Here: http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

You can set the margins of victory on all the remaining races and see how the delegate count ends up. Even if you give Clinton a 10-point victory in each remaining race, and even if you go ahead and include a 10-point victory in Florida and Michigan and throw those in, SHE STILL LOSES. Get it? It's called 'math,' and it's biased against Clinton (and oh yeah, and Obama is now 20 points up on Clinton in national polls). Almost every journalist other than Walsh gets this, and understands the primary to be effectively over and the race to now be about Obama vs. McCain, and directs their attentions accordingly (see Steve Benen and Greenwald here on Salon). At this point, attacking Obama means nothing politically other than helping McCain. That's fine if you are a McCain supporter, but if you aren't, well, other unflattering words come to mind.

start racial relations with that boy."

"After all the primaries and caucuses are complete, Clinton will trail Obama in pledged delegates, and will need superdelegates to make up the difference."

AND: it would take at least 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates to make up the difference. Meanwhile, the vast majority of remaining supers are just waiting to see who comes out on top with the pledged delegates (most have said as much). SO: If it is mathematically impossible for her to have more pledged delegates, and a large majority of remaining supers are going to go for whoever has more pledged delegates ...

This isn't rocket science, folks.

If the supers were going to make a decision that had nothing to do with the delegate count, they would have already made it (as most have). They're chance to 'cut a deal' diminishes every day, as the chances of a Clinton win diminishes, mathematically. The only reason not to cash in the value of their vote now, when it is worth the most, is that they really are waiting to see who has the most delegates, which is an honorable thing to do.

I'm mostly a pesco-vegetarian (also know as "not a vegetarian"). I think it would be a better world if no one ate meat. However, strategically, a small minority of non-meat eaters will not change practices within the meat/fishing industry. What will change them is if those who eat meat/fish make purchasing choices that reward certain practices over others. Grocery stores are now full of organic products for that reason.

Do you ever get tired of being the worst writer at your own magazine? Is having your own magazine the only way you can get your thoughts published? Just wondering. You might consider letting some of the good writers go (cough - Glenn - cough cough), as they really make you look bad in comparison.

whether Salon under Walsh has become a anti-Obama-all-the-time newssource, or that all their information comes from the right-wing-noise-machine, check out this HuffPo piece on frequent Salon contributor and Walsh friend Sidney Blumenthal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

BTW: I strongly recommend leaving Salon to find any useful news about this election.

are clearly the numbers of good, hard-working, White Americans. Maybe the votes of 'others' should be weighted in some way to reflect that, like maybe be counted as half-a-vote. Clinton should get right on the rules committee about that.

You're not a history buff, are you? Kennedy's 1980 campaign against Carter was widely detested within democratic circles at the time, and many rightly were calling on him to quit and later blamed him for Carter's loss that fall. That's what people are afraid of now. More recently, remember that guy Huckabee? When people lose all chance of winning, they are urged to withdraw. When they don't, history shows it tends to be damaging to the eventual nominee.

I used 1/2 instead of 3/5 to keep the math simple for under-educated working white-class, instead of elites such as us.

For me a lot of it is personal memory, but there are articles you can find about it, like here: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_snub_circa_1980.php

I've heard it said, to the credit of Clinton, that she's staying in at least until the contests are over that she's sure to win - W. Virginia and Kentucky. It would be very embarrassing for Obama to lose two states right after he's the only one running. It was pretty embarrasing for B. Clinton when Tsongas won states even after he'd dropped out in 1992.

2209 is not the new delegate count for Clinton. It's the next year she has a chance at winning the nomination.

...saying that he voted for the person he plans to endorse, and he'll endorse the person he thinks will win the nomination, and he thinks Obama will win the nomination. He said those three things at different times, but put them together and it's clear who he voted for.

And another pressing question, who will be the republican nominee, John McCain or Ron Paul? I can't wait to find the solution to this great mystery.