We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the GOP.

Besides, as Attorney General Spitzer put people in jail for prostitution. At the very least, he should lose his job for committing the same indulgences he personally locked people up for. It's not a question of personal indiscretion. It's about the rule of law. (I know Republicans said that about Monica Lewinsky and perjury, but this is much more of an open and shut case.)

Also, as someone else noted, paying $5500/hr and breaking the law to get laid, particularly when you're a visiting governor in Washington DC -- a city where even lowly LD's can trade on their political connects for sex -- is criminally stupid...

I don't really see how anyone can have his back on this. I'm also of the opinion that prostitution should be decriminalized and regulated. But Spitzer lost any chance of weathering this storm when he put people in jail -- and partly made his name -- busting up prostitution rings. That's significantly more than just hypocrisy. That's acting like the rules you've enforced to lock people away don't happen to apply to you.

I mean, when John McCain looks for sex outside his marriage, at least he himself doesn't pay for it. He has the American people pay for it, in the form of sweetheart deals to Paxson Communications...

I kid, I kid. As I said below, Spitzer should definitely go down for this. It might be different if he [a] hadn't cast himself as an avatar of moral probity and [b] he hadn't put people in jail for the very same thing he's been up to. But, as it is, he's gotta go, and it looks like it's probably happening tonight.

If only for the blatant hypocrisy of it. Not only has Spitzer established a public persona as a squeaky-clean moral reformer, but he himself has prosecuted prostitution rings. Now, I personally don't think prostitution is all that much of a sin, and should even be decriminalized, if ways can be found to protect the women involved and to stop things like human trafficking. But, then again, I haven't built a career on being morally sanctimonious and putting people in jail for indiscretions I've also enjoyed.

Let David Paterson have some run. (Don't worry, Clinton supporters -- he's pro-Clinton too.)

I was referring to white people, actually. Ivy Leaguers, in fact. So it'd be more akin to the Brooks Brothers Riot than Watts. But, easy for you to make that mistake -- you're one of the worst race-baiters around here. (And didn't you say you were taking a break? Please do.)

As for popular vote, Obama's up actually, by around 600,000. But, who cares? As Mark Penn has reminded us, this is a delegate race. Talking about the popular vote is akin to the New England Patriots saying they should get the Super Bowl trophy because they happened to get more yards. You don't change the rules in mid-stream.

The race is mathematically over, and Sen. Obama is our nominee. Rage against that fact all you'd like, but you might as well rail against gravity.

Not only do I know several dozen people at least who'll be voting for Nader or McCain if Clinton steals the nomination, a least a dozen of those people have already threatened to go to Denver and start throwing bricks if the supers break against the pledged delegate vote.

Fortunately, it'll never come to that. The supers are politicians. They have no interest in committing party suicide for the sake of the Clintons' ambitions. Sen. Obama is our nominee, as anyone even slightly good at math can tell you.

Regarding your question about the Texas caucuses, see the following:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802

"The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegated to Clinton's 30 delegates."

So, given that Clinton picked up 4 delegates in the primary half of the Texas contest (65-61), Obama picked up a net total of 3 delegates from Texas.

In other words, Obama won Texas. So Clinton's winning streak is in fact 2: RI and OH.

And before anyone thinks this is the wrong way to look at it, remember: as both campaigns have admitted, this is a delegate race.

Sen. Clinton hasn't faced a hostile press. She's faced a lazy, easily cowed, herd mentality press, same as everyone else. And consider the following.

* When you're the "inevitable" frontrunner for over a year, and your campaign stumbles terribly when the actual voting starts, it's a story. See also: Rudy Giuliani.

* When you lose eleven contests in a row, you're going to get bad press.

* When your campaign sends out conference calls and e-mails every day that attempt to spin events in full defiance of reality, you're going to get bad press.

And, in many ways, Sen. Clinton has gotten a total pass from the media hordes. Consider for example:

* Her dubious claim to 35 years of experience, which has never been unpacked by the press.

* Her dubious claim to foreign policy/crisis experience. See TPM's Josh Marshall today: "[L]et's get real and admit that Hillary Clinton is getting the free ride of all free rides on her repeated invocations of foreign policy experience."

* The fact that all of the sordid scandals of the 90's have been basically avoided by the press. (Yes, I know there's nothing to Whitewater. There's nothing to Tony Rezko either, but we sure seem to hear his name quite a bit.)

* The fact that, if any other candidate faced the mathematical reality Clinton does, s/he would no longer be taken seriously by the press. (See also: Huckabee.)