Right now, blacks make up 38% of registered dems (2.7 million total) and 10% of unaffiliated voters (1.2 million total), which indicates that they make up 31% of voters eligible for the Dem primary.  So when you see numbers in the low 30% from the pollsters, they are assuming that turnout will be in proportion to total potential voters.

However, so far in early voting black turnout has been reported to be 38%, indicating that they are turning out more in proportion to the makeup of registered dems than total potential voters.

It's very difficult for Hillary to get into single digits.  She gets there if AA vote turns out to be less (like 25%), if her share of the white vote approaches 70% or if she can peel off a significant number of AA voters (total 15-25%).  Each of these is unlikely, IMO.

But for me and many others, it's not a matter of holding Obama accountable for what Wright says. It's a matter of what we can see from the way Obama has handled this issue. If Obama's not the nominee, he can take baths with Wright for all I care. But if he's representing the party in the fall, we all have a right to evaluate the terrible job he has done with this issue. First, he beats Hillary over the head with his "old politics" cudgel, then reveals himself to be exactly the same. In may ways that's just politics, though, and it's hard to argue with when Hillary has showed herself to be perfectly capable of playing hardball. It's more an issue with Obama's supporters, who continue to portray Obama in glowing terms that he just doesn't deserve.

But after the last two Presidential elections, we are perfectly within our rights to look at a candidate from the perspective of "will he blow it?" Obama has made severe missteps all along the way, and continues to. I truly believe that he has shown himself to be just not ready yet. I was very heartened after seeing his speech at the 2004 convention. He looked really promising, but he's trying to jump the line without the requisite experience, and it's showing. His supporters keep saying that he must be the better campaigner because he's leading. But the fact is that he piled up his lead in a single 10-day period. They're his votes, and I wouldn't argue that they're illegitimate. But there's no question he was fortunate that a bunch of elections were held in a very short time frame, when the media coverage of Hillary was all focused on when she would drop out.

Obama supporters like to crow about the terrible job Hillary's campaign has done. Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that they have done a superb job of absorbing some serious body blows and not only kept her in the race, but are still winning huge in important primaries. There's no question her campaign made some serious missteps. But I think when all is said and done, the Clinton campaign will be looked at as much for how they righted the ship and possibly won the nomination. And Hillary's toughness has transformed me from a lukewarm to an enthusiastic supporter. I've gone through many periods of despair, when I figured it was all over, and I continue to be amazed at her ability to keep fighting. I don't know why that's seen as such a bad trait in a candidate.

And can we please stop the whining from Obama supporters about how we're not talking about the "important issues?" Why would this be the first campaign to be based entirely on "issues"? These sideshows are always part of a campaign, and how they are dealt with is one of the true tests of a candidate, like it or not.