there are those of us who are lateral thinkers and forget where we put the box! Yes, part of the problem is that there are too many boxes.

You sound like my kind of person. I much enjoyed your exchange with captainlarab. She's usually thought provocative and a self-admitted bombthrower.

Actually, what I was thinking of -- and what I worry about -- is the hero-on-horseback syndrome. I'm seeing that with the Obamaphiles, and I distinguish between hero-on-horseback (either gender) and intense personal loyalty. If people feel one, but express themselves (not you) in terms of the other, I can only read what's on the screen.

Funny, I think the opposite about Hillary and her fans. She's going to fight, fight, fight, and everyone else can watch TV. Of course, the reality is that neither is true. But it's hard to tell when you live in a room full of mirrors.

Look closely at all the exit polls, the Republicans know what they are doing. They want Obama as their opposition in the fall.

-- hanksf

Just caught a segment or two of the beltway boys (two crusty old white dudes) on FOX News. They showed two 'delegate maps' from Karl Rove; one for Hillary vs. McCain and one for Obama vs. McCain. There's a breakdown of who's likely to get the electoral votes for each state, as well as states that are a toss-up. The funny thing is that Obama does better than Hillary. Are the maps a faithful estimate, or is it just a double secret bluff from his Roveness? I think some of you would benefit from getting out and actually studying Republicans in their native environment.

Also they thoroughly enjoyed Hillary's "McCain and I have experience, Obama has a speech" quote. They said it would make a good Republican attack ad.

Actually I appreciate it when you step up to plate. You usually have something to say based on your life experience that you've chewed on for a bit. I generally feel like I've learned something new. It's a lot better than those showing up with a dump truck full of someone else's talking points.

I don't mean to be gushy, but we seem to be complaining a lot about the quality of the posting lately, so I thought I would take the contrarian viewpoint and highlight the good.

Boxes within boxes within boxes...Yes, I thought the point was to reduce the number of boxes. Tricksy Humans. I think it's hard sometimes for warriors to know when to lay down the sword; you have to stop fighting to win.

One thing I think is really impressive about the Obama campaign is his ground game (grass roots, etc). It's a good implementation of the offensive 50 state strategy against a candidate (Hillary) who's running the old defensive blue-Island strategy. I think it's one of the key reasons he's currently winning the popular vote and delegate count against Hillary.

Most of the anti-Obama posters here seem to underestimate that advantage in the general. Not only will he be able to contest in the purple states, he'll force McCain to play more defense and stretch more states into the purple or blue category. Given the current dynamics (all things subject to change), I think he will have the advantage in funding and volunteers. Doesn't mean it's a cakewalk, just an advantage.

...but don't forget that Texas's delegates haven't fully been given yet. The last I checked at least. Hold on to your hat.

I think all caucus results had to be sent in by today (Sat). I agree that Obama will probably win the Texas delegate battle and that delegates matter. But Hillary won the popular vote and that enabled her to shift the narrative a bit and it looks like the media has bought into it. Horse races are much more exciting and profitable. The win tonight in WY by a significant margin by Obama happened over the weekend in a funky fly-over caucus state (I'll always remember that purple shag carpet on the ceiling of a certain Motel 6 in Laramie). So it's onward to PA! Oh, I skipped MS as well, my bad!

I think the fact remains that it would have been better for the Obama camp to win the popular vote in TX. Having one side get the delegates and the other get the popular votes raises that old democratic agnst, does the party want direct democracy or representative? We want direct, unless we're super-delegates!

And it's possible that Obama camp could have done a better job. I think that's the real point of JulieBird's questions. Do I think the dude is infallible? No. And I would honestly like to see more criticism of the candidate's positions and less of the candidate's supporters. I readily concede that many act like idiots, including myself.

And I'm crossing my fingers over that which doesn't kill the candidates makes them stronger.