"What if a woman were Secretary of Defense? Or Head of the Fed?"

Or Secretary of State, for that matter. That would really change things.

Also, to ShawnWM, sesanders, and all the other deadenders warning of dire portent in the PA, OH, WV numbers, here's the key fact you seem to be missing: Primary performance is no indicator of general election voting. Ask Al Gore.

Or you could look at all the polls, which have Obama beating McCain, even now, after three months of kid glove treatment for the Senator from Arizona. (As would pretty much any other Democrat, including Sen. Clinton.)

So, sorry, your revenge fantasies will have to remain unfulfilled. Mark my words: Sen. Obama is going to win in November, and win handily.

KateTex, you said:

"Edwards knows damn well that Hillary Clinton actually cares about the people - blue collar workers, the poor, the uninsured - whom Edwards has long portrayed as his raison d'etre as a politician. Whereas Obama merely gives these constiuent groups lip service - when he even bothers to acknowledge their existence."

Which is hyperbolic, unprovable, and just plain goofy. I responded:

"Also, you're conflating blue-collar, poor, and uninsured with white...again."

Which you are, unless you're arguing that Sen. Clinton has had a word to say about poor, blue-collar African-Americans in the months since South Carolina. She hasn't. Quite the contrary, given her recent remarks in USA Today.

Put another way, when someone argues Obama has a problem with poor voters or working-class voters, they invariably mean poor white voters or white working-class voters. But, as I said, you've been doing this from the very beginning.

As for the your ridiculous Obama-hates-women rant, some points:

* Since when did the many issues covered on Obama's site not become women's issues? Or does he have to segregate by gender to get through to you?

* Did you miss the fact that Obama has a 100 rating from Illinois Planned Parenthood, and was the only Senator in the race to help push back against the recent South Dakota ban? Look it up.

* Clinton didn't write It Takes a Village. A female ghostwriter did, whom Clinton promptly screwed over upon completion. Look it up. By contrast, Obama wrote both of his tomes.

* Clinton good for political women? Ever heard of Nita Lowey? She's the female candidate Clinton threw under the bus to grab the NY Senate Seat.

* Obama has never, ever, "publicly humiliated" Sen. Clinton. You're talking nonsense.

"But some experience running against a Republican would be nice."

Some might argue he's been getting that experience over the five months.

"Read the message boards. The responses to perfectly reasonable people who supported Hillary - for damned good reason - and read up the past six months."

Uh, I really wouldn't trust ShawnWM's assessment of what constitutes "perfectly reasonable."

In fact, most "perfectly reasonable" people who supported Hillary have figured out that the race is over and, although disappointed, are preparing to back Obama, the Democratic nominee, against John McCain and the Republicans.

The deadenders here -- ShawnWM, lolcait, cythera, katetex, etc.etc. -- sadly do not meet that standard.

"I guess it doesn't matter since the "uncommitted" (uh huh) Donna Brazile told them to stay home so you don't need their votes anyway."

She's undeclared, not uncommitted. Read the transcript again.

KateTex, the racial argument you were making was implicit in your terms. And you know exactly what I was talking about. You've done it before.

As for this growing "list of enemies" and the purported McCain landslide, that sounds like the same bubble of delusion you've been operating in for as long as you've been posting here.

"Edwards knows damn well that Hillary Clinton actually cares about the people - blue collar workers, the poor, the uninsured - whom Edwards has long portrayed as his raison d'etre as a politician. Whereas Obama merely gives these constiuent groups lip service - when he even bothers to acknowledge their existence."

Clearly, Edwards disagrees with you.

Also, you're conflating blue-collar, poor, and uninsured with white...again.

"Edwards's perfidy will simply make Hillary's supporters dig their heels in deeper, because one too many old-time higher-ups have stabbed her in the back. The latest shall henceforth be known as Benedict Edwards, if not mud."

Uh, John Edwards never owed Sen. Clinton anything, nor was he ever in her camp to begin with. So I'm not sure how you could characterize his decision as a betrayal.

Hey, it's kept you in business this long. Why quit now?

Kevin Harlan trots out that line all the time. Google it.

We've heard you, over and over again.

So see ya, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I think today's count was +10 for Obama.

Electeds to Obama today

1. Rep. Peter DeFazio, OR

2. Rep. Mazie Hironi, HI

3. Rep. Donald Payne, NJ (Switch from Clinton, but +2 offset by Chris Carney, PA to HRC)

DNC to Obama today

4. Vernon Watkins, CA

5. Wilbur Lee Jeffcoat, SC

6. John Gage, MD

7. Ernest Epinoza (Mr. Super), CA

8. Joe Johnson, VA

Guam certifies today

9. Pilar Lujan, Guam

NM add-on

10. Laurie Weahkee, NM

So, it's Obama +11, Clinton +1...or Obama +10.

As with Mickey Kantor's phantom epithets earlier today, I consider this a non-story. So Blumenthal e-mails people anti-Obama screeds constantly. As a Clinton supporter, that is his wont. And, unlike other writers/editors here we could mention, he announced himself as a Clinton guy early and resigned his position at Salon. Would that others here had followed his lead.

Also, I worked decently high-up in Democratic politics during l'affaire Lewinsky, and we were routinely getting fax-blasted by Blumenthal with the day's clips (almost all of which we'd already seen anyway, as had anyone else reading the news in the Internet era.) He's just one of those guys who is constantly sending out stuff. I'm willing to bet most of the people on his email-list have just considered him spam long before now.