, is always a possibility.

However, Obama's lead is pretty strong, if slim, given the number of primaries left. PA was made for Clinton, but her lead was cut in half by Obama during the 6 weeks of campaigning. IN polls have see-sawed between HC and BO; OR is leaning BO, WV and KY are heavily for HC, NC is heavily for BO, and I don't have recent numbers on SD, PR, and Guam. (Source is Pollster.com)

Where Clinton has a lead is in superdelegates: 255 to 232 is the current count, with 307 yet to commit. (Source: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html) The lead seems to be not just in the numbers, but in the number of heavyweights. Some of these delegates feel beholden to vote as their state voted. Chairman Dean has said that the rule is that they are free to vote their conscience.

I received an e-mail from a NM member of the Obama campaign who worked in PA. It was the campaign's spin on the PA results. The one part that seemed dependent on wishes and prayers rather than logic and trends was the assertion that "Obama will continue to gain strength with Democratic superdelegates..." I have to think that the superdelegates worry the Obama camp.

And then there are the two wild cards in the deck: FL and MI. How the hell are they going to fix that–fix being the operative word?

Among the talking points were the facts (their authority qualified by the source) that Obama improved his standing among white voters by 6 points, and among voters over 60 he "nearly cut the gap in half, from 41 to 24 points." Independent voters were not able to vote in PA. 158 delegates were at stake in PA, but 187 are at stake in NC and IN in two weeks, so the ten or 15 delegates Obama lost by way of a lead last night he may gain back in two weeks. (Or not, of course.) Obama has about 50 million bucks on hand, compared to Clinton, who has about 20 million (Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp), which means both can continue to fly first class.

It's hard not to state the obvious: it's an incredibly close race, and PA didn't change that a whit, for all the time and money and media attention spent there. It's maybe just a wee bit closer now. On May 7th, it may be just a wee bit less close.

Obama is ahead, but Clinton is a fighter. There may be surprises, whether in endorsements, superdelegate movement, gaffes, or whatever. Things will continue to be close, with Obama in the lead in total delegates all the way to Denver, unless something or someone gives under the stress.

That's all I got.

And your partisanship is not showing?

Certainly, but you won't find me making comments about Barack's physical appearance, clothing, voice, color of his lipstick, etc. I'll attack his position on the issues, but not the person. If I've ever done that point it out and you'll have my apology for crossing a line I don't think any of us should cross.

Hey, I may be an Idiot for staying home, BUT i'm seriously wondering why I would be voting for someone who fines me/throws me in jail? If I cannot afford government mandated healthcare (without mention about controlling cost) and someone who wants to use Nuclear Retaliation.

All the sudden a Nader vote makes sense to me.

All the sudden a Nader vote makes sense to me.

Then vote for Nader.

Staying home is FAIL.

RedSeven: Yet look at how oblivious our leaders seem to be. 2000: a stolen election, 2004: a questionable election in Ohio, 2006: Fraud and Diabold problems in a number of places...Yet here we sit on a primary that cannot be won by Hillary Clinton, with the MSM discussing how she might overturn the election based on late momentum. Michigan and Florida decide to go forward with unsanctioned primaries and then lots of folks jump on the wrongly disenfranchised voters, Blame the national party, count unsanctioned primaries bandwagon.

That is a glaring contradiction I hadn't even noticed. There is of course, plenty of drama to be had about MI and FL, and no fact of the matter that would settle it, but merely issues of principles--they already voted earlier but should the votes count or not and why? With a stolen election, it is mostly a matter of fact issue--was it stolen or not?

Any Democrat, regardless of who the eventual nominee is, that stays home is a fucking idiot.

I wouldn't put it in exactly those terms, to be sure, but it is worth pointing out something that has constantly been in the back of my mind--that this election is not just about the administration we'll have, but who will get on the Supreme Court--several older justices are likely to retire soon--which is a life-time appointment. Needless to say I am disgusted by much about Hillary, particularly her irresponsible and childish jingoistic chatter about nuking Iran and 'security umbrellas'; but if she wins, I will vote for her--she'll probably win NY anyway, but--too much is at stake in the legal system not to.

And if you think I'm thinking only about abortion and other such issues, you should read this. The Bush appointments have been a bonanza for the big corporations and the Chamber of Commerce.

A generation ago, progressive and consumer groups petitioning the court could count on favorable majority opinions written by justices who viewed big business with skepticism — or even outright prejudice. An economic populist like William O. Douglas, the former New Deal crusader who served on the court from 1939 to 1975, once unapologetically announced that he was “ready to bend the law in favor of the environment and against the corporations.”

Today, however, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing. And ever since John Roberts was appointed chief justice in 2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Forty percent of the cases the court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years. While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a year, on average, between 1988 and 2003, the Roberts Court has heard seven in its first two terms — and all of them were decided in favor of the corporate defendants.

Business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. The disputes tend to be harder to follow: the legal arguments are more technical, the underlying stories less emotional. But these cases — which include shareholder suits, antitrust challenges to corporate mergers, patent disputes and efforts to reduce punitive-damage awards and prevent product-liability suits — are no less important. They involve billions of dollars, have huge consequences for the economy and can have a greater effect on people’s daily lives than the often symbolic battles of the culture wars. In the current Supreme Court term, the justices have already blocked a liability suit against Medtronic, the manufacturer of a heart catheter, and rejected a type of shareholder suit that includes a claim against Enron. In the coming months, the court will decide whether to reduce the largest punitive-damage award in American history, which resulted from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.

With a stolen election, it is mostly a matter of fact issue--was it stolen or not?

A stolen election will damage our democracy and regardless who the nominee is each will have a case that it was stolen.

A stolen election will damage our democracy and regardless who the nominee is each will have a case that it was stolen.

I merely meant that the media does not like to take on matter of fact issues--it either distorts them (Is evolution true? Were there WMD is Iraq?) or ignores them (was an election stolen?). Which is why we hear so much about MI and FL, where it is only normative principles, not facts, that are at issue. The media is uninterested in facts because those are boring to a lot of people, and involve no "controversy".

If the election is stolen, there needs to be a way of making the issue prominent, part of our national conversation.

If the election is stolen, there needs to be a way of making the issue prominent, part of our national conversation.

Yeah, I am not disagreeing with you at all. I think that Clinton has already started a Stolen election scenario.

It popped into my mind when think ing if AL gore or anyone could end this thing, and I concluded, no. If he did or the Superdelegates make Obama a clear winner, then clinton folks could start beating the drums.

The FL MI thing has been used like a football, when really its a stick of dynamite.

I tend to agree with Obama's stance in the negotiations, but I think everyone lacked leadership to the extent they condemned the state leaders for taking such irresponsible actions and didn't work to resolve this when a real fix was possible. If States started moving their fall elections, the US constitution would say their votes don't count. Would we all vilify the US constitution?

Certainly, but you won't find me making comments about Barack's physical appearance, clothing, voice, color of his lipstick, etc

I take note of what Barack wears. I take note of what anyone wears because what someone wears says something about how they are projecting themselves.

When someone wears bright red lipstick, I can't help but look at their lips. It's just weird to me. When anyone wears a bright-red outfit, and I take notice.

If Barack Obama showed up in a bright-red suit wearing bright-red lipstick, I'd take notice, and yes it would influence how think about him.

If the election is stolen

Isn't gonna happen. Obama is ahead in all categories and HIllary Clinton would have to pull off some kind of miracle to get the nomination. The majority of insiders say that the majority of superdelegates are all posed to vote for Obama, but they're just waiting for him to secure the pledged delegate count beyond a shadow of a doubt, which he is close to doing. After Indiana and North Carlolina (where you don't find so many blue-dog conservative Democrats as you'll find in Pennsylvania), Obama will have secured the pledged delegate count beyond a doubt and all of the remaining superdelegates who haven't already pledged their support will come out in support of Obama. The final state, Oregan, which is a liberal state, will no doubt seal the deal for Obama, if he hasn't already sealed the deal before that primary.

Initially, the powerful Clinton machine brought an early lead of superdelegates for her, ahead of the primaries. However, since January of this year, Obama gets closer and closer in the superdelegate count. He's already ahead in both the pledged delegate and popular vote count (even including Florida).

If the tables were turned, Obama would already be considered out of the race. But because the Clinton dynasty and their machine is so powerful, Hillary is still considered a viable candidate.

Adam said?

The media is uninterested in facts because those are boring to a lot of people, and involve no "controversy".

yep. Obama is the sure winner, but saying so would make for boring television. They want to provided some hope for the Hillary supporters as it makes it more of a contest, and thus more interesting.

Oregan

oops! Oregon...

Oregon which is a liberal state

Oregon is a swing state (progressive Portland and Eugene being deep blue dots in a vast sea of red), and this election will likely be no exception. Nonetheless, I agree that Democrats there will likely support Obama over Clinton.

I was literally creeped out by her face.

Now we can argue over whether it's 'double digits' or not

Only if 9.43% is triple digits. Even by the FDA's standards for rounding where a product with 0.49 grams of fat can advertise "0g of fat!", this is fewer than two digits.

Red State Update

Ya, it's sad to watch Clinton fail basic math and then try to lie about the reality: 9.49 rounds to 9, 9.51 rounds to ten.

I heard her supporters talking about how she won by DOUBLE DIGITS [!] all day long.

The desperation brings out still more petty dishonesty (and they want us to let them be in control?)

Just more of the same: Getting their friends' snouts in the trough.

Disgusting.

McCain will toast her because she's just as challenged with the facts as her husband, and we'll all pay the price (as working people already did under Clinton 1, too).

how a candidate or a president dresses is perfectly fair game for discussion. when nixon went on tv all pasty and icky, next to a dashing young kennedy, he lost that debate just by standing there. McKillLotsOfPeople is a glutenous mass of viagra and pain medication. Clin-mega-ton is running for president. Hell yes we'll discuss how she presents herself.

Hell yes we'll discuss how she presents herself.

Right. How one speaks, what one says, what one wears.. all of that is a way of presenting onself.