Damn, Jason C - good call on the Fallwell commercial!

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hate_America_sermon/200 8/03/16/80870.html

Wright is even more nuts than I thought was possible, and even half of what's brought up in the article is true - and someone can provide actual proof that Obama was there - then he might as well drop out of the election.

I agree with your points, Stephen, but I think I'm confused about her health-care plan.  I tried looking it up, and I got a lot of mixed messages about what it is, but my understanding was that she was pushing a plan where you had to have coverage, like car insurance, and would be fined if you didn't - like car insurance.  Which sounds insane, but made sense to me, considering how much money she takes in from the Insurance lobby - but I can't find anything concrete either way to support or deny that, and you're suggesting she's pushing some far out left wing thing, so... am I working with inncorrect information?

************

SER: You're correct. However, I'd consider her proposal to be fairly extreme left. The extreme right position would be letting the uninsured hang and keeping the government out of it completely. The extreme left is to mandate insurance coverage -- basically socialize it.

I strongly disagree with her program for that reason, and it's another example of why I think Obama is a better candidate. His policy is remarkably similar to hers but without a mandate. Mostly because if you try to pass a universal health care bill with a mandate, you're doomed to failure. The mandate will most likely even ensure she doesn't get elected if she's the nominee. The Republicans would have a field day with it, as it will be basically spun as her raising taxes on the poor and removing choice.

Brian Floyd, you might want to check out this link:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kristol _bungles_key_fact_in_an.php

GREAT article about how Clinton will do anything she can to win:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9086.html

Florida decided today to not re-vote - which... I have mixed feelings about...

On one hand, I worry the Floridians are disenfranchized by this - though they knew going in that their delegates wouldn't be seated...

But then, if Florida didn't do a do-over in 2000, it's only fitting they don't do one now.

Anyway - Hillary can never catch up now.  She's too far behind in popular votes and delegates...

Woah, Thom - that's some tricky logic you're using there - yes, it would be nice if the superdelegates voted the will of the people, but suggesting they do so doesn't mean that their nature is to vote otherwise, and it's cheating.

And that doesn't carry over to Kerry and Kennedy - the suggestion is that the super-delegates vote the will of the people, but they don't have to - Kerry and Kennedy, if not super-delegates, will have no say in who becomes president, other than what they do in the voting booth, like anyone else.  Apples and oranges.

D'oh!   I didn't know that - but having said that, if the majority of Americans voted for Obama, I don't see why the superdelegates shouldn't do the same - even if it means differences state by state, as with Kerry and Kennedy.  But then again, I'd agree that they might be obligated to their constituants to vote for Hillary.

And uh, that's pretty slippery there - taking a point about superdelegates and turning it around to a point about how we don't need delegates or electoral votes.   Still - even if it were the will of the people... Obama is still ahead!

And any slight wins she makes in Penn, if any, will be overcome by the end of the race.  He's predicted to get most of the remaining states.

Things could change... she could win one or two more states - especially if more of this race-baiting fear-mongering about the people near Obama who are mad about how blacks have been treated... but then again, logic and reason could prevail and he might win Penn!  Never know what the future holds... I think Hillary should give it up, but you never know what will happen...