Sure Obama has developed a pledged delegate lead so large that the Clintons' best case scenario is that it gets held to 100

Obama has won:

The most states

The most primaries

The most caucuses

The most votes

More of the 17 States that were close in 2004 by a bigger electoral margin. Obama has won those states that combined have 74 electoral vote while Clinton's states are only 49. Even further, the lastest SUSA poll shows those states giving Obama 101 electoral votes in the general and Clinton only 74. Which is a pretty stark reminder that Hillary can't open up states for the Democrats.

He also has:

Put states like Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina into contention. He even puts Nebraska into contention, which isn't far fetched due to Nebraska system of spliting its electoral votes by congressional district.

Put together a much stronger volunteer orgainization, which will be key to getting out the vote.

Broken fund raising records solely through small donations.

Excited young voters with a argument for Democratic principles that could have ramifications not only in politics but also in civic life.

Not tried to make the case that John "Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain is more qualified to be Commander in chief than his opponent

Not voted to start a war based on false intellegence.

Personally, I have no problem with the superdelegate system as it is this year. Rules are rules. I do, however, strongly disagree with the Clintons' contention that victory or loss in a state nominating contest directly translate into a victory or loss in the general election. Aside from the fact that there is no historical basis for the argument, it doesn't take into account the facts that the general election is open to all voters or all political leaning and that the contest is between a different opponent.

I also disagree with the notion that a primary vote in a "battleground" state should be worth more than a vote in a "non-battleground" state. Five states shouldn't have veto power over the other 45 states. Votes shouldn't be weighted by geographical boundries. 10,000 votes in one states aren't greater than 12,000 votes in two states.

I also disagree with the notion that caucuses shouldn't count. Caucuses are open to as many people as primaries, fewer people just opt to participate. Some are actually more democratic because, unlike primaries, participant can vote on resolutions that have the ability to be voted on up through the state convention, giving participants a greater ability in shaping their party. Plus, state Democratic parties should have the ability to choose the delegate selection system that makes the most sense for their state. Finally, caucusing is easy.

How easy?

Just ask 2007 Hillary "Inevitable" Clinton:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=racTAiemEQU

"Way to ignore the caucus difference"

Actually, I was pointing out that your claim of Hillary winning more primaries is false.

"C'mon, tell me you don't know just how disingenuous this is. Both Kobe Bryant and I have played basketball. Ergo, we're the same? Yes, both have won . . . but to anyone who looks beyond a shallow glance it's obvious that one wins more caucuses than primaries and one the other. If we're going to have serious debate, let's at least debate seriously."

Actually, Obama has won 15 primaries with delegates at stake, Clinton 13.

You can laugh at the thought of Kansas or Idaho voting for a Democrat, but it isn't my candidate that says that the Democrats have to win Oklahoma and Texas to win the presidency. Personally, I think the 1984 presidential race is a good case study in how full of crap the "red state/blue state" meme is.

Also, what is the right level of democratic process in a nomination contest? Clinton supporters claim that caucuses don't bring out enough voters and they claim that open primaries bring out too many voters. What exactly is the magic number? Anyone can participate in a caucus, even people out of state can send a surrogate, if there is lower turn out it isn't because the process is undemocratic, it is because not as many people are motivated to participate.

But hey, the Clinton campaign can feel free to keep talking about how voters in Washington are too rich, voters in Virginia are too black, and voters in Kansas are too red. I'm sure it won't come back around an bite them when it comes time for superdelegates to make their decisions.

There were no delegates at stake with the Washington Democratic primary so it is a very thin argument to use against caucus results. When there is something tangible at stake people behave differently. Personally, I didn't even vote in the primary because I, being an informed voter, knew it was a waste of paper.

Are you really trying to paint Hillary as the one with the hard knock life?

Kind of a stretch considering that your candidate views the U.S. Senate as an entry level position for elected officials.