You say: "I think KcM's point was any article about Obama on an anonymous internet forum right now is going to attract people who are just looking to spew their hate about him, whether they be Clinton supporters or right-wing Republicans."

You're essentially saying the same thing KcM said: anyone who doesn't approve of Obama is unbalanced, full of hatred. Neither of you is allowing for the very real possibility, in fact the reality, that a huge number of Americans don't favor Obama for a variety of reasons, all of them valid in their own minds, the great majority of them likely having nothing at all to do with hatred. Like so many Obama supporters, you're sitting in moral judgment on anyone and everyone who supports anyone other than Obama. The rollout of what's looking more and more like Crusades 2.0 is making some of us more than a bit queasy.

You say: "Charismatic candidates win. Boring candidates lose. Ask Al Gore. Ask anyone."

So you're saying we're better off with the guy America would rather have had a beer with than his wonky opponent, Al Gore the Bore? You really believe this is a winner for presidential elections, the American Idol school of electability?

Charisma is okay, though it can be dangerous. Character and sound qualifications, on the other hand, are vital. I'll take Truman over Dewey any day.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll (Saturday's): Obama's stock dropped a whopping 8 points overnight, leaving him with a mere one-point lead over Clinton. I quote: "Last night’s results were very favorable for Clinton..." Also: McCain 47% Obama 42% and McCain 46% Clinton 42%. I'm no stats whiz, but it looks like Clinton does slightly better than Obama against McCain.

Note to superdelegates: Iowa is clueless.

You say: "But let's concentrate on the delegate math first, and then we can work on the harder stuff."

What you fail to understand is that many of us define 'the harder stuff' as Obama's character - or lack of it, and the implications of this for the Democratic party (not to mention the country). It's not difficult to form the impression that Obama's camp would like to make the numbers king, thereby making all other subjects bow down to the math. Do you have any idea how heavy handed and repressive this tactic is? It's enough to induce a serious case of the willies.

p.s to Uncle: the Rasmussen poll numbers I posted late last night were not meant to praise McCain, but rather to illustrate that Hillary may have a better chance of burying him in the general.

You say: "But as far as making him out to be a savior, a messiah, or a cult-leader, I always that was his detractors and his rivals talking that up."

C'mon, I'm surprised that you offered something this disingenuous. The original, and obvious, driving principle of Obama's campaign was that of carefully crafting an image of a candidate who dwells on a plane far above that inhabited by the common man (one certainly not inhabited by the Rezkos of this world). Obama has often used language and imagery to further this image, hence the St. Obama tag - something which wouldn't have materialized without a whole lot of prompting.

You say: "Now that the bullshit about Rezko has been laid to rest and once the spin about Rev. Wright has died down, there is nothing left to throw at Obama."

Rekzo will never be bullshit. It goes straight to the issue of Obama's character - or lack of it. We now find out that Obama flat out lied about the extent of Rezko's financial support. How many lies do you think this guy going to get away with? Do you understand the harm his candidacy is doing? It's giving more ammunition to real racists and giving great pause to those Americans for whom voting for any black for any position is brand new.

Re Rev. Wright: he hasn't been spun, except by Obama himself.

And there's plenty left to throw at Obama. We could start with his campaign's cynical attempt to destroy the Clintons with race baiting. This, above all, will prevent many Clinton supporters from voting for Obama if he reaches the general.

"The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water," Obama said. "The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up."

This is an entirely self serving 'argument'; it actually reinforces the claim that Obama has tried to position himself as a superior being forced to enter the human muck in order to save it from itself.

Here's the imagery and the language. This is from the Feb. 29 Dallas Morning News:

"Barack Obama has circulated thousands of pieces of campaign literature throughout Texas that touts his religious credentials.

Such fliers were jammed in doorways throughout the Dallas area Wednesday, coinciding with his campaign appearance in Duncanville.

Titled "Faith. Hope. Change," the flier has Mr. Obama standing at a church pulpit with a cross prominently displayed in the backdrop. It features a quote from the candidate: "My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want. But I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work."

Listed prominently on the other side are the words "Committed Christian...."

All that's missing here is the halo.