From Politico.com:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

This just in; An interesting article from Forbes.com about those greatest of pop culture icons, superheroes ( yes, those superheroes) and their leadership abilities.

From Forbes.com:

You remember Quasar, the superhero created by artists and writers at Marvel comics back in 1978?

Of course you don't because he didn't have the staying power, so to speak, like many of the superheroes that still are brilliantly being splashed on the pages of their own graphic novels decades after they were first introduced to the world.

These are the ones making it to the big screen and the ones appearing in videogames.

These are the most enduring of all time. But who is at the top of that list? It quite possibly could be, and should be, Superman, who turns 70 this year.

From The Earth Times:

An armed student at Jerusalem's Mercaz Haray seminary played a crucial role in stopping a gun-wielding terrorist Thursday, but the American press is downplaying his heroism because it proves that armed students can stop campus gunmen, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Yitzhak Dadon, 40, was described as "a private citizen who had a gun license and was able to shoot the gunman with his pistol" by reporter Etgar Lefkovitz with the Jerusalem Post. However, many news agencies in the United States are downplaying Dadon's decisive role in the incident.

More here.

From Jules Crittenden:

America’s largest news agency has sent the lawyers after a blogger, who happens to be a long-time critic, on fair use.