With the reporting of March fundraising yesterday, and the aknowledgement that Hillary has borrowed and spent, and left herself in the hole financially, it is odd that Hillary has been able to spin Obama's spending in PA as a negative.

Her spin-Obama should be doing better because he has more to spend than she does. If he doesn't win outright, he has failed because he had the money to spend.

Her inability to spend competitively should be spun by Obama, especially to the super delegates.

The primary campaign since Barack Obama’s historic 9-point thumping of Hillary Clinton in Iowa has reminded me of why it was often so painful being a progressive Democrat in the DLC hey-day—-that is, the Clinton era--and during Hillary Clinton’s remarkably sispiriting tenure in the Senate as one of the leading Dems in the country (i.e., in the Bush era). Thus, Hillary claiming now that she will be the best candidate to effect change and to fight the Republicans in the national election is, based on her history, a very rich claim indeed.