I am not disagreeing with anything you said here, Joe, but you should definitely rethink your assumption that you know who is on Blumenthal's mailing list. It's stone-cold easy to have multiple mailing lists, depending on who your target audience is (I certainly do), and it's highly likely that Blumenthal would maintain multiple lists for multiple uses. He's not going to include a friend such as yourself, for example, on an campaign-internal email list.

Bottom line: you simply don't know who is on Blumenthal's lists and what material they are receiving unless you actually ask the recipients and see the emails (and even then, if you're a suspicious hacker type, you realize that addresses can be spoofed). So unless you've personally verified that neither Tapper nor Klein received the emails to which Dreier refers, it's not reasonable for you to assert that "the truth is that neither Tapper nor Klein was on his e-mail list." You simply don't know, Joe.

And so after today, who will benefit from the extended primary season? Just wonderin'.

Every time I read about or hear a Clinton surrogate quote this new "needed delegate total," I can't help but think of Tom Lehrer:

Hooray for New Math!

New hoo hoo Math!

It won't do you a bit of good to review Math.

It's so simple.

So very simple,

That only a child can do it!

Substitute "politicians" for "a child," and there ya go.

Screen resolution is only half the story. If you're going to watch videos on a hand device, the size of the screen is critical. At 480x320 and 3.5", the iPhone is just barely big enough, in my view. Given the over-all proportions quoted in this article, Farhad, I'm guessing that the BlackBerry Bold is quite a bit smaller.

So, how big is the screen?

Hey, if we had 6 fingers on each hand, the milestone would be 480 (400 base 12); if we had 4 fingers on each hand, it would *also* be 480 (600, base 8).

We have 10 digits; what can ya do?

And yes, Jimmie Foxx. 544, if memory serves.

Alex writes, "[Ausman] had actually been thinking of endorsing Obama until he got a call from Clinton herself on Tuesday morning, and that his endorsement is meant as a message to Obama's campaign. "This is not about personal animosty, it's about bringing the country together," Ausman said."

This is baffling. How does saying you were going to endorse Obama, but switched to Clinton after getting a phone call from her "bring the country together?" How is it anything other than, "Clinton called me and Obama didn't, so neener neener!"? In what conceivable way does it bring the country together for him to pledge his support against the all-but-certain nominee?

I can't see this as having anything to do with anything other than pique. But maybe I'm too dense to see Ausman's brilliant strategy.

Actually, this kind of dissembling on taxes has been true since at least the Reagan administration. When Republicans do it, it's "revenue enhancement," even if it is a tax increase; when Democrats do it, it's a "tax increase" even if it isn't. That's just the way they play the game. The sad thing is that Democrats still don't have a consistent answer for it (that doesn't sound defensive) even after nearly 30 years. Will Rogers was right, wasn't he?

Someone tell the BSG humans that all the people are deep under the Earth, in Zion, where it's still warm. It may be true that humans scorched the skies, but The Machines did the rest.

They should keep an eye open for hovercraft, and make sure their fingers are on an EMP device. But start digging, Adama; they're down there somewhere.

Can we now dispense with the fiction that Karl Rove is not working for the Republican machinery during this election cycle? It was a thin facade to begin with; now it is completely tattered.

If he weren't such a jerk who had done so much damage to the country, I would feel sorry for Rove. Look at him: overweight, bald, glasses, smart mouth--this is a guy who almost certainly got beaten up a lot in High School.

Let this be a warning: tell your sons not to beat up that guy; he might turn into an evil Svengali.

Well said, Joan.

I loved that, Steve.

The press was all over Obama for accepting public financing, even though he didn't really promise anything, just implied it. (Yes, yes; it's a change of position, but he only promise to "sit down with the McCain campaign and talk about it.") McCain pulls possibly-illegal shenanigans with public and private financing reversals, and the press shrugs.

The press is all over Wesley Clark's comment about McCain passing the "Commander in Chief" threshold, in high dudgeon but having a hard time using the usual talking points about Democrats ("Traitor!" "Hates America!") because it's tough to do so against 4-star generals. But McCain's multiple flip-flops on multiple issues, including this one? Crickets.

By any reasonable measure, Obama should crush McCain this fall. But with this kind of help from the press, it's probably going to be close.