You say: "But the pinhole of light has grown slightly."

I've only lived in Texas for a year and half now, but I can't say I've ever heard it referred to as a 'pinhole' in any sense whatever. Texas is nothing if not big - and so is Senator Clinton's apparent win here tonight. C'mon, give the woman her due.

Just noted on the CNN page that Bill Clinton said last month that if Hillary won Ohio and Texas, she'd go on to win the nomination.

The same Bill Clinton announced a few weeks back that his wife might well have to drop out of the race if she didn't win Ohio and Texas. This was about the time the money started pouring in - perhaps not up to Obama standards, but $35 million or so is a major chunk of change and it could've made the difference for Hillary.

As they say, never count a Clinton out. And never underestimate the canniness of Mr. Bill.

Well, adam, just what is it that you wannabe? The Matt Drudge of salon.com? The Rush Limbaugh of the left? The Ken Starr of the cyber world?

You know that 20-something percent of Clinton supporters everyone was talking about earlier today? Those people who say they would defect to McCain if your guy wins? Keep this up and the number will almost undoubtedly rise even higher.

How about we let the voters of Michigan and Florida decide what THEY want to do? Are the rest of us their keepers, their jailers, their judges? It's fairly disgusting and depressing to see the votes of millions treated as so many chips in a penny ante poker game. At any rate, Florida voters have already spoken in an election the mechanics of which in no way favored Clinton, and yet she won handily. Does this mean nothing?

You say: "For you non Texans out there, this is significant because Travis County is the oasis of blue, in the sea of red that is Texas"

Well, renegade, I live 20 miles due south of you in Hays County and I'm proud to say that the gods spared just a bit of blue ink for my 'hood, which seems to have gone all out for Hillary.

After experiencing my first caucus last night - in an overheated room where we waited for almost 2 hours to sign our preferences - it's clear to me why these caucuses have to go. They discriminate against the elderly, the handcapped, parents with young children, those who work at night... They favor the young and able and mobile, which is exactly why Obama has benefited so hugely from them. Caucuses don't signify democracy, but rather survival of the fittest.

You say: "Check you data KateTex, Hays County went for Barack Obama 56%/43% (100% precincts reporting). Hillary does better in the rural and poorer areas. She always has."

By "'hood'", I was referring to my neighborhood, which is home to many university faculty and staff from Texas State U. The majority of them were in the Clinton caucus line last night in our precinct, while the Obama line was made up almost entirely of white college students. The Clinton caucusers included a few female college students (not a single guy), along with middle-aged and older whites and Hispanics of both genders. My guess is that Obama's student support may be very wide, but it has little depth and practically no legs. In other words, by and large these aren't voters committed to traditional Democratic ideals. Rather, they're caught up in the moment.

In response to a post stating, "Hillary Clinton is indomitable and the Democrats best chance to take back the White House. Go, Hillary!"

You said: "Go ahead with that magical thinking. There's no data to back up that assertion. None."

Isn't it magical thinking to believe you can quantify indomitability?

Further, I attended a Clinton rally in Austin Monday night. The woman simply radiated energy and strength and enthusiasm. This was her third appearance that day: she spent the morning and early afternoon in Ohio courting voters, then had two rallies in Austin that night. She's 60 years old and has faced hostile, even rabid press for months. She's been under the gun for weeks and outfunded by Obama. She's been publicly advised by John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry that she should just bow out and leave the stage to the young pretender. And yet she keeps going. If this doesn't qualify as indomitable, I don't know what does.

Sorry if this a bit off-topic, but you never present an opportunity to work the subject in. The question is: did Obama or did he not tell a national audience just weeks ago that his experience of Rezko consisted of 'five hours of legal work'? The answer is, of course: yes, he did.

The next question is: why are you not covering what constitutes an outright lie on the part of your favored candidate, who had something much more like a 13-year relationship with Rezko? Why are the media in general not covering this? It goes straight to the heart of the issue of superior character, which the candidate has clearly tried to claim. Does this not fit into the generalized Obama spin?

By the way, I really would like an answer on this.