Yes, you read that right. Another day, another crazy outcome in the GOP primary season. Well, actually 3 crazy outcomes.

Here’s the lowdown from Politico:

Rick Santorum dealt an embarrassing setback to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign Tuesday night, sweeping non-binding contests across three states and raising new questions about conservatives’ willingness to accept Romney as their nominee.
Santorum beat Romney handily in the Missouri primary and Minnesota caucuses, and well after midnight on the East Coast he was also declared the winner of Colorado’s caucuses. He defeated Romney by 30 percentage points in Missouri, 55 percent to 25 percent; in Minnesota, Santorum took 45 percent to Ron Paul’s 27 percent and Romney’s 17 percent.

The margin in Colorado was the closest of the three contests — Santorum led by 5 points with 100 percent of precincts in. But that defeat may have stung the most for Romney, who led polling in the Western state, where his Mormon faith was expected to be an asset.

So if these are non-binding…what’s happening to the delegates? Apparently the GOP thought this contest would be over because party leaders will decide in two of the states…which doesn’t really seem fair, does it?

Here’s more…

All three primaries and caucuses are largely symbolic and no delegates were awarded Tuesday night. Colorado and Minnesota Republicans will apportion their delegates in subsequent party meetings, while Missouri will hold an entirely new, nonbinding caucus process next month.

At this point, Rick Santorum has now won more primary contests than Mitt Romney. And the fact that he won 3 in one night is pretty amazing.

Also, Romney actually came in third in Minnesota. Ron Paul was second with 27%.

Has this race been blown wide open?

More as it develops…

Written By Luke Walker

Despite the many unified voices of discontent, echoing from streets wherever the ‘Occupy’ protests persist, in cities all over the world, the question of whether a clear message has been made is still debatable.

So, what exactly is the clinical psychology of the ‘Occupy’ movement? Is there a unified message? Does a single philosophy, or even a common goal or interests exist?

When we study such phenomena we tend to gravitate towards a physical model where we associate all of the actors involved as a whole and in a very critical sense. This method can be successfully employed when, for example, observing a hive of bees, in which, the entire swarm works together as a unit, towards a common goal. In such a study, physical observations can easily reveal clues related to biology and breeding habits, instinct, and group behavior, and can reveal important social indicators.

The bee model however, may not be applicable in the OWS scenario, where the physical indicators may conceivably be construed as, for example, as inarticulate statements or crude placards held by select protesters, or the lewd and unruly behavior of others, as portrayed in clips and sound bites of network news.

There are simply too many differential factors involved in comparable human studies. OWS is a movement composed of thousands of different people, all with vastly different experiences, from drastically divergent geographical, national, religious, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. There are too many competing philosophies and far too many grievances to study in such narrow and strictly physical method. Far deeper consideration of all elements must be analyzed.

Critics will claim that the protesters are nothing but a rag tag group of spoiled, middle class white teens and young adults, all with obscure demands, crying over disparities that do not really exist for them, inequities they have not yet been burdened with, and for entitlements that the protesters have not earned, and thus do not deserve. They claim the protesters want a hand out, a portion of wealth that does not belong to them, that they want entitlements, welfare; socialism. This claim may be have some degree of accuracy, for we have yet to hear a clear demand. Advocates of the protesters too have made up their minds, but in contrast, that the protests represent a much-neglected and long overdue debate about it means to be poor or middle class in modern society, and if a difference even exists. To supporters, the movement represents a clear indication that the poor have been institutionally marginalized to a breaking point, and that the fine line, which once may have separated the economic spectrum of poor and middle class, particularly in America, has become so indistinct that perhaps it may no longer even exist.

Additionally, they believe that the governments of the world have committed grave injustices by financing banks and corporate fat cats to perpetuate extravagant salaries and gluttonous bonuses; a reward for their many misdeeds, not least including the global recession and all of the havoc it has generated; an indisputable result of these very institutions own flippant behavior and categorical misjudgments. Supporters believe OWS is a protest against economic injustice, not a rally against wealth or the wealthy, not against the free market, or capitalism, not even against excess. It is an objection against business as usual, in which the few in power reap the rewards of the many.

The question was TARP fair? Did the banks deserve a bailout when millions of working Americans could have been directly benefited had even a fraction of the inestimable bailout been redirected to the hands of working men and women, instead to the bankrolls of corrupt banks and other financial institutions; especially when it was their own greed which led to their peril to start with? This sentiment may be a prime war cry in the minds of many protestors, but it cannot be ignored that TARP may have prevented a great depression, the result of which, may have been far more bleak than they otherwise were. On the other end of the spectrum the very core of what America represents; its foundation as a free market capitalist bastion, the very fabric of our constitution, which in theory would allow every man and woman an equal opportunity to bask in the fruits of his or her own labor, regardless of race, sex, or class. No matter how lowly their status or humble their upbringing.

History has shown us that this notion is perhaps more a fable than fact. America was after all, appropriated by theft, larceny, and murder. It was literally built on the backs of enslaved peoples. America was made wealthy by oppression and exploitation, and made powerful by brute force, intimidation and its accumulation of all the aforementioned and newly acquired resources. Historically, it has always been a select few who have truly basked in the fruits of these exploits. This is not to argue the many merits and virtues of our country, democracy or constitution, but an underlying dark fact that cannot be dispelled.

The protesters believe they have seen a folly in TARP and corporate bailouts, and a fallacy of the American dream. A dream, they believe, that may have once been obtainable to some, but only during a very diminutive sliver of our nation’s history when all the winds were blowing in the right direction for a small moment in time. We had won the war, literally and figuratively, and there was perhaps room for more to share in that fleeting prosperity. OWS represents a belief that those times have passed, and that perhaps it can no longer be ignored that the inequities of the poor and quality of living for most has markedly diminished.

The Question, “Is it unreasonable to expect a small piece of the pie, especially when we have all contributed to its preparation? “, may offer a glimpse of insight into the clinical psychology of the political movement.

The bottom line is this. As where critics will argue it is the fault of the individual for not obtaining the same success that the top 1% of our nation that enjoys 99% of its wealth and prosperity, is due strictly you their merit and not to luck, is not only a mathematically incalculable improbability in a nation of 300 million, but a patent fiction. All one need do is look to the character and listen to the words of the elite class. It may very well be and could remain, precisely what it appears to be at face value; a is a mixed bag of elements, expectations, and broad discontent, which may never be summed up into a neat, unified or concise mission statement. Although the OWS message may not be as eloquent as some of us may like, but perhaps it is enough to perpetuate the conversation.

The winter is approaching, there is already a chill in the air, and we cannot expect the protest to last indefinitely, certainly not in the cold winds of the northeast, but one undeniable fact remains; a message has already been sent; and no matter how vague it may be, the dialog will persist.

He wasn’t supposed to win a month ago, but he pulled into the lead late and was able to hold.

From Denver Post:

Appointed U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet will be elected to the U.S. Senate after pulling ahead of challenger Ken Buck this morning.

Long after most Coloradans — including the candidates and their supporters — had gone to bed, returns from Denver and Boulder moved Bennet past Buck and into the lead, 47.5 percent to 47.1 percent.

A recount would be required if the difference between the two candidates’ vote totals is less than one-half of 1 percent of the highest vote total, or about 3,900 votes based on current tallies.

Bennet leads by nearly 7,000 votes with an estimated 30,000 still to be counted in Boulder County.

This was also a big deal for Obama because he backed Bennet, while former President Clinton backed a different primary candidate, Andrew Romanoff. Lots of political capital working behind the scenes here.

So this, along with Patty Murray’s likely win in Washington, means Dems are at the 51/49 mark in the Senate. They still have a majority…but barely.

The logic of how we’ve handled terrorism and terrorists in the post 9/11 world has always been flawed, but one of the more obviously incorrect arguments has been the claim that we don’t want these people serving time on American soil.

Why? Not sure really. We just don’t. They’re incredibly, crazy dangerous for some reason and can’t be here.

Of course this ignores the fact that we’ve held numerous terrorists here before, both foreign and homegrown, and nothing has happened as a result.

Which is why the following story is important to note.

From Wash Post:

Thirty-three international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda, reside in a single federal prison in Florence, Colo., with little public notice.

Detained in the supermax facility in Colorado are Ramzi Yousef, who headed the group that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993; Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Ahmed Ressam, of the Dec. 31, 1999, Los Angeles airport millennium attack plots; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate President George W. Bush; and Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.

Inmates in Florence and those at the maximum-security disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., rarely see other prisoners. At Leavenworth, the toughest prisoners are allowed outside their cells only one hour a day when they are moved with their legs shackled and accompanied by three guards.

“We have a vast amount of experience in how to judge the continued incarceration of highly dangerous prisoners, since we do this with thousands of prisoners every month, all over the United States, including some really quite dangerous people,” Philip D. Zelikow, who was counselor to Bush administration Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and executive director of the 9/11 Commission, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

That’s right. One of the people behind 9/11 is in Colorado.

Also, let’s just say that we captured Bin Laden. You’re telling me we wouldn’t want to put him to death on US soil?

Just make sure you remember all of this when you’re arguing that these folks shouldn’t be held in the US. Because I want to hear good reasons, not just the notion that they’re somehow extra, super, insanely dangerous.

Four Senate seats this month have to be filled by governors because the seat-holders are vacating for prominent jobs in the new administration.

In Delaware, Joseph Biden is ascending to the Vice Presidency, and in an example of horse-trading so transparent that it apparently doesn’t even warrant comment, twisted the arm of the governor to appoint his senior aide to the seat with the more-or-less express intent of keeping it warm for his son in 2010. The appointee, Ted Kaufman, has never received a single vote and has never held elected or even public office and, as far as I’m aware, doesn’t even have any noteworthy experience in the private sector. He was appointed over other potential candidates like the sitting Lieutenant Governor, the sitting Secretary of State, a sitting state supreme court justice, and, presumably, every other previous or sitting elected official in the state of Delaware.

In New York, of course, it seemed very likely, at least until she botched her entrance into the field, that Governor Patterson, at least in part on direction from the Obama campaign, would appoint Caroline Kennedy. Kennedy has done some good work in her life, but again has eschewed public accountability, and I think precisely nobody denies that the #1 qualification which puts her into such strong contention is her recent role as being one of the President elect’s top surrogates and fundraisers. Again, it’s not that Governor Patterson has no options, but rather no imagination. The other two names being widely floated for the seat are Andrew Cuomo and, yes, Bill Clinton. Which would be mind-blowing considering he would be holding the seat of the lady who was only put into the seat for being married to him (though at least she got elected and thus deserved it). In any case, who says the American aristocracy is dead? I’m still holding out hope that Patterson does the right thing and nominates somebody not on the basis of horsetrading and favor-rewarding, but rather looks to an actual prominent public servant in New York who deserves the ascension (unlike, say, in Delaware, where that was apparently not even a consideration). In any case, the decision right now is who needs to be pleased, the Obama camp, the Clinton camp, or Patterson’s 2010 reelection camp. The people of New York are so far running a distant fourth.

In Colorado, Senator Ken Salazar is vacating to be Obama’s Secretary of the Interior. Yesterday, Governor Bill Ritter announced that his appointment to fill the seat to term will be…Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet.

And a collective “who?” echoes throughout the rocky mountains.

However, the liberal netroots know what’s going on. As David Sirota writes here, there is only one area in which Ritter excels: he is the most well connected candidate to the big money donors in Colorado and beyond:

Considering his lack of legislative record, lack of experience in any elected or statewide office, and considerable ties to the biggest of big money, it’s logical to be concerned about how a Senator Bennet will vote on issues. Off the top of my head, I’m wondering, for instance, whether someone with this kind of resume is going to be in favor of tougher financial industry regulations?*
[...]
Colorado has no dearth of very, very qualified people to be U.S. Senator. More specifically, we have a lot of people who have worked very hard passing good public policy and building the grassroots of the Democratic Party for years here. Looking at this bench, and then selecting a person with almost none of those qualities confirms that what gets rewarded in politics today is not legislative accomplishments nor even political ones – what counts is money, inside connections, Ivy League pedigree and a Beltway-padded resume.

And then you have Illinois.

There, the controversial but innocent-until-proven-guilty governor apparantly rethought his standards and decided to go after a candidate who was the least offensive and most obviously squeaky clean and qualified candidate for the office possible. The Illinois legislature punted on holding a special election, despite their protestations that they wanted a fair process (when what they really mean is one in which they get to have their thumbs on the scales), so rather than leave Illinois with only one Senate vote for the foreseeable future, the governor went with a known public servant, a man who has made a career out of seeking public approval, a man with some pretty germane qualifications considering the context (a former Attorney General (i.e. anti-corruption crusader) and former Comptroller (i.e. bank regulator)), a man who would be the sole African-American in the Senate, and a man who, despite the most intense public scrutiny spotlight in America right now, precisely nobody can level a real accusation against. In other words, the man, given the circumstances, most qualified for the job.

So, four Senate vacancies. In one, literally a staffer is appointed to keep the seat warm for the Senator’s son. In another, it’s an ongoing battle of which high-profile election surrogate to reward for their loyalty. In the third, the trumping consideration was apparently in favor of the guy most connected to big money, at the expense of qualifications or experience. And in the fourth, the guy nominated was an unimpeachable public servant undeniably qualified for the job.

Now, the question:

Guess which one doesn’t get seated?

Cross-posted at The Crossed Pond

Rocky Mountain News calls it.

9 electoral votes go to Obama.

It’s so over it hurts.

And actually, just to give you a preview of my election night prediction…this is pretty close to what I’m thinking.

First, the Obama leads…

Florida: Obama +2
Obama: 47%
McCain: 45%

Virginia: Obama +3
Obama: 47%
McCain: 44%

Pennsylvania: Obama +4
Obama: 47%
McCain: 43%

Nevada: Obama +4
Obama: 47%
McCain: 43%

Colorado Obama +5
Obama: 49%
McCain: 44%

And then, the McCain leads…

Missouri: McCain +1
McCain: 47%
Obama: 46%

Ohio: McCain +2
McCain: 47%
Obama: 45%

North Carolina: McCain +3
McCain: 49%
Obama: 46%

And that’s it. These are the last polls from NBC before the election.

The poll of polls reveals Obama holding steady.

Colorado…

CNN’s new Colorado Poll of Polls shows Obama leading McCain by 6 points 51% to 45%; The last Colorado Poll of Polls –- released Saturday –- showed Obama leading McCain by 7 points.

Florida…

An average of polls conducted in battleground Florida, shows Obama leading McCain by 4 points, 49% to 45%. Saturday’s Florida Poll of Polls also showed Obama leading McCain by 4 points.

Iowa…

In Iowa, where it all started for Sen. Obama, the Illinois senator is leading McCain by 14 points, 53% to 39%.

Minnesota…

CNN’s new Minnesota Poll of Polls shows Obama leading McCain by 12 points, 52% to 40%; The last Minnesota Poll of Polls –- released October 30 –- showed Obama leading McCain by 13 points.

New Hampshire…

In New Hampshire, Obama is leading McCain by 11 points, 53% to 42% according to the latest CNN Poll of Polls. CNN’s last New Hampshire Poll of Polls –- released November 1 –- showed Obama leading McCain by 12 points.

Pennsylvania…

CNN’s new average of polls in Pennsylvania shows the Democratic nominee leading the Republican nominee by 7 points, 51% to 44%; CNN’s last Pennsylvania Poll of Polls –- released November 1 –- showed Obama leading McCain by 8 points.

Virginia…

Finaly, in Virginia, a state that has voted Republican in every presidential race since 1968, Obama is leading McCain by 7 points, 51% to 44%.

And there we are.

I think the only question mark here is Florida. All the rest are pretty much locked up. Sure, Pennsylvania and Virginia could be closer than previously thought, but any state where Obama is polling above 50% will turn blue.

The big news here is that Colorado is really starting to turn blue, and nearly every news organization has changed it to lean Obama.

Because while wins in Georgia and Missouri would be nice, Obama doesn’t need them. But he does need wins in Colorado, Virginia and Nevada if he doesn’t want to worry about Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Although I’d bet my car that he wins Pennsylvania.

The numbers…

Georgia: McCain +5
McCain: 52%
Obama: 47%

Missouri: McCain +2
McCain: 50%
Obama: 48%

Virginia: Obama +9
Obama: 53%
McCain: 44%

Colorado: Obama +8
Obama: 53%
McCain: 45%

Florida: Obama +4
Obama: 51%
McCain: 47%

As I’ve stated before, I don’t think Obama will take Florida or Ohio, but I actually think he has a shot at Georgia given its extremely high African American population and their massive early voting turnout.

And Missouri? Well, who knows, but if Obama is elected history shows us that Missouri will probably turn blue. If not, it’ll probably be in McCain’s column.

Here’s a little more from CNN about their electoral map…

The new numbers in Colorado, along with similar findings from other new polls in the state, are factors in CNN’s move of Colorado from a toss up state to lean Obama in our new Electoral College Map. CNN is also changing Indiana from lean McCain to toss up. A new CNN Poll of Polls in Indiana suggests McCain holds a two point lead over Obama in a state that hasn’t voted for a Democrat in a presidential election since 1964. The poll of polls is an average of the latest state surveys.

With the switch of Colorado’s nine electoral votes and Indiana’s 11, CNN now estimates that if the election were held today Obama would win states with 286 electoral votes and McCain states with 163, with 89 electoral votes still up for grabs. Two-hundred and seventy electoral votes are needed to clinch the presidency. Obama’s estimate of 286 electoral votes is a jump from 274 in our most recent electoral college map.

Here’s their map…

More battleground polls soon…

Good signs on the state level (.pdf), even if Obama’s numbers are slipping a bit nationally in the past couple days.

Colorado: Obama +9
Obama: 50%
McCain: 41%

Florida: Obama + 2
Obama: 45%
McCain: 43%

Nevada: Obama +12
Obama: 52%
McCain: 40%

New Hampshire: Obama +18
Obama: 55%
McCain: 37%

North Carolina: Obama +2
Obama: 48%
McCain: 46%

Ohio: Obama +7
Obama: 48%
McCain: 41%

Pennsylvania: Obama +12
Obama: 52%
McCain: 40%

Virginia: Obama + 7
Obama: 49%
McCain: 42%

My prediction? Any state where there’s a margin of 5 or less, he’ll lose. So that means Florida and North Carolina probably won’t turn out in Obama’s favor come election day. I really think undecideds will start to break 2 to 1 for McCain because they’re just nervous that Obama will tax the hell out of them.

And even though Obama leads by 7 in Ohio, I also have my doubts he’ll take it. I just don’t think there are enough early votes there to swing it.

But all the rest? Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire are Obama’s.

What do you think?

And you know if they’re cutting ad spending, they’re most likely conceding those states to the Obama camp.

Here’s more from The Caucus…

While station managers in the affected states said they were not ruling out the possibility that Mr. McCain would pump money back in before election day, on Nov. 4, the move represents a stark reordering of priorities.

Democrats were predicting Mr. McCain would use the savings to increase his advertising in Pennsylvania and, possibly, Ohio and Florida, all of which have become that much more vital should Mr. McCain have to concede states like Colorado and Wisconsin.

By our very rough reckoning, based on what he spent in those states last week according to advertising monitoring firm CMAG, the move should free up an additional $2 million that Mr. McCain can now spend in Pennsylvania, or wherever else.

Okay, so let’s ignore New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Maine or a moment. Because hidden inside of this news is a bombshell and it is this: McCain is conceding Colorado.

If that’s the case, and you give Obama all the states Kerry won in 2004, that puts him over the top with 273 electoral votes.

So it’s now apparent that McCain’s strategy is to capture Pennsylvania. That’s why you heard him spouting that nonsense yesterday about PA being the “most God-loving, most patriotic part of America.”

And maybe this is why Governor Ed Rendell is nervous…

“I don’t want to be selfish. But I’m still a little nervous, so I have asked Obama to come back. We understand he’s got demands from 20 different states, but we’d like to see him here.”

My question: why? Because as I look around at the story the polling is showing, PA is SOLIDLY blue this election cycle.

Here take a look at Pollster’s numbers…

And then look at FiveThirtyEight’s projections…

There’s almost no way McCain can turn around this lead. He’s chasing electoral ghosts in Pennsylvania, hoping that somehow the working class white vote will turn around and overwhelmingly support the party that’s dismantled their economic prospects over the past eight years.

Meanwhile, look at Colorado’s numbers…

And FiveThirtyEight’s projections…

Colorado is obviously still extremely doable. So why is McCain pulling ad spending in this state in favor of PA? Is it because that ad market is close to OH, WV and VA and he needs to hold his ground in those states too?

Somebody explain this to me because I can’t make ANY sense of this strategy.

I’ll let the numbers speak for themselves…

Colorado
Obama: 51
McCain: 45

Florida
Obama: 52
McCain: 45

Missouri
Obama: 50
McCain: 47

Ohio
McCain: 48
Obama: 47

Virginia
Obama: 50
McCain: 48

McCain – 46
Obama – 44

On June 26th, Obama was up 49 to 44, so this represents a 7 point net gain for McCain.

Some demo info…

• Obama leads 50 – 39 percent among women.
• Men back McCain 55 – 37 percent.
• White voters back McCain 51 – 41 percent.
• Hispanic voters go with Obama 57 – 29 percent.
• Obama leads 51 – 43 percent with voters 18 to 34 years old.
• Boters 35 to 54 split their preference 46 – 46 percent.
• McCain leads 51 – 37 percent among voters over 55.

Other recent polls show Obama with a 7 point lead, and Pollster.com’s “poll of polls” shows a very tight race…

What I’m taking away from all of this is that neither candidate can take Colorado for granted in this election cycle…especially McCain. He needs to win Colorado, and if he doesn’t, he’ll have to replace it with another state like Michigan or Pennsylvania.

More next month…

Obama – 47%
McCain – 43%

Some details…

• McCain leads by 1% among Whites…
• Obama leads by 24% among Hispanics…
• McCain’s advantage among Republicans is 84/11…
• Obama’s advantage among Democrats is 77/15…
• Obama leads by 20% among Independents…

Also of note, Real Clear Politics shows that Obama has lead in every Colorado poll taken this political season, but he’s still only up by a slim average of 3.6%.

More as it develops…

Obama – 49%
McCain – 44%

Some details…

Obama leads 53 – 39 percent among Colorado women likely voters, while men back McCain 50 – 45 percent.

White voters split with 47 percent for McCain and 46 percent for Obama as Hispanic voters go Democratic 62 – 36 percent.

Obama leads 53 – 45 percent with voters 18 to 34 years old and 49 – 42 percent among voters 35 to 54. He gets 47 percent of voters over 55 to McCain’s 45 percent.

Obama gets a 53 – 33 percent favorability rating, with 53 – 32 percent for McCain.

Two other things of note…

First, Bush’s favorable/unfavorable ratings…
Favorable – 31%
Unfavorable – 63%

Then, support for staying in Iraq…
Keep Troops There – 56%
Withdraw – 36%

So, it looks like even though Coloradans disagree with Obama’s take on the war, their collective dislike for Bush may be enough to override that. And this is the theme in a bunch of other states Quinnipiac polled recently.

More polls soon…

Obama – 43%
McCain – 41%
3rd Party – 8%
Undc’d – 7%

This is actually bad news for Obama, because he dropped 5 points since last month, while McCain only lost one. So this is a net 4 point pickup for the Arizona senator, and a sign that Obama could have a problem holding onto any post-convention bounce he’d get.

Some more about Colorado…

Colorado has gone Republican in the last three presidential contests, reelecting George W. Bush in 2004 by five percentage points.

Over the past forty years, Colorado has cast its Electoral Votes for the Democrats just once—for Bill Clinton in 1992. But Obama and his party have targeted it as a swing state this year.

Obama has shown surprising strength in Colorado against his Republican opponent, especially since McCain handily defeated Clinton in survey match-ups before her withdrawal from the race. Democrats also have a good chance of picking up a Senate seat in Colorado this year.

More as it develops…

Sorry, I couldn’t resist that picture.

He’s +4 today over Hillary.

First, former Colorado governor and DNC chairman Roy Romer:

Roy Romer, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Colorado, said Tuesday that he is supporting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president. In announcing his decision, Romer urged other superdelegates to do the same, saying that "it’s important" for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., “to know where we are so she is not misled.”

“My reasons are that the party needs to get on right now with a lot of business, including figuring out what to do with Michigan and Florida,” Romer told ABC News. “It’s important to make known right now not only my vote but as many superdelegates as possible.”

Then DC DNC chair Anita Bonds…

Superdelegate Anita Bonds, chair of the DC Democratic Party, announced last night that she will endorse Sen. Barack Obama at the Denver convention. Her announcement continued the superdelegate march toward Obama after last week’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. [...]

Bonds, who has attended events for both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama during the campaign, said, “You try to exercise your best judgment….We want to go to the convention as unified as we can.”

Now Obama has officially picked up 4 superdelegates for every 1 that Hillary has after Pennsylvania. Why is she still misleading her supporters that this thing is winnable?

Post-Pennsylvania Delegate Pickups:
Obama – 54
Clinton – 13.5

Total Superdelegates:
Obama – 285
Clinton – 272.5

Total post-PA pickups after the jump…

Obama superdelegate pickups:
Anita Bonds (DC), DNC – May 13, 2008
Roy Romer (CO), DNC – May 13, 2008
Joe Donnelly (IN), Representative – May 13, 2008
Ray Nagin (LA), DNC – May 13, 2008
Daniel Akaka (HI), Senator – May 12, 2008
Dolly Strazar (HI), DNC – May 12, 2008
R. Keith Roark (ID), Dem Chairman – May 12, 2008
Tom Allen (ME), Representative – May 12, 2008
Crystal Strait (CA), DNC – May 11, 2008
Harry Mitchell (AZ), Representative – May 10, 2008
Dave Regan (OH), Add-On – May 10, 2008
Kevin Rodriguez (VI), DNC – May 10, 2008
Carol Burke (VI), DNC – May 10, 2008
Kristi Cumming (UT), Add-On – May 10, 2008
Joe Johnson (VA), DNC – May 9, 2008
Vernon Watkins (CA), DNC – May 9, 2008
Wilber Lee Jeffcoat (SC), DNC Vice Chairman – May 9, 2008
Laurie Weahkee (NM), DNC – May 9, 2008
Mazie Hirono (HI), Representative – May 9, 2008
Ed Espinoza (CA), DNC – May 9, 2008
John Gage (MD), DNC – May 9, 2008
Peter DeFazio (OR), Representative – May 9, 2008
Donald Payne (NJ), Representative – May 9, 2008
Rick Larsen (WA), Representative – May 8, 2008
Brad Miller (NC), Representative – May 8, 2008
Jennifer McClellan (VA), DNC – May 7, 2008
Inola Henry (CA), DNC – May 7, 2008
Jerry Meek (NC), Dem Chairman – May 7, 2008
Jeanette Council (NC), DNC – May 7, 2008
Lauren Dugas Glover (MD), DNC Vice Chairman – May 5, 2008
Michael Cryor (MD), DNC Chairman – May 5, 2008
Kalyn Free (OK), DNC – May 5, 2008
Jaime Paulino (Guam), DNC & Territory Vice Chair – May 4, 2008
Parris Glendening (MD), Governor – May 3, 2008
Inez Tenenbaum (SC), DNC – May 3, 2008
Brian Colón (TX), DNC – May 3, 2008
Paul G. Kirk, Jr. (MA), DNC – May 2, 2008
John Patrick (TX), DNC – May 1, 2008
Barbara Flynn Currie (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Todd Stroger (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Richard M. Daley (IL), DNC – May 1, 2008
Joe Andrew (IN), DNC – May 1, 2008
Bruce Braley (IA), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Lois Capps (CA), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Baron Hill (IN), Representative – Apr 30, 2008
Ben Chandler (KY), Representative – Apr 29, 2008
Richard Machacek (IA), DNC – Apr 29, 2008
Jeff Bingaman (NM), Senator – Apr 28, 2008
Charlene Fernandez (AZ), DNC & State Vice Chair – Apr 26, 2008
David Wu (OR), Representative – Apr 24, 2008
Audra Ostergard (NE), DNC & State Vice Chair – Apr 23, 2008
Brad Henry (OK), Governor – Apr 23, 2008

Clinton superdelegate pickups:
Arthur Powell (MA), Add-On – May 10, 2008
Ciro Rodriguez (TX), Representative – May 9, 2008
Chris Carney (PA), Representative – May 9, 2008
Brad Ellsworth (IN), Representative – May 7, 2008
Heath Shuler (NC), Representative – May 7, 2008
Theresa Morelli (Dems Abroad), DNC May 5, 2008
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (MD), Lt. Governor – May 3, 2008
Jaime A. Gonzalez Jr. (TX), DNC – May 2, 2008
Andrew Cuomo (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
Thomas DiNapoli (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
C. Virginia Field (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
Carmen Arroyo (NY), DNC – May 1, 2008
John Olsen (CT), DNC – May 1, 2008
Luisette Cabanas (PR), DNC & Territory Vice Chair – Apr 30, 2008
William George (PA), DNC – Apr 30, 2008
Ike Skelton (MO), Representative, Apr 29, 2008
Mike Easley (NC), Governor – Apr 28, 2008
Kathy Sullivan (NH), Add-On – Apr 26, 2008
John Tanner (TN), Representative – Apr 23, 2008

Clinton superdelegate losses:
Kevin Rodriguez (VI), DNC – May 10, 2008
Donald Payne (NJ), Representative – May 9, 2008
Jennifer McClellan (VA), DNC – May 7, 2008
Arlene P. Bordallo (Guam), DNC & Former Territory Vice Chair- May 4, 2008
Joe Andrew (IN), DNC – May 1, 2008

A good win for him since this is such a swing state.

Plus, he’s winning BIG.