Clinton is still the delegate leader with over 200 super delegates.

CNN: "The latest estimate gave Clinton 582 of the 1,681 delegates at stake Tuesday, compared with 562 for Obama. It will take time to determine the final distribution because of complicated formulas."

Mittens Romney will be the next president!

http://www.MittensRomney.com

If Obama loses because of Hillary's 'super delegates' — all hell will break loose! The party will fracture and Obama's supporters will not vote — period! We will lose the election. If she wins more delegates through voter delegates and her super delegates remain loyal and give her the win, fine. But if it goes to convention with Obama ahead in voter delegates… those so-called super delegates better wise up and switch allegiance!
And if Florida and Michigan are to count, they need to set up caucus dates there and have the candidates campaign — for a fair vote.

Obama is getting very close to being the Nader/Perot spoiler of this election cycle. Independents that voted for him in the CA primary will likely vote R in the general election no matter who the nominee is. Large numbers not a of Independents wanted to vote for McCain yesterday but found out they weren’t allowed to in the primary. That should tell you how well informed Independent voters are. So these Independents voted against Clinton by voting for Obama as a way to make their vote “count”.

First-

"If Obama loses because of Hillary’s ’super delegates’ — all hell will break loose!"

It won't, it didn't when Mondale won because of his super delegates. Super delegates have been around since the 1970's and the candidates are well aware of the rules going in.

Second-

Florida and Michigan already did have "fair votes." These two states should be allowed to be seated, and to make them re-vote would be inherently unfair. I'm sorry Marco if that doesn't support your candidate, but telling people that their vote didn't count the first time is what would cause people not to vote again.

Also, Marco, please don't use "we," it insinuates that everyone who is a Democrat is as pessimistic and disloyal to the party. A true partisan Democrat would fall in line behind the party's candidate regardless of who they supported during the primary. I would support Obama in November if he is selected, because to do otherwise is just being a sore loser. And the sore loser attitude is what will cause a loss in November.

"A true partisan Democrat would fall in line behind the party’s candidate regardless of who they supported during the primary."

Perhaps the 'true partisan' Dems will… But Obama has undeniably brought out more new voters, the youth vote and has a hold on the black vote. Again, if Hillary wins the the most delegates through the primaries to come and her 'supers' take her over the top, that's fine. But, do you really think that if Obama gets more votes from the primaries but looses to Hillary because of senators and congressmen, that there won't be any backlash from those who are behind Obama's momentum? I do! The only way I can see that not happening, is if Obama was Hillary's VP candidate.

As for Michigan and Florida… Clinton was the only person on Michigan's ballot. How is that a legitimate contest?
At the least, they should split those delegates evenly.

Marco, good points. A superdelegate victory would smell WAY too much like Florida in 2000, but that's just all the more reason why a Clinton-Obama ticket is likely. And I TOTALLY agree with your fabulous idea regarding Michigan and Florida. The ONLY way to make those fair would be to have a do-over.

And just in general, yesterday I voted for Obama. I did NOT vote against Hillary. In November, I'll happily vote for either, and AGAINST whatever the repubs cough up.

I would love a Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton ticket regardless of who is on top.

I don't think that Michigan should be split, because Obama decided to take his name off the ballot, so that was his choice.

Personally, I think the whole delegate system is stupid and should be revised. I.e. there have been several instance of Clinton getting a greater popular vote, but fewer delegates. I think that stinks of 2000 as well.

The system is flawed and frankly the party members need to demand change. I don't like super delegates and I don't like that the DNC uses some crazy electoral math to assign delegates. To top that off many delegates are not obliged to vote for who citizens voted at the convention. We should have a national primary day or regional primary days (divide the nation into quarters rotating which quarter goes first) that use the same system (I support primaries over caucuses because I think caucuses goers are more subject to peer pressure) and have a clear and simple way that delegates (if its decided to keep them) are assigned.

Obama and Clinton share the same values on LGBT issues. I chose Obama because he is the most electable across the country. Go Obama.

what country is that? not this one.

i think people are too swept up in obama fever to remember what COUNTRY WE LIVE IN.

he can talk all he wants about change, but it ain't changed that much.

Obama doesn't stand a chance of being elected when people start scrutinizing him. He hasn't had a serious look, yet. He's full of empty rhetoric.

Politico/NBC are wrong. CNN is reporting 823 delegates for Clinton, 741 for Obama so far.

USA Today reports: "By the end of the day, CNN put Clinton's overall total at 1,113 delegates to Obama's 963."

who says Obama will not win? He has all it takes to rule the united state. he will win.