Dick Morris gets to the heart of the matter. Clinton didn’t change anything with last night’s 9-point win.

Hillary Clinton refuses to die. Having been given up for dead after losing Iowa, she rebounded in New Hampshire. Then a string of 11 straight consecutive losses – followed by a win in Ohio and a tie (in delegates) in Texas. Now, she’s won Pennsylvania.

Problem is, it doesn’t mean anything.

Because of the Democratic Party’s arcane proportional-representation rules, her win stands to give her a net gain of 10 to 15 delegates when all is counted. That means that Barack Obama will fall from a lead of 161 in elected delegates to about 145 or so. Big deal.

The primaries coming up in the next two weeks – Indiana and North Carolina – are likely to give Obama back a goodly portion of those delegates. By the time all the primaries have been held, after June 3, there is no doubt that Obama will lead by more than 100 elected delegates, and likely 150. From there, it will be an easy route to the nomination.

The Democratic superdelegates aren’t about to risk a massive and sanguinary civil war by taking the nomination away from the candidate who won more elected delegates. If they ever tried it, we’d see a repeat of the demonstrations that smashed the 1968 Chicago convention and ruined Hubert Humphrey’s chances of victory.

Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.

Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania’s closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage.

Barring a game changer, this will be over in June with Obama as the nominee.

With a ten-point win, the race goes on and nothing is resolved. She won by the same margin in Ohio and New Jersey, so even after the Wright issue and other “controversies,” her margin on her turf is basically the same. Also, independents could not vote in Pennsylvania, so that was another disadvantage for him.

He should win North Carolina, and he needs a solid margin. Also, Indiana will be a big battle. Independents can vote, so that is one positive for Obama in that state.

Awesome parody. Let’s face it – Hillary is a natural villain!

This poll seems a little extreme, but the trend is clearly in Obama’s favor.

Here’s the devastating numbers that is consistent with other polls:

One of the more devastating results for Clinton was that a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy. According to the poll, just four in 10 (41 percent) registered voters view the New York senator as honest and trustworthy, while 51 percent think the opposite. This compares with solid majorities of voters who see Obama and McCain as honest and trustworthy (both polled 61 percent).

This shouldn’t be a surprise because she’s basically a liar.

Now folks are examining her claim that she helped create the children’s health program.

Dick Morris lets her have it.

We are watching a grim re-enactment of all of the character traits that led Hillary to decompose in the healthcare debate of her husband’s first term. The blind reliance on a guru-delivered strategy, the religious insistence on following the same rhetorical line even when it obviously isn’t working, the inflexibility in adapting to one’s opposition, and the inability to formulate new strategies or to improvise tactics when her pre-conceptions are found to be so obviously faulty — this is Hillary at her worst.

As citizens, we are entitled to watch Obama’s skill, leadership style, and savvy sophistication and contrast it with Hillary’s doctrinaire insistence on approaches that aren’t working and to conclude that Hillary would be a disaster as president and that Obama would be pretty good. We can, at least, conclude that the same tenacity that led Johnson into Vietnam and may be inducing Bush to risk his party, his reputation and the attitudes of a generation in Iraq may be abundantly present in Hillary.

Clinton was terrible tonight and Obama won another clear victory. Clinton was angry and petty throughout the debate, even complaining about the order of the questions.

Her lowest moment was her attempt to take advantage of the Farrakhan exchange. She had an opportunity to be gracious and accept Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan. Instead, she tried to scores some cheap political points, and she actually gave Obama another chance to explain his rejection of Farrakhan.

Obama looked more presidential again. He used humor to deflect many of her attacks, and his “driving the bus into the ditch” comment in response to her Iraq War arguments was brilliant.

Just when you thought the Clinton campaign was coming to terms with the fact that their campaign is doomed, Hillary ratchets up the rhetoric with a tough attack on Obama mailers. Perhaps they realize that her debate performance on Thursday night made her look like a candidate ready to concede defeat.

One of her lines went something like this – “Since when do Democrats attack other Democrats for proposing universal health care?” She drew a comparison to the Harry and Louise ads used by the GOP to tank her health care plan in the 1990s.

Well, the simple truth is that the initial attacks came from Hillary against Obama. She justifies this by claiming Obama does not really propose universal health care because his plan does not include a mandate. Obama responds that they have a philosophical disagreement on how to achieve universal coverage. Clinton has repeatedly attacked the Obama plan for not covering 15 million people, which the Obama campaign has disputed. Her campaign has relied on mailers just like the Obama campaign. The facts are simple – her plan has a mandate which would force people to purchase coverage, regardless of whether or not they could afford it.

Also, regarding NAFTA, is is indisputable that she publicly supported it. There are some reports that she had private misgivings, but she was out there supporting it in public. She takes credit for all the good economic accomplishments in the 1990s, but she won’t own up to her own public positions regarding controversial issues like her support of NAFTA. If her campaign had any integrity, she would explain why free trade is important and how NAFTA was an important accomplishment, but that it has had many flaws that need to be corrected. Instead she refuses to acknowledge or address her initial positions.

Her “shame on you” line is particularly ridiculous, given the track record of her own campaign’s tactics. They intentionally distorted Obama’s words about Ronald Reagan, and put out an ad in South Carolina with that false charge. They only pulled it after the Obama campaign put out an ad claiming that she would say anything to get elected. Her collapse in the national polls started soon therafter.

In Hillaryland, numbers don’t matter, red states don’t matter, and voters who voted for Obama don’t matter.

They invent their own math, and they try to change the rules. They’ve been beaten by huge margins in their current 10-state losing streak, and every week we have a new strategy and new lame attacks.

The latest attack claims that only Hillary is qualified to be commander-in-chief. This from the Senator who voted for Bush’s disastrous war, yet claims that she thought he was only voting for resuming inspections. She cast this vote without even reading the full National Intelligence Estimate that was made available to Senators and which detailed the problems with Bush’s WMD claims.

I’m sure Obama welcomes this debate. Her Iraq War vote in my opinion should disqualify her from being commander-in-chief. She screwed up, and she won’t even admit it.

Of course, none of this matters in Bizarro World.

It’s a blowout.

If Hillary loses either Texas or Ohio she needs to drop out.