The Clintons appear to have a longer list of people criticizing them than has ever been witnessed in prior democratic races. These "progressives" are noxious and the media will take any sound bite that is exhaled by these blowhards and try to make it sound like breaking news when all it is is breaking wind. Huffington Post, KOS, Move On, plus an assorted list of television news "pundits" such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Andrea Mitchell to name just a few, use comments made by Emil Jones, Senator Clyburn, Michael Moore, The Kennedy's, Maria Shriver, Oprah Winfrey, as if their words are more than the biased opinion that it is. I got involved in DEFENDING Hillary Clinton after I saw the lack of any investigative journalism over how the caucus state voting was being given way too much importance in trying to create consensus,m false as it was, that Hillary could no longer win the nomination. If Hillary Clinton can get 50% of the popular vote with all of those factions working against her on a daily basis, plus Barrack Obama outspending her 3-1 while he still loses key states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, it becomes obvious to me that Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate. If each of the groups mentioned above have influenced the race by an overall average of 1 percent each, that ends up equaling a 20% overall shift in vote. If these groups had not been so one sided in all of their efforts, Hillary could have had as much as 55% to 60% of the popular vote to Barrack Obama's 40-45% of the popular vote. It's taking too much money and effort to prop Barrack Obama towards the democratic nomination, by know that should becoming clear to the delegates and the super delegates.