Tell me how winning the nomination with superdelegates without the pledged delegates from this primary season is EVER going to fly.

The ONLY thing that matters is pledged delegates. If not, we have a much larger issue than deciding the differences between candidates. The media and pundits keep talking about this like it matters but I don't see how the democratic party could ever let this happen if they want to have a shred of legitimacy remaining.

Just to be clear, if Clinton wins the pledged delegates I won't have any issues supporting her but if she lawyers her way into the nomination by superdelegates and seating MI/FL, she is going to have serious problems. I don't see how a Clinton supporter can't agree with that.

It's Obama Barrack that's demonstrated he can't win states that don't have a disproportionate number of blacks( deep south states like LA, AL and SC that Dems won't win on a bet anyway), a disproportionate number of Hillary hating lefties - with no dirty ethnic types to offset them (ie, WA and MI) or Republican wastelands like North Dakota and Kansas, where interestingly there were more "Democratic" votes for Obama then there have been Democrats in the entire state for two decades (read "orchastrated Republican effort to interfere in the Democratic primaries" much like Dems did to them in SC in 2000 hoping to help McCain beat Bush in the primary).

In states that have gone reliably Democratic that are well needed with significant electoral votes: New Jersey, Mass, California, New York and no doubt Texas and Pennsylvania and Ohio, have ALL gone to HRC.

And that's because Obama's rheotric has no appeal at all to Latin voters, working class families or much of anyone besides unhinged neolibs and racist blacks. If Obama weren't black all he'd have is you neolibs.

So he can't win NJ,CA,MA,NY,PA,OH, how does he win. He can't. But I'm sure that won't deter the unhinged neolibs in their nutty efforts to make Hillary "pay" for her prempt vote.

Why do pundits like Shapiro keep bring up black vs white vote in states like LO, but not in states that are mostly white where Obama has won by BIG margins:IA, MN,NE,ID. You can't get much whiter than those states Even WA has a large White population. Besides the Dmecrats are going to need those Black votes in the general election and Obama, not Hillary will deliver them.

As far as the comment about Hillary wining Hispanics vote 2-1.

NOT TRUE EVERYWHERE. In AZ where Hillary won, the majority of Hispanics voted for Obama. The New Mexico vote is still within 1`pt.

As far as Obama not being able to get the votes in big states in the general. Not true. Obama cut into Hillary's state of NY by more votes than Hillary cut into his voters in IL. In CA Hillary won because of early "vote by maiL" (10-12 pts). In votes at the polls she either lost or the spread or won by only 1-2 pts. Besides Obama will unite the party, and he has more of the NEW voters. In addition Obamas's wins have been by much bigger point margins than Hillary's. However Obama will have to do well in Primaries going forward, where there are a lot of uninformed voters who will vote for Hillary.

As a older white women, and a feminists I find it amazing that women beleive Hillary has done a lot of work on behalf of women. Working and Middle class who vote for Hillary are voting against their own best interests. Hillary votes with Republicans more often than not on issues that affect them negatively.

Obama number of new donors since Jan has increased to over 370,000 as of today.

Not without Hillary's help.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You don't win "without the pledged delegates from this primary season." You win with them AND the superdelegates. Am I saying something somehow controversial? I thought this was the way the system worked. No?

Look at it this way. Clinton won Massachusetts by double-digits and got more pledged delegates from the state than Obama did. But Obama got the superdelegates of Kennedy, Kerry, and the governor. That's how it works. I doubt seriously that Obama wants to give those superdelegates back.

MaureenOdonnell wrote: "If Americans are looking for villains in relation to the Iraq War, the "usual suspects" are easily named but Colin Powell escapes scot free."

Strange... You're the 2nd person in the past half-hour to specifically focus on, of all people, Colin Powell. What could that be about?

I don't think Colin Powell "escaped scot-free" any more than anybody else in Bush's clan did. The episode completely marginalized and derailed Powell's political career. Many of the people on Bush's team have had a similar fate, such as Donald Rumsfeld, who has been disgraced for life.

It's interesting to me that two people have apparently spontaneously chosen to focus on Colin Powell.

None of this, by the way, gets Hillary Clinton off the hook for her cynical Iraq vote. Here's a top Senator in a position to take a stand that will thwart the obvious intentions of the Bush administration -- an administration proven to be incompetent from the outset -- and she blows it.

the system works with superdelegates the way it always has.

Up to this point the loud-mouthed neolibs have never bothered to notice.

Now, someone is telling them it's a terrible thing, and they're ranting about it, much as someone told them the WTO was evil in 2000 and they went all out to protest it, lattes in hand, without even knowing what it's role was or what it did.

Much like the neolib juveniles here continue to rant about Mrs. Clintons short stint on Walmart, prodding them progressively forward (while ignoring the fact that Michelle Obama actually did the same with a big Walmart vendor but for her own personal gain).

Neolibs are braindead.