Don't you love crazy, drawn-out elections? And interesting spin?

Well buckle your seatbelts, because we're in for a doozy. With Hillary winning Ohio and Rhode Island, the campaign is bound to continue on to Pennsylvania, through Wyoming and Mississippi (both of which should go for Obama by big margins).

But, wait, didn't she also win Texas?

Maybe not, reports NPR. Although Clinton won the primary portion of Texas by 3 points, that represented only two-thirds of available delegates. The last third? Decided by the Texas caucus, which Obama currently leads by 12 as the results trickle in. Ah, the funny irony. The media was all over the Clinton-as-comeback-kid meme throughout the election night and over the last few days, but Obama looks to come away from Texas with more net delegates.

I guess the lesson for the media is that they need to just hush up. At least they're better than they were in 2000. Remember that idiotic debacle?

And, thus, the race continues on. But if rumors are true and Obama announces a massive superdelegate movement alongside his record $55 million February (and paired with the list of scenarios that Clinton must make happen in order to win), then we'll need to ask ourselves this question:

Whom should Obama select as his running mate? Should he balance the ticket, ala John Kerry, or should he reinforce his strength, as Bill Clinton did? I'm of the reinforce mind, and Chris Bowers over at Open Left agrees, making an excellent argument.