If anything I think the American populace is about as fickle as they come. Sure, she's probably gone too far with a lot of people (I've about had it with her myself) but once she does something right, all the sheep will come flocking back.

No, all the delegates are the same basically. Except Super Delegates don't have to side with anyone until the convention, where as the pledged delegates almost always go with whoever won their discrict, though they don't have to and can change their minds if important info or whatever is revealed, certain wins happen, etc. for them to have second thoughts. The media isn't covering this much yet, it has only been brought up a couple times for no more than a day or so. But if it does indeed go to the convention, you can bet it's brought up.

I don't want to jump the gun, but I'm really liking these PA polls. They are very similar to the OH polls. Obama in the low/mid 40's, Clinton in the mid/high 40's. Obama performed just like the polls suggested while Hillary performed better (which has happened in many of the bigger states). She seems to be gaining a few points since the Debate Tues as well if anyone has been keeping up with the polls.

I'd love a Clinton/Rendell ticket.

That has never happened historically speaking. Pledged delegates have gone with their candidate 100% of the time. Switching now would be unspeakable.

I highly doubt any of the Pledged Delegates will switch sides. The only way it could happen is if Hillary blows Obama way (huge win, 15 points at least) in PA, wins the popular vote, and if Obama still trails McCain in OH and FL because Clinton beats McCain in OH and polls about even with him in FL. That would be the only way any pledged delegates decide to change sides. And even then it's unlikely, though this race is so unprecedented that anything could happen I suppose. But yeah, I'm nearly 100% sure they won't be changing sides. Unless some major scandal (not something like his Pastor or anything) broke about Obama or something.

If I were Clinton the question would come down to:

1. Do I still have a chance to win the nomination?

2. What is better for the future of the Democratic Party?


Obviously, I still have a chance to win so I'm not going anywhere, but then I have to think about question #2. I realize that Obama is ahead of me in delegates and popular vote and that the media is behind him and that I can only win if a majority of the SDs back me but if I did get the nomination would it be worth it to divide the party? Unless of course, Obama changes his mind and becomes my VP then everything is all sunshine in the end.

I heard something about this on the news today actually. It's not happening. Clinton and Obama would lose so much credibility and be seen as just...idk since they have been attacking/mocking each other so much. Basically, the two of them to suddenly kiss and make up wouldn't be believable. The dream ticket is now a nightmare ticket if it were to happen, no matter who is at the top of it.

I'm already politiked out for this year... the 6 week break until Pennsylvania really killed my Obama spirit

I can't believe there's the entire general election left to go

That's kind of how I feel. And I agree with you and Rev. For the most part I've been irritated by people saying she must drop, because putting myself in her shoes, I wouldn't. This isn't a walk-away for either person, and getting upper-40's percent of the national vote so far means there's still grounds to gain. She's aiming for popular vote, and she has to win PA by enough to start really making up ground.

NC is probably going to kill her unless she does some active work down there, but if the votes on the 6th are split Indian to Hillary and NC to Obama, I would stay in the race too if I were her and focus on Kentucky, WV and Puerto Rico. Why should she drop if the next few states she could take, just because they came at a later date than the Mid-Atlantic sweep? If the roles were reversed and she had taken PA, Texas, Ohio before the mid-Atlantic states ran, Obama followers would be supporting him to stay in the race to make up ground, too. And I don't see them being wrong if that were the case. Conversely, of course, people would be urging him to drop because his come-from-behind position would be "ruining the party and prolonging the primaries." Thats the voter schedule for you, I guess.

I consider this like the Pentathlon or Heptathlon. I always used to be trailing in second place to some super good high-jumper and long-jumper, but I'd always catch it up and then some in the 800 if at that point I was even within reach. Didn't matter that 800 was the last event of the day. In the end, I had more points, and that's what it came down to.

Hillary needs to think long and hard, though, if she can get enough points between now and the finish line. I'm guessing she's really going to have to even up the popular vote, and at that final moment when she sees with one or two states with small voter pops left that she can't do it, I would drop out then. If she can, power to her. Its still close enough.

You know, all the people, specially superdelegate, complaining that "dragging this on" is bad for the party etc etc need to remember that the primary season lasts until June for a reason. If it were meant to be decided in February, what is the point of scheduling primaries so late in the game then?

Hillary should and will stay in this until the very second she can. (So should Obama if it were the other way around.)

It's the opportunity of a lifetime, so I can see why she's fighting to the bitter end.

Still doesn't change the fact that she's just prolonging the inevitable at this point.

Nah, it's politics. It happens all the time.

George Bush Sr. called Reagan's plans "voo doo economics" and insulted him throughout the campaign yet gladly accepted VP. Johnson hated Kennedy. Romney attacked McCain over and over and is now begging for the VP slot.

No one will blink.

The difference is that none of the examples you mentioned were as high profile as Clinton/Obama. Were we in the same media climate as Johnson and Kennedy, or even Romney and McCain, there'd be very little opposition to either of them taking on the other as VP. As it stands, I think Obama taking Clinton on as his VP nom would be incredibly damaging, and vice versa.

UHMM the whole voodoo economics thing is one of the highest profile things in modern election history.

It is standard politics. Neither candidate will admit taking a VP stance they want teh Presidential spot even admitting such would or could cause votes to sway one way or the toher usually in a bad way though.