I can't quite follow the recent 'dream ticket' refrain. According to the Clinton campaign, he's an inexperienced, dishonest, corrupt, naive upstart. What does it say about her that she'd be willing to have such a person on her ticket? It actually smells a bit of desperation, a recognition that it's the only way she can get on the ticket. Right now, they say the dream ticket is Clinton/Obama. In May, they'll be claiming the the dream ticket is Obama/Clinton, in a last-ditch attempt to salvage anything from the year's efforts. If she wants a spot on that ticket (rather than Obama/Dodd, or Obama/Sebelius), she better start running a more positive campaign.

ever since they endorsed her for the nomination.

I think prostitution is illegal because a woman is making money off of her body. Pornography is OK because it's usually a powerful corporation making money off of her body.

But there's still the absurdity: I pay a woman to have sex with me, I've broken the law. But if I pay a woman to have sex with me and videotape it and sell it to people, I've broken no law, nor has the woman. I don't know why all prostitutes and their clients don't carry cameras around with them to pretend that is what they are doing.

Don't forget all the black folk in Vermont and Maine that turned out to give Obama his huge wins there.

Responding to someone else's comment that a 50/50 split of Michigan delegates would be good for Obama: I think if they had a caucus it would be a big win for him, so a 50/50 split would be in Clinton's best interests. Perhaps that would be the best compromise: count Florida delegates as is, and do a Michigan caucus. The end result would still push Obama over 2,025.

Clinton won 50% of the vote in Florida and 55% of the vote in Michigan. Give her that percentage of the delegates, and Obama the rest. She'll have a net gain of about 10 delegates (while Obama's about 150 delegates ahead). That's giving her CONSIDERABLE benefit of the doubt because Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. Let's move on.

If, in a couple months, the delegates from FL are seated as-is and are enough to put Obama over the 2,025 line.

Neither the current delegate split based on the last primary nor a re-do in Florida will make a big enough difference in Clinton's delegate total to warrant the attention that it is getting. At most, she'll get a couple dozen extra delegates out of it, while Obama will remain much farther ahead than that. I think her only hope, and what this is all about, is Michigan: IF she can get her 55% of the delegates there and Obama gets his 0%. I don't think any honest democrat will accept that as fair, but I think it's her ultimate goal, and the only way she can get close to Obama's delegate total. That's why she's opposed to a re-do in Michigan.

except his name was "John Edwards" and he was white, he'd already have 3,000 delegates.

As some other posters have said, Clinton is actively knee-capping Obama so she has a shot in 2012 against McCain. That is to say, she's selling out women's reproductive rights for a generation (cf. coming supreme court changes if McCain is elected) so that she can lose again in 4 years rather than 8 years. What a lovely person.

Here's a pattern I've noticed in the past year and it puzzles me. When some economic crisis hits the US, like the BS-storm, foreign markets take the news much more seriously than we do in the US. The Hang Seng droped over 5% yesterday, and the DAX nearly 4% today. In the US, after a low opening, the DOW has been climbing all morning. Why do foreign markets always react more dramatically than American ones to American economic woes?

as a candidate, is to brag about 'strenghts' she has over Obama that will turn around and become great weaknesses in comparison to McCain. She has experience! (McCain has far more) She's older! (McCain is far older) She's done a lot of legislating! (McCain [and Obama, actually] has done more). She's an international expert! (McCain's foreign affairs credentials are far stronger) And now, she has combat zone experience! (McCain... you get the idea)

On the other hand, Obama's strengths against Clinton will stand as strengths against McCain.

Split them 50/50, or 50/35 in Clinton's favor (which is what current polls are saying) - it'll only change the pledged delegate count by a couple dozen while Obama's over 150 ahead. MICHIGAN is the big question. They seem to have their act together for a redo, and Obama is polling well there and a new vote will likely negate whatever happens with Florida. SPLIT THEM AND LET'S MOVE ON. What's now ironic for Clinton is that once the delegates from those two states are seated, even if she comes out with a few dozen more than Obama, it will bring him up close to 2,024.

I'd see the day when anyone on the left would not see the difference between anger/fear over "threats to white people in America" and anger/fear over "threats to black people in America." One of those emotions is the root of KKK ideology, while the other is driven by the history of this country's treatment of African-Americans and fed the successes of the Civil Rights movement. If you can't see the difference between the two (Clinton campaign, I'm talking to you), you have no business calling yourself a democrat, because you have no understanding of oppression/marginalization or the history of race in America.