I had to turn in before I saw either of your comments re: Obama and Clinton. So, I just read them this morning.

Honestly, I don't know who or what is best, either. However, I did think it very telling that three of RFK's children (and wouldn't we love an RFK in this fight?) prefer Hillary over Obama. And not based just on very recent news coverage, or the primary fights, but on their own history of working with her, the kind of thing we would never read about in the press. The three of them have spent most or all of their adult lives working at some form of political activism, but more behind the scenes than in front.

I almost have to take everything the press reports about the Clintons with a few tablespoons of salt, just because the coverage of them has been so tainted. The words of those who know her well, though, and have worked with her is something else. And I've read other accounts (some at HuffPo) about those who have seen Hillary in action, and have noted how engaged and prepared she was, etc., etc. I should listen to the press's analysis over those?

The same for Edwards. I've heard that he's planning to leave the race, but I've heard that before, and it was wrong then. That one really puzzles me, given their recent fund-raising effort, to which I contributed yesterday.

Ultimately, whoever wins the nomination will get my vote. I'm just not ready to jump on the Obama bandwagon yet.

Fwiw, I think a lot of this really is generational. I'm old enough (and older than Caroline) that JFK made a distinct impression on me, and I still remember exactly where I was when I learned about his death. When RFK was running for president, I was still in high school, and the voting age was still 21 (and seemed pretty far off), but his candidacy was pretty exciting. Obama doesn't remember any of that, and yet, virtually untested, he gets to run on that legacy. Reminds me too much of Bush's campaign, where the entire GOP just jumped on the bandwagon, completely ignoring his own personal record of non-achievement. (Granted, Obama is not without his own achievements, but his resume is relatively thin. A woman, as many have noted, would not be able to run for president on it.)

Finally, I'm still astonished that the Kennedy family is divided in this race. Who would ever have guessed that could be a possibility? And if that's the case, how can the rest of us not be?

I read something by Stephen Schlesinger on Huffington Post tonight. His piece was brief, but worthwhile because it pointed to an op-ed in today's LATimes, written by three of RFK's children.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/hillary-and-rfk_b_83856.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kennedy29jan29,0,1618955.story

A brief excerpt of the op-ed, which I think is remarkable for several reasons: it is eloquent, historical (i.e., rare), and a measure of how easily divided the Democratic Party can be right now, given that the Kennedy family is itself divided, surely a most unlikely event:

While talk of unity and compromise are inspiring to a nation wary of divisiveness, America stands at a historic crossroads where real issues divide our political landscapes. Democrats believe that America should not be torturing people, eavesdropping on our citizens or imprisoning them without habeas corpus or other constitutional rights. We should not be an imperial power. We need healthcare for all and a clean, safe environment.

The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues. We need a president willing to engage in a fistfight to safeguard and restore our national virtues.

We have worked with Hillary Clinton for 15 years (and in Kathleen's case, 25 years) and witnessed the power and depth of her convictions firsthand. We've seen her formidable work ethic, courage in the face of adversity and her dignity and clear head in crisis. We've also seen her two-fisted willingness to enter the brawl when America's principles are challenged. Her measured rhetoric, political savvy and pragmatism shield the heart of our nation's most determined and most democratic warrior.

Interesting that three younger, but adult, Kennedys would endorse HRC, while emphatically emphasizing her fighting ability. Given their own lengthier political history (15-25 years) with Clinton, surely they know their candidate better than Ted and Caroline know theirs?

Reluctantly, I am coming around... and I wonder if the pundits who predict that Edwards' supporters (like me) will transfer their support to Obama will be able to spin an explanation if that doesn't happen. Not all of us have Change at the top of our list, or if we do, we think the change is something other than GWB or another like him. But, more important, perhaps, is finding a candidate who really will fight back, and that does describe both Edwards and Clinton, more than Obama.

Get thee to FDL and watch this charming video...

"...we're not unreasonable--

no one's going to eat your eyes

but maybe we could compromise..."

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/29/15-day-extension-on-fisa/

Jane bills it as "Republicans negotiating in good faith with Democrats to give Dick Cheney and the telecoms retroactive immunity."

Heh, heh. (And I never say that.)