You are indefatigable, Jason. The real news in the above is that the Obama campaign had 50 or more superdelegates ready to sweep to Obama after Texas and Ohio in what they believed, reasonalbly at the time, would be the end for Clinton.

The real news is that that did not happen because most of those superdelegates decided after Ohio and Texas that they were not ready to plump for Obama.

So, in fact, post-Ohio and Texas, Obama lost the about-to-be-announced support of 40 or more superdelegates.

Old Hillarista spin: Fine with us if superdelegates overturn the will of the voters.

New Hillarista spin: Only superdelegates who committed before March 4 should count.

Fallback Hillarista spin: Superdelegates should not abuse their authority by overturning the will of the voters in Pennsylvania.

As I pointed out on another numbers thread, there are roughly 500 delegates still available in primaries which I think  we can safely assume will be split some what equally (just basing this on March's numbers).  This would put Clinton at 1750 pledged and current super delegates. So she will need 275 of the remaining 330 (80+%)  super delegates to put her over the top.  What was it that Huckabee said about math and miracles?  

Obama, on the other, hand will be at 1870 and will require another 145 of the remaining 330 delegates ( around 40% ).  Any chance we can get that 145 to commit now and move on to bashing McCain???

Old Obamalights' spin: Enforce the rules in Floridan and Michigan.

New Obamalights' spin: Change the rules on role of superdelegates.

Newest Obamalights' spin: Only change the rules on Florida and Michigan if it results in voter nullification.

So yesterday we learned that one of Obama's earmarks was for $1,000,000 to his wife's employer (University of Chicago Hospital) , one year after they gave her a $200,000 raise.  Just a coincidence I guess. (And yes, I'm sure Hillary has something similar in hers else they'd be released already and they'd be carping on this).  

But it's just corrupt Chicago politics so, according to the Obamiacs here, I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut because the rest of the nation doesn't care.  

Lymon- you're acting as if his wife's employer was some sort of private entity. And her change in position at the university was actually going to happen anyway. That's a real non-issue, particularly for illinois voters who are closest to this.

PC- no one has refered to "rules" regarding superdelegates. People have argued about what superdelegates SHOULD do, but since when is moral suasion not a legitimate form of argument to the superdelegates. As to the other two pieces, they're just transparent clinton spin, shaped in a ways so as to have superficial similarlity to Rhubarb's construction, rather than any coherent critique of it.

Actually, lymon, if that's an example of corruption, what it really shows is that the University of Chicago's lobbyists are pikers. You don't spend $200,000 in political payoffs for a $1 million return. Especially in Chicago. If a politician can't get you a mil for well under a hundred grand, then he's not really your friend. Speaking a little more seriously, any nonprofit should be able to raise $1 million from existing or new donors for an outlay of well under 20 percent in campaign expenses.

lymon,

I'd buy that criticism if his wife worked for one of the more obscure programs that get earmarks (say the West Ridge Nature Preserve), but a major hospital?  Come on.  I'd give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one.  Of all the things that get money from earmarks, a hospital strikes me as one of the more reasonable ones.

I like PCC. The major gist of his/her argument is always, "Obama has only *marginally* kicked Hillary's ass, so obviously, he's losing."

What I don't understand is how so many people want to conflate their personal preferences with objective reality. I.e., "I like Hillary, so therefore she must win, must be winning, is winning." It's the sign of an incurious mind. Like True Republican Believers must think it's sunshine and rainbows in Iraq.

miceelf -- I know, if Illinois voters weren't completely numb to corruption/patronage/etc., Paul Vallas or Judy Baar Topinka would be governor (pick your election).  It took a combination of dead kids (the WIllis children) and racism for the phony-truck-permit driver who killed them to make people turn on Guv Ryan.

Anyway, the issue with earmarks is transparency -- Obama just let us know about this today -- if it's such a non-issue, why all the secrecy?  You'd think given his wife's position he'd go out of his way to have made this known.  I'm also not going to accept if we learned yesterday that Hillary Clinton had earmarked a million dollars to the employer of Bill Clinton that nobody would take notice -- it would be plastered over the news and Axelrod/Pluffe would be shouting "troubling" to anyone who would listen.  

oh my god, giving money to a hospital in the inner city, what a terrible thing to do! Let the poor people suffer because Obama's wife works there, do nothing for them because we have to present this pristine pose for the public, even if this pristine pose will actually cost peoples lives. We all know there is nothing more important than satisfying nitpickers.

lymon, in the world full of politicians whose wifes work for Halliburton, this ranks at about the bottom of issues the Republicans can do much with. Just show one baby who is alive today because of that money and the argument collapses.

wyllie  is right of course, beyond the simple math, most superdelegates are politicians who rely on the black vote and they know if they were to back Hillary and she were to lose, it would be the end of many of them. A white superdelegate who backs Obama and Obama losing can spin it far easier, Hillary's voters trend older and have more affinity to "their" white politicians. Obama has to seriously tank from here on out for Hillary to have a shot, basically she has to pretty much run the table.

Rhubarbs -- then let them go to Senator Durbin or better yet do it in the open: there's something unseemly in the appearance of this regardless of whether it's above board or not.  WHich candidate is all about "transparency" after all?  He released his tax records but didn't think this was worth mentioning?  As I say in my response to M., what if this were Clinton, do you think anyone would accuse Bill Clinton's employer of not driving a hard enough bargain rather than be all over the question of why the funding was done through earmarks?  

Yeah, lymon, it isn't as if that is the first time UofC hospital, an excellent and respected institution, has received any federal do-ray-mi.   It does good work and was looking for money.  If Obama didn't help them get anything, simply because his wife worked that, that would have been a conflict of interest regarding his role a Senator.   There is nothing corrupt about this.  

mice--

There are rules on superdelegates. They are allowed to vote as they judge best--they specifically are not bound to ratify a popular vote.

Danna Brazile and many other Obama supporters are crying foul, saying they must vote with the dlegates in their state. This is explicitly NOT what the supers are "supposed" to do.

rhube--

The question is not how much the University of Chicago can make by raising Michele Obama's salary by $200,000.

The question is how much Obama can make by giving away $1,000,000 of taxpayer money. And the answer is, $200,000.

This is also the underlying issue with Rezko, and the raise for Michele and the earmark for her employer just underlines it.

The worst part of this whole episode isn't the possibility that Hillary will win, she has no prayer, it's that it has turned her followers into borderline lunatics. And they are happily doing the Republicans work pro bono; not a bad deal for McCain who is basically tapped-out. It would have been easier if they just mailed their checks (and talking points) to the RNC to begin with.

pccostello,

What are the chances that you would hold that position if the roles were reversed? My guess would be zero. In any event, if the Supers reverse the popular will, it will cripple the party for at least this election cycle. More likely it will push a large number of voters out of the Dmocratic Party for a generation. The Supers know it.

Bottom line: she's toast.

lymon, if you didn't realize I was kind of kidding there, then my bad.

But pcc, it sometimes does sound like you're living in an alternate universe. Obama's supporters are trying to persuade superdelegates that for X and Y reasons, they _should_ support Obama. Hillary's supporters are also trying to persuade superdelegates that for X and Y reasons, they _should_ support Hillary. Nobody is arguing that there are rules that don't exist, merely that there are strong practical and moral reasons to take action one way or the other. I've heard most of the daily conference calls in the last month, and in fact Hillary's campaign has stated their case for superdelegates in much starker, rule-like terms than has Obama's campaign. But not even ultra-anti-Hillary I mistake their strongly worded attempts at persuasion regarding what superdelegates _should_ do for an assertion of rules about what superdelegates _must_ do.

I think it would be wrong for superdelegates to make Hillary the nominee against the will of the voters; that doesn't mean I believe there is any kind of rule that superdelegates must obey. Should =/= must. Attempting to persuade people to act one way or the other =/= changing the rules about how they must or may act.

Again--

Three questions?

How many other hospitals in Illinois did Obama obtain earmarks for?

Are there other hospitals in Illinois that are as deserving or more deserving or more in need of $1,000,000 than the U of C?

Did Obama give earmarks to any Illinois hospitals that did not enrich his family income?

blackton and others:  the worthiness of the grant is a completely separate issue.  It's called "conflict of interest" and the way you get out of a conflict of interest is disclosure.  I think that's pretty elemental.  Zeesh, isn't that why most congressfolk put their investments in blind trusts, so if they happen to help an industry that really deserves the help it won't look funny?

Quick personal aside on the University of Chicago Hospital -- yeah, I know they have a great reputation, but the one time I went there it was to take an African-American friend to their emergency room who had a root-canal done in the morning, was in excrutiating pain and couldn't get a hold of her dentist.  They treated her with contempt -- like a junkie hopping emergency rooms for a fix -- and refused to help her.  

pccostello:

I don't think Obama supporters are crying foul.  They are just pointing out that you can spin the numbers around and around to create all kinds of scenarios where Clinton thinks she is the winner and all the super delegates should vote for her.   She really needs ALL or at least  80+% of them to win. While in her mind this may seem possible, it's pretty likely that the undecided supers will split their votes, just like the ones that have already pledged their support and just like the rest of the country.  

Toasty toast toast.  Tubby-toast.  Toast.

It has become more and more entertaining to watch the Hillaristas in here try to spin Hillary's long-line of defeats, or by the fingernails hanging on to just avoid a defeat, as proof that she is winning, can win, going to win when the reality is that she has already lost.  Barring some unbelievable stumble by Obama (I'm laughing at this bit about the UofC hospital getting $1 million in light of all of the dirty dealings of the Clintons that they continue to hide.) or Hillary's parting of the Missisissippi and walking across on dry land, both about equally likely, Hillary is already done.  Quite apart from the absurd numbers of uncommitted super-delegates that Hillary would have to capture, the reality is going to be quite the opposite.  The supers are going to do their job and give a convincing margin to the candidate who arrives at the convention with more pledged delegates and more popular votes, and there is really no question that that will be Obama.   She won't get 80% of the remaining supers.  She will get 20%.  Obama will end up with a margin of more than 300 delegate votes.

But pc, you go!  I haven't as many out and out belly-laughts as I do reading your posts in a while.

Personally, I am not that worried about the Hillary scorched earth campaign.  It is better to get this stuff over with.  It will have no traction left by the time McCain gets around to doing the same stuff.  Old news.  It is mostly good for a few days media attention -- about all Hillary can hope for -- but only because Obama is wisely restraining his responses.

Bye, bye Hillary.

lymon1...how on earth is a federal earmark related to Obama's tax filings? The earmark didn't go to his bank account. it went to a University Hospital and a state one at that. As far as earmarks go...a million is pretty small and in the operating budgets of a Uni-hospital, a million isn't much.

Now it would be one thing if Obama was able to earmark 16 mil for a new hospital wing and Michelle was suddenly made president of operations. In fact the earmark came AFTER she got a raise. And if you know anything about the construction costs of a research hospital then you'd know that that million doesn't equate to much. The fact that the NRO and you are stamping your feet at this perception of favors is that this is about as much dirt you can dig up on BHO.

That earmark pales in comparison to the unsavory fund raising schemes the Clintons pull with corrupt Chinese business men and questionable speaking fees. But hey...anything to ensure that sense of inevitability moves onward.

wyllie,

your points are fair enough. but Obama needs to get to 40%. he is looking less and less electable (in my jaundiced view). I think the Wright issue presents him with a terrible dilemna, because he can't disown the man and remain himself. But wright is a self-fulfilling prohecy about the fate of a black candidate. The narrative now runs from the flag pin, through michele's comments to wright. obama will lose in a landslide in november.

because obama needs to get to 40% to win, i think we wind up with a deadlocked convention where people will re-think all their commitments in the context of november and mccain.

this is why we need a genuine re-vote in florida and michigan. i think it would settle it then and there for clinton. nullifying the votes, in whatever form that occurs, will only hurt more in november--especially if obama, who benefits from the voter nullification, is the nominee.

PC- the obama supporters are making moral arguments to the superdelegates about what they should do. That's not at all the same thing as inventing new rules, any more than a politician who encourages parents to spend more time with their kids is the same as legislating it. you're insisting on ignoring the difference, while also ignoring the "rules" that the Clinton campaign have made up for superdelegates- that they should make their decision based on the results of four of the primaries only and ignore the other 46 states.

Both sides are making arguments. But one side's arguments make sense. The other- not so much.

Lymon- I understand what you are saying, but he's released this long before his rivals have. The only reason you're complaining about this is because he HAS released it already, which puts him ahead of Clinton. Was there a demand for this that he resisted for months?

PC. You asked a set of questions about whether he got earmarks for other hospitals, kind of implying some sort of special treatment for U of C.

And I'll repeat for emphasis that the only reason you can ask these misleading questions is because your candidate HASN'T released her own, nor her tax info.

Here are the earmarks:

obama.senate.gov/.../070621-obama_announces_3

He's had earmarks for $3 million for the Children's memorial hospital. 1.3 million for Carthage memorial hospital. 3 million for Jesse Brown VAMC, 350 K for Lewis and Clark mobile health care. 550k loretto hospital. 2.8 million memorial hospital/health center. 2 million riverside health care.

I may have missed several. But it's at least those. Any more BS insinuations to make that can be answer with 3 minutes on a google search?

roidubouloi - I really appreciate your informed confidence that Obama will ultimately prevail, despite the Clinton campaign's seemingly endless capacity for scruffy mischief.  I guess I'm paranoid enough to think it will take a wooden stake through her heart before she relents.

miceelf -- yes, see Lynn Sweet in the Chicago Sun-Times today (recounting previous requests, calling this his latest "conversion of convenience" on disclosure and asking again about his senate meetings records).

No argument on Clinton -- as I said in my first post, I bet there is something like this (if not worse) in her earmarks, else she would have relesaed them already.  There are pleanty of people here willing to point out her flaws and missteps.  My beef with Obama is 1) he falsely carries the mantle I want to really see in a candidate (one who TRULY tells hard truths and walks-the-walk on reform -- see Paul Tsongas) and 2) the double standard: again, substitute the Clintons and I can't imagine the press or Obama's supporters shrugging their shoulders on the secrecy.  YOu can fairly argue they brought the extra suspicion on themselves, but I think that's counterballanced by the nature of Obama's "new politics"/"I don't do anything worse than 'boneheaded'" campaign.

Lymon,

I don't quite get how this is at odds with transparency.  He's clearly not trying to hide this (coming out and saying publicly that you did something is a pretty lousy way to keep it under wraps).  And it's not as if this is a particularly politically advantageous time for him to come out with this.  Where's the transparency problem?

pcc, nobody's votes are being nullified! Florida and Michigan made a calculated choice that they would have more influence holding early elections that would produce no delegates than by waiting their turn and taking the risk that the rest of us faced that the nomination would already have been decided.

That gamble didn't pay off like they hoped. Tough.

The only way to nullify votes in this process is to let Michigan and Florida vote twice, once for early influence and once for delegates, when the rest of us only got to vote once. Let me cast two votes for Obama, and I'll be happy to let Michigan and Florida cast their own second votes for Hillary.

Until then, I beg the Hillaristas to stop the Orwellian practice of cloaking their own attempt to devalue my vote with cries of nullification.

"He's had earmarks for $3 million for the Children's memorial hospital. 1.3 million for Carthage memorial hospital. 3 million for Jesse Brown VAMC, 350 K for Lewis and Clark mobile health care. 550k loretto hospital. 2.8 million memorial hospital/health center. 2 million riverside health care."

If that doesn't scream "special treatment for the place where my wife works," I don't know what does.  Good job actually looking up the facts on this one.

pc, learn how to count.

Today, Obama has a lead of 160 pledged delegates.  With the committed supers, he has a lead of 124.  That is not going to fall by any stretch of the imagination based on the remaining primaries.  There are today 361 uncommitted supers and Edwards delegates (most of whom will almost certainly fall into Obama's pocket but let's ignore that).  Accordingly, Hillary has to capture 243 of the 361 to win.  That is 67.3%, more than 2:1. At her best, when she could still command the loyalty of the party establishment, she was only able to capture 54% of the supers who were willing to declare.  You can be sure that the ones who haven't declared for her yet are less, not more, inclined to do so.

Hillary's position is quite hopeless.  But enjoy the ride.  I predict Obama by more than 300.  You can take that to the bank.

"he is looking less and less electable" Hey pc, you would have a little credibility if once before you acknowledged he was electable but since you never have, how can you claim he is looking less and less electable?

In this whole tit for tat corruption issue, we have to nominate someone who is about equal with McCain, of this hospital issue, we have McCain and Boeing. It is a wash McCain tit for tat Obama. But Hillary's has two tits for every Obama Tat, and her tits are comparatively much bigger. The Democrats will get smothered by her big tits, but Obama's tats are barely visible.

JackR, a wooden stake is how you kill vampires.

Hillary is a zombie -- shambling, not suave; a slow-moving menace around the clock, not a swift menace only at night; and apparently mindless, not keenly intelligent. Plus, vampires suck your blood if they catch you; zombies eat your brains.

Beheading, not a wooden stake, is how you stop a zombie. Details matter when you're dealing with the undead.

lymon dear,

The UofChi "news" isn't news to anyone except it seems yourself. The story has been kicked around pillar to post for nearly a year. I can't wait for April 15 and Billary's two page executive summary to be released.

C'mon, you can do better.

Did somebody say 'voter nullification' ??

AAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Head for the hills!!! Some voters is about to be gettin' a'nullified!!!

costello, your slavish, unthinking devotion to HRC is beginning to make you sound like a robot. Or maybe a Scientologist. There is no such thing as "voter nullification." And if there was, the only parties responsible for "voter nullification" are the heads of the state Democratic parties in Florida and Michigan. They are the only ones who, to borrow your ridiculous phrase, are responsible for "voter nullification."

You've really turned grasping at straws to an art form, though. Take the hospital nonsense you're spewing; according to miceelf's few minutes googling, Obama is responsible for for a $3 million earmark to Children's Memorial Hospital. I (quite seriously) expect "Obama is in the pocket of the Big Children lobby" to be your next smear.

Jac, Jack, Jack, shame on you for imagining she has a heart. This is more like chop off her head situation.

Basic math: Clinton has lost the battle for elected delegates. Even if she wins 75% of them in PA and PR and 50% on average in the other primaries, she winds up 59 BEHIND Obama. The chances of Clinton winning 50% of the delegates in the remaining primaries other than PA and PR are about the same as Obama's for winning PA by more than 20%.

Clinton only wins the elected delegates if the January primaries in MI and FL are allowed to count, and she gets ALL the MI delegates. No doubt she'd like that, but it seems unlikely anyone else will agree to that.

So that leaves the superdelegates. Yes, they're free to vote for whomever they believe would serve the party best, which means they could vote for someone other than either Clinton or Obama, right? But, unlike Clinton, they're fairly realistic and reasonable people who have some concern for the party as a whole. Polls show Obama and Clinton have roughly equal chances against McCain in the general election, but which of the two would help the rest of the Democratic ticket more? Especially in red states? Nothing favors Clinton at this point other than coronation by superdelegates.

miceelf, fantastic work.   Great stuff.   It is amazing how easily that argument falls away with a few strokes of a keyboard- something pcc refuses to do.   Thank you.

pc, I took a vow not to say anything to or about you unless it's something nice (you needn't feel obligated to be appreciative).

Your argumentation has become more reasonable as your arguments themselves are becoming more persuasive. I've begun to like reading your posts. Much appreciated.

Well, Jack, I agree that she is scary and I would sleep easier if I saw the wooden stake, but mostly because I do worry that, in her death agony, she could yet do something that demoralizes the party or hands really useful ammunition to the Republicans.  

However, my confidence in the outcome is really not so much a prediction about the future as it is an unsentimental accounting for the past.  When I say that the campaign is, for all practical purposes, over, it is not because I think it sounds good.  It is because it is quite clearly true.  Only the combination of a series of very unlikely events, the compound probability of which is spectacularly unlikely, could hand the nomination to Hillary.  

Just think about it this way:  We came to her great firewall, TX, OH, etc., and she is today further behind than she was before that day and fast running out of firewalls.  Sure she is going to win PA.  But, basically, so what?  And, contrary to pccostello, elections in FL and MI -- which, as I have said, will not be held because Hillary doesn't want them and never has -- would only bring Obama closer.  He would win or break even in MI and lose by a much smaller margin in FL.

I tend to think that we will have a nominee a few days after June 10.  Once the voting is done and there is no longer any room for Hillaristas to spin, there will only be numbers, delegates pledged and popular votes.  If, as is overwhelmingly likely, Obama is ahead in both, then the supers will declare.  There will not be a floor fight.  Recall, it is Hillary, not Obama, who has been asking them not to commit until the voting was over in the hope that she would be able to change the picture to motivate a sweep in her direction.  I strongly believe that the uncommitted supers have been asked by the DNC to wait, and for good reason.  It would be one thing if Obama already had enough pledged delegates to win.  But it would be unseemly for the supers, in effect, to determine the outcome before the voters had finished voting. That would indeed alienate many people.  There would be a lot of anger.  So, the supers are waiting until June 10.  Even so, there has been a slow drip toward Obama.  That is a pretty good indication of which way the bulk of them are already leaning, indeed straining.  

When you look at one factor after another, the most that can be said for Hillary is that her nomination would not absolutely defy the laws of physics.  But it would pretty much defy the law of probability.

Then again, maybe I've just cooled down and begun to read your posts more carefully and objectively. Whatever.

"the double standard: again, substitute the Clintons and I can't imagine the press or Obama's supporters shrugging their shoulders on the secrecy."

Earth to lymon:  Hillary has hundreds of thousands of documents that she is refusing to disclose.  And Bill has lots more, including plenty about the pardons in his last days.  So far, no one has really made a big issue of this.  Do you think if Obama had hundreds of thousands of documents pertaining to what he did or didn't do during the Clinton administration that Hillary's supporters would be shrugging their shoulders?

Come on, man.  The Hillary spin is completely ridiculous.

pc:

"because obama needs to get to 40% to win, i think we wind up with a deadlocked convention where people will re-think all their commitments in the context of november and mccain."

Oops! I goofed on those numbers above - Clinton needs only 70% to win.  But the point still remains that she  has to get all 70% - roughly twice as many as Obama has to pick up (30%).  Do you honestly think that she will be able to score 70% of the remaining super delegates.   I can't think of any reason why they won't vote just like everyone else so far.   Usually, when you are loosing by 40, points you concede.

Alan -- after over a year of refusing to disclose this to reporters (again see Lynn Sweet of the Obama-backing Sun-Times today), this comes out only because John McCain backed Obama and Clinton into a corner on the issue.  I'm guessing there are a few nonprofit hospitals in need of a million dollars in Illinois who might have wanted in on this.  

People, what is so shocking about wanting a senator to be transparent about an otherwise secret earmark to his wife's employer?  Is that really too much to ask?  I'm not surprised at the "no big deal' comments but it some seem to be arguing that it was *right* for him to keep this undisclosed.  It wasn't -- earmarks should be disclosed in general, but especially when there's a close family member making significant income from the recipient.  As a generic principle, why can't we agree on that?  

Well, from this thread I've found out that Hillary has big tits and we need to behead her.

You learn something new every day.

lymon,

Once again there is no secret, nor has there been. Perhaps it is the first time Obama's campaign has officially responded (I don't have a record of their public statements), but the story is very old and had been reported fully and commented on widely. If it's a big issue now, well, I suppose it's because somebody else's campaign now wants to make an issue of it. I'd known about for months, possibly last year. It was not an obscure or deliberately hidden question. It remains an open question, however, and others here have dealt with the details.

As a generic principle, why can't we agree on that?  absolutely I agree, now can we agree on a generic principle you address the literally thousands of ethical lapses of the Clintons? I agree that both he and McCain seem to have made about an equal number of mistakes, (McCain more but he has been around longer) so it is manageable. It is like two people 20 pounds overweight calling each other fat, people will shrug and say, eh, they don't look so bad. And then Hillary comes in with her extra 100 pounds saying that since she is not running on weight she can criticize the other candidates weight but is immune to criticism herself.

lymon,

As miceelf pointed out above, there were more than a few hospitals in Illinois that got in on this, some for considerably more than the U of C Hospital.  As a general principle, I completely agree that earmarks should be disclosed.  As Obama is fond of pointing out, though, he cosponsored legislation with Tom Coburn to create an online database of where all the earmark money goes.  I just don't really see this as trying to hide something, especially since there is no evidence of impropriety here.

blackton -- yes, I agree, I just think it's counterballanced by the fact that Obama's campaign is based on the claim that he isn't 20 pounds overweight.  

mice,

thanks for the info. that answers my charges on this one.

(i prefer to let my underlings, er, I mean you,  do my searches for me)  ;-)

tomeg,

why thank you very much!!

Oops, hit  "submit" too soon -- anyway, I apparently find this more irksome than most, but no, I don't think it's a dealbreaker.  I'll still vote for Obama over McCain and without hesitancy, but let's at least give McCain credit as he doesn't even use earmarks (and others disclosed their earmarks long ago, they didn't say "wait until I pass this legislation" before doing so).

wyllie--

does he only need 30% or or is it 40%? remembe also, that the supers are not in any way bound--so literally they are all still up for grabs. depending on developments and their discussions with each other and their estimations of the general, every superdelegate is still available.

also, all the pledged delegates (I believe all, but at least most) are unbound after the first ballot. So if no one gets there on the first ballot, everything is up on the air.

how many ballots were taken at the 1960 Dem convention?

PC-

You're welcome. I'll probably have similar questions for you when/if (if is the bigger question) Clinton ever makes a similar disclosure.

:-)

Uh, unless Edwards refuses to release his delegates on the first ballot, there cannot in principle be a second ballot, and even then fantastically unlikely.  This is one of your weaker creative efforts pc.  Yes, the supers can change their minds until they cast their votes.  So far, all of that has been in Obama's direction.  But, it is literally true that they might all wake up on the morning of the convention and decide to vote for Hillary.

I take your point to be that Hillary either has to collect an unreachable number of the not-yet-committed super-delegates OR persuade those who have already come out for Obama to change their minds.  Now which one of those is less likely?  Plus, my fine spinning friend, you have left out a third option:

Just as the vote is being held, a giant asteroid passes by the earth and the disruption of our gravitational field flings Obama's delegates out the doors of the convention center where they are unable to cast their votes.  Hillary wins in a landslide!

Never say never.

wow! anyone work around here? Not much chit chat here about the growing Wright blow-up but it is exploding over at the Corner, is all over talk radio, and has gotten a lot of run at TPM. Any takers? Looks ominous for Obama.

eweiss -  There's some discussion on another thread.  I heard Obama's response and don't think he did himself any favors with the "look at it in context" stuff, but it's not like either candidate is introducing any new substantive ideas to fill the discussion void.  

the problem is that the press is bored and the right is really digging into this.

pc:

In my first post said 80% for Clinton and 40% for Obama - surprisingly no one challenged  this.

It should have been 70% for Clinton and 30% for Obama - which makes more sense - no?   Obama roughly needs about 100 super delegates out of the 340 uncommitted, Clinton would need 240.

This is just a rough estimate assuming that they pretty much split the remaining primaries which is likely a pretty safe assumption.

Since there are really only the two candidates, I don't see how there could be more than one ballet, so your point about multiple ballots - while true - should not be an issue.  I also would not be surprised if we start seeing the supers pick their candidate after June 10th when the primaries finish up.

Hillary Clinton wants to capitalize on “privilege,” pressuring superdelegates to give her a nomination that she was unable to win in the primaries. Only a Baby Boomer child of privilege would expect the Party to change the rules when she cannot win playing within the rules she originally agreed to. Now she wants to seat the Florida and Michigan Delegates from uncontested elections where, in Michigan’s case, her name was the only one on the ballot. Privilege has no shame.

Superdelegates were never in Hillary Clinton's calculus.  Obama's clear problems were.  So were Florida and Michigan.

We will see.