Now they are insisting that Obama dump Powers. I guess only Republicans get forgiveness from Hillary.

Or do they really think the term "monster" is somehow more egregious than John McCain joking that Chelsea is so ugly because Janet Reno is her father. Get it? He was saying that Hillary was an adulterous dyke! I guess John McCain passed the "forgiveness" thresehold.

When Hillary develops some non-situational principles she can act offended at what surrogates say.

Maybe she should practice some Christian values. You know the faith that she isn't sure Obama practices (subtext: funny name, might be a Muslim, nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

The fact that you don't get the importance of the prior contests and any upcoming one besides Pennsylvania shows why her campaign has been and will lose the nomination. A Pennsylvania delegate doesn't count more than a Washington delegate, a Mississippi delegate, and Virginia delegate, etc.

It is nonsense to expect the superdelegates to hold to the Clinton standard of "win" just because the Clintons say it is so. Some will vote for him just because they like him, some will vote for him because he won their state/county/legislative district/city and they don't want to usurp the will of thier voters, and some will look at the things like the latest SUSA poll showing that he still beats McCain in states that he lost to Hillary while also showing that she loses states like Washington and Oregon and has many more toss up states.

But yeah, shame on an Obama surrogate for insulting Hillary. He should be doing it directly the same way that Hillary does when she says she doesn't know if Obama is a Muslim or when she says McCain is better qualified than Obama.

Of course if Naftagate is any indication, we may find out on April 23 that is was actually Hillary's foreign policy advisor calling her a monster.

She has more personalities than Sybil. Who is she going to go crying to when some foreign leader calls her a name?

She also compared Obama to Ken Starr.

Yep, she has the leadership to smear Obama directly.

Is that they don't know how to process the thought of an advisor actually having their own opinion. When you look at the Clinton campaign it is like VH1 put together "The Surreal Life- I love the 90's edition". It is natural that they expect that every surrogate is speaking off of an Obama talking points memo because that is how the Clinton campaign does business.

If you want an example of why surrounding yourself with cronies that never offer a contrary opinion is bad look at the current occupant of the White House.

About how John McCain has the fiery passion needed to be commander in chief?

It looks like, shy of a serious Obama upset in the remaining caucuses by getting about 100% of the remainging state delegates that he will split Wyoming's pledged delegates 7 to 5 and get the unpledged add on in May. This result nearly wipes out the gains Clinton made last Tuesday.

And the bar for Clinton's nomination just got a little higher.

So much for momentum.

The latest SUSA national breakdown indicates that Washington and Oregon go to McCain. If you don't think that it is possible for Washington to deliver for McCain you haven't been following Washington politics. Our governor won her seat by a couple hundred votes against the Republican candidate.

The SUSA poll also shows Obama picking up what the pundits call red states. For instance, we may actually see Mississippi vote for Obama in the general.

Overall Obama has fewer toss-ups against McCain than Clinton has against McCain. This means that if Obama is the candidate John McCain has a much narrower path to the presidency.

The other thing about the battleground state theory is that they are considered battleground because they have large numbers of republicans and independants, as well as Democrats. Realistically the key to winning those states is getting Republicans and Independants to vote for the Democratic candidate. So far Obama has been winning that vote handily.

Another key to this election is going to be turn out and it is clear that Obama supporters have been doing a better job so far of getting out the vote.

That increased turn out also should produce a halo effect. For any of the big ideas in this campaign to become reality we need more democrats in the Senate, House, and public offices at all levels. This means we have to pick up wins in the "red" states. Even if Obama doesn't win a state his being on the ballot would be the key to a lot of other democratic politicans getting elected.

If the idea is that Obama loses states to McCain because he lost them to Hillary, does that mean Hillary loses states to McCain that she lost to Obama? I mean, when Hillary loses a state to Obama she has been losing by much largers amounts than when Obama loses a state to Hillary. That would put her 187 electoral votes in the hole so far.

Overall, I think all the talk about how critical a win in Pennsylvania is just reflects the viewpoint of the candidate that desperately needs to play down the results of the prior contests. Different superdelegates will have different rationals for endorsing a candidate, the Clinton rational is just one of them.

Here are some other rationals:

1. They think Obama is still more electable

2. They just like him better

3. They can't bring themselves to vote for a candidate that calls the democrats in their state unimportant

4. Their political life will be over if they over rule the wishes of the voters in their state, legislative district, county, or city.

5. They need Obama at the top of the ticket to get people elected in their state

6. They value his ability to energize voters and raise more money.

7. They like his policy proposals better.

8. They don't like her