Meanwhile, she is also actually going there on Wright. (I KNEW she wouldn't let it die down). She's saying, "oh I would not have been a member of that church).

Right. Because the Clintons have never associated themselves with anyone unsavory.

What about places Hillary has lived?

Obama has taken Illinois (where she grew up), Connecticut (law school), and D.C., but Hillary rallied and took Massachusetts (college), Arkansas, and New York. This leaves us at 3-3. So we must find a tie-breaker.

As Hillary has pointed out, she lived in Texas during the McGovern campaign. While she won the primary, she lost the caucus. Thus she gets a tie. But, as caucuses don’t count, tie goes to Clinton.

4-3! Hillary squeaks out a win in places she has lived. Those who know her best like her better by a technicality!

Slow news day?

She also leads 2-0 in states that start with the letter O and even if (as hoped and expected) Senator Obama wins in Oregon that will only bring him to losing 2-1 in the O So Critical O'Primaries.  

This significant win for Hillary is made even more compelling since the letter O plays a very prominent role in the Obama campaign logo.  Indeed, it is the first letter of HIS last name.

Still, he leads in 2-1 in states that start with the letter C so Plouffe may be able to spin this one as "a wash" provided that Obama does in fact win in Oregon on May 20th.

Issac....tell your pal at DailyKos he needs to brush up on his vertical geography if he wants to "tout " Hillary's elevation gains. Colorado and WY have higher number of Fourteeners than NM, UT, AZ, and NV combined. The highest peak in the union is in Alaska. Mt. McKinley anyone? Washington's Mt. Hood? Hawaii has more elevation than Pennsylvania. In fact California doesn't even rank the in the top ten for average elevation!

Not to make mountains out of mole-hills but even Obama's lowly win in Louisiana is still "higher" than Hillary's win in California since Lousiana's lowest point is only 8 feet below sea level while California's is a whopping -240 feet! But then Hillary has shown she'll sink to new levels to define what "victory" is.

education.usgs.gov/.../usa_geography_quiz.pdf

I don't think commonwealths should be allowed to vote.  What is a commonwealth anyway?  I don't know.  Nobody knows.  You want to be a state, then call yourself a state.  Or are you too good for that?  I'm looking at you, Massachu--however you spell it.  Lousy fancy-spelling commonwealthers.

Don't forget Hawaii, Adamvaught.  That makes it neck and neck again.

Ah wait, just reread your point. Never mind.  I'm drunk already.

With regard to elevation, didn't Obama win Alaska (Mt McKinley)? And CO, ID, UT, WA, WY? Or has Obama just won too many more low-lying states?

Also, this "commonwealth thing" is suspect anyhow, now that I think of it -- it's got a strong smell of European metrosexual socialism (why, Kentucky, WHYYYYY??).  "Common wealth" is what the tax-and-spend Democrats want to do with your money if they get in.

"Slow news day?"

Well, this commentary is about as relevant--or irrelevant--as anything else that's been published on the campaign in the past week.

Is anyone besides me getting tired of the feverish attempts by all and sundry to handicap this thing?

It all boils down to this:

1. Barring disaster, Obama will be Dem nominee.

2. Clinton will not step aside until June at the earliest, probably later.

3. Nobody has a clue who'll win in November.  

Anybody who takes any divergent position has his head up his ass, and anybody who seeks to mine the intricacies of points 1,2, or 3 is a bore.

adamvaught, You forgot that Obama was raised in Hawaii. That would bring his tally up to four.

singlespeed,

Wyoming has no fourteeners. The highest point is Gannett Peak at 13,798.  Mt Hood is in Oregon, not Washington, and is slightly over 11,000 ft.  Mt. Whitney is indeed in CA, but at 14,500 it is the highest point in the continental U.S., eclipsing anything in CO.  Also,  Mt Rainier is the highest point in WA, over 14,400, also just higher than any point in CO.

CO does have the distinction of having the most peaks over 14,000 at 55, however, many of these are smaller tors located on a larger massif that contains several peaks.  Does that make each one a separate mountain?  Probably not.  It's all in the definition.