Any democrat will be able to carry the Blue states in November. What we need (for those who are historically and mathematically impaired) is someone who can win back some of the Red states, so that, you know, we can take back that white house and all. If Obama is beating Clinton in the Red states, that's clearly who we need.

And I give nothing to NOW. This article helped me feel good about doing that. If PP was telling me to vote one way, and NOW another, I know who I would side with.

I have a lot of sympathy with the question you are asking about parental consent, partly as a parent of teenaged children. Out of historical context, I would have a lot more sympathy for the argument that parents should know about their children's clinical care. However, the anti-choice movement has made it overtly and abundantly clear that they consider such legislative maneuvers mere stepping stones toward banning all abortion, therefore I think drawing lines in the sand and holding to that line a strategic imperative.

Earlier in the race I hadn't been aware that there were a sizable number of Obama supporters who were saying they wouldn't support Clinton if she won the nomination. I'm an Obama supporter myself, but that did bother me. I believe a democrat should support whoever is the nominee, and I certainly will. However, the Obama supporters who won't vote for Clinton basically aren't democrats: they're independents and moderate republicans. The fact that he can appeal to them, when Clinton doesn't, despite the fact that voting-wise he is more liberal than she is, is a stong mark in his favor when it comes to the national election. Repubicans have been scooping up those voters nationally, and it's time that changed. No matter how many times Clinton tacks to the center, the voters there still don't like her. The fact that the centrists/independents like Obama despite his consistent liberalism is amazing, and makes him the stronger candidate for November. He'll move the center leftward, after decades of the left moving to the right.

Those arguments should all seal the deal, but even more so when you add in all the polling data. I've seen no similar argument for the electability of Clinton. It's just not there, beyond the "it's her turn" crap, or "she's earned it," or "she's tough." I know a lot of tough people who would never be elected president. There are certainly arguments that in an historical and cultural vacuum, Clinton might be the more competent President. But we don't live in such a vacuum. For better or worse, US national elections about about being liked more than the other candidate, and Clinton will not win on those terms against McCain. Nor would she be an effective president, because no one would let her do anything (see Clinton I).

To destroy the evil enemies of your candidate by calling them destructive and devisive.

"the Clinton memo, authored by Chief Strategist Mark Penn, anticipates Republican arguments to come and explains why Clinton can refute them."

Penn is right that Republican arguments about ANYTHING can usually be refuted with data and basic logic. However, sadly, most Americans don't vote based on data and basic logic. I like Clinton, but most Americans vote for the person they like more, not because of charts and arguments. That is why, despite Clinton's strong resume, Obama is still more likely to defeat McCain in November.

Rezko and Exela = Rose Law firm, travel gate, Vince Foster, Whitewater, etc.

All old news signifying nothing.

However, the fact that Clinton is talking about the Obama side of the equation while Obama is not talking about Clinton's tells you all you need to know about their campaigns.

Oh, and enough about the "Obama teens" nonsense. My 75-year-old parents and EVERY OLD PERSON they know in *Maine* are voting for Obama. In their cribbage/baking circles they do not know a single Clinton supporter.

Thank you so much for bringing a needed level of civility and non-partisanship to these discussions!! A model for us all.

According to Clinton-supporters, Obama's only base is poor African Americans, old white liberals, young people of all political persuasions, and independents. Oh, and only the black latinos. When is he going to widen that base, like Clinton does? She TOTALLY swept the albino Welsh vote. Obama can't TOUCH that.

He critiques Obama for using platitudes, and says we need "sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people." Yes, he would never use a platitude.

If they weren't such arrongant, moronic jerks with pimples on their butts. I don't see how that's my fault.

: )

I think "playing the victim" can work in many spheres of public life (work, etc.) where victimization is real and there are concrete remedies for it (pay raises, disciplinary measures). But in politics, I think it's a losing strategy. People do not want to vote for a victim. Clinton and Clinton-supporters and Obama and Obama-supporters all need to get out of the sexism/racisim name-calling game. American society, to it's detriment, sees victims as weak. In politics you need to focus on how your race or gender makes you stronger/better, not how others victimize you because of it.

"Frankly, one item on Watson's list is dubious -- or at least poorly worded. Obama fought for universal children's health care in Illinois, that's true -- but he didn't succeed."

Um, that seems to be exactly what Watson praises him for: the fight for universal health care. He doesn't claim he succeeded. You seem to admit Watson's statement is true, and provide extra support for its veracity, yet you say the claim is 'dubious.' ??

What poor soul gets cut in half?