"Imagine if the DNC allowed Clinton to be the nominee if she loses of the state primaries/caucuses with superdelegates and a simple allocation of Michigan and Florida to Clinton. "

This would be terrible. FL and MI cannot be allowed to be seated as currently voted on. The votes were illegitimate.

They will be seated IF AND ONLY IF they do not determine the outcome. I see a simple solution: On a specific day (say March 15), the delegations from MI and FL will be constituted to reflect delegate proportions AT THAT TIME. That way, they will not sway the outcome, but can have an effect going forward.

re: "Hill voted for the illegal invasion. You reap what you sow."

That's right. And Obama has voted to fund it every time he's had the opportunity.

Moreover, he said in an interview with Tim Russert several years ago (a.k.a. before he was running for president) that he didn't know how he would've voted if he'd been in Congress at the time of that first vote and as such had access to the same (cooked) intelligence reports that Congress, including Hillary, had before they made their decision.

Do you *grasp* that, Gordon Wagner and other Obama fawners? He could've said, oh, something that might've resembled the claims of the Obama we hear on the stump these days, like: "Gee, Tim Russert, if *I* had been in Congress when that initial vote came up, I'd have voted NO either way - because I opposed the war from the start and a little thing like Senate intelligence reports certainly would not have shaken my righteous moral certainty."

Funny how he didn't say anything close to that. Funny how - based on his own words - there's just as much reason to believe he would've voted with the Democratic majority back then as to believe anything else. And funny how I've never heard any Obama supporter offer any excuse for his war funding votes (you know, the ones identical to Hillary's) that didn't sound pathetic and in the process conveniently absolve Obama of HIS part in helping to ensure that the war has continued to this day.

Disingenuous at best, cowardly at worst.

Can't we get some real reporting and not this transparent cheerleading? This article is embarrassing, something that would better fit with the flamers in the comments/letters. Obama continues to win in small states, particularly those that have caucuses. Clintion, however, has won all the major states the Dems must win in November: California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, and she's ahead in polls for Texas and Ohio. Overall, the delegate count per NYTimes shows Clinton with the slimmest of leads in committed delegates. Other estimates are about even.

1.) The democratic nominee is based on the number of Delegates you win, which at this point Senator Clinton has 1108 and Senator Obama has 1049.

That's based off super delegates, who may switch allegiance, and who I doubt will side with the person who has the least amount of pledged delegates (where Obama, at the moment, leads).

2.) The democratic nominee also needs to win in the states that are blue states, which Senator Clinton has shown all of us she can win these states.

No they don't. That's the point of a nationally run primary. Does anyone seriously believe that all of a sudden, if Obama wins the candidacy, that states like New York or California are going to go Republican? Do people actually believe that?

People also forget the contribution of southern Democrat's (almost all black) to the total edge Democrats have in the House. Hell, the Majority Whip is Jim Clyburn, a Democratic House member from my own district in South Carolina. The dismissive tone people have towards states that are predominantly black when it comes to the Democratic electorate is absurd; without them the Democratic Party would not be as strong.

Senator Obama has won in the Red States, but once he is up against a republican, that state will most likely go to a republican.

It depends on what you consider a "Red" state. Iowa barely went to Bush last election, as did Missouri, both states Obama did well in. As a counterpoint, Hillary did well in Nevada and New Mexico where Bush won in 04.

So I doubt Idaho is all of a sudden going to be come a rock-hard bastion of Democratic vote strength. But thats beside the point. The idea is that, in those states where its close, independents and some moderate Republicans are willing to cross to vote for him. People can slice and dice it however they want, to change the rules to fit Clinton's particular strength, but she has to win the overall primary, not just "blue" states, or states with a low concentration of black people, or any other number of contortions people are making to justify a possibly bad month for Hillary.

And honestly, considering the proportional system, she COULD do really well this month, take it to a draw delegate wise, and then shore things up in March. She could do these things by hitting the pavement hard. Instead her campaign has repeatedly feigned that "it's waiting for March". I'm not seeing how dismissing whole states is a wise idea.

Elsewhere ncawley wrote -

“I am very upset that they feel it is the obligation of America to vote for him and they will go to great lengths to put down what they call the "unemployed housewife" and the "little old ladies". I am very dissapointed in his supporteres and their statements, which are always negative.”

Who was the one that famously said “I’m not going to stay home and just bake cookies all day,” when her husband first ran for office, you idiot?

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

He wants to keep it open. We will not quit Iraq. We will keep some troops in Bagdad "to protect our embassy" for sure. And almost as certain 'he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region' by using al Qaeda presence as an excuse.

More from Obama:

Residual Force to Remain: Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These

American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al

Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also

continue training the Iraqi Security Forces. In the event of an outbreak of genocide, we would reserve the right

to intervene, with the international community, if that intervention was needed to provide civilians with a safehaven.

...and we 'reserve the right to intervene' opening the field to the next generation of aspiring political nobodies to make some capital on declaring this intervention 'immoral...illegal...murdorous...'