I think its important to note that a day after the candidates have presumably called a moratorium on the politics of race for the time being, Salon chooses to run a front page article on the subject. Can we not let the candidates be the ones who fall off the wagon without pushing them off by keep echo-chambering the narrative?

In general, it seems that through our own lack of diligence to our duty as citizens to inform ourselves and research our choices, we are being infected by this tendency for the memes put out by the campaigns, media et. all to become our reality. We just blindly digest it and never consider our own negligence as voters.

For example, "Ethel M" states in these letter that she isn't a Hillary Clinton supporter. Yet the narrative of "Obama the empty suit" is still influential:

"I'm not supporting Obama because I seriously can't figure out what he stands for in practicality and he certainly didn't take his senatorial duties seriously when we elected him to them. "

This is within a few days of his release of a detailed economic stimulus proposal, in an age where the Internet she is using contains a website of his with detailed policy proposals, where "www.votesmart.org" has a voting record spanning his entire career, and YouTube provides video of the debates and interviews in which he lays out very specific policy proposals.

Are we doing our homework, or are we relying on spin, 30-second snippets of speeches made in victory or defeat, and articles such as this to shape the narrative?

Is it mathematically impossible? With the help of the numerous superdelegates (luminaries of the Democratic Primary), couldn't one candidate take it? Thus, in the case of a near tie, even if the insurgent (Obama) comes out slightly ahead, then the DNC establishment candidate takes it (Clinton). This would happen, because the super delegates are party hierarchy oriented, and a majority will automatically line-up behind the party establishment candidate unless Obama (insurgent) blows the doors off. Which, as you mentioned, he can't. In the case of a tie, the "house" wins. I strongly believe an Obama win would be the best for this country, but I'm not sure I'm seeing how...

I can't deny that the Rezko thing gives the appearance of conflict and is not resonant with his message. However, to say the skeleton is untested is to ignore the attempts by the Chicago Sun Times to hang this around him for about 2 years now. They haven't been able to find enough to go beyond the "this looks bad" realm (which it does). Several Clinton surrogates and supporters keep implying "this isn't it, but it will come..." and to me this looks like a whisper campaign to try to magnify Rezko without having to actually provide any substantiated claims.

Take a look at Media Matters (which can't be accused of slanting against Clinton):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801250006?f=h_top

aka "UPI baselessly asserted that Obama paid 'substantially lower than market value' for Rezko property"

I also take issue with the general meme that "Hillary's skeletons are battle tested" thus her many campaign financing scandals etc. somehow don't count. That's a rousing election slogan, btw: "Hillary: because we already KNOW she's corrupt".

And I think Obama can put plenty of blowback on John "Keating 5" McCain if they want to go that route...

While both candidates did well tonight, and each did what they needed to do. I think Clinton had in mind taking the edge off her personality and blunting the blowback her on-the-trail approach has caused.

But I think the big winner in the debate from a strategy standpoint is Obama. I say this as a supporter, but I think he did the most important piece of business he could have: address the substance issue.

Although Obama has detailed policy papers, and his interview with the SF Chronicle is extremely meaty, he has suffered from the (I believe mistaken) impression that he is style without substance: hope and fluff but without the policy chops. Perhaps because the policy forums, papers and the like are outlets that only the most dedicated internet archeologists often dig up.

So here, he forgoes too much flower while remaining clear and forceful... but goes into wonk mode. He matches her point for point, goes into detail on every question and provides hard details. Some of his proposals perhaps you liked better, some perhaps not. But by going toe-to-toe with Clinton on her turf and biggest strength, he neutralizes one of her biggest sell points.

Also, I think the "you want someone who is RIGHT day one" really punched home the judgement thing in a very simple, straight-up formula.