Obama maintains insurmountable delegate lead

3:31 UPDATE: According to the Obama team's tabulations--which have almost always jived with those of the Hillary people--Hillary's wins last night shrunk his lead in the delegate count by a grand total of FOUR! And, as far as delegates go, Obama technically took Texas. As the article goes on to say, with Obama-friendly Wyoming and Mississippi coming up, any 'momentum' gained by Hillary's wins last night shouldn't carry her very far.*

Look, I'm not gonna lie to you and say that I don't join the Obama camp in being pretty bummed that 'our' guy didn't fare better last night. HOWEVER, this isn't because Obama's losses in Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio did anything to realistically alter the landscape of the race, which still heavily favors him. Instead, as a result of her long-expected victories--her so called 'comebacks' last night were staged in states where, just two weeks ago, Obama was down by double digits in the polls--Hillary is trying to trick herself and, through the gullible media, the American public, into thinking that she now has sufficient momentum to capture the nomination. I'm sorry Hillary, but at this point, momentum means nothing. Delegates do. Even the most liberal estimates give Hillary a net-pickup of no more than 13 delegates after winning last night, where more than 1/3 (370 of the 1000 that remained before Tuesday's races) of the total number of remaining delegates were at stake. But hey, don't take my word for it. Just read what Mark Penn, Hillary's chief campaign strategist had to say about the matter in a Feb. 13 letter to the media:

This election will come down to delegates...Again and again, this race has shown that it is voters and delegates who matter, not the pundits or perceived "momentum."...As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates - not the candidate who wins the most states.

The only way Hillary can possibly win at this point is by wooing the un-pledged, "Super Delegates" over to her side. That's a perfectly good strategy IF you believe the DNC's insiders, and not the American people, should be the sole-deciders of this nomination process.

Penn goes on to say:

After March 4th, over 3000 delegates will be committed, and we project that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be virtually tied with 611 delegates still to be chosen in Pennsylvania and other remaining states.

Even Hillary's main go-to guy inherently suggests that the candidate with more pledged delegates at this point has dibbs on the nomination. This logic worked well for him and the campaign when Hillary was still up in the polls...and delegates. Now, things have changed. With 11 straight double-digit victories--Hillary's campaign promptly called them gimmes--Obama accumulated a delegate lead that, no matter how much the chips fall in her favor in the battle for the remaining 12 states, she has no chance of overcoming. Not exactly a virtual tie in my book.

Should party insiders aka "Super Delegates" decide this election? No, but the fact is, Hillary's too proud to drop out before they do. Which then leads us to the much more pressing question: Should these delegates--who, given the chance, will vote purely out of personal political interest--overturn the will of the American electorate, one that has displayed more enthusiasm this time around than ever before to have their voices be heard by partaking in the most fundamental Democratic process? If you answer 'yes', you support Hillary, if 'no,' you support democratic fairness (I admit, a little dramatic)...and Obama.

Let the American people have the final say!