Betty Sutton, a Democratic U.S. House member from Akron, joined Hillary Clinton's delegate list this afternoon. That puts Clinton ahead 6-4 so far over Barack Obama in Ohio among superdelegates.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics

Sorry this is so brief, but I just ran across this poll out from today on New Jersey.  In head-to-head match-ups Hillary beats McCain by double digits, and McCain beats Obama.  

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_rasmu ssen_new_jersey_1.php

Clinton 50 - McCain 39

McCain 45 - Obama 43

At least in New Jersey, Clinton is the substantially stronger candidate right now.

KING: Thank you. Both of you have been harshly critical of the Bush administration for its secrecy, what you consider overuse of secrecy and executive power. Tonight, Senator Obama, you've talked about more transparency. You also at one point criticized earmarks. And yet, a recent report came out that identified you -- lower on the list in terms how much money senators seek and sneak into the budget for these pork barrel spending projects, but it still said you were responsible for $91 million in earmarks. And you have refused to say where the money went, what it's for. Why?

The one-on-one debate in California was a smashing success for both of the candidates, for the American voters, and overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party.

More debates would be beneficial for informing the electorate about the two candidates.  Far more people will watch the debate than attend a political rally.  Substantially more issues will be vetted in a debate, and in greater depth, compared to the candidates' events - especially when some events are held without question and answer sessions.

Just as importantly, the Democratic Party is a massive winner when these debates are held.

The Obama campaign has been saying for a while now that Bill and Hillary Clinton "will say anything to win an election."  Further, they accuse the Clintons of running a negative campaign while they themselves have run primarily a positive one.  Finally, the Obama campaign has accused the Clintons of misleading statements, basically accusing them of lying.

First, let's establish that in reality the Clintons would NOT in fact say ANYTHING to win.  Would they say civil rights aren't important? Would they say children's health is not important?  Would they vaguely praise Ronald Reagan and GOP ideas to win the favor of a conservative editorial board?  

Certainly not.

Can we agree that achieving progressive change in the face of predictable and fierce resistance from special interests and Republicans will be extremely difficult? What Americans who seek this change must evaluate is which of the candidates has the best chance of accomplishing that change.    

Hope? Sure, we need hope, but we need more than hope.  Personal passion?  We need that, too, but we need more than that.  Symbols?  Yep, they're fine, but not enough.  We need to move beyond hope, passionate demands, and symbols to actually achieving progressive change in America.  

To judge this we must rigorously challenge Senator Obama and Senator Edwards to explain exactly how they will effect change.  Can they offer evidence to support their claims as agents of change?