If Hillary is now the shoo-in, why is she down 100 delegates still?

She is not the shoo-in yet. Even though she got the populous vote she may not get enough delegates and I bet the price of those super delegates went up this a.m. The democrat caucuses to decide the delegates are continuing today. The system is getting way too complicated. When peoples votes do not really count (one vote,one person) it seems the voting is corrupt.

she took too much for granite she assumed her large base of support would be there and took a morel ayed back approach ti to

likei mentioned before last year the New York Mets had a 7 gamrd leadwith 14 to go and blew it, neevr assume or take anything for granite til it is over

Hillary is not a shoe in and Democrats need to wake up and realize that if they want a Democrat in the White House , they need to stop voting for Hillary. She is NOT electable.... She will lose to McCain.

Nobody has said that Hillary is a shoe-in, unless it's someone here on YA that said it. The bottom line is that she proved, by winning those three states, that Obama is NOT a shoe-in. Big difference in those two outlooks. There are many states that still have to vote. I suppose a lot of people would be gleeful if Hillary acted defeated after she won three states, it seems as though you might be one of them. What sort of sense does that make? Winners in life already think of themselves as winners and don't court false humility. Do you really think she should have come out and said, "Oh well, I won three but it doesn't mean anything?" Let's get real here. This race is not over.

And you seem not only disillusioned but possessed of the idea that Obama is some sort of saint and Hillary is evil incarnate. Obama has done his own nasty work in this campaign. Fliers full of misconceptions and outright misrepresentations of her policy stands. Twisting of her and Bill's comments in NH to make them look racist when they weren't. Memos from his camp calling her "Punjab Hillary" and suggesting she had a hand in Bhutto's assassination. Obama and his campaign are not a bunch of saints and aren't running some sort of hands clean campaign. A lot of people are starting to realize that's a fact and it has opened their eyes.

As the weeks go by, and Obama's connection to Rezko becomes clearer, his image will be further tarnished. His wins thus far have relied heavily on this notion that he's above all of that sort of thing. People are finding out that's just not true. If they are close enough in delegates at the end that the super delegates will choose the nominee, they have a lot more to consider than simply going with the popular vote, and a sway of less than 100 delegates. Part of their purpose, though Obama's people refuse to acknowledge it, is to prevent a candidate being nominated who is not suitable or who will clearly lose against the Republicans. As the race goes on and Hillary and Barack battle with McCain, we'll get a better idea of who is best able to beat him. That will, and should be, a big consideration to the super delegates. Their very existence is geared to assure the Democratics the best chance at victory. And whoever loses their confidence is just going to have to live with that decision.

Hillary has proved herself to still be a viable candidate, as much as that stings. For her, it was indeed a huge victory as the opposite outcome would have caused her to withdraw. This isn't a basketball game and we're not even close to the buzzer going off.

EDIT: Point by point:

"Elway: So many assumptions and misconceptions."

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

"Obama is not involved with the Rezko thing."

Talk about an assumption. Perhaps you might want to read the following point by point connection in the Chicago Sun Times between him and Rezko. This Rezko thing is just getting started.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-...

"And who is Hillary Clinton to talk about shady land deals?" She is someone who was accused without enough evidence to even bring her into court. That's who she is to talk about shady land deals. And it isn't just "shady land deals" either. Rezko was on Obama's senate finance campaign committee, but Obama has no connection right? Giving back the man's donation doesn't negate the whys around the donation in the first place. When this Rezko thing is picked over, if there is no evidence of a Barack connection then he can do the same. That is yet to be determined.

"How has Hillary proven she is electable? The pragmatic Dem voter realizes that if there is one thing that will mobilize the right, it's a Clinton running for the White house. They will eat her alive."

Yet another assumption from you when you accuse me of the same. You do not speak for "pragmatic" Dem voters, I happen to be one myself. And I believe that the Republican Smear Machine will cut Obama up into little pieces and eat him for breakfast, lunch and dinner. She's proven already she can more than handle the Republicans. They've been trying to pin her to the wall for 15 years and she bests them every time. At least we know that she knows how to handle and kill the Republican beast. Obama gets rattled when Hillary gets to him. What's he going to do when the Karl Rove devotees begin to take him apart. They can't swiftboat Hillary, they've tried and failed at that already. But they can't wait to unload on Obama, and he doesn't have a clue just how bad it's going to get. As far as mobilizing the right, you are buying into their own rhetoric, lock stock and barrel. They say that, completely ignoring the determination of Democrats and Independents to keep out another version of George Bush. The Dems will mobilize themselves, no matter which candidate is the nominee. I apparently have more confidence in my own party than you do. This country would elect Bugs Bunny in November to stop another Republican from getting in.

"As for the superdelegate thing- I guess what you are saying is that the American people are too stupid to know what's in their best interest? That 700 some odd people can honestly justify going against millions of voters? Do you want to see a riot at the convention?"

You seem to think this is so simple. That the super delegates exist only to vote per their constituents. If that were the case, why do they exist in the first place? I'll leave a link that can educate you on why they exist, and what their purpose is stated to be. An example? Say Obama is 100 delegates richer than Hillary in the end. But in the interim some information arose that showed him to be an unsuitable nominee. This could go either way so no, I'm not "picking" on Saint Obama. Part of the super delegates purpose is to weigh those sorts of things. If Hillary was ahead by 100 delegates and it came out that she was involved in fraud or extortion, wouldn't you expect the super delegates to move their votes to Obama? You wouldn't be squawking then would you? I believe that if the super delegates gave Hillary the win their reasons will be clearly stated and it will be something addressed to the voters at large by Howard Dean in a national TV spot. Sure, there would still be whiners at the convention trying to cause trouble and some people would refuse to even listen to the reasons because they are too emotionally involved to listen at all. If this happens, that is why we will see a push to have Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama as the ticket. What makes you think that Clinton supporters are going to be any less outraged if they think they have been unfairly ignored? If they point out that she largely wins the blue states the Dems already have and he largely wins the red states that are of no use to the Dems anyway? This is NOT a simple issue, and as the months go by more people are going to realize this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/page/2/

There were, Mayer says, two motives in giving elected officials a big voice in the nomination.

“One was not to get (ideologically) extreme candidates; the other was to avoid the Jimmy Carter phenomenon — where you had a guy who was not very experienced and not very well regarded by most of his fellow governors, but nevertheless managed to win the party’s nomination,” Mayer said.

“It’s a very important system because you have people who have a serious, serious stake in the outcome participating in the convention,” said Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck, who teaches at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Serving as 'safety valve'

Kamarck sees the super-delegates as a “sort of safety valve” so that, for instance, “if the convention’s platform committee is adopting something that would be really detrimental in the general election,” the party leaders can take steps to prevent that from happening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I'm sorry, Hillary-ites. She is a good candidate. She's just not the best candidate this year."

And I'm sorry, Obamamaniacs, he is a good man and a good candidate. He's just not the best candidate this year. We're on two war fronts, dealing with a powder keg Middle East, and heading into a recession. We need someone who clearly can handle these issues and has proven it by understanding the all important process of diplomacy and a superior knowledge of foreign relations.

Unfortunately, you and I will have to agree to disagree. That's the way it goes.

She is not the "shoo in".