I think all the hoo-hah about which states each Democratic contender has "won" has been overemphasized all along. Few if any of these contests have been winner-take-all ~ in every state that Obama "won" during his "winning streak," he got 51-60% of the available delegrates while Clinton gained the other 40-49%. Now that Hillary has had a couple of "big wins," the converse applies: Obama still gained a large minority of the available delegates in Texas, Ohion, and Rhode Island yesterday, along with his majority in Vermont.

And with the "superdelegate" factor, it's just about certain that neither of the frontrunners will have the race locked up before the convention. For the first time in many years, one of the major party conventions will not be rubber-stamping its candidate as a foregone conclusion already decided in the primaries. The convention will actually be making a decision, and the superdelegates ~ that is, professional politicians and lifetime party members ~ will be the ones making the call.

Whether or not things will be as drastically unsettled as in 1924, Bobert is esentially correct: this will be a "brokered" convention.

Once they determine who'll be the Presidential candidate, that person (theoretically) will decide who'll be his or her running mate. Don't think for one moment, however, that the party pros won't have a lot to say about the second spot on the ticket, just as they will for the top spot.

And no, the runner-up is not an automatic choice for the VP spot. Almost all vice-presidential candidiates have been relatively obscure personalities who were NOT serious candidates for the presidential nomination. Kennedy's choice of runner-up and bitter rival LBJ was a glaring exceptyion to the general rule.

If Clinton prevails, one reason for considering Obama as her running mate is his relative youth, which could be seen as setting the stage for a 16-year-long Democratic administration. However, trying to predict, let alone control, the future that far in advance is not a good bet.