It’s amazing that there is so much Obama-is-inevitable pronouncements that are going to be proved wrong.
Ummm, mathamatically, an Obama is pretty unlikely, too. He needs almost ALL the remaining pledged delegates to win.
This leaves things in the hands of the “superdelagates.” And Hillary “Have you ever seen your FBI file?” Clinton has a pretty good chance in that arena.
Clintons CAN change the math by prevailing on the DNC to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations as at the convention. It is pretty much what I expect to happen in order to give a cover to the bosses’ awarding of the nomination to the Clintons.
That’s what I’m talkin’ ‘bout! It’ll be McCain vs Obama in the GE, for all intensive porpoises, so let’s go get him!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Why isn’t it seen as a tad odd, that no one can say with authority what the ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS are for the democrat primary?
Notice how it’s phrased in this article:
” Using the New York Times’s count, Obama has 1,735 delegates...”
You always see this or such as “According to CNN..”
The democrats always claim election fraud, but they hold a primary and no one knows the result.