Is there any industry whose employees haven't give him at least three digit sums?

The Energy Bill is a red herring. If you look at almost every bill there are things in them worth voting for and things worth voting against. Vote against a particular bill and you are voting against getting soldiers body armor. Vote for the same bill and you are voting to give billions to Halliburton. It is why I'm glad the general election will be between two Senators.

Personally, I think we actually need higher gas prices. We need to be using less gas, emitting less carbon, saving more energy, contain suburban sprawl, etc. As long as the price of gas is kept artificially low, the demand for gas won't abate.

It is one of the hypocrisies of both (and most) candidates:

We need to reduce green house gases and we need to make sure people can afford to use their single occupancy SUVs to drive 30-60 minutes to and from work?

We need to protect American manufacturing jobs and we need to make sure desiel price stay low enough that companies can afford to truck Chinese imports from Seattle to Jacksonville?

It is schizophrenic.

Side note to Sightheria on polls: Single polls are a snap shot, not a trend. Two polls that are both within the margin of error are effictively tied.

And if you think just winning Indiana, West Virgina, and Kentucky are going to be enough, you have somehow made it through nearly five months of nominating contests without understanding the basics of how the process works. Obama has pulled far enough ahead in this race that minor changing in delegate accumulution (such as single digit victories in Pennsylvania, the state with the second oldest population and where Hillary started off with a 20 point lead) is going to result in a win.

To only have a 100 pledged delegate defecit she needs to get 58% of the remaining pledged delegates. Spoiler alert: Oregon, South Dakota, and North Carolina aren't going to break 58% Clinton to 42% Obama. Not going to happen. But in the event that she does, she will still be faced with getting 62.5% of the remaing superdelegates would have not endorsed a candidate to support her.

Now getting more than 60% support for a candidate may not seem like a difficult amount of support for a candidate to get because so many contests so far have had a winnner getting more than 60% of the vote. But here is the tricky part: The vast majority of those contests were ones where Obama was the winner, not Clinton. Somehow I doubt the rule of thumb is: As goes Arkansas' Democats, so go the Nation's Super Delegates.

Of course you are just a reflection of your candidate, who is only running for President of Some of the Unitied States.

It is funny how Clinton supporters desperately, desperately need to believe that Obama supporters think he is the second coming. That if they can just show that he is human then voters will suddenly turn to Clinton.

Newsflash: The vast majority of Obama voters don't think he walks on water. We certianly realize he has flaws. We just think he is better suited to be President than Hillary Clinton. A candidate can be a long way from turning water into wine and still be a better candidate than Clinton or McCain.

To steal from the book: We're just not that into her.

Hillary opposed the gas tax holiday being proposed by Rick Lazlo.

Now that we know both candidates switched positions since 2000, maybe we can go back to talking about the merits of the gas tax holiday plans?

It is possible that the different outcomes between the Hawaii and Guam voters is because, and this may surprise some people, there were different people voting. It is funny how keep trying to draw trend lines from contest to contest. Like white people from Wisconsin gave direction to white people from Ohio.

As for electability, there is no objective measure to say that Obama would lose to McCain and Hillary wouldn't. The best way to prove your a winner is to win and Obama has won more than Hillary. More pledged delegates, more states, and more votes.

Shouldn't Hillary have won both NC and Indiana hands down?

I also think it is reach to say that voters in Indiana and North Carolina represent the whole Democratic electorate. The really only reflect the Indiana and North Carolina electorate.

Hillary's margin with white voters in those two states is just about the amount of people who admit in public that race was a factor in their voting. The same people who wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general.

Does anyone really think there is a massive union in a Venn Diagram of "People who wouldn't vote for an African American" and "People who would vote for a woman"?

A handful of ads on CNN is not the same as campaigning in a state. The margin in Florida would have been different if Obama has been able to utilize his strengths: rallies, organizing, and GOTV efforts. I know the difference may be lost on people whose candidate was running a top down campaign.

It never fails to astonish me that Clinton supporters, whose candidate was First Lady for two terms and the two term Senator from New York (or "where I lived before I retired" as Floridians refer to it), cry foul that Obama ran _Nation Wide_ advertisements on a National Cable Channel in an attempt to raise his name recognition prior to Super Tuesday and didn't make Herculean efforts to have them blocked from cable subscribers in Miami.

Stop crying. This nominating contest was Hillary's to lose right from the start. Her biggest booster was a popular two term president. She had hundreds of millionare Hillraisers to fuel her campaign. She should have walked away with the nomination if she was really as qualified for the job as she would like us to believe.