My math is precisely correct. You have repeated the error that the mainstream media did in quoting a 10% difference when rounding rather than a 9% difference, and I just GAVE you that example. When calculating a difference, always use the pre-rounded numbers, or always keep at least one more significant digit than you report. Example, I, like the PA DOS, reported 54.3% and 45.7%, but, keeping one more digit, the numbers are 54.25% and 45.74%, where the difference is 8.5%

This is one of the problems with this country, so many people can't do math.

Currently, CNN, ABC, and CBS are all reporting a 10% win for Hillary, with 1,258,245 for Hillary which is 54.7% and1,042,297 for Obama which is 45.3% for a 9.4% difference, which they round to 55% and 45% and call a 10% difference. But the Pennsylvania dept. of state is reporting 1,235,067 for Hillary (54.3%) and 1,041,366 (45.7%) for Obama which is an 8.5% difference, and using their standard way of rounding would be reported as 54% and 46%, and be called an 8% difference.

Small difference in reality (0.9%) but a huge difference psychologically. But, more importantly, if the MSM is not getting their numbers from the PA Dept. of State, where do they get them from? And why have none of them updated/noticed???

CNN, ABC, and CBS are all reporting a 10% win for Hillary, with 1,258,245 for Hillary which is 54.7% and1,042,297 for Obama which is 45.3% for a 9.4% difference, which they round to 55% and 45% and call a 10% difference. But the Pennsylvania dept. of state is reporting 1,235,067 for Hillary (54.3%) and 1,041,366 (45.7%) for Obama which is an 8.5% difference, and using their standard way of rounding would be reported as 54% and 46%, and be called an 8% difference.

Small difference in reality (0.9%) but a huge difference psychologically. But, more importantly, if the MSM is not getting their numbers from the PA Dept. of State, where do they get them from? And why have none of them updated/noticed???

Such is the conventional wisdom, but I'm not conventional!

To reinspire all the Democratic voters that would be unhappy with Obama as the nominee, I think Boxer fits the bill. It would be pretty much giving up on the southern voters though. But I am momentarily struck with the idea that all the non-whitemaleuneducatedfundamentalist voters really are a majority in this country. An east and west coast Jewish female liberal as VP of a multi-ethnic background president? Yep, I am dreaming, but it is a nice dream, and one that I'd like to see as a reality in my lifetime. (An agnostic non-lawyer/economist intellectual (dare I even suggest scientist?) is still a pipe dream that even I can't imagine becoming a reality).

math isn't something to be challenged, unless you don't know how to do it. Yes, she did need a 20% win to be on the road to a pledged delegate victory. It was a decisive victory in PA, but not big enough to fight the cold equations (bonus points for those who get the reference!) of the nomination delegate reality.

On domestic issues, she's fairly liberal, on foreign affairs, she's definitely on the hawkish side. Depending on how things are weighted, I've seen studies describing her as the most right wing of all the Democratic candidates, bordering on being Republican, and somewhere in the moderate liberal range. I'm not claiming Obama is any more liberal in his voting record or policy stances. Neither one is anywhere near a Kucinich.

In campaigning style, Hillary has shown herself to be almost a neo-con, which is why her overall negatives have gone way up since just before the Texas/Ohio primaries. Negative campaigning isn't about making people like you, it's about making people like the other guy even less than they like you. Works in a general election, bad strategy in a primary, although tactically it is effective.

All of which is a distraction. Barring something catastrophic, she has lost the primary, and it seems unlikely she will be a running mate. So, what do you think of Boxer?

Barbara Boxer is from Brooklyn and is the Senator from California. They don't get much bigger than that!

ok, I realize I am going a bit nuts here. But let's face it, much of the sour grapes about Obama on the left among older white women is that we were finally looking like we'd have a chance at a woman president, and Obama comes from nowhere and blew it for this round.

A lot of the problem the left has with Hillary is that she represents the far right of the Democratic party, and is way too comfortable with using Republican smear tactics and supporting corporate agendas.

Senator Barbara Levy Boxer, on the other hand, is one of the most experienced female politicians in the country (county supervisor for 6 years, 10 years in the house, 15 years in the senate), opposed the war from the start, has one of the most consistent voting records in the senate, and would be the Republicans' worst nightmare as a running mate. But that's ok. As the Republicans have shown us, the VP's job is to fire up the base while attacking the opposition, so the Pres. candidate can appear moderate and above the partisan bickering (which Obama does very well). She'd get the feminist, the Jewish, and the LGBT vote to all show up in force, Obama already has the black vote, the youth vote, the educated elite vote, and does well with the independent vote. And, ultimately, all the Democrats ever have to do to win is get their base as fired up and excited as the Republicans get theirs with their scare tactics.

and one who stood up and voted against the war when it was unpopular. Barbara Boxer for VP!

Am I delirious? A Jewish, female, hard core liberal a heartbeat from the presidency?

Oh Obama, really give me hope for this country! Yes we can!