As to believe that Her Imperial Majesty would be oh-so-insistent on the rights of the "disenfranchised" of Michigan and Florida if she had LOST there?

Can anyone be so naive as to believe that Her Imperiousness wouldn't have stood a good chance of losing at least a fair portion of Florida and Michigan delegates had other candidates not followed the party mandate and either taken their name off the ballot or not campaigned there?

If any one of the Clinton breast-beaters REALLY gave a good goddamn about actual voter enfranchisement, wouldn't they be interested in pursuing a fair and impartial electoral process?

For the terminally robotic, those were purely rhetorical questions, so all you minions of Her Majesty need not respond...

once again signifying nothing. Still, if this is the best "controversy" Her Imperial Majesty's campaign can manufacture to wail and gnash their teeth about, more power to them.

As usual in this race, I think the nature and motives of the finger pointers reveals more than the actual brouhaha (real or, as in this instance, imagined) being pointed at.

She comes up with a solution to that pesky lack of delegates problem that she's got, get back to us.

Amusing to see one pining for the erstwhile "National Mom" of yore (and fable) followed by another complaining of erstwhile (albeit feverishly imagined) sexism against same...

First, I have no idea whether you be woman or man.

Second, your rush to impute sexism to my language speaks volumes about your issues, but addresses nothing within my post.

Third, your invariably over the top emotional reaction (eek, is that sexist, too?!) to anything Obama related is infinitely amusing, if not for it's plausibility (well, never that actually, since there would have to be some first) then certainly for it's predictability.

As ever, you always stand ready to address the issues.

Well, not so much.

It's been thrilling watching the tantrum.

The supposed "accomplished" one in the race voted to go to war with Iraq (although later claiming it was a vote for more inspections, thereby in one fell swoop calling into question both the "accomplished" one's judgement and veracity).

Accomplishments like that don't deserve to be rewarded. Those kind of "accomplishments" are the reason we're in the mess we find ourselves.

Her Imperial Majesty is going to give up her quest for power based on some poll numbers?

What're these people smoking and where can I get some? The only way you'll get Her Imperiousness away from the path to power is to beat her off with a stick. Besides, polls have been wrong before in this campaign and could well be wrong again. Lord knows, I'm no fan, but at the very least, she's game. She'll play out the string.

It's going to come down to a floor fight at the convention, barring any unforeseen circumstance, IMO.

It's all quite simply about the ego of a now doddering and irrelevant old man.

Look, by any stretch of the imagination I'm no supporter of Her Imperial Majesty. I find her to be disingenuous, her decisions on foreign policy to be downright reprehensible and believe she would lead our party straight into another unmitigated defeat at the polls were she to be the nominee.

That being said, she is still a candidate for the nomination with money in the bank, a viable platform and a large number of supporters (misguided though I may think them to be). Her overall position, though considerably reduced, is not untenable.

This is America. And we're not Republicans, to fall into lockstep whenever a leader designated from on high appears. Let her play out her string. God knows, whatever else may be said, she's game enough.

The man's got style. And the ability to remain unflappable in what has to be some of the most trying of circumstances.

Compared to Her Imperial Majesty's finger waving rant and childish attempt at mockery, it's easy to see who has the proper Presidential tone and presence. I know who I'd want in charge in a crisis and it ain't somebody who, with each new challenge to her once presumed inevitability, has come to look more and more shrill and ill-focused.

I never thought I would live to see a political campaign more ineffectual and lost than John Kerry's.

But I see that I was wrong.

What's next for Her Imperial Majesty now that posting funny pictures of her opponent and attempting to publish testimonials from her own staff haven't worked? Prank phone calls to Obama's house?

Who is running her campaign? A bunch of twelve year olds?

I was appalled by the sheer lack of professionalism on the part of the moderators. You could practically see them wringing their hands with glee at their own (imagined and illusory) cleverness as they popped "gotcha" questions at the candidates, one right after the next.

By the time they got around to the mutual masturbatory self-congratulation that apparently constituted MSNBC's post-game wrap up, I felt physically ill.

Walter Cronkite, where have you gone?

To all that dough when she loses Texas and Ohio and concedes?

Why anybody still takes this gibbering lunatic seriously is beyond me.

And I apologize to any lunatics, gibbering or otherwise, I may have offended by using the term.

Do you want someone answering that phone whose best and brightest foreign policy maneuver of this century was to participate in authorizing the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history?

Someone who thought it was a great idea at the time and who later-- when that vote was politically inconvenient-- attempted to obfuscate and minimize her role in the decision?

Thanks, but I'd rather have someone with the judgement and gravitas to get it right the first time answering the call...

As the saying goes, success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan.

I have no doubt that, should a miracle occur and Her Imperial majesty's campaign revive, that all these faceless names will be scrambling to claim that theirs was the pivotal role in the trunaround.