"the Democratic Party is in danger of losing the Democratic Party is in danger of losing the current generation of younger black voters black voters"

They're in very real danger of losing ALL the current generation of younger voters. The clintons are playing to win the nomination in the ugliest way possible. She'll be nominated alright, but she'll be defeated in a rout come November...and lose the Senate as well. This is just a hint of what a Hillary Clinton adminstration will be like.

Its the Clintons who lack "some ethical standards." The MLK/LBJ comment, the "fairytale" comment among others were all carefully designed to get their nasty point across with enough murkiness to let the Clintons play their tired out victim game once again.

I would not be suprised to see a host of Democratic leaders not only endorse Obama but come right out and turn their backs on the Clintons. 2008 should have been a watershed year for the Democrats and a chance to shift the country away from the morrass is been in. Instead the cancer that is the Clintons have infected the primaries with their usual poison. The Democratic Party will not survive a Hillary Clinton nomination in tact.

Actually, Bill clinton injecting himself into the campaign to such and overpowering degree doesn't make Hillary Clinton seem very "presidential" either. Who's running. Him or her? Is she nothing more than his stooge? thats what it looks like.

I honestly think a large part of this comes down to: if Hillary can't be President neither can he. Ugly smear tactics are fully to be expected from the Republicans in the general election. Bill Clinton is at it again today. The clintons aren't out to beat Obama. They're out to destroy him. He's the new face of the Democratic Party and they can't stand it. This viciousness may get her the nomination, but she will be a pariah in the general election.

The same reason we'll have to pro war candidates (MCCain and Clinton) in the general election: the American people aren't that bright.

This campaign seems to have been going on forever, already. Race and gender weren't really issues (beyond the fact that a woman and an African American were serious contenders for the nomination)...untill the minute Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus. Its been psycho-drama ever since. The Clintons have dragged this campaign down to their patented sleazy levels, and of course we're all supposed to fall into their "the world against the Clintons" nonsence once again.

The Clintons are toxic. They will hand the election to the Republicans and leave the Deomcratic Party in ruins.

Mike Jones has some juicy stories about the Huckster to tell. that would be the end of him.

That explains it! I was shopping once with a friend of mine who is a briney older woman. The clerk waiting on her said, "We treat everyone here like family." My friend said, horrified, "Oh please! Anything but that!"

CNN ran a story about a few guys who put together a hybrid car (the used a stock Saturn hybrid SUV) that gets 150 miles a gallon. They modified it using parts and components that they bought off the shelf commercially. We all know what happened to GM's electric car, Willie Nelson uses only bio-diesel in his stock diesel Mercedes and VW, Brazil is 100% gasoline free using sugar based ethanol. The reason we have to wittness the humiliating spectacle of the President of the United States dancing like an organ grinder's monkey with Saudi royalty is because the big oil companies have a strangle hold on our government.

The technology is there, its real and its viable. But we're alsways told its 30 years away. We've been hearing that for decades. Unless our government is wrestled away from the big oil companies we'll be seeing our next President play court jester to Saudi royalty as well.

Just because she said it nicely doesn't mean she wasn't being dodgy. Once again, the clintons want it both way. It wasn't an earth shattering moment of great importance, but it is, again, more of the same from the Clintons. They constantly wrap themselves in a mantle of dishonesty...and that's why so many people are put off by them.

I think they all did well and I don't think there was what one could call a "winner."

Obama seemed much more natural. He appears to listen to the question and then answer it. Clinton and Edwards, on the other hand, seem to fall into that old presidential debate stand by: listen to the question and twist and wiggle your way into a pre planned responce that may or may not directly address the question. I prefer Obama's approach. It gives you a better way to judge the way he thinks.

John Edwards. I'm noticing a disturbing trend. How many of his past Senate votes will he appologize for? Jeez. When he first backed away from his Iraq vote and admitted he was wrong it was a dramatic gesture. Last night you can add two more to that list. There is just a The Music Man kind of quality about him that I don't exactly trust.

Hillary Clinton. She did fine, but seemed programmed, and she badly mishandled the Bob Jones question. It was typical Clinton double talk and trying to have it both ways. It calls into question everything she says. Asking Obama to co-sponsor her Senate bill was really kind of corny old political vaudeville.

Barack Obama. He hit a homerun with the strength and weakness question. He sounded very sincere and very normal. Clinton and Edwards' responce to the greatest weakness question sounded pompous in that "My greatest weakness? I'm just too wonderfull" kind of blowhard way. And Obama perfectly turned the tables on Clinton when she tried to use his answer against him.

I think he should keep looking.

Correct if me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall FDR or Truman PAYING the Germans and Japanese to stop shooting at us.