Amazingly, Senator Clinton was able to learn the nuances of statecraft whilst dodging bullets in Bosnia; a testament to her adroit political gifts, no doubt. And when, on September 11, Saddam Hussein came knocking on the World Trade Center, she was able to correctly glean from what to an outside observer must have looked like scant or dubious evidence and make the Right and Serious choice in 2003 authorizing our Great Adventure in Iraq. Above all else, that is Proof Positive of her overwhelming level of experience over neophyte and un-worldly (fellow) Junior Senator Obama. But the story doesn't end there. Why, with her own toil, blood and sweat she was able to forever mend all hostilities between Protestant and Catholic factions in Ireland. Surely, one could not fathom a better choice to lead our great nation in this era of grave threat?

Hillary Clinton has exactly two extra years of national legislative experience than Obama, who has himself several years legislative experience in one of the nation's largest states.

The experience, foreign or otherwise, argument is a non-starter. Always was, always will be. What is clear is that her judgement is lacking. It was lacking in 2003, it was lacking when she selected her top-level campaign staff, and it is lacking in details large and small: who in this day and age comes up with an anecdote about duck hunting not knowing that it will be thoroughly ridiculed everywhere it is played? That goes beyond "tin-eared" and "disingenuous." It is outright stupid. Has she been paying attention to how the media gobbles up those gems?

Obama has executed the right strategy from the start: do not emulate the GOP swift-boat tactics, but do immediately respond to controversy with honesty and candor. Those seem to be qualities that Hillary is incapable of emulating -- and emulating it is, because based on the evidence I can only conclude that she is a shyster and the worst sort of cynic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "belittling".

If you mean that I wish she doesn't win the Democratic primary, then yes -- let the belittling begin!

If you mean that I and many of my Obama favoring peers believe her to be stupid or incapable, no.

However, in my case, some context is necessary.

Tonight I wasted more than an hour of my life trying (unsuccessfully) to convince my roommate that George Walker Bush is not an idiot.

I mentioned that he is the child of two parents who are, by most objective measures, very bright people. I mentioned that he was wildly successful and that it was not wholly chance, legacy or affiliation that brought him to his station in life. All of those things played a major factor, but I contend that Bush's ability to manipulate and charm play a major factor in the George Walker Bush story.

That he makes bad choices, is unable to follow a script and rejects "intellectualism" are symptoms of his psychological make-up.

But the man is, as much as I am loath to admit it, not an idiot.

Similarly, Hillary Rodham Clinton is an accomplished woman possessing great skill and intelligence.

However like Bush, she uses her connections (in her case, one of the most bankable connections one can hope for: being a former FLOTUS) to inflate her status across the board.

I would go as far as to say that Clinton is more intelligent, and perhaps more capable by far than Bush.

But in every way I feel that Obama is far and above more skilled and intelligent than Clinton.

So, if Clinton "be little" it is in comparison to the front-runner and (in my opinion) presumptive nominee of the Democratic party: Senator Barack Obama.

If you need any evidence of this fact, the fact that Obama is leagues above Clinton, please see again the "a more perfect nation" speech. Or any speech by Obama.

Words do matter, as words are the artifact of the mind.

That Clinton is unable to engage and captivate my attention while being concise and lucid indicates the stagnation of her ideas, ideals and politics.

The message from Clinton reads as "no, we can't" to the majority of voters who have decided that Obama is the better candidate.

We won't win with that message.

Drop out, you silly goofball!

Thank you Fester, can you recommend a good Boucheron or some other soft-pate delight from the affinage to compliment the chalbis? Where can I fly in ripe, juicy heirloom pears to accompany the cheese?

Obama is the better candidate.

"The first hour of last nights debate was a sixty minute master class in questions that elevate out of context remarks and trivial insipid mis-queues into subjects of national discourse which is MY JOB. STOP DOING MY JOB. THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE FOR! I'M THE SILLY MAN!"

Exactly, Jon.

Really just Joan Walsh in disguise, or do Shapiro and Conason take turns writing replies.

Sadly delusional, tea-drinking(*) and in denial.

The truth is that for every day she tries to claw her way up this chasm of fail she has fallen into, she becomes in the eyes of anyone sane more and more despicable. Detestable.

Each life taken in Iraq is blood on her hands. Each torture victim, each innocent prisoner in our Gulag in Cuba. These are things in which she shares the blame, out of her own hubris, ambition, avarice and covetousness.

She is every ounce as bad as I think and she is probably much, much worse. But I only have what I see and read to go on, and from that I think she is at best very misguided.

(*) look it up.

There once was a man from Barthold

Who drank beer as the weather grew cold

As he reached for his cup:

"NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP!"

Oh snap! You got limerickrolled!

TGIF.