And he accuses Hillary of being entitled?

You will write nice things about Clinton then. All will rejoice.

RENDELL: I had a call from Senator Obama and he said, you know I'm going to be the nominee, and I didn't argue with him, I said, sure, and he said I just want to make sure nothing happens in Pennsylvania, the campaign here, that will make it harder for us to win in the fall. And I said, senator, don't even worry about that for five seconds.

I am stunned, outraged and
deeply troubled that Obama had the arrogance, the nerve to make such a call.

 It surely stinks that he felt so comfortable speaking to Rendell like that (is it fixed already?)

What is this?! Mafia politics? Because it sure sounds like a threat, and intimidation to me.

whew, methinks you've drunk deeply of the right-wingnut/obama machine's "talking points", and i use that term in its loosest sense.

yes, of course, we all know sen. clinton tortures puppies, eats babies (rare & lean) and sacrifices virgins, to bathe in their blood. but aside from all that.........................

have you checked the stigmata on sen. obama's wrists and ankles yet? i thought not. hint: think halloween costume shop. sadly, the apparent emptiness that is sen. obama is becoming more obvious daily, hence the tortured screams for sen. clinton to drop out. he'll not survive the run to aug. if she doesn't.

in fact, my bet is, after the upcoming slaughter in the remaining primaries, the country's going to be saying "barack who?", which is pretty much what they were saying before IA.

Take, particularly, the 435 superdelegates who represent congressional districts. In California, for example, Arnone project 37-31 for Clinton based on 52%-43% state popular vote. In order for that to happen, a number of the 34 (quick count) Congressional representatives would have to defy the will of their districts. Is it likely a superdelegate with a district constituency, not a state constituency, will vote based on the state results? Looking at the county map, my guess is that Clinton won 75%+ of the congressional districts and is likely to take 22 of the 34 congressional superdelegates (if not more). That is already a larger margin than Arnone's projection. If the rest of the state superdelegates do allot themselves based on the 52-43 spread, then she will pick up a 3-4 advantage for the remaining 34 for a spread more like +16 (42-26) from California, not +6.

Also, congressional district allocation works against Obama because his small states with 1 or 2 congressional districts will allot themselves much like state superdelegates, Arnone's current math with some slight shifts in favor of Obama. Larger states with more congressional districts (Clinton's base) should prove to be a boon to Clinton in the superdelegate math. Lastly, what if her former and current advantage actually reflects superdelegate logic based on constituency (not state) based allocations? She will continue to run a 55%-60% and 80+ superdelegate advantage. Then, Clinton only needs to make up 70 pledged delegates in the coming weeks.

If my quick estimate is correct, what this says is that the Clinton campaign needs to adjust the rhetorical battle over the logic of superdelegates to the will of constituencies, not the will of states. A constituency argument makes sense anyway since her core voters are the blue state Democratic voters minus African-Americans and some self-fashioned "creative classists." It is a twofer that relegates Obama's voters to red-staters (unjustly gerrymandered congressional districts at that) and anomalous pockets in the blue states.

You replied saying: "All senior lecturers are listed as profs, the regular lecturers are listed in their own category beneath it. Time to give it up."

I get that. However, Obama was a Lecturer (not a Senior Lecturer), from 1992-96. During that time he would not have been appeared on the faculty list under the heading of "Professors". He would have been correctly listed under the heading "Lecturers in Law".

*BTW, as you may already know, a number of, named, U of C officials redressed the question on Friday. See Lynn Sweet in the Chicago Sun Times: Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor. Among other things, the officials attempt to further define the original misleading statement that: "From 1992 until...2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School."

Titles aside, Obama taught part-time and was never employed as a tenured or tenure-track Professor. While that isn't ignominious, it's also not particularly grandiose.

The question now is what will stick: the original un-sourced statement which obviously served to confirm the perception that Obama was a full-fledged Professor; or the subsequent sourced statement which undermines that notion.

So, they pulled 90 kids in, busted into locked rooms in the kids' parents' house, searching for who knows what, and made all the kids take breathalyzers.  Lights, sireens, the whole deal.

There was a keg there.  But, it was full of root beer.

The organizer decided to throw the rootbeer party after some kids in his high school got suspended from sports for being seen (in photos, mind you) drinking from red plastic cups.  I guess those were the opaque cups one sees used for beer or soft drinks, so the Mommy School wasn't happy.  And, as everyone knows, if momma ain't happy, ain't no one gonna be happy.  The school's site is here - the school name is in the main article - if you want to thank them for their vigilance.