I actually think it's big progress in Mississippi that even 25% of white Democrats have voted for a black man for president of the US. Imagine the chances of that, say, in 1963.

And most of the rest of the country is way ahead.

It is in large part due to the contrast the campaigns have run. Clinton: almost entirely negative, against Obama. Obama, as he puts it, has indeed responded in a measured way.

Perfect example: how he showed the internal inconsistency in Clinton's argument that he is not ready as Commander in Chief (as if she has one iota of better readiness).   It's well known that the #1 function of the VP is to take over if the president is incapacitated. She thinks he would be a great VP--therefore she must think he is ready to take over from the president--including as Commander in Chief, an absolutely vital function of the president. So, he points out, she has contradicted herself.

He has destroyed her argument with her own words.

This man can think on his feet.

A very pleasant change from recent history.

She can also think--but hasn't shown much evidence of it lately. And we don't need a vindictive harridan as Commander in Chief.

We've had enough instability at the top for the last 7 years. Another helping? No thanks.