Not just Ohio, but Rhode Island! And Texas! This is a great, great day for America and for Democracy.

Sorry, but I can't help but want to jump up and down. Today I got the new Goldfrapp record in the mail and I'm taking the next two days off from work to go up to Canada and now this? If I ask for anything more it'll just be greedy.

I promised my coworkers this morning that I'll bring doughnuts in to work on Friday (when I return) if Hillary wins and this will be the happiest trip to Krispy Kreme I will ever make.

I FUCKING HATE DONUTS.

It's very frustrating. Mostly just the feeling that the democratic party is divided has been really bumming me out. But what's bugging me is that Clinton is basing her campaign now around mocking Obama. Her new message, "Yes we WILL" is just a blatant reference to Obama's "Yes we can", and the way she says it makes it sound just spiteful.

Obama is so classy, but I could spend a week going on about this stuff. I agree Dana, freakin' Ohio.

At this point I dislike both candidates. Obama seems apathetic, Clinton seems like a prissy runner-up for Prom Queen, and if the only issue were Iraq, I'd vote for McCain.

In any case.

Effin Ohio and Texas.

I am with Chris on this one. Hillary is not that bad and Obama is not that great. They are both okay, but Hillary is better qualified for the job. I'll take either in November.

The truly disturbing thing here is when anyone says that they are considering McCain. Sure, the republicans don't know any better, but I cannot fathom why any remotely liberal person, let alone a democrat would threaten to vote for McCain unless they think that war is a wholesome part of American culture.

I am so glad I no longer call Ohio home. I was disappointed by my home state in 2004 and now again in 2008.

I've never had anything good to say about Texas (Austin aside) anyway, so the result there was not surprising.

I'm just sick to death of Clintons and Bushes. I simply can't vote for John 'bomb bomb Iran' McCain, but I don't think I can vote for Hillary either, were she to gain the nomination. Fortunately, I don't think I'll have to. Washinton will go the democratic nominee in the general election, so I'll either vote for Obama, or vote Green if Hillary is the nominee.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Nader.

Hillary is not that bad and Obama is not that great.

The point isn't really about how qualified Obama is anymore. It's about how a person - even the idea of a person - can bring so many people back to politics, can galvanize so many jaded, burnt-out non-voters and third-party holdouts.

It's not about who has more experience. It's about saying no to the Clinton Dynasty and the Republican hostage-taking of our government... again.

Did anyone see the Rush Limbaugh show when he recently urged Republicans to vote for Hillary so that she'd get the nomination and so McCain would win the general election? I have hard time believing that he'd convince folks to do that -- but the thought that even Rush is excited to see Hillary on the ticket, that scares me.

In my caucus one person pointed out "Ask your Republican friends who THEY want to run as the Democratic nominee" -- and although your first response might be, "I don't have any Republican friends," and your next one is "I know better than to discuss politics with my Republican family members," the third response is, "they totally want to take Hillary on."

I think Hillary is a great person and candidate and if she could possibly win the general election, I'd be for it. But, the fact that Obama is just as fabulous and doesn't have the Clinton dirty closet and stigma, AND he's able to actually BRING people together, well, I'm hoping he clean sweeps it from here on out.

Don't get your hopes up folks. This will come down to the convention and the "superdelegates". Why? Well, for Obama to clinch the nomination on votes alone, he needs 77% of the votes. Hillary needs 97%. However, there are the two big caveats:

(1) Michigan and Florida: Their primaries did not count because they scheduled them earlier than the DNC allowed. Hillary easily won both of those because either Obama (and others) pulled their names from the ballot in solidarity with the DNC (unlike Hillary) or they didn't campaign there (unlike Hillary). It is very unlikely that the primary results from earlier would be counted "as is". Instead, they will likely have a "revote" in those states closer to the convention when they get this mess figured out. The question is, will voters there still hold a grudge against the candidates who ignored them the first time around?

(2) Superdelegates: If anything, right now, it is Hillary ace in the hole. The Clinton machine knows enough up-and-ups that if this is close, i.e., that the voters won't make it clear who the favorite is, they will broker some deal where Hillary gets the nomination and Obama gets the VP. Hillary, as she sees it, deserves the nomination and many of her baby boomer cohort who are superdelegates will agree if the voting results don't make it clear that Obama is the favorite.

Right now, if I had to put it to paper, I say Obama has about a 52% chance of landing the nod, Hillary 48%.

Oy!

Fritz: Say what you will about Texas... but being a Texan, I've never met more devoted people to their state. It's a whole other country down there, Republican or not.

I won't comment on the political tendencies of the NW ;)

Rush Limbaugh? Who listens to/watches Rush Limbaugh? Yeck!

It's not just the ohio and texas democrats who threaten to turn this race into a battle to the death. Now that huckabee dropped out, many republicans are voting in democratic primaries for hillary because they think she will be easier to beat in the general election. (There's no rule that says if you vote in the democratic primary you cant vote republican in the general election.)

Go Rick @7! I whole-heartedly agree :]

I know I'm in the minority here and my gloating period is over (see comment #1). But the idea that we (and I do speak as a Democrat) should not nominate Hillary because Republicans say that we should is simply absurd (not as absurd as putting the words in her mouth that she said that she'd back John McCain as a candidate before Obama - she did not and no reasonable person should infer any such thing).

Do you remember in 2004 when the Weekly Standard had a cover story begging the Democrats to nominate Howard Dean? I think the headline was "Please nominate this man". He was the candidate they were dreaming of running against, but does anyone really think he would have run a campaign worse than John Kerry did?

The Democrats should nominate who they feel is the best candidate and let the chips fall where they may. I just believe the strongest candidate is the one who has won almost all of the big states: California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, Arizona, Texas and will almost certainly win Pennsylvania and will win Michigan and Florida if there's a do-over issued.