Here we are.  Hillary with a solid, undeniable lead in the popular vote. Barack with a minimal "pledged" delegate lead.  It'll come down to the Supers.

And, who of the Super Delegates know and owe Hillary, and who know and owe Obama?  It's realpolitik time. Experience counts, yet again.  We all know what's coming.  Either Barack is VP, or he's the most-loved loser since Goldwater.  

Barack Obama is not my candidate, but he is racking up some victories of late.  Everyone expected him to win the Potomac Primary trifecta, but the margins are surprising.

I have had my problems with Senator Obama, and I currently support Senator Clinton (after initially supporting Senator Edwards).  And I still support Hillary, very much so.

But I just finished watching Barack Obama's speech in Wisconsin.  And I have to say, I was not only inspired, but I was impressed.  

The DNC's profoundly stupid decision to tell Michigan and Florida (yes, Florida!) voters that their votes won't be counted has bitten them in the ass.  

Now, apparently, they want a do-over:

A top Michigan Democrat [Debbie Dingell] says the Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold Democratic presidential caucuses so the delegates they've lost for holding January primaries can be seated at the national convention.

Nope.

Update:  There seems to be an issue with the poll function this evening.  I tried to help a Kossack out, but to no avail.

Fellow Kossack Bhouston79 ran into some technical difficulty, so I'm helping out.  A link to Bhouston79's original is here. Following is the text:

As you all know, Markos has caused quite a stir with his call for Michigan Democrats to cross-over and vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary as a Republican since there are no delegates at stake in the Democratic primary.  Apparently this has really pissed off some of the Republicans, some of whom have called the Michigan attorney general on Mr. Moulitsas.  In any event, these events have led me to question whether enough Democrats will cross over to make a difference.

For well over a year, I have supported John Edwards for President. But it is painfully apparent that the presidency is not to be for Mr. Edwards.

I don't regret my support, at all.  John Edwards has driven the debate in this cycle, and has put issues like poverty and an even-playing field for the American worker on the radar screen of the Democratic Party again -- issues that should never, ever have dropped off our radar to begin with.

But unfortunately, "President Edwards" does not seem a possible result at all -- at least not in this election cycle.  

So, I'm left to choose from either Senators Clinton or Obama, or Representative Dennis Kucinich.

Congratulations to Senator Obama and his supporters.  Iowa was very close [edit: for second place], and it's still early in the race for the nomination, but nothing should detract from Barack Obama's amazing victory tonight.

With states like Florida and Michigan thumbing their noses at the DNC, there is obviously a problem with our nominating process.  What would provoke these states to "take cuts" and jump the line?  Could it be that the DNC's nominating process is nonsensical and ridiculous?  Yes.

There is no reason for Iowa and New Hampshire, or even Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, to have a lock on the nominating process.  It is stupid, on its face.  Michigan has nearly the population of all of these states, combined.  Florida has over 7 million more people than all of these states, combined.  

It is only common sense that these states (among others) would want their voices to be heard.  We are electing the POTUS.  It's kind of important.  And even a "beauty contest" will be of more consequence for Florida and Michigan voters compared to the (non-existent) influence they have held in the past.  Additionally, regardless of who the Democratic nominee may be, s/he will insist on recognizing and seating the Florida and Michigan delegates.

Hillary Clinton is about third or fourth on my list of candidates for the nomination.  I think our country needs true transformational change under bold leadership.  We need another FDR, not simply a competent manager taking charge of the status quo.

But I don't hate Hillary Clinton.  I agree with Kos, who said:

We may decide she's not our first choice, but she's not a bad choice.

I recently posted a diary (which I have since deleted) regarding the McClurkin controversy and the Barack Obama campaign. I apologize for using racist imagery in that diary, and I ask for forgiveness from anyone and everyone who I may have hurt.

My involvement in politics is grounded in a desire to help people, not to cause pain or anger.  

Below is an explanation of -- but not an excuse for -- my behavior.

Maybe I don't have enough to do, but there are certain words and phrases that just send me to a place that I'd rather not go.

It may be better to save a post like this for the end of the year, when we collectively and arbitrarily mark time.  But I'd like to have "closure" on some of these things sooner rather than later.

We're reality-based, aren't we?  Are we able to see that something is true, even though Mr. 24% says it?  Even if Madame 11% (presumably, or even maybe) opposes it?

Every single thing the Bush maladministration lied about vis-a-vis Iraq and 9/11 is true with respect to Iran.  

In fact, on 9/12/01, I would have supported a war against Iran, just like I still support the war in Afghanistan (even though the conduct of that war has been an unmitigated clusterfuck).

Whether it's using the word maricón (Spanish for "faggot"), or using the Republican smear of tax and spend Democrats, Bill Richardson just cannot seem to stay out of trouble.  

And Richardson's debate performances have been -- to be kind -- less than stellar.  This guy does not come off anywhere close to what his impressive resume would suggest.

Now Bill Richardson has waded into another big mess.  (Surprise! Not.)  While pandering campaigning in Nevada, he said he thought it would be a good idea to send Great Lakes water to the parched West.

Henceforth, Heather Wilson, Republican candidate for Senate from the great state of New Mexico, shall be known as Heather "Nipples" Wilson.

Why?  Because Heather was shocked and awed by Janet Jackson's innocent, cinnamon nipple.  It did not, and could not, do Heather any harm, but she latched on to it as a symbol of all that is wrong with America.

This diary is in support of fellow Kossack Rserven, and transgendered people everywhere.  Please go recommend her diary, now.

Nyceve's (excellent) diary today entitled, "Can we talk?" inspired this diary.  I was motivated by this line, in particular:

We have a bunch of wonderful children angels who will lead us to victory. But you want me to tell you something, none of our angels are perfect.

Far be it from little ol' me to point out the flaws in our '08 presidential contenders.  Oh, who am I kidding!  If you are interested in my take on them, and you have a sense of humor, follow me over the jump.  If you have thin skin, please don't.

I recently wrote a diary about putting Harry and Nancy on notice to not pervert the election results of 2006 into a business as usual clusterfuck.  Apparently, they still fear Republicans more than us.

That must change.  

It's pretty cool.  We ordinary working fucks can talk to one another.  We can document and critique what those in government are doing "on our behalf."  We can even tell conviction from bullshit, like when Senators Clinton and Obama eventually voted the right way, after they first made sure the other didn't cave to "conventional wisdom" in a presidential campaign.

Yeah, we saw that.

I just received a solicitation in the mail from the Mary Landrieu campaign.  It included a letter from James Carville stating that "We cannot afford to lose Mary Landrieu in the Senate."

The first thing that popped into my mind was, "Who the fuck are 'we,' James?"   I mean, the Democrats are supposed to Kicking Ass, not Kissing Ass.