Most endorsements do not. Though some do. Ed Rendell supporting Clinton in PA helped, and the Mayor of Pittsburg supporting her was likely the reason she won Pittsburg by 10 points. Certain endorsement do matter. But who John Edwards is going to endorse has been in the back of everyone's head since he dropped out. He is popular in NC, so a John Edwards endorsement and the 10 point win in PA should be enough to keep Obama from a double digit win there. And who knows, maybe Hillary can make a run for the state. She should carry Northern North Carolina, as well as the Western Part, so maybe she can contend in Central and Southern North Carolina.

That's it - - it's all over except for the cryin' - - Hilary's going all the way!!!

Hooray!!!!!

Her mom was there today!

Fun night! If you support her, contribute! I just gave $25! She needs the dough!!

I'd like to make a few points/notes here too.

--Turnout was over 50%. 2.3M approx PA DEMS voted, which is about 55% turnout. Very nice.

--I strongly feel that if Obama goes up against McCain in PA, this would be the exact result of that match up in NOV. Hillary ran a REP campaign in PA and won everywhere + a few extra counties that Bush won in 2000 and 2001, and lost the ones Gore and Kerry won in 2000 and 2004. Now, Bush did lose PA both times, but by it was very, very close. Though Hillary ran a better REP campaign than Bush did. And I think he lost Pittsburg, which Clinton won (mayor support). I can see a 55-45, 54-46 result between McCain and Obama in NOV due to the campaign Hillary ran. If McCain won PA, might as well declare him the new President.

--Hillary Clinton once again performed better than polls suggested and late deciders went for her by over 10 points again. This has happened in every single big primary state, which she has won 7 of the 8, while Obama performed exactly how he polled before election day.

I love how the 5-6 people supporting Hillary are out in force tonight.

It makes me giggle that you people still think that she deserves to be talked about as a human.

Obama refused to have a debate with her in North Carolina, so the DEM Party there had to cancel the planned debate.

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

final results. 8% win for hilldog.

The only ones who are supporting Obama are naive youth and misogynists, who try to make up their deficit in mental acuity with their loud braying noise. If America wants to create real change, they need to cover their ears and listen to the truth...

As opposed to somebody who makes utterly hilarious remarks such as playing an important role in the N.Ireland peace process? Whatever floats your boat Bradford.

My goodness, could you possibly be a more insulting asshole?

Except he is right, though I might have toned down the insults a bit.

Obama is the "in" candidate for youth, and it is popular to vote for him.

I wonder what David Trimble has to say about Hillary Clinton.

So what if he's the "in" candidate? Does that detract from the fact that he's also the best candidate? His being the "in" with the youth would only be an issue if he's actually inferior to the other people running. Not supporting him because you dislike his perceived fanbase would be effectively shooting yourself in the foot come election day.

More than that though, Bradley isn't right. Obama may have gotten more young people involved in politics (a good thing, no?), but they hardly make up the majority of his fanbase. And to call everyone of them naive is massively insulting, not to mention just plain wrong. And how many bonafide, militant misogynists do you think exist in America? Is Groucho a misogynist or a naive young person?

That said, I'm pretty positive the facts will back me up when I say that the only people voting for Hilary are curmudgeonly old cynics and racists.

And you're curmudgeonly and old to boot!

Actually, now it may be different in other parts of the state, but a huge majority of the Obama supporters I've spoken to, simply vote for him with no conviction or reasoning. They just think he's cool. I'll admit he has more charisma and his mantra is more appealing to the masses which leads to this false notion of him being a better candidate.

And no, I don't think more young people involved in politics is a good thing per se. It is not a good thing if they vote without conviction (and I'm not tying this to my previous paragraph just saying in general) and simply float from one MTV candidate to the next. I wish people would invest more time actually finding out about what their candidates stand for then simply going with what feels good.

And like I said, mysogenist and ageist was probably a bit too far, but I'd say a lot of Obama's supporters I've spoken to are very uninformed. On the other hand, that doesn't explain why Hilary wins among the lower educated. Heh, go figure.

My point, apart from the fact that it's ridiculous to assume that the majority of Obama's supporters are braindead tweenties (a word I have just made up), is that it shouldn't really matter if the majority of people voting for him are only doing it because he's "cool". What's important is that those of us who are informed know that he's the best candidate.

I genuinely can't fathom how anyone who's followed both candidate's campaigns and read their policy proposals could think differently.

Yes, it's unfortunate that a large group of people may be siding with him without really knowing what he stands for, but that's the way of politics and, unfortunately, the way of the world. It's the same reason people like G.W. Bush get elected for two terms. Because a large group of people (Republicans) voted for him with no conviction or reasoning. They voted for him because he's a republican.

However large the percentage of Obama's supporters these naive young people and misogynists make up, I'm just bloody thankful they managed to fluke their way into making the right decision. And to suggest that his fanbase detracts in any way from his ability to be a terrific president is absurd. Find a way to look past your distaste for hive mentality, and get on the damn Obama train already!

Honestly, that's what drives me crazy about Obama supporters.

I've was asked by a few friends yesterday if I voted (I'm registered in GA, so no, I didn't), and they would inform me they voted for Obama. I said to each of them: "Let me ask you a question, what made you vote for Obama?"

They all sputtered and stuttered there way to eventually saying something about charisma and change.

Now I'm coming off like I'm anti-Obama in this post, which really isn't the case. The guy has so much going for him, and we could do far worse in our next President. That said, I am beginning to get the feeling that some Democrats are looking in the mirror and find themselves surprised that Obama isn't exactly the guy they thought he was.

I suppose where I'm going with this is the following: There are two ways that people make decisions, one being where they look at surface traits and characteristics to make a quick decision on a something, and another where they take more time to understand the factors involved in the decision. The former is a very instable decision (meaning it's likely to change if they take the time to re-evaluate using the other decision process), and the latter is very stable. I feel a majority (but certainly not all) Obama supporters fall into this instable category, moreso than other candidates, and if Obama can be shown to not be what they thought, they may quickly jump ship.

I think because of this, he will be particularly vulnerable to any 3rd party negative ads targeting him, much moreso than most candidates.

Jeff, you need to realize that Obama supporters are more likely than Clinton supporters to vote based on character, as opposed to policy. You also need to realize that, contrary to what Clinton claims, there is nothing wrong with that. As a conservative, I will openly tell you that my biggest beef with liberals is their penchant for throwing money and ten-point-plans at problems, without acknowledging the cultural and emotional aspects of our society. (Crime is up? Boost police recruitment by 18 percent for $11.6 billion.) Democracy is not some technical investment ruled by rates of return and Clintonian "solutions"; it is a civic experiment grounded in the hope that people could, in the best of years, have a chance at governing themselves, and that such a hopelessly romantic notion would prove superior to the autocracies of old. Policies come naturally.

You, and the people that talk like you, don't understand that.
If I did not heed Obama's plea toward the better angels of our nature, and voted on policy alone, I would be solidly in McCain's column. For crying out loud, I am hiring a CEO here, not a damn IT consultant. Leave the heartless, soulless, laughless, hopeless "solutions" in the kitchen sink disposal.

Edit: Basing a presidential choice on character is not necessarily an "unstable" action. Personally, I see common ground between supporting Reagan and supporting Obama. People lampooned Reagan for being vapid as well; evidently, those "no you can't!" folks from 1980 are alive and well today. A big part of a president's job is to play "hero dad" for the American people. History clearly shows the power of inspirational leadership.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with basing a decision upon character, and I agree I don't think it makes his voting base any less unstable.

I simply believe a lot of people, and this is based on my conversations with friends who voted for him, are making snapshot unstable decisions. And as I said above, I think it's something that could leave him vulnerable in the general election.

We'll see what happens. So far, Obama has shown a good deal of Reaganesque "Teflon". The Wright controversy alone would have sunk Walter Mondale.

Very true, also going in his favor is that I don't think McCain will stoop to the type of ads required to make this an issue. It would have to come from a third party, which may dull the effect to negligibility.

This whole election season has been topsy-turvy for me, if only for the fact that this is the hardest I have ever campaigned for a Democrat.

How do you resolve your personal differences in opinion of fiscal and foreign policy? Because in all honesty, that's what has held me back from supporting Obama.

I do. And due to my past living circumstances, I even voted both of them in for their senator seats. So its not like I absolutely hate one of them. The funny thing is, what you just said? Is what I think too, only with the reverse conclusion.

The simple fact is there are many differences between the three candidates and depending on where you stand on various issues, you could come down favoring any of the three.

The only thing that's unfathomable is believing that anyone who opposes your candidate does so in ignorance.