Clinton's win still leaves her the underdog

The Obama campaign is stressing that point. Mathematically it's rather unimportant. He closed the gap, which is all he had to do. But the Clinton campaign is spinning the psychological factor... that she's tough, she doesn't give up, and now "the tide is turning."

I'm fairly certain that President Obama could be in the middle of his inauguration ceremony and Hillary would interrupt insisting that she's gaining momentum.

Clinton's win still leaves her the underdog

But the deep pockets and support of corporate media is doing its best to sell Clinton.

Florida and Michigan,,....................................

Barack Obama is tighter than McCain?

Barack Obama is tighter than McCain?

I dunno homie, J-Mac is pretty tight, yo.

Did you notice how they all projected a Hillary win with only 3% of precincts reporting?

They've been doing that for the entire primary season. The projection is based on exit polls, and they supplement that with real data once the precincts start to report.

It's kind of silly to me, for first time viewers like my parents last night who called and were completely confused - it's pretty amusing.

I also forgot to add some more thoughts I had...
She's a seasoned politician thanks to her previous first lady status. So, even with all of the money Obama has spent on getting his name out - the Clinton name is by far the better-known name in this race. She's a heavy weight and Obama is going to have to completely knock her out in North Carolina and convince super delegates to flock to him or she'll take this race all the way to the convention.

Oh, it's incredibly silly. But with the 24-hour news cycle they have to report on something and neither of the candidates did anything newsworthy in the eyes of the networks (like bowling a 37 for instance).

haha, true.
It was a bit annoying though to watch them go back and forth like school children before any reporting had gone through. When you'd think there are better things to be reporting than sitting around at a table and chit chatting.

Seriously. Her campaign is making all these "why can't he win the big states?" points as if there's actually a chance that California and New York will go red in the fall.

Exactly! I doubt Californians and New Yorkers are going "It's Hillary or nobody!!!!"

The ilk of people that support Hillary are not exactly the kamikaze types. I don't think they employ the same "Scorched Earth" tactics she does.

I am a Hillary supporter who will certainly vote Obama over McCain, but you a incorrect to suggest her base is generally as left as Obama's. Exit polling consistently indicates that is not the case. Gore and Kerry won CA and NY. Those states are not the issue. The issue is swing states. So far Obama has won one primary in a swing state -- Missouri. Winning solidly red states such as the Carolinas, means nothing for the general election because they are not voting Dem for president.

The math says Obama wins the nomination. I will support him. But all the hope hype and the change mantra is a bit much.

The math says Obama wins the nomination. I will support him. But all the hope hype and the change mantra is a bit much.

Agreed. But something has to be said for optimism in times like this, be it rhetorical or not. Out of the big 3 candidates he is the only one that even admits change is possible, which it is. The other 2 ridicule change, which is certainly not what we need.

Hope is only "hype" in a hopeless nation, which America is not, and never has been. If you look negatively on hope and change, then you deserve whatever comes our way.

Mars,

A respectful exchange. Thanks. Not much of that going on between the two camps of supporters here, NYTimes, and the Post.

The way the Obama campaign has used hope and change has taken on almost religious overtones. It is ephemeral rather than concrete policy. The CHANGE I want is a government that cares more for working-class families than billionaires and huge corporations with little social conscience. And I HOPE we get a President and a true working majority in Congress that will will fight for that.

It is as if when Obama wins he will play nice and that will inspire a kinder, gentler, GOP and they will play nice too. That ain't gonna happen. Elections are about who sets policy, shapes the court, and leads the US back to a respectful position both to the world community and from the world. That is concrete, not ephemeral, IMHO.

The way the Obama campaign has used hope and change has taken on almost religious overtones.

And even if this is true, the difference between "hope rhetoric" and religious rhetoric (much employed by the GOP) is that at least hope exists factually. Who cares in what tone people have hope? If the public was utterly hopeless, the GOP would find a way to spin that too. When I pick sides, I'll pick the one with hope, not the side(s) that looks down on hope.

It is ephemeral rather than concrete policy.

I'd like to see where Obama once claimed hope as policy. The hope comes before, and leads to, the policy.

The CHANGE I want is a government that cares more for working-class families than billionaires and huge corporations with little social conscience. And I HOPE we get a President and a true working majority in Congress that will will fight for that.

That's the change we all want. And we all hope we get that, but nobody can honestly say before January who will deliver this. None of these candidates have ever done anything to say that they will surely deliver on anything, so to pretend otherwise is just more partisan rhetoric.

Also, Obama actually does have generally very concrete (or at least as concrete as can be expected at this stage) policy proposals listed on the website. More of them and in greater detail than the ones at the Clinton site, last I checked.

He cut her 25 point lead down to 10.

Indeed. I was in the gym watching CNN, and the first results to come back were something like 60/40, and within the hour I was there it shrunk to 58/42. Obviously the gap grew back a bit from that, but it definitely wasn't the huge win that the first numbers claimed.

That's true and if the media weren't pulling for Clinton the headline would be more like, Obama makes stunning strides to close the gap, not Clinton still underdog but winning!

This count includes certified vote totals in Florida and Michigan."

You're counting one state where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot and two in which he didn't campaign. The amount by which Clinton's margin shrank in PA since 4 weeks ago should make you reconsider these votes by itself.