How is this a surprise? Despite the war, the economy, low approval ratings for W., etc. anyone who thought this would be a cake walk whichever candidate the Democrats chose has been dreaming. This is still a very divided country and Democrats don't exactly have a flawless reputation when it comes to fiscal discipline, security concerns and ethics.

That said, the facts on the ground should allow the right candidate to handily beat McCain and Obama is that candidate. Clinton isn't. Think for a minute of all the people you know who would vote for Clinton in the general election. Then ask yourself how many of those people did NOT vote for Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. My best guess is that she doesn't attract a much different crowd than either of them did. If she's the nominee we're looking at another 51/49-type election in November which is comparable to flipping a coin. Heads, Clinton wins; tails, McCain wins. In Obama, the Democratic party and the country have a candidate who can attract a much broader segment of the electorate than the typical candidate over the past several election cycles consisting of those who voted for Gore/Kerry PLUS some independents PLUS younger voters PLUS voters getting involved for the first time.

Since so many of the super delegates are elected officials, they're all wondering 'what's in this for me?' The undecided superdelegates don't seem to want to end this early, don't seem to care about the impact of the various gaffs and attacks of the past few weeks, and don't feel obliged to follow the voters in their districts/states. What they do want is to figure out what they can get out of this situation and there's going to be (if there hasn't been already) a good deal of horse trading behind the scenes. If the eventual nominee makes it to the White House, they will end up owing more favors than any president in history. This will be bad for the country.

So, for different reasons than those Howard Dean has on his mind, I think this thing needs to end now. Every horse that is traded, every nationally televised "I promise to..." statement made to pacify an overly aggressive debate questioner will make leave the candidate less free and independent to govern if elected president.

...and if Hillary wins the White House we can expect at least another four years of this kind of bullshit. While she deserves to lose on her own merits I'd like to see the people of PA put an end to both of them once and for all.

Yes, it is a good thing for the press to report on things that people who follow politics closely may take for granted from time to time.

But there's another responsibility that you overlook here. When the Clinton campaign indicates that her victories in some of these larger states logically indicate an advantage that she would have in November it should be the press' responsibility to question this logic EVERY TIME. By running clips of Clinton's speech or reporting on what she said, without questioning the logic (or the lack thereof), the press is not only missing an opportunity to inform the public but it is complicit misleading the public...exactly what the candidate in question is trying to do.

Isn't the Democratic party supposed to care about the environment? Actually, even the Republicans pay lip service to the environment these days. Yet the Clinton/McCain plan for a gas tax holiday is a slap in the face to all of us who actually care about the planet.

I'm an independent with a libertarian streak and I never met at tax I wouldn't like to see cut but I can't get through the logic on this one. Just about everyone in government says that there's a goal to get us to drive less/use less gas. But here are Clinton and McCain saying that Americans shouldn't be forced to limit some of their summer travel. If we're not supposed to cut down on discretionary travel like summer drives to the beach/lake/park, exactly what driving are you asking us to reduce? Answer: Zero. They don't want to ask anything of you. That's business as usual in Washington and that's why I hope I get the chance to vote for Obama in November.

(Please Democratic voters/superdelegates, dump Clinton so we don't end up with another election where the country gets to vote for the lesser of two evils. Yes, Clinton is an evil. To the extent that W was evil when he told us to go shopping after 9/11, she is evil when she tells us she will fight for that extra cheap car ride to the beach so that we don't have to give up our summer tans in the name of energy independence. There's really little difference between Clinton and McCain and Bush and Clinton I. None of them were willing to speak the truth to the people and explain that the correct path isn't always easy/cheap/luxurious. We need a leader with the courage to explain this to the country. Change isn't easy and it's pretty clear that Obama is the only one who is willing to admit it.)

Yes the legs of a thoroughbred are different from a Clydesdale's but this is the result of breeding and should not be stated as justification for the sport.