The fact HRC is a woman interested in being president force her to vote in favor

she [Hillary] was one of many who were duped by this so-called president.

I don't she how your remarks paint a picture of Hillary as a strong, independent executive, that won't be gulled or bullied. The kind of president we all need. Not the First Victim.

Apparently I hold Hillary in higher regard that you do. She's smart, she's tough, she used her internal calculus and she made her call. And I'm judging her based upon that.

Now you can fault her for not being precient or principle enough, but to demonize her [...]

No, we can simply not vote for her until we absolutely have to.

Hutman would have it that we have to offer proof for everything we say, but that is just a Hutman tactic. I would ignore it

I'm not here to defend Hutman, that guy can outpost anybody. Does he work for a living? But it is getting tedious reading those who claim their opinion as fact, who think they are inherently the voice of the majority, or have the side of righteousness on their side. Do us a favor and post a link or two. We can check it out or not, we can get a better flavor for a point and it's underpinnings by reading the link.

I don't have a problem with opinion or conjecture. In fact, that's often the most interesting as it reveals as much about the poster as the subject they are trying to illuminate.

Counting the people who voted twice in Texas.

Yes, It was the republicans that put her over the top:

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

Hillary might actually have done something useful in places like Bosnia and Ireland beyond meeting and greeting.

We shouldn't have to take it on faith, but we don't have to be snide either.

Wright is right and Obama wrong - if he was for change he would have told the critics of his preacher to go to hell.

We all tell each other go to hell right now, and that's were we are. Hell. The change would be to stop doing it.

Well, that and the oil reserves

Please tell me what, if anything, those Wikipedia passages demonstrate?

I, myself, had asked for more differentiation between spewing one's own opinion and regurgitating the opinion of others. A fact would be like finding a nugget of gold in a river of sand, though Salon lately seems pretty panned out.

And AKA Smith, thanks for the links!

P.S.

Mike Huckabee, of all people, has an interesting take on Rev. Wright. It's a meandering interview, so you'll have to put up with Joe Scarborough alternating between attack dog and forgiving christian when he's implicitly rebuked by Huckabee.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/You_know_who_has_some_insight_on_the_ObamaWright_case_dont_ya.html

However, do you really want Obama to make this sort of argument to the voters in November. It's a sure-fire user [loser]. Most voters don't think like the folks at Salon -- although I must say some of the letters in this thread give me pause about the level of thinking that goes on at Salon.

Well, the good news is that Obama is not that stupid. And yes, I thought the readers here at Salon were all above average, but reality has intruded.

I guess I must be in the minority in thinking that Hillary still has a shot for the nomination, even if it looks very small right now (yes I know the delegate math) in a way that still falls short, if barely, of a nuclear exchange within the party.

And I think that Obama might continue to do a pretty good job of framing the debate in the general. He's already started on McCain. Will voters pay attention? Can they get "it"? (A GG topic...) Can the 527's outshout and outspew? Stay tuned.

If you believe we are fighting the right war, then the problems we face are purely tactical in nature. That is what Senator McCain wants to discuss – tactics. What he and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That's why this Administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Senator John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Senator McCain can argue – as he did last year – that we couldn't leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can't leave Iraq because violence is down.

When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

Full Speech:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBFrl