The Pennsylvania win has made Clinton flush with money.

Here's something to wonder about, then.  Who would you rather have managing the nation's multi-billion dollar economy?  The one who is continuously solvent or the one who at the last minute finds donors only because of a "win"?

Her purported ten million (through online donations) is not quite a quarter of Obama's bank.

The next question, Scott, is why are you so hot on her?  What is it about Hillary that makes you want her so badly?  Without comparing her to either of the other guys running, what is it about what she's selling that you like so much? 

Specifics, please.  Her platforms?  Her experience?  I'm curious.

Tom French:
"What is it about Hillary that makes you want her so badly?  Without comparing her to either of the other guys running, what is it about what she's selling that you like so much? 
Specifics, please.  Her platforms?  Her experience?  I'm curious."

Excellent question Tom!  I would like to hear the answers to this, as well as the same question to the Obama supporters.

What I don't understand is why they keep on saying he won't win enough delegates to be nominated. There are two people in the running. One person will have a majority over the other. When that number is crossed, they will have a majority. There is no way both can have all these delegates and still no one has reached or will reach the magic number, as the pundits keep on saying. Am I missing something?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Neither candidate can get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. 20% of the democratic delegates are super-delegates who are not selected by any vote.

The saddest thing, for me, is that - while I'm 100% sold on not voting for McCain, I'm not sold on either Hillary or Obama.  Sure...by default, come November, that first part pretty much sets me at default of voting for whichever one of them gets the nomination.

But, as with ever other presidential election since I've been of voting age, looks like I won't be voting for someone, but rather voting against someone.

One o' these days, I hope a candidate shows up to make me say, "Yeah!  THAT'S my candidate." rather than, "Enh...that's the person who stands the best chance of keeping out the candidate I definitely don't want."

You guys need ...

... a THIRD PARTY!

Here in Quebec, Canada we have minority governments at the national and provincial levels and we are LOVING IT! A majority government can get away with a lot of cronyism and mismanagement but a minority government has to focus more on GOVERNING because the two or more opposing parties have enough combined clout to topple the government and lead to an election -- provided they think they can win. For us, this seems to have created a balance where the impact of partisan politicking pretty much ends in chamber instead of spreading out of chamber and impacting society at large. Current polls seem to suggest that further elections in the next four years would give us more of the same.

Don't know whether this would work in the States but -- observing things from a distance -- polarized two-party politics seems to lead to stagnation and only superficial differences in ideology. It's Enough to call oneself a republican to distinguish oneself from a democrat: if there where -- say "populists" -- thrown into the mix, Republicans and Democrat would have to work harder to define and explain what their vision is, instead of just sitting back and saying "we're not the other guys".

Kevin, you mean they can't vote, even after they did their time? That makes no sense at all. 

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------

No it doesn't.  But that's the way it is.  Probably because felons might tack to one party over another and

• no one wants to be known for having felons as one of their voting blocs
• no one wants felons voting for the OTHER guy if they aren't voting for him!

Catch-22?