In the debate, Sen. Obama was responding to the following assertion by Clinton: "I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

When Blitzer posed the question to Obama, he said thus: "Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond."

And Obama did respond. He gave the answer you're calling an outright lie. But, that, in fact, is the correct answer to the question. Obama may have known Rezco for 15-some-odd years, but those legal hours were the only time he worked for or "represented" him, which was the key to both Clinton's smear and Blitzer's query.

Yes, he has known him longer. But that wasn't the question asked, and it'd be a strange thing for him to volunteer in the middle of a fractious debate. But, if you *really* have a problem with that sort of semi-evasive, lawyerly answer, I presume you won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.

You want to talk media hype? Fine, let's. Right now, it's looking like Sen. Clinton's major "comeback" victory last night will result in -- at best -- a margin of +10 delegates. (And that's being charitable. With the caucus results as they are right now, it's looking closer to being +4.) She's still down *at least* 100 delgates, and that's again being charitable. And now, for some reason, we're supposed to wait until PA for the next big contest.

What this ignores -- despite the fact I've already mentioned that Clinton has now basically been mathematically eliminated -- is that Obama will likely erase that +10 delegate win, and then some, with his margins in Wyoming and Mississippi just next week.

This isn't about what I say. It's about what the math says. Like I said to zenhead, go find one of the delegate calculators and try it yourself.

Also, I didn't say anything about cutting a protracted battle short. I said it should be ended when it's over. Mathematically, this race is now over.

Rage against the machine all you'd like, but numbers don't lie. From now herein, the Clinton campaign is running on borrowed time.

By the way, the situation facing the Clinton campaign now is explained quite well here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056

And that, folks, is why it's over.

Why do the pundits have such trouble with math?

It's over. As of last night, Obama's lead with pledged delegates is, for all intent and purposes, insurmountable. See also:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

Or, if those links don't do it for ya, go rustle up a delegate calculator of your own and spin me a scenario that makes any real world sense.

It is OVER, people. Sen. Clinton needed huge wins last night to stay viable. She didn't get 'em. As it looks now, she may have even lost the overall delegate count in Texas.

So, since we now basically know who's coming in first with regard to pledged delegates -- even with MI and FL brought into the equation -- and since the supers are not, under any circumstance and by their own admission, going to buck against the pledged delegate winner, there is no real point to keeping the race going, other than rubbernecking.

Put another way, as of last night the race for the democratic nomination is over. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is our nominee. The only thing left is the spectacle. Now, pundits and Clinton-diehards who are bad at math may relish such a bloodletting, but it's hard to see how it does the party any good.

If you want to argue that continued fighting will have a net-positive effect for Obama as our nominee in the general, or that a prolonged melee somehow sucks the media air from the McCain campaign, so be it. Just so you understand that our choice of nominee is now a foregone conclusion. Better luck next time, Sen. Clinton.

Your hopes are in vain. As of last night, Sen. Clinton has basically been mathematically eliminated. See my post a few pages ago.

And that's exactly what's wrong with Shapiro's piece. He's either willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant of the mathematical reality of the situation.

But I expect the press will come around in a few days.

You could just go back and read what I already wrote.

But, to repeat: As of last night, it's basically become mathematically impossible for Clinton to retake the pledged delegate lead. She needed much bigger wins in Ohio and Texas last night to stay viable.

Since the main supers have said, several times now, that they won't be overturning the pledged delegate count, the race is now effectively over.

Here are the links again, or play with a delegate counter and do your own math.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/4/162042/3056

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

As with the first reaction after Super Tuesday, the majority of pundits -- with a few exceptions -- have missed the real story here. But I presume they'll catch on in a day or two.

While we're trading attacks, perhaps War Room can post on Clinton's NAFTAgate tomorrow? Looking forward to it.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php