"But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you."

However, I'm not going to give him any props for "managing" media coverage when the MSM is blatantly biased against Hillary which I don't think has anything to do with anything that Obama has done.  He's just reaping the benefits.  

I think the "polarizing" thing is a myth.  If it were the case, then Clinton would not have  beat him by wide margins in the most populous states with the most varied demographics.  You cite the poll about him beating McCain, but those are the same polls that had Obama beating Hillary in NH and MA.  As for better judgments, we don't really know what his record is because he doesn't seem to have much of one.

As to your other remarks:

Poor people and the middle class can be highly informed voters, just as wealthy, well-educated people can be uneducated, easily brainwashed patsies.  

Statistically, what you say about Obama simply needing time to woo voters does not hold up.  He had more press, more money, and more endorsements in California than Hillary did.  His name recognition was on par with hers.  Why did he not win?  It can't be just because of the great unwashed being uneducated in the ways of the Great One.

And I find it hilarious (and a tad insulting) that you consider me an older woman.  I am firmly in the statistically "young" range.  As far as the demographic these older women make (and let's assume you mean over forty) then I suggest you look at the exit polling from the Super Tuesday.  Women made up, on average, 58% of the voters.  Hillary won the large states.  She won MA, Kennedy and Kerry's state.  Surely, you are not suggesting that MA is overrun with non-educated, non-English speaking idiot savants who handed her the race?

The only people supporting her at this point are low information voters (i.e. those who haven't looked at either that closely) and old bitter women.

and I realized that someone who is this ill-informed about Hillary Clinton, her accomplishments, her leadership, her courage, and her popularity (not to mention her supporters) is probably not worth the time.

May be you should do a little more research before you toss things like this off.

Will it affect the campaigns in those states if they aren't seated?

34 elections will have been held. If Obama sweeps tonight, he'll have won 23 of the 34

Some of those were caucuses, not elections.

You're   just  not paying  attention.  

You  DID  see  the AP  poll  that  showed in  a  McCain/Obama   matchup,   it is  MCCAIN   who pulls  the  Independents,   didn't  you?  

Where are you getting your talking points from?  Clinton has a record of reaching across the aisle to get things done in the Senate.  That's probably why some Democrats don't like her.

And as far as the amount of money that each candidate has been spending on polling and messaging:
According to year-end research tabulated by the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has spent more than $2.55 million so far in the campaign on "Polling/Surveys/Research," six hundred thousand dollars more than Clinton's $1.92 million.

This one shows 3 months worth of data:

Alexa link