Man, leave for a few hours and the Clinton dead-enders come back in force. It's like pruning weeds around here.

FWIW, nobody has answered my question from yesterday, and given me any likely scenario where Clinton wins the nomination. Did y'all just concede it won't happen, then? I'm waiting, people. Be aware, the math has gotten even harder: Don't forget to include Obama's net of thirteen delegates yesterday (10 from IA, 3 from CA)

Milton, I don't know what "Harvard-educated (sort of)" means -- you either went to Harvard or you didn't. But, speaking as someone who's Harvard-educated (really), it doesn't make a bit of difference where you went to school -- your argument should stand on its own merits regardless.

Also, your statement about Wright and African-Americans needs to be unpacked a bit. I know plenty of African-Americans who don't agree with Wright on the origin of AIDS, for example.

And, to get some perspective on the Wright scandal: lest we forget, Sen. Clinton has deemed as "one of my heroes" and "a great American" an African-American orator who said that the Fourth of July is "a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour." Will she reject and denounce? America is waiting, Senator.

That's Frederick Douglass, by the way, and I'm being facetious. The point is, there's been a longstanding tradition in African-American oratory of being more critical of the United States than white people might find immediately comfortable, and for good reason. For Douglass, it was the persistence of slavery. For Wright, it was cops training fire hoses on little girls. Some of Wright's more intemperate language should definitely be rejected and denounced, but let's keep things in historical perspective.

Finally, Katetex, that Rasmussen daily tracker you were waving around like a silver bullet last night? That gap widened again today. Which means, of course...well, nothing. Polls, particularly daily polls, fluctuate within the margin of error. But let's concentrate on the delegate math first, and then we can work on the harder stuff.

"I have yet to read an article, or hear about some "real" leadership exhibited by Obama on a larger scale other than a community organizer."

Then you're not trying, and/or not listening.

Sigh...you better start from Day 1. This WP article, written on the day Obama announced, discusses his leadership on a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill and death penalty reform in Illinois.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262.html

From there, keep reading. I prefer Dreams from my Father, but perhaps The Audacity of Hope for you? It covers more of his leadership accomplishments.

Or +10, as the case may be.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=898

It's right next to the story about Obama's 9 new delegates in Iowa.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obamas_gains.html

"@KcM Where do you guys find this stuff???"

The Internet sees all. Its gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. You know of what I speak, Fester. A great eye, lidless, wreathed in flame.

"Obama only has one militant black preacher endorsement...Hillary needs to close this gap ASAP."

Does this guy count?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

"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."

Truman was considered far more charismatic than Dewey at the time. That's one of the main reasons HST won, because he became "Give 'em Hell Harry!" while Dewey just lied there like a bump on a log, running a "civil but dull" campaign.

Regarding Rezko and that Tribune article, did you happen to read their follow-up editorial? They seem pretty happy about what they heard.

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.

The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did...

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

"You're essentially saying the same thing KcM said: anyone who doesn't approve of Obama is unbalanced, full of hatred."

Sigh...there you go again. That's pretty obviously NOT what either Abe or I said. In fact, we said exactly the opposite. What we said is that the angry sorts who post vitriolic screeds on comment boards are no indication of Clinton supporters on the ground, and thus of the election as it stands in "middle America."

You seem to have a continual habit of ginning up reality to suit your pique.

I just wanted a chance to explain the FL/MI math here, since it seems all too any Clinton supporters in these pages must have it explained again and again. (Not that it seems to make much difference.)

Abe, yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Thanks for stating it so clearly.