Larkin, I wouldn't be too pessimistic..Yes the California vote was disappointing with the poor Asian and Latino vote for Obama but I don't think the wave has crested for Obama. He has I think the more favorable states to come in the next couple of rounds, more than Hillary does.

Clinton only won the the popular vote by 49%-48%, according to CNN.(by late last night) However, if you look at the total state populations carried by each candidate, it works out just the opposite.

Hillary of course wants the Michigan and Florida delegates that the candidates had pledged wouldn't count..She now says she will debate on Fox...

She sounds desperate enough that she willing to suspend whatever moral principles she has left, in order to win at any cost. Her edge might be the super delegate vote. There are over 722 of those, 411 are still undeclared and the mjority may go with whoever they think will be the winner for the Dems.

"Hillary of course wants the Michigan and Florida delegates that the candidates had pledged wouldn't count..She now says she will debate on Fox..."

The candidates didn't pledge they wouldn't count, to my knowledge. Please show me where they agreed to that so I can apologize for my mistake.

The candidates pledged they wouldn't campaign in Florida. The Clinton camp complained that Obama broke that pledge with a national TV advertising buy on CNN. Obama's folks said they couldn't buy time without buying Florida too, which is false.

The Democratic Party (Dean and company) made the decision that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count because those states jumped the gun when they scheduled their primaries. They weren't suppose to run their primary before Feb 5, was the rule. The candidates didn't have a say in the matter.

"She sounds desperate enough that she willing to suspend whatever moral principles she has left, in order to win at any cost."

Pretty desperate spin there of your own, Steve.

I love the way Obama has "united" the Democratic party, and "reaches across to others" - lol. I guess the other half of the Democratic Party, the ones who support Clinton, don't matter in that equation since there seems to be no end to the efforts of Obama supporters to spin things against Clinton. amazing.

"She now says she will debate on Fox..."

And will Obama? That's the big question... Will he stand down from his principles?

There are over 722 of those, 411 are still undeclared and the mjority may go with whoever they think will be the winner for the Dems.

I really don't think the super-delegates will hand the nomination to Hillary if she gets a minority of the pledged delegates. Imagine how outraged the African-American community would be if Obama gets the majority of delegates thru the primary process and then the party bosses hand it to Hillary. It won't happen.

At any rate, all the momentum is with Obama and he should do well in the next round.

When it comes to non-compliance on her mandates, Hillary is harsh. She will garnish a person's wages who refuses to buy private health insurance and will deport illegal aliens the next day without due process if they have committed a criminal act. But on the clear non-compliance of Michigan and Florida who ignored DNC rules by trying to jumpstart their primaries...she has a different tack. The DNC announced that delegates chosen in the rouge primaries would not be seated at this summer's party convention..or don't you agree Lee do you think states can hold primaries any time they want ..why not in 2007? why even bother with having a DNC.

Hillary supports the DNC in theory, but now wants her large majority of delegates in Michigan and Florida. She didn't have to spend any money campaigning and she was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan.

Back in the fall.."We're honoring the pledge and we won't campaign or spend money in states that aren't in compliance with the DNC calendar,'"( Clinton spokesman Jay Carson told The Associated Press. "We don't think it's necessary to remove ourselves from the ballot...(such disingenousness...this way we can win the Michigan slate easily without spending a dime and try and legitimize the result later by arguing against the rules and authority of the DNC)....does that sound fair? What about a level playing field.. Who is running this nominating process the DNC or the Clinton team.

This way there is sure to be ruckus at the convention, because the Clintons are unwilling to abide by the referees, the DNC. Yes this should really unify the convention.

A fair compromise for every one including the the voters of those two states, would be to run the Michigan and Florida primaries over again or treally for the first time in let's say April. Maybe the DNC, Obama and Hillary could agrre on that?

Wow, Steve, you're spin is making me dizzy - you too, apparently.

Settle down -- Obama is for uniting the country and changing the way Americans politic -- and the attitude of Obama supporters is attack, attack attack. Where's the change in that.

First, to you assertion that "Hillary of course wants the Michigan and Florida delegates that the candidates had pledged wouldn't count..."

I don't see where you've shown there was a pledge by the candidates that the delegates wouldn't count.

Did I miss that? You have included a quote showing that the pledge was to not campaign. Clinton lived up to that pledge, Obama didn't.

"We don't think it's necessary to remove ourselves from the ballot...(such disingenousness...this way we can win the Michigan slate easily without spending a dime and try and legitimize the result later by arguing against the rules and authority of the DNC)....does that sound fair?"

Fair? Yes, it's fair, because Obama and Edwards had the same option, and made their own choice. What's not fair about the freedom of choice?

Because Obama decided to do "X" Clinton should follow his choice as well? What's "fair" about that - and why not the opposite? Why isn't it "Fair" that Obama should have left his name on the ballot,a dn duffer the consequences of his choice for not doing that? That seems "fair" to me.

We all know the answer to that - he knew he'd lose in Michigan, but that's beside the point. Your attack on Clinton is again, way off the mark.

"This way there is sure to be ruckus at the convention, because the Clintons are unwilling to abide by the referees, the DNC. Yes this should really unify the convention."

And there you again with the wild attacks. "Unwilling to abide?" Where do you get that?

The Clinton campaign has asked that the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated - it's a damn request Steve - there's no "unwillingness to abide" - Jeez! It's democratic process for cyring out loud. Obama can request that they aren't seated.

"A fair compromise for every one including the the voters of those two states, would be to run the Michigan and Florida primaries over again or really for the first time in let's say April. Maybe the DNC, Obama and Hillary could agree on that?"

Ah, yes, don't debate on Fox - that's not fair because Obama would probably lose the debate again -- but since Obama has more money and momentum let's reschedule Florida and Michigan -- it's "fair" to do things that would seemingly favor Obama's chances.

Wow. "Fair" equals "what's best for my candidate" - I see. Ignoring the votes of the electorates in Florida and Michigan in their primaries is "fair" because it favors Obama - and rescheduling the debates is "fair" because... it favors Obama.

Got it.

That next ot he last paragraph should have read

Wow. "Fair" equals "what's best for my candidate" - I see. Ignoring the votes of the electorates in Florida and Michigan in their primaries is "fair" because it favors Obama - and rescheduling the Florida and Michigan primaries is "fair" because... it favors Obama.

Lee..Okay she only asked for the request .Why all the major candidates were still on the ballot in Florida? I don't know is probably in Hillary's favor. It is a right screw-up..Clearly they should have all sat down together and made a decision or the DNC should have announced a stronger decision knowing something like this would happen. Two new primaries I think is the fairest solution. Having no representaion favors Obama. Hillary with the tilted wins, if the DNC decision is reversed especially in Michigan, it will favor her..Obama should suggest having the 2 new primaries and if he doesn't Hillary should. Maybe united they both suggest it together. But they should decide now before the August convention, otherwise, I could see whoever loses taking this to court, like the 2000 election.