Good points. That 29 years of experience is a good line. I'd like to see Obama use that.

If Hillary has less pledged delegates but ends up winning this election because of superdelegates, I predict that the Dem party will split apart in the convention resulting a loss in the general election.

I have a feeling that this is going to end UGLY.

ooh, you are gonna get it.

My prediction:  One way or the other, Obama loses.

Good posting.

I'll also just add that, though America seems to like dynasties, I don't think they're good for a democracy. Now, it's not Hillary's fault that her husband was president, but one President Clinton in a generation is enough. She's a good enough Senator (with a couple notable exceptions) and I'm happy to leave her there.

I'll vote for her come November should she somehow pull this out of the fire, but I don't think she'll be particularly good for the country.

Are you even serious???

Mad at her for wanting to count Florida

And bash her for lack of a 50 states strategy????

FLORIDA IS ONE OF THE 50 STATES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Put down the OBAMA CRACK and THINK...

This is going to end ugly; I'm not sure how it really started, but somewhere along this campaign trail, the camps solidified and the Cults of Personality took over.

I've repeatedly said that if the Party splits, perhaps it is for the better.  I don't want that to happen, but no one is immune from being called out and drug through the mud for their beliefs at this point.  I saw Ed Rendell, who I repeatedly wished had run for President, drug through the mud today for supposedly race baiting.  I like Claire McCaskill, and I've seen her drug through the mud as well.  I can't mention how many Congressman have been attacked as well - Waters, Huerta, Boswell, etc.

Division seems like a more and more likely outcome everyday...I hope that we can heal, but the more this race continues and the uglier it gets, the worse off we are.

To make one more point on the Clinton campaign's promise to try and re-seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, its getting a bit annoying to watch them discover brand new principles as soon as they become politically useful. I never, not once, heard anyone in the Clinton campaign denigrate the representative nature of caucuses when it look like they might win Iowa. Never, not once, did they respond to a poll showing Hillary in the lead by saying, "hey, it's just a caucus, and basically undemocratic." Now, of course, they want caucuses not to count. Fine, that's politics. Similarly, when the DNC decided to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegations, the Clinton campaign could have stood up and stopped the whole thing from happening. But they stayed silent, and even assented to the DNC's decision. Clinton's campaign manager released a statement saying, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

... in the House and the Senate recieve the same scorn as Clinton?  Should more of them be primaried?  All of them?  If this wasn't just some talking point .... blah blah blah ... Clinton vote for the war, I think we 'd see more Democrats having hate thrown at them.

But I don't see it.

She has no say.  She can't change the rules.   The DNC, though various committees can, but she can't.  I don't think Dean is a big fan of the Clintons.

As for Obama's 50 states strategy, it doesn't exist.  He is the weakest candidate we have if you will open your eyes.

He has only won states with large A.A. populations or small states where working class voters are largely republican, and the liberal elites control the  state party.  Many of these states are caucus states.

He hasn't won in big states with a diverse cross section of voters.

This is blatant misogyny from another obamabot. hy are you so afraid of Hillary?