Realitycounts, you're really not living up to your moniker. There hasn't been a single superdelegate out there who has said they'll overturn the pledged delegate leader. Not one. In fact, most -- including super supers like Pelosi, Biden, and Richardson -- have said the opposite, that they'll definitely ratify the pledged delegate leader.

Turn down the volume on all the back and forth, and here's what's actually happened in Election 2008, during Clinton's theoretical "Best Week Ever."

Tuesday:

Delegate-wise, Clinton wins OH and RI, Obama wins TX and VT. Clinton: +4 delegates.

California certifies its Super Tuesday vote, giving Obama 4 more, and Clinton 4 less delegates than previously announced. Obama +4 delegates. Clinton -4 delegates.

Saturday:

Obama wins the Wyoming caucus, picking up an additional 3 delegates (It's a 7-5 split, with 1 UAD (unpledged add-on delegate)). Obama +3 delegates.

So, since last weekend, Obama has picked up 7 delegates on Clinton, notwithstanding the supers (where he's also made gains this week.) Clinton remains down between 130 and 150 pledged delegates. There are only 50 states in the Union. So unless Dubya gets real busy annexing places in the next few months, IT'S OVER.

As I told you last time, reality counts.

Writing everything in bold doesn't make your case any stronger. In fact, IT'S LOOKS A LOT LIKE YELLING IN ALL-CAPS.

As for the Ken Starr thing, that's ridiculous. What the Obama campaign was saying is that Hillary Clinton should release her tax returns for the last 7 years, which is standard operating procedure in virtually any election, let alone one for the highest office in the land.

You probably already know this, but in 2000 none other than Clinton flunky Howard Wolfson -- the guy who brought up Ken Starr -- was running around with a fellow in an Uncle Sam outfit demanding GOP Senate candidate (and Hillary's opponent) Rick Lazio -- wait for it, wait for it -- release his tax returns.

So, what the Obama campaign was suggesting has nothing to do with Ken Starr. Bringing him up is an obvious -- and pathetic -- reach.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.)