i also think since the guy's been in the news every day now for over a year, people know better than to be hoodwinked by the asshats in the media who want to pick apart a single sentence and instruct people to be offended, while kindly disregarding every other thing he has said over the course of the campaign. i just don't think people are as stupid as the media wants them to be.

First, it's not true that she has no chance. She has virtually no chance and that's just when it comes to pledged delegates. Second, I seriously doubt this is hurting the Democrats' chances. Third, you know whose chances to win a majority of pledged delegates are also a "mathematical impossibility"? SEN. OBAMA'S. What's this rubbish about him having the nomination wrapped up and Sen. Clinton being finished?.

The last time I checked, you need a MAJORITY of delegates to secure the nomination. I don't remember it being "get a plurality and then whine about how you should automatically get the rest of them, 'cause you know?, you wouldn't want to "reverse the will of the people!." Oooh, spooky language. Well, let me tell you what the will of the people has been so far: to split almost in the middle all across the board. Some states voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton, some for Obama, some were nearly equal. Like it or not, this looks as if it's going to be decided by the superdelegates. Since neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton won a majority, they should make their case to them because.

As far as I know, the superdelegates were created so that prominent figures in the party would have a say in who would be the best nominee not to be useless ceremonial automatons who vote exactly like their respective contituencies. You can argue on the usefulness of superdelegates and whether it should only be the voters who count, they're valid points. Keep them to advise the party or get rid of them, just don't go around demanding that they instantly vote for your guy when he wasn't able to scare up the necessary delegates for himself.

Before a flame war starts, let me point out that I'm NOT a Clinton supporter, I'm an independent liberal and I actually rather dislike both of them for a myriad of reasons. For once I'd like to see a liberal in the White House.

Well then! I stand corrected. Clearly, Democrats are likely to benefit from having one candidate with "virtually" no chance at the nomination buy one ad after another telling voters that the virtually certain Democratic nominee is elitist, naive, and not as experienced as McCain.

My mistake.

HRC has every right to continue the contest. I was mostly replying to doubters in the comments over the last couple of days who seem to think the race has swung in Clinton's favor. It hasn't.