There's winning, and there's winning in a rout. But I can't say I'm surprised you bring up race. It's all the Clintons have done all week.

For what it's worth, Clinton and Obama pulled the same amount of white males. In South Carolina. (My home state, I might add.) That should speak volumes about Obama's transracial appeal.

But, look, you've been all over these boards spewing anti-Obama venom, so there's no real point engaging with you now. My old employer -- James Carville -- is wont to say, "Don't waste time wrestling with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig loves it."

He is a wise man, and I'm going to invoke his advice right now.

Obama looked pretty happy about winning by 28%.

The story is not Bill Clinton.

The story is Barack Obama.

Please, get on the right page.

And then Bill Clinton gave a concession speech for Hillary -- shown on CNN and MSNBC -- in Independence, MO.

The double-headed candidate situation doesn't look to be ending quite yet.

I'll let you know when I see it. I'm not so naive to think politics is the province of angels. And I'm sure Senator Obama has some blemishes on his record, as most all successful candidates do. Nothing thus far adds up to much, though. The most troubling aspect of Obama's record to me is his ties to Tony Rezko -- but, thus far, they don't go any farther than Whitewater (which, didn't go anywhere at all, and not for want of looking.)

Where we would disagree, is that I think Clinton's campaign has gone beyond smart campaigning into outright Rovianism, for all the reasons I earlier outlined. You don't wear the ring, you destroy the ring. If we're going to act like Republicans to eat our own, we have no business complaining about the underhandedness of the GOP. None at all.

My point regarding Marshall, when I quoted his earlier views on the race card, was this: "Marshall is by no means an Obamabot."

You just wrote: "Josh Marshal retains the ability to see Obama as a candidate, not a saviour."

Thus, we agree. Marshall could not be called an "Obamabot."

As for what constitutes an "Obamabot," it's a rather goofy and perverse label in the first place. For my part, I have never argued that Clinton's comments on LBJ were racist, only that they were top-heavy and easy to misconstrue. And, rather than apologize that her remarks could be misconstrued on MTP, she, as is her wont, instead blamed a vast Obama conspiracy.

As for whether Clinton will "say/do anything to win," well I'd agree with that, as -- it seems -- do a lot of Democratic and left-leaning pundits, unaffilated with the Obama campaign, who are aghast at the events of the past three weeks. Go back to my long post before. What, in your mind, could the Clintons do that would be beyond the pale? Anything?

Thanks for proving my point: Marshall is by no means an Obamabot. In fact, he goes on -- in the entry you just posted -- to call himself thoroughly in the Clinton camp.

"To give you some perspective, I don't think there are many people who are bigger fans of Bill Clinton than I am or who've expended more ink defending him and his presidency. Nor am I particularly sold on Obama's candidacy...With the exception of a few days in early January I've gone on the assumption for many months that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. But I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished her."

This is to his credit, and I wish more Salon writers would follow his lead in announcing their support for a particular candidate.

By the way, it looks like John Edwards is getting the Clinton robocall treatment now too: http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/26/daughter-of-a-curtain-salesman-hits-son-of-a-millworker/