I'm proud of Texas too. It gave more of her delegates to Sen. Obama.

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

Also, Sen. Obama picked 8 more delegates in California on Tuesday. For those of you bad at math (which seems to be a fair number of Clinton supporters), that would appear to be twice as many delegates as Sen. Clinton actually ended up winning on March 4.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801

So, all you "strong-woman-haters" can continue to rant against Samantha Power if you so wish. (I kid, I kid.) I just hope you realize that the chances of her working in an Obama administration are significantly higher than those of Clinton winning the Democratic nomination. Because, guess what? Mathematically, it's over, and the Clinton campaign is drawing dead.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

Tough break. It couldn't have happened to a nicer candidate.

"and unless Obama changes his message and does it fast, he stands little chance of winning."

Uh, he's already won.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

While we're on the subject of "groupthink", I know math can be hard, but it's not that hard. Clinton has basically been mathematically eliminated from contention. But, if you don't believe me go hit up Slate's delegate calculator and try it yourself.

Don't forget to add Obama's 8 new California delegates (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801) -- which doubles Clinton's March 4 take, thanks to Obama seemingly winning the Texas caucus. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802)

And the UADs will pose a problem for Clinton too... (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/convention-math-remember-the-u.php).

So, yeah, it's over. You might as well throw those Clinton donations into the fireplace. Or, better yet, give 'em to a worthwhile charity.

Sorry, but this is a bad article, Joe.

If Clinton has nothing to hide, which may very well be true, she should just release her tax returns. If it was incumbent upon Rick Lazio to do so seven years ago, as per Howard Wolfson then, surely it's incumbent for Sen. Clinton to do the same, now that she seeks the highest office in the land.

Also, frankly I'm rather surprised you don't take a harder line against the comparison of Barack Obama to Ken Starr. Given how much time you spent fighting Starr and his ilk, I thought you would find the comparison hyperbolic and insulting to the extreme.

As Chris Sinnard notes below, it's really sad to see you attempting to engage in the smear-by-association regarding Tony Rezko. (Read Greenwald's piece, noted below, when he explicitly compares said attempts to exactly what you and Gene decried in The Hunting of the President.)

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

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

Travel with me, if you will, to 48 hours ago: the Jack Keane story again, to put this in perspective. It's NAFTAgate again.

http://minipundit.typepad.com/minipundit/2008/03/two-faced-clint.html

"If Senator Clinton can best Senator Obama in today's round of primaries and caucuses and go on to capture the White House, a co-author of the surge strategy in Iraq says he is convinced she would hold off on authorizing a large-scale immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq.

In a weekend interview, a retired four-star general, Jack Keane, said that when he briefed Mrs. Clinton in late 2006 and January 2007 on the counteroffensive strategy known as the surge, she "generally supported the surge strategy in the sense she wanted it to succeed but she was skeptical about its chances."

…

Mr. Keane is in a position to know Mrs. Clinton, having worked informally with her since 2001, when he was vice chief of staff for the Army. Early last year, the Clinton team even asked the retired general to become a formal adviser to the campaign on military issues, a request Mr. Keane declined, as he has done when asked by other candidates."

What Fester said. The rules were made long ago, and if Sen. Clinton was half the competent leader she makes herself out to be, she would've rolled Obama in all the caucuses across the country.

The fact she didn't speaks volumes about her judgment, her executive ability, and her foresight. On the bright side for the rest of us, the fact she didn't means she's also basically mathematically eliminated at this point.

Say what you will about Barack Obama. At least he knew what he was getting into in the presidential process, studied the rules, came up with a plan, and executed it to perfection. Clinton seems to have assumed it would be given to her, much like the Democratic nomination in the 2000 NY Senate race.

By the way, thank you, Texas, for backing Senator Obama.