Except she won by 10! And look at the demographics. One state to go and he'll take VP.

That's an excellent point. Her recent pick-up of two superdelegates would put her back to exactly where she was on 2/5, compared to Obama having gained around 80 superdelegates in the same period.

But there's an important point here. By some accounts those two superdelegates they were claiming were actually add-on delegates, a different category altogether, determined by the primary results alone. If that's true, then Hillary still actually has a net decline in her superdelegates since Super Tuesday, and Obama will go into the remaining primaries with an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, a strong lead in the popular vote, and a huge advantage in fundraising ability.

On the other hand, if these were truly superdelegates, then I have to admit that Hillary has the same number of superdelegates now that she had on Super Tuesday, compared to +80 for Obama, and Obama will go into the remaining primaries with an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, a strong lead in the popular vote, and a huge advantage in fundraising ability.

Hidden under the new claim is the fact that Obama pushed it to within 10 points, even though he ran against the Democratic party of PA state apparatus.

Well said.

Reason #994 why Chris Matthews is so hard to watch. Is he the king of rude interrupting assholes or what? And more sexist than Tucker Carlson, I think. Did you hear what he was fantasizing tonight about what 'kind' of females support Clinton? What a jackass.

I think telling Chris Matthews to shut up is Keith Olbermann's job, no make that mission...

Hmmm. My take is

A - Some of the propaganda may have worked, but the Clintons have invited a lot of antipathy only recently, just from the way they've conducted this campaign, and

B - The 'Messiah' crap definitely is Republican (and possibly Hillary camp) propaganda. And it's creepy and stupid.

Republican anti-clinton propaganda? Have you watched Fox News lately? Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Matt Drudge all adore Hillary. And lets not forget Hillary's long lost buddy Richard Melon Scaife. They fall all over themselves to report every single lie the Clinton camp comes up with (including some of their own).

Quite honestly I think republican politicians and RW media respect Clinton more than their own candidate. They love the no holds barred, go for the jugular campaign she's run. Scaife certainly thinks so.

It won't transfer to decent, ethical republican voters though. The ones who have had enough of lies, spin and war.

Until Indiana.

And then onward.

I think the party is hoping not to have to make a harsh decision.

Hillary can hobble, cash-wise, all the way to the beginning of June. Hit the finish line. And crumble.

So the party won't stop her.

The economics won't stop her (although I hope she has a hard time doing business because of her battered war chest).

I predict she will bring this all the way to Puerto Rico.

And then hope to maneuver at the Convention.

California really blew it this year. They could have had a real campaign fight for the first time in forever -- even in the General Election there is little campaigning that goes on in CA.

Here this will help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i23Y0J1_wM

Are you "Sirius"? (sorry, couldn't help it).

Relax. Take a deep breath. Nothing has changed!

Obama is still in the lead, and as the OP pointed out, will remain in the lead.

In order for Hillary to catch up, she needed to win 64% last night, and 64% in the remaining contests. That didn't happen.

It IS Over. For Hillary.

Here, play around with the numbers:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

See how many Supers it will take for Hillary to win!

A hard-to-believe post.

It sounds like you're voting based on electability only. What? They have the same policies? They would govern the same way? So, #1 I'd say: have the courage of your convictions.

But your concern about electability is hard to fathom given that Obama is ahead in every metric, and in a head-to-head campaign in Pennsylvania, beat Clinton relative to where they started out a month ago. In terms of electability, when the candidate faces McCain, don't you want the one whose campaign sways voters? So, #2 I'd say: don't discount Obama wins in states with favorable demographics to him, while being concerned about Clinton wins in states with favorable demographics to her.

In the end, the metric is pledged delegates, and for the superdelegates it has to be national polling. The national distaste an with increasingly DLC-on-domestic-issues, increasingly NeoCon-on-foreign-policy-issues Clinton is growing more and more palpable. While she'll continue to receive the pity vote, she's increasingly seen as the more negative, more desperate candidate.

No one said it would be easy running against a recognized Washington brand name insider with the name Clinton to boot.

We should be celebrating the fact that together with Obama we have succeeded in giving them (all Washington insiders, corporations, etc.) a run for their money and succeeded in establishing a formidable opponent who is prepared to call them on it and fight for what we believe in.

It isn't about his not being able to close the deal. He did that weeks ago. What we are up against is the old guard who do not want Washington to change, but we know we do. We know it has to change.

Giving up would be akin to Columbus within sight of the shore and saying to his crew, "Yeah, there are some choppy waves ahead of us, I don't think we should go there and stir up even more. Let's turn back."

The time is now to take on Washington. The time is now to make our stand.

I will never give up.

Sirius, thanks for the sincere post. I don't intend to be dismissive, but I think you're being a little fatalistic. The sky isn't falling. The others have made some very good points, but I'll add that it appears you got sold on a few notions that are more spin than fact.

"He's not closing the deal..."

Don't buy the hype on that. The fact is, he is closing the deal, but the deal isn't done. The fact is, he gained ground (and HRC lost ground) in key demographics that have favored Hillary all along. And, he did that during one of the most difficult stretches of the campaign for him, where HRC used the kitchen sink, and the MSM picked up the broken porcelain bits and threw 'em again and again. He responded to the Wright brouhaha with dignity and poise, making one of the most powerful and eloquent speeches on race relations any of us have heard in decades. While the polls fluctuate back and forth from day to day and week to week, the clear and obvious trend is in Obama's favor - he is in the process of closing the deal.

One could just as easily ask why HRC hasn't closed the deal, when she was the presumptive nominee with party backing and money and all the connections? One could ask, with all of her built-in advantages, why she finds herself on the verge of being eliminated.

I could say much more... but I literally have to stop now as I attend to other things.

Sorry, but if you people think this is all over, you're nuts. I've been an avid Obama supporter for months now but I'm starting to turn. He's not closing the deal and anything is possible. A couple more stories like the "bitter" and Wright ones and we may see the Supers turn tail on him. Clinton has cut him and he's been bleeding a while now. She's exhausted, close to dropping but she fights on and he's been cut. The republicans are jumping all over him and happy to help her. He needs to finish her and get his sh*t together before he faces the general and she's not letting him rest. I think all this crowing about how far ahead he is doesn't start to accept that this is politics, not accounting. The party elders are not going to simply give it to him on numbers alone, not if she's cut him but good. Not if she's tarred him and made him look unelectable. While the republicans help her, she looks shiny and new while Obama looks like yesterday's dinner. I really think you have to look at the spin here, not just the numbers. I want him to win, but I'm starting to wonder if he has what it takes. And, really, if I'm starting to turn, I really wonder what other cogs are spinning.

Now I have a chance to continue the response...

You wrote; "She's exhausted, close to dropping but she fights on and he's been cut."

That's a colorful narrative, but not the whole picture. The fact is, her negatives go up at the same time his do, so, while she cuts him, she cuts herself. How serious are the cuts each have sustained? In looking at the PA primary, Obama has not lost ground, he keeps gaining ground in nearly each demographic category. Maybe the pace at which he's been gaining ground has slowed, but he's still gaining. On the other hand, the Clintons have really done themselves and the party a disservice by playing the game of identity politics. They've permanently driven away many black voters - a crucial constituency for any Democratic candidate. Along the way they've comments that have been very dismissive of young voters, small-states, red states, MoveOn and party activists (another important constituency), not to mention Fred Dean and a number of senior party leaders. The focus may not be on her right now, but as soon as one takes a peek it's clear she isn't looking "shiny and new". The party leadership and most supers understand this quite well, and that notion is supported by the fact that Obama continues to collect superdelegates at a faster pace than Clinton.

One of the many reasons I support Obama is that he is running a different campaign. It ain't perfect, but it is clear he's making an effort to keep it closer to the issues instead of the petty stuff, and strives to remain above-board and clean. This clearly ties his hands in what he's willing to say and do. For example, he could hit HRC with all the old stuff - Whitewater, etc. - but he won't. He could've made the street money payments in Philly to get extra votes (the obligatory norm there) but he surely lost votes by eschewing that cash for votes payola system.

So, this is the test, not only for him, but for all of us. Can a new breed of politics win? Can this campaign be a game-changer? Can we tell the special interests and big-money-players that their era is over? Not if we waver. Not if we fail to stand by our convictions. It isn't a matter of whether or not Obama can close the deal. The issue is whether or not WE can close the deal. Do we fold up shop as soon as the going gets tough, or do we redouble our efforts?

What do YOU stand for? What is it about Obama that YOU think is special? Why do YOU support him? And, if you can't find that in Clinton, why would you ever consider backing down now, when all Obama needs is another 300 or so delegates to go over the top? The choice is this, you can either be an active supporter who helps Obama finish strong, or sit on the sidelines/help Clinton and let Obama finish weak. If you' truly want Obama, then it's time to get active and help him "close the deal".

Are you saying that McCain is the INEVITABLE WINNER? Can you imagine an Obama/McCain debate? About issues?

Okay, Heretic -- Describe how Clinton beats Obama. That's all we're asking. Present the reality-based scenario. Describe how the gist of this post could possibly read: "CLINTON will go into the remaining primaries with an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, a strong lead in the popular vote, and a huge advantage in fundraising ability."

Mandate? I love this! Nobody's claiming Obama has a mandate. You're using this assertion to set up your "rational" point of view. Everyone knows it's a tight race. But a mandate? Uh-uh.

Hillary should concede because at this point, by dragging out the primary, she's doing the work of the Republicans for them--despite the fact that she will not win the nomination. The continuation of this race is about her and her alone. You think she'd beat McCain? (Pause for incredulous shaking of head) I'm sorry--who's living in a dream world? In case you've missed out on this, Rush Limbaugh & Co. have used the bully pulpit to drive their faithful to vote for Hillary. They're fairly certain they'll lose if McCain has to run against Obama.

ANYONE who thinks the "Reagan Democrats" are going to vote for ANY Democrat, be it Obama or Hillary, is living in a dreamland filled with false hope. And by the way, that "good ol'boy" you referred to wouldn't have had the privilege of becoming president without Ross Perot to draw votes away from his opponent. You can hardly argue that the Reagan Democrats turned out in droves for ol' Bill. Ol' 42% of the vote Bill.

NO WARTS? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING THEN?

How about pimples? scars? tattoos? scratch marks? self inflicted wounds? stretch marks? tire treds? huge carbunkles? teeth scars? boogers? You must at least have skid marks.

Anxiously waiting your reply.
K. Olberman

Oh my, did I forger to pick up my "Change We Can Believe in"?

Actually, much as I love Rachel and Keith, I get tired of even their jabbering and endless picking of all the excrutiating minutiae of the primary, even if it is sometimes like watching a Barack Obama 'infomercial.'

I miss the old days when Keith and Rachel focused on helping us maintain our sanity while watching the criminal insanity of the Bush Administration.

Geez. What will it be like when there's no more Bush Administration????

So what's a scenario in which she wins? She can't catch up in pledged delegates, the add-on delegates are also in Obama's favor, and if she wins all of the remaining primaries she'd still need around 75% of the remaining superdelegates in order to win.