Comments about how Washington is one of those red states we don't need to win in the general?

Red state? 2004 results:

Kerry/Edwards: 52.8211%

Bush/Cheney: 45.6403%

Stop the presses. How's he doing in Louisiana?

Great results in NE and WA -- Obama's raking the votes in. Clinton's barely leading in LA (41% to 40%) -- I wonder if, post-Katrina, what's left of the Democratic electorate in LA.

Cyth: he just pulled ahead of Clinton in LA (44% to 40%), although it's only 1% reporting.

...and they picked Obama.

and Louisiana's going his way too! Yeow!

10% reporting, Obama's at 52% to Hillary's 38%.

She's spinning the February contests as contests she's *planning* to lose, and then she hopes to come into Ohio & Texas, guns a-blazing. Problem is, that didn't work out so well for Rudy...

The fact is, Hillary had no post-Super Tuesday strategy, because she was supposed to have it sewn up by then.

Obama's 50-state strategy will win the nomination and the White House.

Exactly my thoughts, Anonymous. Giuliani knew he couldn't win the early primaries, so he focused on the "big" states later on hoping for a blowout. But as he learned, primaries don't work like that. Obama is likely to do well in the next few weeks, and by the time Texas and Ohio come up he'll be well positioned for them.

The fact you need to spend at least 2-4 hours to vote in caucus shows it's totally undemocratic. It's biased in favor of high income against low income workers. The exit poll of all primary states showed Obama won on high income white and all blacks. When Pennsylvania, Texas, and Ohio comes around, the delegates will back to slight favor for HRC.

Why do I feel like you be posting a lot more often if Hillary was the one winning these states. "Senator from Illinois" - why so dry? Its already been called, does the War Room need some help posting. I can already see you want to signify these were only "caucuses." I'll help you, here's the headline - Obama Sweeps Nebraska, Washington and Louisiana. Hillary camps spins, spins, spins.

Salon over the last 2 weeks has gone so in the tank for Hillary its ridiculous. But the people are choosing the candidate this time, not the media.

LA's been called for Obama, so he's three for three tonight! Sweet sweep!

Curiously, Huckabee's looking to sweep, too -- LA and WA are leaning his way, at least for now. That's good; anything that makes Mad John McCain's coronation that much more difficult is good news for the Dems.

burlydee writes: "Salon over the last 2 weeks has gone so in the tank for Hillary its ridiculous. But the people are choosing the candidate this time, not the media."

Two weeks? Try two months...

Now, I guess I should apologize for a small gloat earlier. I don't wish to gloat. I actually think Hillary Clinton is OK.

Obama doesn't have it completely nailed yet, and I imagine if the opposition has plans to take it negative, now is the time they'll choose. But I'm hoping that it doesn't turn ugly.

I think Obama has run a very respectable campaign, focusing largely on the issues. People have accused him of playing the race card, but I don't think he has done that very much at all (perhaps because the race card cuts both ways, but also because his strengths transcend that).

I really hope the Hillary supporters will get past the whole "we must support her because she's a woman and this will be a boost for women's issues!" tactic. It is beneath our democracy to use that as a top selling point for a candidate. More importantly, it distracts from the fact that Obama's presidency will almost certainly have a positive impact on issues important to feminists.

So here's my self-imposed rule, should Obama continue to win: No gloating. If Obama wins, it will be on his strengths, not on how dirty his campaign and supporters are able to fight.

As for Salon, even though Joan Walsh (a coyly non-admitting Hillary supporter) and Rebecca Traister (originally an Edwards supporter) have had a strong Hillary Clinton bias in many articles and analyses, they've also taken pains to point out their admiration for Obama.

it's his supporters I'm having trouble with. Sheesh, look at the gloating already, the 90s-style Clinton-bashing. The rethugs couldn't do it better themselves. It's one reason I've migrated from Edwards to Hillary - Clinton-hate just brings out the ornery in me. I want a candidate to support, not a movement, or a messiah.

Word on the street is Obama also won the Virgin Islands, by 90%.

How could three states be more diverse than Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana? These were not close. Billary got her considerable butt handed to her, and it will happen again in the so called "Potomac" primaries next. Are the Clintons counting on Diebold to steal Ohio? The movement in this country is palpable. I was for Edwards, and still maintain he defined progressive issues better than anyone running, but we- our entire extended family, all three generations, including former Republicans- are unanimously and unambiguously behind Barack Obama. He will win in November. If billary can somehow Superdelegate the nomination out from under Obama. You want to see ugly, Karl Rove style? Watch the Clintons between now and March 4.

is John McCain calling Obama a "young whippersnapper"

Just imagine the two of them on stage together. Almost literally, the past and the future. I can't imagine the American people, at this point in time, choosing the past. I heard Obama this evening use both "turn the page" and "a new chapter" in his J-J speech. That's what it's about, now. That's what makes him a stronger candidate against McCain.

We've crossed the bridge; it's time to actually enter the 21st Century.

He also won Virgin Islands (also himself forgot them in his speech).

Four states , four victories.

This speech is interesting . He is responding the critics on selling hope.

Some people start to call him a cult leader, but they are wrong : cult leader turn attention to him and disempower his followers. Obama is empowering people . He is more like a motivation speaker.