Really?  Did you check the math?  Can you please show me the number?

Superdelegates don't represent their states, they represent the entire Democratic party, not for who won the state they are from, or who wins the most delegates.  

Therefore, they should vote for whoever is ahead in the popular vote.

Yeah, like  Florida and Michigan...

Wright was also the talk Easter weekend among my relatives, who contrasted their church service experiences in a "typical white church" with the expletives uttered by Sen. Obama's pastor.

He created "white resentment" apparently by coming off with a sactimonious speech about race. Or at least that's how it played outside the pundits. Scarborough didn't say that Obama created it originally, only that he has created "white resentment" against himself as a candidate.

I don't think its as big a problem for him in getting the nomination, especially compared with the GE. The Republicans have already done the job of laying the spring groundwork. It only took a week. They'll just bubble it up all summer until the Fall, and then bring it up for a second round. I do not think Obama's church is helping him at all either, they are just feeding the fire.

Interesting. Johnson seems to be one of the first that may back away over Wright.

These are the straws Hillary must grasp at. "Seems," "may," and "possibly."

Hawaii was a caucus where young Obamabots can shout people down and use Chicago style intimidation tactics. This is a primary without a large African American vote to save the day

You're kidding right?

I have been in a room talking to both Daschle and Johnson at the same time before, at public events with cameras and everything.

Recent polls have found that above assessment to be incredibly off the mark.

I'm just glad that Barack Hussein X was exposed in time.  No one saw the Revolution coming.  His praise of Reagan, calls to solve the Social Security "Crisis" and his lack of commitment to true Universal Healthcare were just an elaborate ruse to keep Whitey confused.

Thank God we have a real centrist just waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.  

I pray tell to you that I have indeed been drinking warm milk liberally this fine March evening, but let me further elaborate onto you, good sir, that I would totally snort milk out of my nose and chortle gleefully if this farcical event indeed happens in reality.  I tip my hat to you and wag my cigar at you for your fair appreciation of regal sport, and will now sit back and laugh heartily again for the clear implications of your jest.

That is not the only issue that's important to SD.

A lot has happened, this is a CLOSED Primary not a caucus.

He does have the edge, lets wait for the poll.

It works both ways.  The fake Independent and Republican votes that Clinton received in Texas resulted in a win for her there.

So you know more than Steve Jarding about SD?

I haven't heard a single clamor for them to change, but I have heard it pointed out that they are not voting like their state voted, and I believe that that was Obama's previous claim as to what should happen. It was Hillary argueing that SDs should be free to do what they want. It is being brought to the attention of the public that Obama's delegates are not following his will.
The fact is that half of them are hypocrites like Richardson, who just a week ago said that delegates should vote the way their states vote.
Do you have anything to back up your statement that Obama would be ahead if that was the case?

I'm pretty sure that that would be the case, too, so by all means, let the Clinton supporters have their way on that point.  A few of the more clever ones have argued that Richardson's endorsement "proves" that the "will of the people" argument should not be followed.  Of course, that ironclad argument ignores the fact that neither candidate controls the superdelegates, who are free at any time to endorse whomever they want (and to disregard any such "will of the people" argument if they so desire).  Obviously, over half the superdelegates have in fact endorsed a candidate based on criteria known only to themselves.  The "will of the people" argument is merely an argument for how uncommitted superdelegates should vote, not a rule dictating a particular outcome.  

No real Clinton supporter would ever want Kennedy or Kerry near Hillary.  From what I've heard, the people of Mass didn't want them either.

Oh yeah, there's change in the air.

Bigger states typically have more Democratic representatives and more DNC superdelegates than smaller states. By winning NY, CA, Texas (primary) Ohio, etc, she should have a lot more superdelegates than Obama.

The argument that I present is that each system tells something different.  Each have different strengths and weaknesses.  A closed primary demonstrates who is most popular with the party but runs the risk of selecting someone who has broad but tepid support who doesn't appeal to anyone outside of the core.  An open primary lets independents weigh in on who most appeals to them - an important fact to know for a general - but has the risk of gaming the system.  A caucus shows depth of support and the ability to have a good ground game, but it does put more barriers on voters to come out.

I like the idea of having a mixture.  It forces the candidates to demonstrate different skills.

Well, if you are so bothered by that, then not only would you have to move to a closed system, but you would also have to introduce fairly stringent certification requirements that many states simply do not have in place.  I mean, what sort of barrier would a closed primary be if that state also permitted same-day registration?  

I remember that this line of thought went to absolutely absurd lengths about a month ago, in a diary criticizing Obama for trying to register Democrats to participate in the PA primary.  Some people were actually advocating for registration more than 60 days in advance of the primary and a prohibition on individuals switching parties.  Of course, those requirements are stricter than many (perhaps any) states currently have in place, but they were thought necessary to "innoculate" the Democratic primaries from outside influence.  My point is that there will always be some people who traditionally do not vote Democratic but who participate in our primaries, unless you're willing to go to ridiculous lengths to prevent that from happening.  

Or more news like this -- the real reason to even care about politics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/world/ middleeast/24iraq.html?hp
BAGHDAD -- As many as 20 mortar shells were fired Sunday at the heavily fortified Green Zone, one of the fiercest and most sustained attacks on the area in the last year.

The shelling sent thick plumes of dark gray smoke over central Baghdad and ignited a spectacular fire on the banks of the Tigris River. It ushered in a day of violence that claimed the lives of four American soldiers and at least 58 lraqis around the country.

American military officials said the soldiers were killed by a homemade bomb about 10 p.m. as they patrolled southern Baghdad in a vehicle, pushing the number of American service members killed in Iraq closer to 4,000. Another soldier was wounded in the attack."

"Did Wright forever "define" Obama with crucial swing voters?"

Not for you, you've already got yours. For those who hadn't, yes, certainly. I don't think the rightwing will let go of this brand.  As for the Democratic primaries, and Democrats in general, only in the states where Obama hasn't yet introduced himself.

This was incredibly damaging for Obama among Independents.

Oh what wishful thinking! Haha!

Many caucus states will have their district caucuses in April and May.  It will be interesting to see if Obama can hold his support at that level among his delegates.