Let’s get to it.

Pennsylvania’s on April 22nd; Pollster shows Clinton leading Obama in the Keystone State, 50.1% to 37.5%. In North Carolina, which goes to the polls on May 6th, Pollster shows Obama leading Clinton 45.4% to 37.5%.
There have been some recent changes to several states’ delegate allotments. The Illinois Board of Elections reexamined their states’ vote totals and they found that Clinton didn’t get enough votes in two districts to win any delegates; thus, those delegates have been assigned to Obama.

Similarly, Clinton received four more delegates in Colorado and one in New York after those states certified their results and recalculated their delegate distribution.

Meanwhile, Obama has gained some serious momentum among superdelegates:

Among the 313 of 796 superdelegates who are members of Congress or governors, Clinton has commitments from 103 and Obama is backed by 96, according to lists supplied by the campaigns. Fifty-three of Obama’s endorsements have come since he won the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, compared with 12 who have aligned with Clinton since then.

[...]

In the overall race for superdelegates — elected and party officials who automatically receive votes at the Democratic National Convention that will choose the nominee — Clinton leads Obama in commitments by 249 to 212, according to an Associated Press tally.

The trend, though, is running against the New York senator. Since March 5, the day after she won primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Obama took Vermont, the Illinois senator has won backing from nine superdelegates and Clinton one, according to the campaigns and interviews.

The superdelegates see the writing on the wall–Obama has more money, he had more pledged delegate, he has a larger share of the popular vote, and he does better against John McCain than Hillary Clinton. She’s too far behind to catch up to Obama’s lead in delegates, meaning that she’ll have a hard time convincing the superdelegates to contradict the will of the voters and throw the nomination her way.

Right now, negotiations are underway to figure out how to include Florida and Michigan in the primary. In Florida, a proposal to use mail-in ballots has been shopped around, though there are legal hurdles to overcome–Florida law might prohibit the certification of mail-in ballots, putting this plan in jeopardy. In addition, the Obama campaign has expressed reservations about the verifiability and security of mail-in ballots.

While the wrangling continues, it’s clear that the people of Florida want a do-over–without one, a lot of Florida Democrats might just stay home come November:

Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller commissioned a poll of voters who participated in the state’s January 29th Democratic Presidential Primary. The results are striking - 59% of those Democrats want a revote. Moreover, only 63% of these primary‐voting Democrats are committed to sticking with our eventual nominee if Florida voters are not counted. That number is dangerously low.

In Michigan, the parties are also close to coming up with a plan:

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick said the primary would be statewide and would be funded through party money. She is one of four Democrats who are not endorsing either candidate who are working together on a plan for a repeat primary.

[...]

To go forward, any plan would require the approval of the two candidates’ campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, state party leaders and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is backing Clinton.

Florida and Michigan broke the rules, and thus they were stripped of their delegates. This push to break the rules again and include them is coming from the Clinton camp, who want some good press and a few extra delegates by winning Florida and Michigan. In essence, they’re playing off of people’s innate sense of fairness and balance to push the idea of getting FL and MI re-involved.

To some extent, though, they’re right. In this election, we Democrats can’t afford to alienate our supporters in two major states. On one hand, Clinton wants them seated as-is; on the other, Obama doesn’t want them seated at all. In this instance, holding new elections is a compromise that will–hopefully–placate everyone, particularly the voters.

Before then, though, Clinton and Obama will have to compete with Pennsylvania. Engaging in his usual spin, Mark Penn had this to say about the Keystone primary:

On the Clinton call earlier, Mark Penn said, “We believe that [the Pennsylvania primary result] will show that Hillary is ready to win, and that Sen. Obama really can’t win the general election.”

That statement is just plain wrong.

First off, Obama performs better against John McCain than Clinton does.

Second, it’s just a nonsensical argument. The Clinton camp is assuming that any state Obama doesn’t win in the primary he won’t win in the general. But a lot of the states Clinton has won–like New York, California and Massachusetts–will vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is. Also, I have a hard time believing that, if Obama is the nominee, the vast majority of Clinton supporters won’t vote for him (and vice-versa).

We heard this exact same line from the Clinton campaign after Ohio. It was ridiculous then, and it’s ridiculous now. After the embarrassing Geraldine Ferraro flap, you think Clinton’s advisers would be more careful about what they say to the press.

UPDATE: In response to the Clinton camp’s memo containing the ridiculous spin about Pennsylvania, Obama’s communications department has released a response by annotating the original memo. You can read the whole thing at Politico; key excerpts are below.

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far - every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

[...]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.
[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

[...]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us - I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]