It's all about Pennsylvania now anyway. Clinton is praying that these impossibly unaware "undecideds" break heavily for her. A close loss by Obama is the same as a win, no matter how the media tries to spin it.

Um, let me guess... This is great news! For Hillary!!! Right?!

Ultimately, Pennsylvania will vote the way Pennsylvania is prone to vote, which leans somewhat to Hillary, as it is her core demographic...

That said, if you want to see any state actually cause meaningful movement in superdelegates soon, look to North Carolina, where Obama *should* be able to win by nearly 20%. The difference between a 6% win where local county delegates are split evenly vs. a 20% win, where there are lots of 3/2 or 3/1 delegate allocations makes for huge differences in the final result.

I don't even care about the National polling between Hillary and Obama, Hillary is not going to get the nomination.

I do care about PA. Hillary got that near double digit advantage there that I hope Obama can break into Hillary's big lead.

Further proof that things are going very much according to Obama's plan for victory...

Remember the Obama campaign's projections:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html

They predicted losing PA by 5% back in early February... and winning Guam by 11%, Indiana by 7%, and North Carolina by 8%.

Basically, these states all have their own likely demographic tilt to them which is very hard and expensive to reverse... but at the same time, each state tends to have a palpable sense of inevitability if one campaign is clearly outperforming the other.

Hillary has the institutional advantage in Pennsylvania, thanks to their governor, but Obama's ads are preventing the Clinton campaign from leveraging that potential groundswell into a landslide, based on an argument for localized inevitability.

Everyone likes voting for a winner... and if she can't get a landslide in Pennsylvania, it is because she can't convincingly make that argument.

Meanwhile, the polls in states like North Carolina suggest that Obama *IS* going to convincingly make an argument for inevitability in that state, which should lead to very significant delegate gains, probably greater than any gains Hillary might make in PA. Likewise, Guam should be an easy win for him, probably exceeding predictions based in part on Obama's VERY strong performance in Hawaii, where he surpassed their campaign's predictions by about 30 points.

Indiana looks closer, but Obama has plenty of money to pretty much guarantee a narrow win or better at this point, simply by using his campaign's funds to capitalize on slightly more favorable demographics and the fact that Indiana is a "neighbor state" to Illinois.

So, while money doesn't win races, it *DOES* do a pretty good job of preventing you from being blown away.

From AP:

Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries

Apr 20, 3:15 PM (ET)

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple - they just want a winner in November.

Problem is, after nearly four months of primaries and caucuses in 46 states, territories and the District of Columbia, they still aren't sure who that is, don't seem be in any hurry to make up their minds and aren't interested in any artificial process that might force them to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with The Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter - whether it's who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.

"I think it's really important that we keep our eye on the prize, and the prize is the win in November," said Gail Rasmussen, an undecided superdelegate from Oregon.

That's good news for Clinton, who cannot catch Obama in delegates won in the few remaining primaries and caucuses.

Obama has been arguing for months that the superdelegates would be overturning the will of the voters if they don't nominate the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates. He has a 164-delegate lead in that category. Clinton, meanwhile, has argued that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment.

Many of the undecided superdelegates say they don't want to be perceived as elite insiders, cutting backroom deals to select a nominee. But that doesn't mean they're ready to forfeit their status.

"The way the system is set up, the superdelegates are able to weigh in because we are the most experienced people in the party," said Blake Johnson, an undecided superdelegate from Alaska. "We are the ones who have been part of the party the longest and keep it running on a day-to-day basis."

There will be nearly 800 superdelegates at the party's national convention in Denver this summer. They are the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and are free to support whomever they choose. They are in high demand now that neither Clinton nor Obama can clinch the nomination without them.

Clinton leads in superdelegate endorsements, 258-232, according to the latest tally by the AP. However, Obama has been eating away at her lead for much of the past two months, picking up 84 percent of the superdelegate endorsements since Super Tuesday.

About 250 superdelegates have told the AP they are undecided or uncommitted. About 60 more will be selected at state party conventions and meetings this spring.

AP reporters across the nation contacted the undecideds and asked them how they plan to choose. Of those, 117 agreed to discuss the decision-making process.

_About a third said the most important factor will be the candidate who, they believe, has the best chance of beating Republican John McCain in the general election.

_One in 10 said the biggest factor will be the candidate with the most pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

_One in 10 said what matters most is who won their state or congressional district in the primary or caucus.

_The rest cited multiple factors or parochial issues.

Latest ABC/Washingon Post Nation Poll.

Sixty percent of the voters find Hillary Clinton to be untruthful and untrustworthy.

Go ahead Super Delegates: Pick her as the Horse you want to ride in November. Take your stupid pills and convince yourselves that the American People are going to elect some one that 60% of them detest.

Super Delegates, if you are that stupid, you deserve to have the Republicans sweep you out of office in November.

John McCain says: Go ahead, make my election day, Stupor Delegates!

As an Obama supporter, I'm troubled by all the hype that Obama is "closing in" on Clinton in PA. That's malarkey pure and simple, and it's going to make Obama's double digit loss all the more painful to cope with. No poll conducted in PA since the campaign there began in earnest has shown Obama doing better than 45%. Even those PA polls that force undecideds to make a decision show Obama coming in under a seemingly impenetrable 45% ceiling. That means that the so-called undecideds are in fact overwhelmingly Clinton votes. This is borne out by scatter graphs of all the polling (such as this one done by Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pennyslvania_follow_the_undeci.php Those polls with a high percentage of undecideds show a close race, while those with a low percentage of undecideds show a double digit win for Clinton. So when you see a survey like the latest Mason-Dixon poll, with Clinton leading 48/43 with 9% undecided, all you have to do to get a rough idea of what's going to happen Tuesday is add the lion's share of the undecideds to Clinton's percentage. If the lion's share is 7% what you come up with is a 55% to 45% Clinton win. As I said, however, it has always been difficult for Obama to get up to 45% in the polls, much less to stay up there. So considering the disastrous ABC gotcha-fest and Obama's subsequent tanking in the daily tracking polls, I think it's probably unrealistic to expect Obama to get 45% on election night. Personally, I'm hoping the outcome is not worse than a 56% to 44%. Given all the silly talk about a close 3 to 5 point race, my worry is that a 12% Clinton win is going to be touted as a huge victory, and that the spin from that is going to affect the following races to Obama's detriment. Once again, the Obama expectations game has been totally lost.