Obama is ahead in this campaign for a number of reasons: First, the Clinton people have run a pretty poor campaign early on. They could have done much better. Very uninspiring early on and it cost them big. Second, Obama is a very charimatic guy and makes Hillary look even more uninspiring by comparison than she already was. Third, Hillary had a lot of negatives going into the race because of her being on the receiving end of the right wing hate machine for the last 15 years. Finally, Obama got a free ride early on in the campaign from the media. He has faced 1/1000th of the heat Hillary has gotten over the years and he wilted at the first sign of it.

You can try to turn the tables and ask why Hillary didn't put him away, but it doesn't wash and you know it. She has been the underdog since the ballots were first cast in Iowa. She hasn't been in a position to put him away. On contrast, Obama could have knocked Hillary out of the race in New Hampshire. He could have knocked her out on Super Tuesday. She made it clear she would be out had he won in Texas or Ohio. In PA Obama spend $12M trying to knock her out and again couldn't finish her. That's FOUR times since Obama has been the front runner he has failed to close the deal. He has another chance in Indiana. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.

As for "cheating" her way into office, Hillary isn't Bush. If neither have the delegates needed to win it should go to the popular vote. If she gets a majority of the popular vote (including FL but not MI since Obama wasn't on the ballot there) she has a good argument for the superdelegates to pick her. She didn't set up the superdelegate system, that was Howard Dean's dumb idea. Convincing superdelegates to go with the popular vote is her right and is not cheating in any way if neither has the delegate majority needed.

If Obama has that popular vote majority it should and will go to him.

If it does go to Obama, John McCain is a lock to be the next president. As nice and likeable a guy as he is, Obama has been shown to be fatally flawed by inexperience. He claims to be a unifier but his record in the Senate suggests otherwise, having never written any legislation and never voting bi-partisan. Meanwhile Hillary's record in the Senate has been strong and bi-parisan, and she has the respect of both sides of the aisle. She is the unifier. Hillary of course has flaws too and could lose as well but it is far less likely in my estimation.