Not to plug the competition but you can get a look at exactly How hopeless it is for Senator Clinton at this time (and thusly how pointlessly detrimental to the party her continued attacks are) by checking out the Slate Delegate Calculator at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

Looking at this you will see that Yes, Senator Obama did win both the popular vote and delegate count in Texas based on Texas's two teared system.

More importantly, if Senator Clinton wins by 20 points in all the remaining primaries, she still comes to the convention short of Senator Obama's delegate count.

If Michigan or Florida holds a revote, and Senator Clinton get's 60 percent of the vote she still does not surpass Senator Obama's pledged Delegate count.

Now yes, if there is a revote in both Florida and Michigan, and Hillary wins both, in addition to all the other remianing contests by 20 points, she does surpass Senator Obama. But again, that's a great deal of winning

What's more since it is unlikely that there will be a revote, let us say we simply seat Florida and Michigan's delegates with Hillary's current vote percentage, and giving the remaining Florida and Michigan Delgates to Obama (55% of Michigan and 58% of Florida for Senator Clinton) Senator Obama still arrives at the convention with 3 more delegates than Senator Clinton.

Now, certianly Senator Clinton winning the next set of contest by 20% might give us a sense of momentum for her, but is that a practical hope for her supporters?

Since the imaginariness of the Snipers is relativly new, it will take a few moments for late night comedy writers to determine the best gags to create based upon this image (assuming it holds).

The real question with regard to this is if it will take hold.

It's a good image from which to create comedy, the fanciful Walter Mitty world that Hillary Clinton might imagine herself to be in. But comedy based on an person's image relies very heavily on repition of the idea. Since there is something of a cease fire against Hillary by right wing pundits at the moment, it is up to the Obama campaign and the late night comedians themselves to reiterate the story.

If Senator Clinton makes it to the nomination, then this gag will likely get repeated adnauseum then. Provided it's still fresh, funny, and workable.

As to the Senator's Ad itself, seems fine, s safe ad for a safe state for her. The real question is, what's next after Pensylvania? Does Clinton think this is her big stand, or is she hopping for momentum. What kind of Momentum is she really expecting? How much should she expect?

The only argument one can make for the work place being a worse place with women in it, is that the larger labor pool (men and women as opposed to just women) driving down the price for labor.

It's hard to find real evidence to support this claim, but it is an argument one can and does make, though it is more commonly used against immigrants than women (female immigrants of course being the worst for your economy, by this line of thinking).

The other place of course, where working women (or more specifically the expansion of women's opportunity) is in the "traditionally" female fields.

When scientists could only be science teachers, we as a nation rose technologically...now that are science teachers are only those with a passion for the field, and those scientists not good enough to get a job in a lab, our technology theoretically suffers.

Think about it, the countries on the rise in the east, all have much stronger social mores regarding a woman's place, and this helps their education system.

I am joking of course, what limited loss we have in women teachers and qualified nurses we have more than made up with advances made by female scientists and doctors.

No what the article misses is that, women weren't supposed to change the work world upon entering it, any more than immigrants or any other group has or could.

In a capitalist society we are all the masters of our own human capital which we trade for wealth. The more we trade of our human capital the more personal wealth we create. Therefore, the more wealth that exists in a society the more people will trade on themselves to aquire a piece of said wealth. That is the system, the only system that works in our society. If we weren't capitalist, if we were a centrally managed economy, someone might designate time for labour and time for self fullfillment, in that environment however, the state may decide that women are better suited to more traditional roles, which doesn't solve the problem really. In as far as it is beneficial to our customers (our employers) work life balance is encouraged in our system, but in the end it is our own desire for profit that motivates the American work ethic.

We work ourselves to death, because we wish to have a more affluent life. So long as the system allows for the accumulation of personal wealth, said accumulation will always cause people to work harder for more.

The problem with reevaluating the profit motive, is that even in a monieless society, profit is still the driving motivator for all sentient life.

Animals seek better hunting and foraging grounds, and crowd out competitors, and so do humans.

Even in a socialist society where money is replaced with status, the back stabbing, and tireless effort to attain that profit of status isn't decreased.

The state can make rules (as they do in some other countries) about how much vacation must be given to employees, but even then many still take the office along with them, and at the highest levels, the ever present blackberry means that one can earn profit even on the beach.

You and me baby, we ain't nothin' but mammals, so we seek out greater and greater profit, however we define it