It's getting to the point where they're only spinning themselves.

Obama's ahead by 100+ delegates, even including superdelegates. After Tuesday, she's got only one chance - Pennsylvania - to make a dent in his lead. But it would be truly impressive if she won PA by 20 delegates.

So really, Tuesday is it for Clinton. She's got to win March - which means she's got to win on Tuesday by enough that a likely Obama win in WY and blowout in MS don't turn March back into a draw.

Even if she wins Tuesday by 25 delegates, she draws March, and it's over. She's 100 delegates behind heading into PA, picks up 20 there, loses them back in NC, and doesn't appreciably gain on Obama in the remaining primaries.

And that's really the best-case scenario for her.

More likely, Tuesday is a rough draw, and the superdelegate stampede towards Obama is on.

I'm English so you may not take my comments to mean much, but over here in the UK we cannot understand why Americans and particularly young and educated Americans are voting for an inexperienced candidate to run for presidency! Clinton has the experience and is much more convincing to lead the world into the next decade. If Obama gets in I'll be worried, for the US and for the UK, hopefully the 'special relationship' between the UK and USA administrations that is fizzling out now Blair has gone will be extinguished completely if your people vote in Obama.

I always thought the "who has more money" argument seemed a bit silly, like which guy has the longer Camarro or bigger jeep.

Becky -

As both an Obama supporter this year, a Gore supporter in 2000, and a Kerry supporter in 2004 who vividly cringes when remembering an ill-fated "letters from England in support of Kerry" campaign, I heartily encourage you to organize a facsimile this cycle in support of Clinton.

Americans, no different from any other nation, don't take electoral advice from abroad very well...

"Americans, no different from any other nation, don't take electoral advice from abroad very well... "

grammar lessons are also, apparently, cheerfully ignored

NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin report that Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions." Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court." It is so hypocritical that she will not Reject and Denounce. This is the usual Camp Clinton Hypocrisy Spin.

Hillary Clinton has no Credibility on national security since she cast her Yes vote to authorize war in Iraq. There where other Senators who voted NO! They knew to vote yes was to automatically Invade a Country that had nothing to do with 911, but all about OIL. That is not Judgment and it is the wrong kind of Experience. And what National Security Experience Does She Really Have? Will she run the country like she has run her Campaign?

Some say, who know the Clintons, that she and Bill have the agenda to get Bill a THIRD Presidency, that should not be allowed. It was Bill, after all, who spoke first after their loss in South Carolina!

Obama's record is not that thin, unknown, perhaps. He has had over 20 years if one would investigate. And the Clintons have had years of Scandal, that one should investigate. How many presidental families Plunder the Whitehouse after they leave taking pictures and furniture? Not to mention the scandal of Impeachment. And then there is "file gate" and so much much oore. There is a lawsuit pending because there are records of the Clintons not to be released until 2012 and some want them released. Has she released her Tax Returns, No? America we need to turn the page from this kind of Politicking.

Zonk -

I hear what you're saying - we're hardly in the best position in the UK but what is annoying is when your dumb people don't understand their importance of their vote and go all romantic on the new kid. Unfortunately, and believe me i wish it wasn't the case, the American President is an important figure in world affairs - the world does look to America and by that judges Americans also, so go ahead vote in the wannabe Martin Luther King, the man with no real ideas, just borrowed ones, dressed up with a bit of make-up, and the world (well I will) will keep on thinking how dumb you really all are! Sorry but its just how i feel.

We don't need the sort of experience that led people - like Clinton and McCain - to vote for a disastrous war. We don't need a secretive president, and we don't need the calculating poll-driven approach to politics that Clinton worships.

Experience is only useful when it leads to wisdom. Had Clinton spoken out for American values, from her completely safe Senate seat, she'd be the uncontested nominee. Her political calculations cost her the election, and there's a good moral in there.

Too many Dems have fallen for the Obama flim-flam and Becky is one of many rational people around the world (and in the US) who is justifiably worried. The man has little experience, offers no substance, and may well turn out to be as damaging as those other pathetic neophytes Jimmy Carter or GW Bush--they too were manifestly unqualified for the presidency but various coalitions of hope-filled and irrational "fans" put them into an office where they proved their incompetence. And for those enthralled with P.C. fantasies, Obama's blackness doesn't guarantee competence.

Of course Obama needs to win these big state primaries. That's why we have seen, over the last couple of weeks, so many of his supporters suggest that Clinton, for the "good of the party," fold her tent and get out BEFORE Texas and Ohio. They would much prefer to not have to compete for a win.

I would take Obama's supporters more seriously if they didn't so often act as if they didn't quite grasp that he really is a politician. A pretty damn "calculating" one even -- as likely to "do or say anything to get elected" as anyone in the race.

Ah yes, becky, we should all defer to your much greater wisdom and judgment about Obama, clearly obtained from the conventional wisdom of your perpetually shallow and herd-like press (after 25 years of reading the Guardian, I am still struck by how utterly clueless British journalists and pundits are about American politics), and equally clearly without reading Obama's book "Dreams
From My Father," showing him to be a far more insightful and self-aware person than the vast majority in any nation.

Your comments remind me of nothing so much as a latter-day, more superficial version of Walter Lippmann's view of FDR in 1932 as "having no ideas" and as "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President."

angellight,

"The Clintons."
LOL

"I hear what you're saying - we're hardly in the best position in the UK but what is annoying is when your dumb people don't understand their importance of their vote and go all romantic on the new kid."

Oh, shit the fuck up, you dreary, fat, boring old git.

Becky,

Tony Blair wasn't exactly a savior! Your Labour Party is going through some tough times right now. Gordon Brown hasn't exactly taken the UK by storm. I do not think the UK is in a position to criticize people who support Senator Obama.

The UK has been unfortunate in its PMs lately. Blair was a huge disappointment because he joined in the Iraq disaster (against the will of the British people) and because of domestic failures (NHS, schools, homegrown Islamicist terrorism). Brown is a pathetic joke. If the Scots want independence, they should be forced to take Brown back. Labour and the nation need someone better--hopefully with more substance than Obama if not charisma.

Of course, we Americans should talk, considering our current Prez and the pool of potential replacements. This is the way the world ends....

Never mind whether it makes sense... is it actually true that the UK is a hotbed of pro-Clinton, anti-Obama sentiment? I poked around British newspapers for a little while yesterday and couldn't find much evidence of this. There was one letter to the editor of the Independent saying Obama had a fascist personality like Oswald Mosley and Tony Blair.

As eager as she is to weigh-in on our process leading to the nomination for the Democratic candidate, I'm sure our single voice from the U.K. has:

-Well-researched the candidates and their actual "experience"- including viewing the actual legislative achievements (or lack of) found at the Library of Congress' THOMAS site, noting who co-drafted & co-signed for who and what.
-Scoured every news article, clocked every nuance of the debates, and has lived in the US long enough to accurately gage the undercurrent of sexism and racism that remains and thrives (and can indeed be tapped by the mere sight of a man in a turban, or forged email, apparently).
-realizes the inherent irony of a Democrat using right-wing political tactics to win a mere primary--not to mention vote-blocking in Nevada.
-Sees the blatant deception and manipulation of truth in setting-up an entire website separate from her own, devoted to the "Democratic" intent of spreading the rationale of ignoring the popular vote in favor of a superdelegate's own personal judgement.

I'm certain that distance gives her greater perspective, and I believe the opinion of our allies is always intended to aid, especially in this, our hour of indecision. And I thank her.
Regrettably, I must decline to take her advice on casting my single, precious vote, as my "hope" is for a government with the following qualities:

-free of corporate lobbyists
-free of megalomaniac administrations who will do whatever it takes to get what they (and their special interests) desire.
-Must be headed by someone who encourages bipartisan cooperation to solve issues (with a proven track record to bolster it)
-(a small "peeve" of mine) Must be headed by a president who will talk with enemies to find out what the trouble is before they bomb the s**t out of them and their citizens using falsified intelligence.
-There's also growing desire for a leader who won't attempt to frighten citizens in an attempt to manipulate them. I'm quite done with that.

Our UK voice of wisdom must also remember that in the hour of need, when our elected leaders had to stand-up to Bush and his obvious (even at the time) war--an act that could've saved hundreds of thousands of international lives, both Sen. Clinton and Blair allowed themselves to be Bush's lil' flunkys, and the good times did roll.

I thank our British ally again for her interests, but I am tired of 'Bring It On', and desire a little less ego and a little more maturity from my Commander In Chief.

God Save The Queen (yours).
DH

Ya,sex education is must for the young generation.This might be allow them to know about sex.
-----------
muthu

stan james free bet

That's why we have seen, over the last couple of weeks, so many of his supporters suggest that Clinton, for the "good of the party," fold her tent and get out BEFORE Texas and Ohio. They would much prefer to not have to compete for a win.