A candidate, no matter how revolutionary, cannot affect ANY change without a majority vote from the electorate. A POTUS, no matter how good at his job, cannot affect real change without help from the people who've elected him. He's asking for our help - to help ourselves. Stark difference from Clinton's "let mommy make it better" laundry list of proposals (a majority of which have a snowballs chance in hell of getting passed with a Clinton attached). It speaks to the core of why he appeals to independents and some liberal Republicans.

Not rocket science, really, AKA. Just because Obama makes you mad doesn't mean you're excused from using your "thinking cap". E.G. "Ask not what your country can do for you.."

Which is why you've yet to win any converts here, ProudTexasGirl. Insulting people is rarely the way to win people over. Your daily vitriol towards a fellow Democrat (although they do say that Texas Dems would be Repugs anywhere else) will never get you anywhere. Although it comes as no surprise that your a backer of the only Democratic candidate who's openly endorsed McCain (like that's not "poison" in the GE)!

How about this: until you agree that you should be ashamed that your "proud" state make Shrub possible, your opinions are invalid. Thanks for nothing.

Rarely works in person, NEVER works on the internets. What's next for me? The digital bloody-nose? Can I report you to the web police and file a report?

Additionally, I reject all you assertions and the basis upon which they are founded.

Texans..

Yep, not a day passes without me yelling that exact phrase to Hillary supporters. Guess you got me there.

As for the Rockefeller and Kennedy financial backing - are you saying he should take no money from rich people (cause Hill does too) or are you just upset because its those particular rich people? Or did you think when Obama says he runs his campaign differently, he meant "without using money"?

Do you even have a point?

..So what? The point of major media outlets is to exercise judgement about what is more important and bring it to the masses. Some (PBS) do a relatively good job. Others (FOX) pretended to be "serious" but always fall back on their base instincts and profit motives.

Obviously, this was more easily done before media conglomeration and deregulation. Mass media has always had its sensationalism and gutter-wallowing, it just seemed a bit more balanced before the commodification of news outlets.

Yes, chocolate tastes good and if you cover anything in it, it would probably sell like (chocolate covered) hotcakes. But that doesn't make it good for you OR a good idea...

"These "dumb hilljacks" know smoke and mirrors when they see it."

Indiana voted for Bush twice. You know Bush, right? He of the fake Texas "ranch" given(!) to him for the 2000 election?

That's not even smoke and mirrors obvious, that's cardboard scenery obvious!

A well-cast (and apparently well-written) Ironman followed by a Hulk reworking by writer/actor Ed Norton (undoing the tremendous character damage done by Ang Lee) and a Wolverine "prequel"! Nuff Said!!

I'm glad that Hollywood is starting to get the fact that attaching well-known, accomplished directors (Lee, unfortunately, being my prime example) to material that they don't admire/aren't comfortable with is a recipe for disaster as they mess with basic elements of a character to make the film more "artsy".

Of course, the opposite – a Joel Schumacher-esque music video director – can completely disembowel all complex humanity from a character as well (the aforementioned Daredevil, Catwoman and Elektra are good examples - if you've ever read Frank Miller's work on Elektra and Daredevil, you know how wonderful and compelling an Elektra or Daredevil movie could have been).

Its a fine line: Sam Raimi gets it (at least for the first Spiderman). So does Chris Nolan - if only he'd tackle Miller's Dark Knight Returns!!!

Heath Ledgers "swan song" movie will probably not live up to the (not entirely justified) hype because of his death...

Says who?

Good job, PTG! (sarcasm off)

Oh, and please, don't stick around to actually debate - just swoop in, call everyone an asshole and a piece of filth and then wonder why you've CONVINCED NO ONE!

Texas...

Actually, if everything falls the way its expected to in the remaining primaries, Obama will be within 100 of the "magical" 2024 number. The remaining undeclared SDs number about 400. Your hypothetical split of SDs would leave Obama well within the 2024 and Clinton just outside.

If Salon wasn't so pro-Clinton, you might see reporting like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/senator-says-obama-has-do_n_99386.html

Which would render all this handwringing moot. But that is what we liberals do best...

Ensuring that, even if she wins the presidency AND we retain control of the Congress (highly unlikely if she's the nominee), that we'll have another 1993 situation where no one will want to work for her because its her way or the highway...

What progressives in this country can't afford is 8 more years of "stasis" where all we get is a prolonged stalemate. We need to make inroads - we NEED to institute changes. Only a President Obama and a Democratic Congress will ensure that (and only a candidate Obama can deliver gains down-ticket)!

Will it stop the Women's left-handed Field Hockey leagues fans from complaining about what you choose to write about? Hopefully... but probably not.