Hillary has never won more pledged delegates on any single day of voting.

[milkyway]

This has been obscured because most media outlets have included superdelegates in their counts, but Obama has been the leader in pledged delegates from Day 1 in Iowa, and there has never been a day of voting in which Hillary won more delegates.

Jan 3: Iowa Obama 16, Clinton 15
Jan 8: NH Obama 9, Clinton 9
Jan 19: Nevada Obama 13, Clinton 12
Jan 26: SC Obama 25, Clinton 12
Feb 5: 22 states: various counts, but all had Obama winning more; msnbc: Obama 861 Clinton 855; wikipedia Obama 847 Clinton 834; (feel free to add up the CNN results)
Feb 9: Obama sweeps 4 contests
Feb 10: Maine Obama 15 Clinton 9
FEb 12: Obama sweeps 3 contests

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday

For those hoping the superdelegates will overturn the will of the voters, it won't happen. Of the 796 supers, only about 300 have committed publicly. The other 500 have not committed because they are waiting for a clear winner to emerge from the voters and then they will commit. The supers will start moving to Obama. They will not destroy the Democratic party by overthrowing the voters in this historic contest.

The supers have helped Hillary a lot only because the media has been including them, so much of the public has been misled into thinking Hillary has been consistently leading, when it is Obama who has been the leader since Iowa. It's only very recently that much of the public has been come aware of the concept of superdelegates, and now some media outlets have begun dividing their delegate count into pledged and supers.

[tekisui]

1. It is undeniable now.

Hillary wanted to be the Underdog. Congrats, she has it now.

Winning makes you the Leader.

[Cha]

4. Not so sure..hilary

was the inevitable one and something called change happened on the way to the coronation. I'd say she's losing her lead..even though the only thing she says when Obama wins is that it's not important/doesn't count(totally in denial)..but you can bet she'll be out there with her fake face if she wins one.

[tekisui]

6. Let her smile. She is losing, and losing big.

She is even losing her precious superdelegates to Obama.

[Cha]

2. It certainly has been obscured..

there's a wealth of disinformation on DU..thanks for getting it here, milkyway!

[peoli]

3. strong stuff.

[Johnny__Motown]

5. Excellent Point, thanks for that

[milkyway]

7. And about superdelegates: their total count is simply a media creation. The Dem party does not

have any count of how the supers are "voting." They haven't voted, and they don't need to make a commitment, and if they have made one publicly they can, and will, change. Nothing is official about the count of the supers. It is only the media trying to project who the supers will support at the Convention.

The various mainstream media (AP, CNN, NYTimes, etc.) get the totals by each doing their own "polling" of the supers, asking who they are supporting. The supers are signing no pledge, and it is quite possible they give one media organization a different answer than another one who phones a week later. Also, like any other polling, I imagine that their are differences in how the different organizations push the supers to state a preference. This accounts for the disparity in media counts of the supers.

It is difficult to understand why the media organizations would make the decision to include the supers with the pledged delegates won through the electorate as if they were the same thing. They are completely different things. One is based on past voting (by the people), and the other is a projection of future voting (by the supers). Even ignoring the strong argument that the supers shouldn't overthrow the will of the people, their is just no reason to give these two very different kinds of delegates--one that has actually been won versus one that might be won in the future--the same amount of importance.