Wes, I know I shouldn't bother trying to use actual information against your proven gut feelings, but here are some facts from last night's "big, big loss" for Obama:

Both candidates recieved about 7.3 million votes.

Obama will end up with more delegates, somewhere between 1 and 15.

Obama won 14 states, Clinton 6.

I haven't said anything about his electability vs. hers, nor have I counted any upcoming elections in his column. I merely pointed out that at this point, only a moron (in this case, our pal Wes) would say she's got it wrapped up. Since you're so interested in the accuracy of others, I'll expect a retraction shortly.

Your assertions are ridiculous. I'm not responsible for the actions of someone else (especially a random letter-poster) solely because we support the same candidate. It's clear that the post is riddled with errors, and that fact has been pointed out over and over again in these letters. When I say something inaccurate, that's when I'll take responsibility for it.

Why follow logic when you can make bold, empty assertions? He's ahead in many of the states that are coming up in the next three weeks, has considerably more money, and seems to be on the rise. But since she won two populous states (that weren't winner-take-all), it's over. Hard to argue with such an astute follower of electoral politics.

I didn't say he was leading overall. I said he won more delegates last night, which would go against the notion of a "big loss." She's got the lead when you include superdelegates, but unlike the state delegates, those aren't committed until the convention.

"Obama Lost Last Night Big Time. You don't lose California and New York big and be the nominee. It's impossible."

This is going to get a little complicated, so I'll use as many small words as possible.

The name of the game is delegates.

Obama got more of these "delegates" last night than did Clinton.

First one to 2025 wins.

Traister's article, while interesting, engages in the same level of fudging that she seems to be accusing the mainstream media of doing. The fact of the matter is, Obama won all of the states he was supposed to, plus a couple (MO, CT, MN) that she was leading in the polls right up until yesterday. The only reason that this can be considered a win on any level for Clinton is because the chattering class talked about some sort of tidal wave. It's a very close race, and at this point Obama has a slight edge because of lead he has in the states that vote in the next couple of weeks and the money he's got. Staving off defeat is not a decisive victory for HRC.

As for the posters, the experience argument is tired. Clinton wants to have it both ways. She wants to claim her husband's years in the White House as experience, but she wants to "run on (her) own record." If those years constitue relevant experience, she should release her papers from that time so that we can know what she was doing. At the moment, the one thing that we know for sure is that the "Day One President" almost submarined her hsuband's first term with her botching of health care. If she contributed widely to anything productive, she ought to have those papers released. Otherwise, her only relevant experience in governing is 7 years in the Senate to his 3.

Finally, the people talking about the young, arrogant Obama seem to have no idea how representative they are of a generation whose time in power is slipping behind the horizon.