Don't forget they said he couldn't get the white vote before Iowa, enough of the black vote because he wasn't "black enough" before South Carolina, votes in red states before he got those, Latino and working class votes before he got those in Virginia and Wisconsin and swing states Democrats have to win before Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Missouri and Minnesota.

Everything they say he can't do, he keeps doing. He's definitely down in PA and agree the Wright comments help. But working class states appreciate someone really getting out there and working for their votes. He runs a few more ads on how he helped steel workers as a community organizer (unemployed steel workers ain't gonna care if they're black or not) maybe he can just swing a few votes his way.

Because it's true.

You want a list of his acheivements or "what he did that was so great" SI can give it to you. Early in this campaign it's how those of us who supported him started out. However it was ignored and instead the name-calling (on both sides) began. At that point we were told both we and our candidate stood no chance because both were young and inexperienced and had to learn that politics is tough. It's hardball. Hence the new attitude you're getting from Obama supporters.

I find it funny that Clinton supporters, who pretty much tried to run Obama and his supporters out of the race by complaining that "he wasn't tough enough" are now the ones complaining about how horribly tough Obama supporters are on poor Hillary. It's what you asked for. She and her supporters tried to make him unelectable by claiming he wasn't tough enough. Now he's being too tough? Give me a break.

He opposed the war from the start. Don't worry there's more, but just had to get this one in because it is important and no matter how much you try to deride it as "just a speech" it still counts. For those of us who are actually opposed to the war it's a pretty big deal.

2.) 2006 Coburn-Obama Transperency Act- which tightens the rules on what Senators can get away with respect to lobbyists and makes them disclose more. Again I know (some) of her supporters don't care as they think the whole lobbyist issue is stupid and unimportant. Others of us believe they have too much power and are ruining the government

3.) The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act- Again this matters because as we start to withdraw troops from the war in Iraq and put the effort into actually catching the terrorists in Afghanistan we have to make sure nukes don't leak out from country's like Pakistan. It's also much better than bombing Iran as both McCain and Clinton (who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Act declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization thus giving a justification for war) seem to support.

4.) The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill- This is important as it begins to stop this absurd over-rewarding of rich CEOs and corporate profiteering that is ripping this country apart. However Clinton supporters out there including the MSM (like Paul Krugman) immediately start yelling at us that this is not a solution to all of the economy's problems. Yeah, we know that. But it is a start. There's more.

I could give a list a mile long, but figure this is more than enough. Just so Clinton supporters can't continue to go around (although they will) claiming Obama has no real acheivements at all. Here's a list. Try to find some of Hillary's accomplishments (particularly in the Senate). It'll be much shorter than you think it is.

I'm sorry but if you compare their records in the Senate he's substantially done as much as her and more than any one-term Senator I can name.

Now the press might make you think otherwise, the NYT which endorsed her likes to run stories about how he hasn't really done much and the Chicago newspapers kind of vacillate back and forth over praising him and then dissing him (whenever they feel like he's not giving them enough face time), but the fact of the matter is Barack Obama's actual Senate record shows a tremendous amount done for a freshman, 1-term Senator from Illinois. It also shows bi-partisanship. Working with Repbulicans on ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are not minor things.

This would be a reasonable solution in Florida. There I have no problem seating the delgates proportionally giving her all of the ones she won.

But in Michigan where hers was the only name on the ballot? Where she was running against uncommitted? Sorry, but no way. That's a Soviet style election. I've never heard of a legitimate, American election with only one name on the ballot where a candidate is allowed to run against uncommitted. That's Communism.

It's also part of a disturbing trend that's (thankfully) fading to somehow coronate her with the election. It's not all HRC's fault it dates back to the early days of the election when party bigwigs assumed it was hers for the taking. No longer. So in lieu of this absurd, only Hillary is allowed on the ballot Michigan election, split the delegates 50-50. It's the only fair thing.