efforts of the DNC and the national press to ram Obama down voters' throats this nomination process IS going to go all the way to the convention and most likely, now, result in a Clinton win. Get used to the notion.

Working class people do not want a mere hope-merchant like Obama. People on the bottom of the socio-economic ladder want real solutions to the problems attempting to eat them alive. This is why Clinton is beginning to surge ahead now and why she is ultimately going to win the nomination no matter the OBVIOUS wishes of the corrupt DNC and the national press.

Exactly what do you mean by "surge ahead?"

It is not the media that has Obama in the lead, it is the majority of voters.

HRC may have won the last few states (but not the ever so important delegates), but she did so after losing eleven straight (and some by more than 16 plus points) states. She is likely to lose at lease one, if not both of the next two- states (NC and IN)-and the people who have voted and will vote for Obama are also working class, as last I checked, Iowa, Wisconsin and the other midwest states that he has won are not beacons of the rich or famous.

Hear, hear!

because the national media was all but making open love to Obama throughout the bulk of the campaign until very recently.

At last the coverage is beginning to lean toward balanced rather than blatantly biased in Obama's favor. Now working class people are able to think without all the extreme pro-Obama press.

I'm not sure that says very much about working-class people, Gatewood, that you think they are so easily bamboozled by the press. Sounds a bit "elitist" to me...

The anti-Obama coverage has come at a time when the policy differences (what few there are) between the candidates have been totally exhausted, so there's nothing left to do but focus on trivialities like bittergate and flag pins and the like. However, you neglect to note that Clinton was leading by about 20 points in PA six weeks ago. Yesterday, she won with less than 10. Clearly, the anti-Obama coverage didn't work particularly well, considering he gained 10 percentage points on her since it started.

The idea that the national media was being soft on Obama is a complete myth, sprung fully-formed from the brains of Clinton supporters. We've heard about Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright, flag pins, pledges of allegiance, Michelle's pride, Muslim connections, professorgate, lack of "experience," bittergate, and race for many moons now: much of it well before the last six weeks. What we haven't heard about is Lewinsky, Whitewater, Vince Foster, the White House china, and Hillary's carpetbagging. We heard about Tuzla, and that from Sinbad. It seems Obama is too much a gentleman to bring up these Clinton foibles of past and present, and the press is reluctant, too. So who has the free pass?

If Hillary were to gain the nomination (it is a mathematical all-but-certainty that she cannot "win" it), it would be through superdelegate intervention, that is, those "corrupt DNC" people you mentioned. It would not be through a late "surge" from poor voters.

Show me (or those voters) one shred of evidence that Hillary has more "real solutions to the problems attempting to eat them alive" than Obama does. I double-dog dare ya.

Working class people should certainly have representation, and they will with Obama. On the other hand, professionals also want representation and Clinton is not their choice. So, you had better get used to THAT notion.