Yes we can.

All of these races are irrelevant. What matters is what happens with the superdelegates.

All of these races are irrelevant. What matters is what happens with the superdelegates.

the relevant thing regarding superdelegates is whether they will vote in a way which does not hand the presidency and the control of the senate to the republicans.

Perhaps I misinterpret your attitude----so I will not warn you about the dangers of shoving anything up the voters' anatomy.

The Obama campaign has spent $300,000 more in Louisiana on television ads, $190,000 more in Nebraska and $175,000 more in Nebraska.

Why the two Nebraska's?

Just finished caucusing in Seattle, Washington State. My precinct went 5-1 Obama-Clinton, and other precincts meeting in the same location seemed to be going in a similar direction.

Sure, this race is likely to boil down to super-delegates, but these primaries/caucuses do matter. Every vote matters. Especially in this race because momentum will mean everything leading into the convention. Hillary and her supporters feel she has a divine right to the thrown, and voters tonight will speak out against that, and in support of Obama.

Clinton has plenty of money — so why doesn't she advertise & otherwise contest these states? That she has apparently wrote off the south & central states, even during a Democratic primary season, suggests she intends to win as 50%+1 candidate in the general. But what's the point of being the president of the United States if you are just going to write-off half of the country from the get-go?

All of these races are irrelevant. What matters is what happens with the superdelegates.

That's sounds similar to a prior nominating process.

See, one candidate in this other nominating process had won the support of the people. But, the party power brokers gave the nomination to the person who was the status quo and whose turn it was to be president.

That happened in Chicago in 1968. Do ya think the super delegates want to repeat that?

Yep, shuster should be fired according to the clintons, just like the rest of americans. The clintons economic plan is for everyone to work at walmart for minimum wage with no health insurance. People wake up and send the clintons packing in 08.

Really, that's pretty pathetic as excuses for an anticipated bloodbath go. $300,000 more in Louisiana? $190,000 more in Nebraska and $175,000 more in Washington? I'm sorry, but, leaving aside the fact that, as already noted, there was nothing preventing her from spending her entire family fortune in these three states if she'd wanted to, that's really just chump change by TV ad standards.

Waaaahhhh, Waaaaahhhh. Um, guess what, Obama didn't have a goddamn FORMER PRESIDENT campaigning on his behalf! He also hasn't been known by 100% of voters for decades. Hillary has always been the default candidate, and Obama has found an uphill battle this entire way, against the two most famous Democrats. And she is complaining about him having an edge on her as an excuse for her loses???!! Give me a break.

My wife and I just caucused in Vancouver, WA (considerably downstate and bluer of collar than Seattle)--our precinct also broke for Obama by a 5 to 1 margin. Pure Obamanic chaos, and very invigorating...

Just finished caucusing in Port Townsend, WA. In this small, progressive town, Obama seemed to draw above 70% in many precincts. Turnout was high.

My earlier comment seems to have been eaten....but I was going to say...isn't that really lame spin? I mean, it seems to be saying, "The only reason we lost is that we were out-fundraised and out-strategized! Who could have known that we were supposed to care about dippy little places like Washington and Nebraska?"

Why is this a useful argument?

Hear, hear, Thompson.

WA results (thanks buzzflash)

http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=272

Well it looks like this might be another in a long line of elections where I have to (unenthusiastically) vote for the lesser of two evils. I think the whole system is set up that way. That translates to no president ever really having much in the way of popular support.

She may give any excuse she likes but she lost because he is the better politician.

CNN just called Louisiana for Obama. It's a rout.

So much for playing the race card. Nice goin', Bill.

As you may recall, I came onboard with the Clintons; Chelsea mainly, in Arkansas, became First Cat in 1993, and weathered the Clinton’s tumultuous first term. I got wind of the Oval Office tryst (remember that?) June 1996, when White House Secretary Betty Currie confided that she found herself in the somewhat untenable position of acting as go-between for the furtive liaisons. I didn’t think things could get much worse, when that very day, Hillary Clinton told Walter Isaacson, “I must say we’re hoping that we have another child.”

I am old now and Buddy is gone, run over in Chappaqua, New York, in 2002. Call Buddy rambunctious, call him what you will, it wasn’t his fault. He was the product of less than scrupulous breeding practices, in response to consumer demand for a popular breed, without regard for a sound pet. In other words, Buddy was a just tad too inbred. Besides eating my dinner, and greeting everyone as if he or she were another dog, Buddy also developed a taste for sofa pillows. After devouring his first pillow, Buddy promptly took a dump on the living room rug, ran into the kitchen and upchucked. But I digress. Watching Hillary get trounced by Barack Obama though, sure makes my day.

Ps. Barack, much love, Betty & Socks.

Hillary's making the same mistake as Rudy Giuliani. He placed all his bets upon Florida, only to find it ripped out of his hands by McCain.
Now Hillary's just saying "We know he's going everywhere by a landslide, but who cares? We'll win Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio"
Watch out Hillary. Don't fall into this trap.