You have penned a mighty micro-epic in which the candidates star as impotent frauds and the winds of the past blow the electorate about like mindless leaves. And maybe you're right.

On the other hand, maybe identity politics will end up as so last century. Maybe Barack really doesn't want to be just the Black Candidate, but the people's candidate. The poll numbers show a big difference between the positions of the young and old.

And maybe Hillary's campaign isn't dying from sexism, but from a failed strategy. What if, instead of assuming it would be over after Feb 5, her campaign treated the smaller, flyover states seriously? Obama probably wouldn't have his 11 victories, and the lead in pledged delagates and total voters would be up for grabs. The entire tone of the campaigns would be different, including the amoral media coverage. Just a thought.

I am a big believer in the forces of the past shaping our society in unseen ways, but I also believe that actions now can change everything.

Oh please, can we really, really just get beyond this? And no offense, DeeperTruth, but others in this thread have done a much better job of impersonating Mrs. Schneider, my 9th Grade english period school teacher. She was badass.

I am interested in the quality of ideas, not the "ownership" of the ideas and the words used to expressed them. A lot of our best ideas have come from the Greeks, Romans, and the Enlightenment and homegrown folks like Emerson and MLK. Not from politicians.

The candidate that will get my vote is the candidate that has the best ideas and the best chance of executing them. Stealing ideas in my book means that a leader is open minded and doesn't consider themselves to be the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. This notion that you must own your own words is b.s. If true, 99%+ of politicians would be mute. I don't think I would be able to post either.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is not about Oration. From the debate:

The central premise of this campaign is that we can bring this country together, that we can push against the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda in Washington, that we can be straight with the American people about how we're going to solve these problems and enlist them in taking back their government.

George Washington

Other than to unleash a swarm of anonymous Hillbots and Obamabots in a George Lucas Clone War orgy of page hits?

Numerically, Clinton now has a tough row to hoe. But we're a nation that supports the Lottery. We'll need to feel it in our bones that there is a winner and a loser. Not enough democrats feel that way now. Maybe after March 4th. Maybe not.

Also, citing the "Prince of Darkness", Robert Novak, as a conduit for the welfare of the community over the rights of the individual is a bit much for me. His ethics and methods are doubtful at best. You do remember Valarie Plame, Scotter Libby, and Mr. Novak? Maybe there was some double-sekret satire that eluded me.

All the republicans that voted for Barack in the open primaries were just making sure Hillary did not get the nomination.

(cue the subtext: real dems, who get it, vote for Hillary. The great unwashed clueless multitude do not).

I've asked this question before to others. Do you have any numerical evidence to back this up? I'd be keen to take a look at it. If Huckabee wasn't aiming for a brokered convention and if the point spread in the last 11 dem contests wasn't so wide, I would take this theory more seriously. If Obama was winning 51/49, then it would be clear that the non-dem vote was putting him over the top.

I have my own, unencumbered by the thought process, Narrative of what is happening: Hillary's campaign strategy to-date has failed.

Funny, my military analogy is to compare Hillary's strategy to the Maginot Line. It was employed by the French prior to World War II to contain any possible German invasion and consisted of an extensive network of forts built at great cost. Her campaign so far has used a static 'Blue Island' strategy.

By locking up all the big democratic fundraisers, getting major endorsements at the local, state, and national levels (Senator Daniel Inouye, Hawai'i, and local latino leaders in CA come to mind), and securing a big initial lead in superdelagates her campaign thought they had built an inpenatrable wall proof against all challengers. It was all supposed to be over by Feb 5. Meanwhile, technology shifted and the Obama campaign used the internet to fundraise, organize and get his message out independent of the old structures. He's been able to blitzkrieg through the last 11 contests, and his mobilization of the youth vote is comparable to moving troops through the Ardennes: Nobody thought it could be done.

Of course, if Clinton wins decisively next week, this analogy is hosed.

We could switch back to Number Six's narrative and view March 4th as the battle of the bulge. I can hear W.E.S. right now. "Obama is no Georgie Patton!"

Yes, I view all ground acquisition games as a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war(*).

(*) Under newly enacted AKASmith posting guidelines, I confess that I ripped that from Rodney Dangerfield's Back to School. Rock On Rodney!

Oh the irony:

@AKA Smith - agreed. the character question.

Given what I have seen of Obama and his supporters, I prefer Clinton's character.

I agree 100%. All they care about is winning the primary and losing the war.

With anothre 23 million people behind the poverty line and another 11 poised to join them, I'm just not amused anymore with either the corrupt Hawaian Senator with the Ego, or with his rabid, nutty supporters.

--Anonymous