Due to the whining of the those with weak livers, I am deleting this diary. It was about certain maneuvering for a specific office

More below the fold

According to an AP wire feed...

Clinton says she expects superdelegates to make up their minds after Mont., SD primaries

Well, I guess that makes it official:

The Democratic primary is over.

We knew it, and it is being pronounced as fact:

Excluding cameo appearance from the ever enthusiastic, and yet delusional Terry McAuliffe on Fox and Wolfson on ABC, there are NO HRC surrogates scheduled to appear as first acts on this week's Sunday talking heads shows! No BO/HRC debates, no popular vote fantasy, no "it's tied" rubbish.

The main attraction is November as the primaries fade away.

Today, I caught part of out President grovelling for Cuban votes. He was decring the human rights conditions and the fact that there are political prisioner in Cuba. He went on with no hint of his understanding the irony of his speach!

Disclamers: I support Obama, am highly dyslectic and have no spell checker on this laptop.
There is an interesting post on MrSuper, a blog by an anonimus undeclaired Superdelegate.

Several good reference tools to determine how many undeclared Supers there are.  Politico has a good tracker (which lists 241), as does DemConWatch (304).  I've used the NY Times tracker (226) quite a bit though it appears, ironically enough, that one is the most liberal of all.

By whichever guide you use, there are roughly 130 Superdelegates who will not endorse without some sort of sea-change in the election.  This means that, depending on the Super tracker you use, the number of undeclareds available to endorse prior to that time is a paltry amount, somewhere in the range between 96-174.

This leaves only 166 really available deligates for either campaign.

If this is true, it has a dramatic effect on the deligate math and the race to the magic 2025.

Celine Dion has funded an add saying The Boss and Barack are

Bad for Pennsylvania and bad for anyone born in the USA

I came across this interesting read in the Times. I am putting it up for informational purposes under the category of:
"Things that make you Hmmmmmmm."

Recently, in the New York Times, David Brooks echoed Christopher Beam's blog on Slate discussing Senator Clinton’s ever diminishing chances of winning the Democratic Presidential nomination. Mr. Brooks put her odds at 5%, Christopher was not so charitable. Her campaign is currently being described as "Soldiering on", "continuing in grim determination" and proceeding with "the audacity of Hopelessness". The Clinton campaign shows no sign of folding up the tent before the May 6th primaries, and has recently announced Montana campaign stops. That would bring her current plans to include the last week of the primary season. These events are being scheduled despite the fact that she trails Senator Obama in all significant indicators and measurements; total delegates, pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, Super-delegates gained since "Super Tuesday", cash on hand, contributions raised in the last month, etc.

We all talk about how important it is to win back the presidency.
I feel like Carry from "Sex in the City"...If I could run for president, and know I would win (this is my fantasy, so just go with it OK?), is this the year I would pick? Realistically...
Is this a good year to get the GOP out of the White House? Should we take the long view and let the Republicans go down with the ship?

As showne in chumley's post, "Chicago Tribune investigates Hillary's "experience"", Obama's home town paper too a look. Now the NYT has printed an AP wire feed that has done the same. It came to the same conclusion as the Trib - her resume is overstated, at a minimum.