She's not dropping out?  Oh, that's a big surprise.

The results are more or less as predicted,  Why would anyone expect Hillary to do anything different now?  Let's see how it looks after NC when she is further behind and "running out of track."  Meaning, let's see what the super-delegates do at that point.  (If Hillary comes in with under a 5% margin in PA, I have said before to look for a distinct super-delegate movement toward Obama.  If more than 5%, continued movement toward him but much slower.  The supers are waiting for a sign that the pledged delegate results are no longer in serious contention.)

So, Obama spent more than a month in PA, outspent here more than 2 to 1 in media adds and has more money to spend that all his opponents combined and still couldn't win the primary.

No matter how you guys spin it you will have to consider this fact.

Hillary had the demographics most favorable to her in PA based on age, sex, income, education, and job history and still could barely hang on to win.  Her one time 20% lead in PA was whittled down to about 5%.  I don't recall Hillary ever pulling that off.  Obama keeps it close when the demographics are in her favor.  when the demographics favor him, he blows her away.  That seems likely to happen again in NC.

Meanwhile, even MSNBC has now said publicly that HIllary can no longer catch up in pledged delegates.  McAuliffe holds out the possibility that she could win the popular vote, and says that should decide what the super-delegates do.  But if you look at the votes remaining to be cast and take even the most optimistic Hillary scenario, she doesn't get close.

Spin that.

"has more money to spend that all his opponents combined"

Who are all these additional candidates that Obama is running against?  While I certainly don't think it did Obama any good to lose tonight, the mere fact that he lost despite spending a lot is indicative of exactly nothing.  Sometimes, just having the money isn't enough, and tonight was one of those nights.  Hillary can only thank God, or rather Rendell's political machine, that she didn't lose tonight so that she can continue on in a campaign that has no chance of winning.

Hillary had the demographics most favorable to her in PA based on age, sex, income, education, and job history and still could barely hang on to win.  Her one time 20% lead in PA was whittled down to about 5%.  I don't recall Hillary ever pulling that off.  Obama keeps it close when the demographics are in her favor.  when the demographics favor him, he blows her away.  That seems likely to happen again in NC.

Meanwhile, even MSNBC has now said publicly that HIllary can no longer catch up in pledged delegates.  McAuliffe holds out the possibility that she could win the popular vote, and says that should decide what the super-delegates do.  But if you look at the votes remaining to be cast and take even the most optimistic Hillary scenario, she doesn't get close.

Spin that.

Also, vis a vis $$$: Money's not the only thing:  This primary came after 2 months of Wright-Gate, Bitter-Gate, and the Media hitting Obama day in and day out.  As much as people want to say "Bosnia was huge too" I just didn't see it half as much on the news as either bitter or Wright.  In a demographically unfavorable state, Obama held close (single digits, it looks like) but didn't win, which is what I expected.

Jackson, here's something for you to consider.

In 2000, the MSM was ambivalent toward Bush and hated Gore, and it was a bloodbath against Gore.

Today, the MSM LOVES McCain and HATES HRC.

Close your eyes and imagine the first Russert or Gibson moderated debate between McCain and Clinton, what do you think will happen? (Russert will take a sawed off shotgun and stick it in Clinton's mouth, that's what...)

Now, that's no reason to support one candidate or another (and I've always respected HRC supporters for their views, I'm married to one after all...), but do you want to take that chance? Do you think Obama's negatives (from a purely political point of view) outweighs this negative? Do you not care?

Jackson has a point about Obama, it's a bummer that he can't walk onto the Ohio/Pennsylvania playing fields and beat her.

In a contest that is close nationally, it is only to be expected that certain demographic make-ups will be more favorable to one candidate and others more favorable to another.  The notion that Obama is supposed to win every race is flat-out ridiculous.  He wins more of them, and wins the ones he wins by wider margins, hence he is winning overall.  The argument that she who loses more is more likely to win than he who wins more is simply the essential spin that losers emit to try to keep the game going in the hope that something may yet change in their favor.

As the Obama campaign said this morning, she is running out of track.

Consider this logic, those of you who like to think logically. Obama outspent Hillary and he reduced a lead that was once 20 points to under 10.  Now that's a fact!