Ok, there's a lot of questionable stuff here, so let's take it frame-by-frame.

"You are really being dishonest. Obama is only ahead in the popular vote if you exclude Florida and Michigan and even then it's a razor thin margin of less than 250,000 votes of which the majority is from once again, hard red states that no Dem is going to take in November. IE, irrelevant."

So, let me make sure I understand this. The Democrats in "hard red states" who voted are irrelevant. But the Dems who voted in a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot is all-important. Riiiiight. Even Sen. Clinton admits the Michigan count is bogus. Or, at least, she used to, back in 2007: "This election they're having is not going to count for anything" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859)

"Whereas Florida and Mich will make a BIG diff in November. (also it's worth noting it was a Republican legislature in Florida that willfully "changed the rules so their votes wouldn't count" ,not the Democrats in Florida)"

This is a retroactive talking point, pretty common these days, that is absolutely false. The Florida Dems voted UNANIMOUSLY to move the primary forward to Jan. 29. If you don't believe me, read the frickin' press release:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrnothp08/fdp061107pr.html -- "Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman and U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-Orlando) today announced that the Florida Democratic leadership voted unanimously to accept January 29 as the date for the binding 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary in Florida...'Florida Democrats have spoken, and we have listened,' Thurman said."

"As for the superdels, it is there JOB to intervene in no-win sitatuations like this and turn them into win situations. It seems like the entire left and radical black community can't deal with that...I am not interested in appeasing what should be obvious to anyone now is a prospectively the biggest losing ticket since Dukakis, and nobody else should be either."

ShawnWM, you keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. You may think the Obama ticket is the biggest losing one since Dukakis, but there's absolutely no evidence of this except in your own mind. In fact, all the evidence suggests Obama is at least as strong a candidate as Sen. Clinton, and some suggests he's got much higher upside. (Stronger downticket in red states, much lower negatives, won't bring out the stark raving anti-Clinton GOP'ers to the polls, etc.)

Also, there are not nearly enough "radical blacks" to give Obama the huge percentages he racked up all over the country, so you need to put that talking point to bed. It sorta reflects badly on you.

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that the average voter is going to go bonkers over the Jeremiah Wright flap. A month ago, you and your ilk were arguing that Deval Patrick and plagiarism were going to be Obama's catastrophic implosion. Two weeks ago, it was Tony Rezko. In two weeks, you'll be arguing that something else means Obama's dead in the water. Forgive me if I don't take your "sky is falling" concern-trolling seriously anymore.

The American people are perfectly capable of putting this in context. And I'm sure, for the vast majority of voters, they won't much care that Obama's pastor says unfortunate things at times. Most people who regularly attend church have encountered a similar situation at one point or another.

So, don't worry. This will all blow over -- in fact, much of it already has. And Sen. Obama will still win in November. And there will be much rejoicing.

Well, AKA, that was a devastating riposte.

Head in the sand. That's the spirit! With the right kind of attitude, you can ignore Sen. Clinton's loss for many months yet.

"I've put my cards on the table and I challenge you to do the same. Maybe that's something you don't learn at Harvard."

Again with the Harvard snark. Really, there's not much call for it.

As for myself, my cards have always been on the table. If you really care about how I've come to my opinions, beyond what I post here, just click on my name and look around. Maybe that's something you don't learn in the mother country.

In any case, I don't hate the Clintons. Far from it. Like many people who spent time in their operation, I'm just disappointed in them. Extremely disappointed, in fact.

Disloyalty is a strong word to throw around, but it's a far easier thing to stick by one's principles than by a given man or woman. Since you like to cite works of literature in your posts, I would've thought you would've learned that from All the King's Men.

In any case, I don't feel like going into at length again, but I explained in depth my original reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton, on the day before Iowa, here:

http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/005164.html

And -- as with most Dems, I'd wager -- the conduct of the Clinton campaign in the ensuing months has only further diminished their reputation in my eyes.