All of this is true, and it points toward the root of the problem - the two party system. Caucuses and primaries are not elections - they are party candidate selection exercises. As such they are not subject to election law as we know it, but to the rules of the parties. The average voter, myself included, who calls him/herself a Democrat or Republican is not at all involved in the party, and yet expects to have an equal voice in the candidate selection process. So now, since we have a close selection process, everyone is noticing that the party rules regarding caucuses and super-delegates are as undemocratic as they can be. The Democratic party is not a democratic institution. It is a big club that sets the rules as it sees fit. It lets you say you are in the club because it wants your support, but unless you get deeply involved with how it is run, you can't change it.
I'd like to see all candidates run as independents and get rid of the parties altogether. How's that for change?
I do believe that, and I find that I'm not too cynical to be moved by the genuine reactions. This story just seemed a little too rehearsed, and in the style of the fake feel-good emails that get sent to me by my friends with a death wish.
I didn't realize how much it mattered to me until Nancy Pelosi got sworn in as the first woman Speaker, and I cried like a baby. I don't even always like her that much, but I've sat through two of Bush's SOTU addresses just to see her sitting there behind him in the Speaker's chair.
I would not be supporting Hillary Clinton if I did not also agree with her policies and think she is the most capable person in the race. For example, I did not support Elizabeth Dole.
I fully support other people in their decision to support the candidate that represents them on a personal level. If Obama wins I will also love to see him be sworn in. There is really no loser in this race.
Here's what I notice - the Insider's Advantage poll with the 15% lead was conducted Feb 7, and shows 10% undecided. That is huge. The SUSA poll does not say when it was conducted, but it only shows 1% undecided.
Once again we have very divergent polls. Buyer beware.
I think they put that out as a show of bravado. Hillary is going to do a lot better this week than anyone is predicting - I'll predict right now that she takes Virginia and Maine, and is close in Washington - and be in a strong position to close the door with the big states on Mar. 4.
I disagree about what constitutes a purple state. You seem to think a purple state is any red state that Obama did well in on Tuesday. For Dems, a purple state is one that Bush won last time by less than 5% of the vote, and is trending bluer. Take the states you list, one by one.
Colorado: Bush beat Kerry there by between 5-9%, I call that light red, going purple
Iowa: Bush won by less than 5% - purple
Illinois: Kerry won big - solid blue already
Kansas: Bush won big - solid red
Minnesota: Kerry won by less than 5%, call it light blue.
North Dakota: Bush won big - solid red
South Dakota: Bush won big - solid red
Alaska: Bush won big - solid red
MS: Bush won big - solid red
NC: Bush won big - solid red
SC: Bush won big - solid red
Alabama: Bush won big - solid red
A lot of the states you are calling purple are actually solid red, and neither Obama or Hillary are going to win there in Nov. Another two, Illinois and Minnesota, will stay blue. Hillary is not going to lose either to McCain. I'll grant you Obama might have an easier time in Iowa, but I'm not sure about Colorado. It is heavily military in the south, and they like McCain. Hillary's better shot in Arkansas offsets Obama's better shot in Iowa.
Bottom line is what was shown Tuesday - Obama does great AMONG DEMS and Independents in solid red states. But there are a lot more solid Republicans in those states, and very little chance of a Dem win in November.