I have read Tim Noah's thoughtful and empirically balanced essay and I find it wanting nothing but a proper inference from the facts in evidence.

Hillary Clinton has more than a chance; she has time on her side in her quest to persuade the delegates, super and otherwise that she is the long distance marathon woman who can best take it to McCain in the fall. Obama is ahead on points and that would be significant if that was how this will be decided. But as Tim made clear, this is ultimately a delegates' decision and the last dog doesn't die until the August convention.

Here is why I love Tim's analysis and don't agree with the conclusion: Tim is an admitted Arithmatist. The numbers he cites are all true, but those statistics do not speak to the process which is only aritmetic in when the roll is called in Denver.

Barack Obama is fond of citing the familiar litany of his accomplihments:

"I've won more states, I am ahead in the popular vote, I've got more pledged delegates than Senator Clinton.."

None of those statistics matter at the moment except to pressure super-delegates to get on board with Obama now and create the impression that there is an impending groundswell of SD's about to announce, which will then eagerly talked to death on the 24 hour newswheel of major media outlets.

But those numbers fuel a Chiken vs. Eggs argument: In this case, a Chicken is just an egg's way of getting more eggs. One must be careful not to count eggs until they hatch at the convention. Some may be rotten.

Tim is an aritmetist, so he will appreciate that the distributive component of counting whole numbers at play in the unique indirect system of electing the President of the United States: The real game is using primary results to predict outcomes in states that matter in the Electoral College.

That is where Hillary Clinton has Obama's second claim of inevitability in check because she has won every big state that Democrats must win in the November general election and Obama has won only two that could be considered Big States: Georgia, which Democrats have a less than fighting chance to take from the GOP and Missouri which is a toss-up. Pennsylvania is a must-win for Democrats and Hillary trounced him there y 9.4% two weeks ago. It is not significant to have simply won more states because the without distribution the additive number does not speak to outcome.

Now, About Winning More Popuilar Votes:

If the popular vote was the predictive metric, President Gore would be in his last year of office right now.

And finally, and again, there are NO pledged delegates to be had by either Hillary or Barack: there is no such definition in the DNC rules. Once seated, a delegate is free to vote for the best candidate to represent the party in November.

It is true that Obama has been announcing super-delegates and trotting out a several SD's a week to create an impression of movement and lately, it seems, to change the subject from the intensely negative two week his campaign has suffered since losing in Pennsylvania.

Unless Obama regains his footing by beating Hillary in both Indiana and North Carolina and in the latter by a convincing margin, my best guess is this will go to the convention.

I say that because the polling in both KY and WV curently and massively favor Hillary Clinton. And only South Dakota looks certain for Obama

So Tim, thanks for the research. You did a very thoughtful analysis, but I believe the evidence shows Hillary is still in it to win it and until she isn't no amount of hand-wringing by media and party pooh-bahs will convince me that letting democracy prevail and allowing everyone that wants to vote to have that opportunity is anything but a good thing for the Democratic Party.

GO DEMOCRATS!