Michigan and Florida unresolved, with HRC favored in both.

She's ahead in KY and WV and within the margin of error in IN.

She does better than Obama against McCain in the general.

Superdelegates are entitled to vote for whomever they want.

Neither candidate has made it to 2024.

In closing, the disrespect and arrogance shown by the anti-Hillary crowd is appalling. I'm fine with either candidate, but some of the comments just drive me to want Hillary more for no other reason than to burst some people's bubbles. The only way I could accept HRC dropping out now is if it were accompanied by an announcement that she will be Obama's running mate.

...between talking about your faith and breaching church-state separation. If Democrats were as hostile to religion as some posters on this thread are they would be toast. It is appropriate to say how your faith informs your values and priorities. It is inappropriate to promore theocracy by insisting on school prayer, posting the Ten Commandments, teaching Creationism, outlawing abortion, discriminating against homosexuals, etc. on the premise that the Bible says so. Besides, if we really were to govern as Christians we'd be in good shape. After all Jesus preached love not hate, inclusion not exclusion, and the Bible as a whole has alot more to say about doing justice and showing charity than it does about the pet issues of the fundamentalists. Finally, nothing the Constitutional says, such as prohibition on religious tests, can prevent voters from asking questions or considering whatever factors they want in choosing a candidate. It just renders unconstitutional any law requiring a potential office-holder to adhere to a certain religion, in contrast to the Massachusetts Constitution, for example, which originally required the Governor to be Christian.

...if Barack Obama would forcefully challenge the assumptions behind the Muslim "smear". In other words, so what if he were a Muslim? So what if he did want to swear on the Koran rather than the Bible? There is no religious test for our public officials. Plenty of Muslims are also patriotic members and qualify as natural-born citizens.

The author asserts as fact that this will never happen, but does not say why. If anything, this article seems to be one more reason that she SHOULD get the number two slot.

The story referred to a "Universal Church of Christ". The correct term is "UNITED Church of Christ".

This reminds me of the way the Kerry campaign edited President Carter's speech because they didn't want Carter to say anything negative about Bush. As far as I'm concerned simply being a President entitles Clinton to write his own speech, free of any intervention from the Obama camp. These conventions are way to scripted as it is. Certainly, the nominee's people don't need to approve every speech.

If someone is attacking your womb, wouldn't you already be able to invoke self-defense as a justification to hit back? As for being pro-choice, I actually don't see the dilemma. I'm pro-choice for the MOTHER, but if the mother has chosen to not abort then I'm also fine with charging murder for someone else attacking the woman in a way that results in fetal death. In other words, the answer to the question about when does protectable life begin in my mind is simply when the mother says it does (at least prior to the third trimester).

If they truly believe in their legislation they should have no problem defending it.

...is that we more progressive Christians have to yell to be heard. The Religious Right claims a monopoly on Christianity and the Secular/Athiest left pretty much accepts the claim and thus says good riddance to all Christianity. I am a member of the United Church of Christ, a very progressive denomination with room for more conservative local churches and individual members. The UCC is governed relatively democratically and not just allows, but sometimes seems to encourage, dissent.

One example in particular gets on my nerves. Many who oppose same-sex marriages or think homosexuality is a sin in general say our laws should reflect the Bible because we are a "Christian nation". As evidence that we were founded as a Christian nation they will point to the Pilgrims and Puritans who settled Massachusetts. For now, we'll leave aside the idea that founding Massachusetts and founding the United States are two different things. The Puritans by the late 1700s evolved into Congregationalists, and before the 1st Amendment was interpreted to apply to the states, MA was one of the last states to disestablish its religion, namely Congregationalism. In 1957, most Congregational churches merged with Evangelical/Reformed churches to form the United Church of Christ, a denomination which in 2005 became the first fully Christian denomination to sanction same-sex marriage. Meanwhile Massachusetts, which unlike the country as a whole really was founded as a Christian theocracy, became the first state to grant full marriage equality. As a resident of MA and a UCC member my question is can't those who point to us as proof that we are a Christian nation have the decency to ask what WE think of laws that are supposedly biblically-based?

...reforming the LEGAL immigration process. We need to get to the point where there's hardly incentive to sneak in illegally because it's easy enough to do legally. Isn't there anyway to speed up the legal immigration procedure, without sacrificing public health or safety?

This doesn't make sense in this context. The states should accept whomever the party nominates at the national level for these offices. Besides, the people only vote for slates of electors for each state. I'm sure electors pledged to vote for John McCain would also vote for Joe Lieberman if that's what they were asked to do. The only restriction the Constitution places on whom electors vote for is that they can't vote for both POTUS and VPOTUS candidates residing in their own state. That of course is not the case here.