The examples I listed before were bi-partisan efforts: Interrogration, Nukes, Earmarks. Could only Obama have done this? No. But he did do it. My understanding is that the Interrogation legislation was initially heavily opposed by republicans.

As far as healthcare goes, I'm not really impressed with either plan. I probably fall into the single-payer category. Back into 1992 Hillary had a my way or the highway stance on healthcare, so much so that she failed to get by-in within her own party. It's a judgement call, IM!HO, as to how much she has learned since then.

I think you and I disagree on more fundamental level. From one of your prior posts:

See, here's the thing: i don't believe you can change the "partisan divide," and i find it very hard to believe that Obama actually believes it can be changed. The weight of our history is against the idea that the partisan divide can be changed. Furthermore, even if it could be changed, I'm not really sure I want to put down my differences with homophobes and prolifers and racists. The partisan divide exists because people earnestly disagree on a lot of issues, and I don't think that is a bad thing

This is a big, big topic; I'll try to minimize the gum-flapping.

The partisan divide, as such, is always changing. Texas and other states used to be solid democratic. The position of women and minorities in this country and how they vote has dramatically changed in my lifetime. Hispanics are just starting to come on to the stage and are figuring out their political identities.

I think the fastest growing political party is independent.

I agree that extremists are never going to change their minds. But I think the solution not just to fight them head on, but to isolate them, cut off their food supply, and stop thier ideas from spreading. You have to reach out to the vast horde of middle-of-the-roaders to do that.

I think the difference between you and me is that you want to fight, and I want to win.

Also, is it true that he has nearly the same delegate lead that he had before? So far it looks like Hillary's up 26, and she's up to a three point lead in Texas. I guess it depends on the meaning of nearly.

From talking head Chuck Todd at MSNBC, who's a bit of weeny (in a nice way), and wows his fellow hosts by his ability to do complex maths, like add more than two numbers together. Actually, his number predictions have held up pretty well so far:

Vermont and Rhode Island cancel each other out.

Hillary nets 5-9 delegates from Ohio, depending on final calculations.

Obama's net primary delegates in Texas probably wipe out Hillary's lead in Ohio due to twisted and arcane TX primary rules.

Texas caucus numbers don't have to be reported until Saturday(!) by precinct captains. Maybe they're still delivered via Pony Express.

On Monday we'll have a better idea on the delegate shift.

Obama got the College and Black vote in Ohio.

What I just typed really bothers me...

Why? We've spent a lot of time jawing about sexism and racism, but not much time about the apparent generational divide, based on consistent exit polling. It could make a good Salon article sure to invoke lots and lots of letters. Hillary dominates folks over 65+, Obama folks under 30. I've seen a lot of negative comments about the youth vote in these letters and it amuses me to think of how many of those angry letter writers were chanting 'Don't trust anybody over 30' forty years ago.

c) the fact that she has won just about every single big state. And please, let's hold the histrionics over calling people "irrelevant". The facts speak for themselves, in winner-take-all general elections (which is what we'll have), California is better than North Dakota. Just like in b-ball a 3 point shot is better than a 2-point shot and in football a touchdown is better than a field goal. There isn't a single candidate who would honestly tell you otherwise.

I think this a little too simple for me. I think a better set of questions is to ask which candidate does better in each state against McCain. I think either Hillary or Obama win in MA, NY and IL. Either of them probably win CA. McCain thinks he can win CA regardless, but that assertion isn't gaining traction yet.

More interesting are states like Wisconsin, Missouri, and Ohio. Some have made the argument that Obama can gain enough independents and republican cross-overs to win WI and MO. Your mileage may vary.

Pat Buchanan said tonight that Hillary won a lot of "Reagan Democrats" in Ohio tonight, and that Obama could easily lose those voters to McCain in the general, thus giving Ohio to McCain.

Pat also omits mention of the Hagee McCain endorsement which could undermine support for that same "Reagan Democrat" vote in OH and PA.

My magic 8-ball tells me that all the critical factors that will determine who wins and loses haven't been revealed yet.