I agree with most of your points nameley that Obama will get carved up by the repugs into little pieces (remember Gary Hart), so the Dems will be better off with Hillary (all for the wrong reasons) because she can say that "those claims are old news", etc. etc. But she will spend half her time in the "war room" defending herself. Obama's only real hope of prevailing in the general election is if he can take the issues out of the gutter and transcend above it all, including race. I doubt that is possible while the repugs are letting the "dogs of war" loose.

@Rebostar:

Your points are well taken. I watch Fox News sometimes to get the news but primarily for its entertainment value including their blondie reporters and "Fox news analysts" who are also a "9" or even a "10". No other network is in their league. You need to add this to your analysis because Fox does this very deliberately to drive up ratings and cater to middle-aged affluent white males. It's a business decision.

Once again, the author implies that the US is to blame for all the ills in the Middle East including the failure to create a Palestinian state, etc. etc. And that Obama's soaring rhetoric will somehow accomplish what the previous half-century of efforts could not. My views are pessimistic in that the Palestinian territories will never constitute a viable state because its economy is fully dependent on Israel's and should therefore be re-absorbed by Jordan and Egypt. All parties have played the Palestinians for suckers using them as surrogates in the never-ending war against Israel. During Clinton years, the US was guilty of raising unrealistic expectations while other regimes in the region worked actively to sabotage each and every effort. It is no wonder that Bush wanted nothing to do with "the process", and quite frankly, I think it was best that the players in the region sort it out for themselves. If that is what the world wants for Iraq, then why is the Israeli-Palestinian situation any different?

I recently saw two "anons" slugging it out against each other. Maybe it was the same person with split personalities. THis will get rid of some of the wierdness.

Joan,

I bet you were singing a different tune about 3rd party candidates when Ross Perot took 19% of the vote in 1992 and handed the presidency over to Bill Clinton with 43% of the national vote.

Furthermore, I have no real sympathy for Al Gore because he did not carry his own state in 2000. That was just sloppy execution that costed him the election and nothing else. If he had carried TN, he did not have to win FL because he only lost by 1 or 2 electoral votes. On the contrary, Bush HAD to carry FL and its 30 (in that range) electoral votes to have a chance. Plus, it is unlikely that Nader caused any of the blue states in 2000 to turn red. They were always blue to start with. I think Nader got 3% of the national vote, all concentrated in blue states.

Tell me where I am wrong.

If the Dems appear to be remaking the rules, which will greatly please HRC and the Repugs, of course, by seating FL and MI after these states "jumped the gun" with their primaries, then the Repugs will pounce on the Dems as "flip-floppers", or worse, as incapable of governing themselves.

The implication is that if the Dems can't manage themselves, how can you expect them to run the country? Duh!!! I can already see the RNC's ads in the fall lambasting the Dems with their lack of party discipline and poor choices.

What's to stop DE and NY from doing the same thing in 2012? Nothing. Therefore, the correct answer to this dilemma is that the elected delegates from FL and MI are not seated but the super-delegates from FL are free to vote anyway they wish. The identities of the super-delegates was never in question so their right to vote was never in-doubt.

After these revelations, I don't think Obama has a chance in Nov. (assuming he even gets that far). Obama's only hope to win is if he could make it to November without being discovered as he was this week. One can only assume that the whisper campaign has already begun that Obama is not electable at the national level because he has been found to be "too black". Now, we find out that he also hung around with the Weatherman terrorists in his youth. Sorry folks! The Repugs already have a enough dirt on this guy to virtually guarantee a McCain victory. Hillary cannot believe her lucky stars that the Obama camp has finally imploded. Obama's soaring rhetoric cannot erase the perception that he has made his bed with the Black Separatist crowd.

Obama has issues. People will come around and eventually see Obama as "dangerously black" and that will sink him. Whether it is fair or foul is not the point. He will lose. It's a tough pill to swallow after running a brillant campaign by convincing mostly young people and the political elites that maybe race should not matter in presidential politics. But it does when it becomes threatening and sinister as Preacher Wright has demonstrated for all to see. And believe me, the Repugs will not let us forget. HRC, of course, is thrilled that Obama's "closet" opened up and handed her 5-7% points just when the supers have to make a hard decision.