Obama now has the endorsement of Hamas. This fits in nicely with Calypso Louis Farrakhan.

Washington Post reported that Obama would bring up Clinton scandals. “Scorched earth” by both sides.

Mydd.com is a well known Hillary Clinton shill site.. more so then Kos is a supporter of Obama. I take everything I see from that site with a large grain of salt as Clinton propaganda.

I also don’t buy the “Obama can’t seal the deal” argument. Why? a) Hillary Clinton is definitely a strong candidate, and she has her own demographic that like her, and b) people seem to be forgetting that the last Democratic President in the Oval Office - that being Hillary’s husband, took until June to win his nomination formally.

That stuff is just a bunch of Hillary propaganda spin coming from that side.

I do not believe that the supers will thwart the majority of the elected/pledged delegates. They risk open civil war at the Convention if they do… and I think the leaders of the Dems like Dean and Reid and Pelosi know that.. and won’t let it get that far.

As I said last night in my own after thoughts, superdelegates could come up with all sorts of justifcations for handing Clinton the nomination: (NOTE: these are NOT my reasons, I’m just saying what they could come up with as possible rationales): Obama can’t beat McCain (in fact polls right now she her doing better on a state by state basis then Obama - see the front page of http://www.mydd.com/), Obama can’t win working class voters the Democrats need to win, Obama can’t win states Democrats need to win (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio), voters in all the earlier states would have voted differently (i.e., for Hillary Clinton) if they knew more about Obama and so on. All these arguments are dubious on some levels but they could be used to justify thwarting the popular will to give Hillary the nomination.

I’ve not picked sides in this race but the New York Times notwithstanding there is narrative now of “why couldn’t Obama seal the deal” and why couldn’t he win in Pennsylvania when he campaign very hard and spent way more money. Whether Obama likes are not he will be asked these questions and forced to justify why he thinks he wouldn’t end up like Dukakis in 1988.

I still think Obama has easily the best chance to win, but I think there are enough reasons still there not to count Hillary Clinton out. I know you support Obama Scott and want him to win but that doesn’t mean the superdelegates will give it to him just because it seems like the right thing to do (he is after all against someone who’s links to the party establishment are much stronger than his).

The Democrats managed to register an additional 300,000 voters in Pennsylvania, so I’m thinking the real winner yesterday was democracy.

Her ONLY chance is for the Super Delegates to say “Well, Obama has more delegates, and Obama got more votes, but you know what, we’re gonna give it to Clinton”. What realistic chance is there that this would happen? That party big wigs would say “Sure, he’s winning. Sure, he’s received more votes. We’re just not going to give it to him though. ‘Cause.” (picture Super Delegate sticking out their tongue).

It’s just not going to happen.

I thought it was fascinating last night that CNN showed 3 different popular vote calculations: with just primary states, with primary states AND caucus states, and with primary states, caucus states, AND FLORIDA. Obama is winning ALL THREE, and as you point out, short of winning around 90% of the remaining races, Hillary can’t do a thing about it.

She’s got two EXCEEDINGLY remote shots. One, the single greatest collapse of a political candidate in the history of the universe (which I think will require AT LEAST the use of the words “dead” and “hooker”), or, for the party big wigs to decide that they’re going to take the nomination away from an African American candidate who has both more votes, and the support of more delegates.

I think the deceased prostitute is more likely.