I'll just link to it at MyDD.  

Of course the trajectory of how they move should be documented after the campaign by forensic journalists and election experts.  

January was framing the Clintons as racist.  

Hillary's campaign plan is exactly the opposite. They are praying to keep their delegate loss close enough that they can still win with superdelegates some how. The Obama's states don't count silliness is part of the set up for that.

"I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate," said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton's senior campaign adviser.

Assume also that concepts like majority/popular vote are not the ultimate "decider" as far as superdelegates are concerned.

What is the most effective way for her campaign to move the argument towards looking at the voter base and November prospects?

This is what he should be fired for:

Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.

Don't distort things, please.  

It is politically foolish for Penn to make a claim that 21 of the 22 states that Obama has won are not "significant."

I read a story that Jesse Jackson won the 1984 primary, and since every time since then, there has been an "agreed upon" Democratic candidate, Puerto Rico has gone with that candidate.

Winning mostly caucuses shows that you can bring out activists, but you don't bring out the general population to your side.  It goes to the legitimacy of your win, which I also think goes to the bitterness that people in the larger blue states might feel about your win.  That, in turn, goes to turnout.

Had he won 50-50 caucuses-primaries, this would all be moot.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Obama campaign announced Christine "Roz" Samuels, a DNC member and superdelegate from New Jersey, switched her support from Clinton to Obama. NBC News can confirm that Samuels had been supporting Clinton.

She also lost Tom Lantos, who passed away.

Not good for Sen Clinton ... NOT becaus eshe lost one... BUT that NBC will use it as a sign of a Sen Obama surge.

Also, I'm not sure this is a very good endorsement...

The Obama campaign also announced the endorsement of former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, of Rhode Island. Chafee switched his party affiliation to independent after losing his seat to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who is supporting Hillary Clinton.

"Barack Obama doesn't need any lectures on special interests from the candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any Republican running for President,'' Obama camapign spokesman Bill Burton said. "Hillary Clinton should tell the people of Ohio the truth -- she once bragged about helping to pass the nuclear bill she's now criticizing Obama for, she came out with her plan for green jobs one month after Obama did, and she's said she'd `go after' people's wages if they couldn't afford health insurance under her plan.'' (from here)

Anyway, this should settle it: As dumb and clueless as Shuster's "pimp" remark, this was never really about him. The Clinton campaign, while genuinely upset about what Shuster said, lashed out at the network because they were primarily irked by Matthews' conduct, and were sending a message to MSNBC that it's time that Matthews muzzle himself.

Why?

Because said person would be uncomfortable "attacking Obama".

In other words, message from Keith: "Obama, great guy? or so great of a guy that a McCain staffer would rather lose his job than attack him?"

I'm sure wonkish people would know who the guy is, but he's certainly not someone who is on my radar (and I follow politics pretty closely).I searched and searched and could not find any top story about this anywhere on even MSNBC.  Why this was top news on Keith's show, when there are so many stories that would fall into that category, is, well, anybody's guess ;-).