Based on the idea that if a person wins most states, most pledged delegates, and most votes they should get the nomination and some estimates on how the delegates will be portioned out based on the HI and WI votes:

Pledged Delegates: Clinton needs about 598 to get a majority of pledged delegates of about 60% of the pledged delegates from March 4th forward. Obama needs about 428 pledged or 42% of the pledged delegates.

States: Obama needs one more to get 25 states, he IMO has the tie breaker with Washington DC. Hillary can only get 25 states if she wins all 14 of the upcoming constests.

Votes: Based on this spreadsheet from a blogger at Kos (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pRkCa8hgD4bOxFiEJIIx_YA) and the CNN results, it looks like Obama has at least a million vote edge right now.

So in order for Clinton to out an out wins she needs to get 20 point victory margins on _Average_ in the rest of the contests. Not just in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania; but in Oregon, Mississippi, North Carolina, Deleware, Montana, and so on. It means getting a 35 point swing from what she got last night in Wisconsin which has the demographics she is counting on to win.

The are only two ways to do this: She could come out, speak from the heart and present astounding policy proposals that inspire voters around the country. Which if she does that, great, everyone wins.

Or she has to go super negative, far beyond what she and her supporters have done so far. Before going this route she has to ask herself if her ego is really worth tearing down a great candidate that is inspiring the party.

Clinton would get some breathing room if Michigan and Florida held new and valid contests but not tons of it.

I was interested in a 50 state campaign because I thought it would be about a marketplace of ideas regarding the direction of this country. After a week of watching Senator Clinton's campaign act like an aggrieved schoolchild (Teacher! Teacher! Barack and Deval are working off of each other's papaers and Barack still won't debate me!) I'd like to see her step aside.

She has a mathmatical chance, of winning but it isn't remotely close to likely based on how voters have been acting.

not such a big liability now I guess. Looks like the "Ethics" mantle is up for grabs in this election. I've never understood how one of the Keating 5 got a hold of it in the first place.

It may be that they didn't have a romantic relationship, it isn't like he has a thing for young blondes, but not all relationships need to be sexual to be improper.

(And somewhere Mike Huckabee silently curses the NYT for not running this story on Feb 7)

John McCain is great with reporters, always available. I think that familiarity will make the story too personal for them and they will try to down play it because "that's not the man I know!" It will be interesting to see if the late night talk shows he frequently visit or SNL (which he once hosted) will make a single joke about situation which has some comic elements.

I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives went apocolypic, assuming that McCain and the NYT were part of a conspiracy to get him the nomination.

The certainly seemed to be Bay Buchanan's reaction. It was funny because the other pundits and Anderson Cooper didn't seem to procees her reaction and assumed she was trying to say she was upset that the NYT were running an oddly timed smear. Her problem was that the NYT didn't run it sooner!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us

Ever try to sell a house that expensive? You don't normally get the asking price.

My house was worth considerably less and I ended up taking a bid that was $25,000 less than my original asking price. It is home buying, it happens.

It sucks that Obama had Rezko as an aquaintance, but no one said he was perfect. For a Clinton or McCain supporter to harp on Rezko is a clear sign they haven't done enough research on their candidate and who they associate with.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

At least Obama's statement was an "if/then" where the "If" is a pretty solid "If". If the CIA had actionable intellegence on Osama bin Laden I'd damn well hope that they would act on it over any country's objections.

I think the territories have 2 for 1 delegates as well.

Basically: A person who voted to invade Iraq can't be trusted to be commander in chief. Works against McCain as well.

Hillary's finally question, while effective, had a few problems.

The first is that she has so rarely shown any humanity in this campaign that the few times she does seem calculated and rehearsed in retrospect. I half expect her to start interjecting the "How do you do it line" into her stump speech, complete with a slight quiver in her voice.

The second is the Edward's line. It had a very specific cadence and a unique sentiment that put it on the level of the "just words?" line. I wouldn't have a problem with it if lifting lines from other politicans was her campaign's big bugaboo against Obama.

Finally, her vote to invade Iraq is part of the reason those soldiers were at the hospital.