Also, no one really knows how Obama will ultimately fare against the VRWC.

His campaign is unprecedented, which is one of its strengths. Could also be one of its weaknesses. How this will all shake out is unknown, especially when you factor in McCain's baggage, war, Bush, economy, etc.

There are just so many factors that reducing it to which of the two candidates can "survive the right-wing attack machine" really misses the mark. If this election turns on the power of said machine, no Democrat will win.

This election isn't about surviving such a machine, but taking it on directly, repudiating it and its legacy, not simply parrying its thrusts.

To do the latter is to grant it an unmerited legitimacy.

f"The sermons are out there. Even I, a man armed only with FireFox and Google, could find them. Why have these intrepid reporters not done the legwork, I mean fingerwork?

The fact is that if you listen to his sermons, including the ones Fox butchered into a few soundbites, in their entirety, there is nothing hateful or racist about any of them, and he demands of his flock the same behaviour he demands of "mainstream" America, the same tolerance and respect for others."

Because they're ill-educated. Or hollow men. Or lacking the mental capacity required to put to thoughts together. Or simply dishonest. Or all of the above.

Thanks for doing their job for them and for presenting your thoughtful analysis here.

Agreed. So long as there are superdelegates, this would seem to be their purpose.

First of all, she's not smarter than I am. Her intellect is good, but she's not especially insightful, so far as I can see.

Competent, yes. Shrewd, undoubtedly.

But I think "brilliant" is a stretch.

But whatever, let's say she's brilliant. That's not the reason I despise her. I agree that misogyny is a major reason she was eviscerated from the start of her career as first lady. This is undeniable.

But it's not the only reason.

For some, no doubt, it is.

But knuckle-draggers aside, I think there are plenty of reasons to despise her.

In fact, I am disturbed by the fact that I harbor the same ill-will towards her as the VRWC. Our reasons, however, are not the same.

I think the core issue is that the Clintons represent a siege mentality.

I think there are historical reasons for this, namely, the VRWC.

Be that as it may, though, I think it's fair to say this is what they bring to the table ("Hillary's a fighter, she's tenacious,") for better or for worse.

You see it with Carville's invocation of treachery, as if Bill Richardson is somehow eternally beholden to the Clintons.

The question for voters is whether we want another siege-mentality presidency. Much of the problem with Bush's administration is precisely this feature: the siege mentality that's averse to transparency, to dissenting opinions, and whose basic premise is an us v. them mistrust.

If you think this is good for the country, then by all means, Hillary's your candidate.

Is that a fair way of putting it, Clinton supporters?

There might be arguments for it. Perhaps you think that this mentality or way of doing business can bring home the bacon, as it were.

That's a debatable point, but it's the crux of the matter.

Is this a fair analysis?

Hillary came up in a world where, for a woman to succeed, she had to be as cut throat or more than a man.

A woman had to learn how to play the man's game and play it better. Hence, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, George Bush, etc., all have very similar character traits, though their policy positions may differ.

Along comes Obama, whose central contention is that the game itself is the problem.

He has attempted to play a different game, and with success.

Now, whatever you think of Obama's premise, that's the basic argument.

I don't like the game as played, whether it's conducted by Giuliani, Bush or Clinton, all of whom have issues of transparency, are incapable of responding to criticism, suffer unbelievable entitlement and hubris.

Obama, to his credit, has shown that he listens to criticism and can respond to it in an honest way.

Anyone who heard his speech knows that he's self-reflective and open to criticism.

This is why I'm convinced he'd be an excellent president, or at least, has tremendous potential. He adapts and learns and grows, but his response is not simply to pander, but to consider the criticism and then attempt to learn from it and to present his side of the story with humility and grace.

He could have just shouted back or evaded the issue with arrogance or jokes, the way Bush would have.

But he didn't.

Frankly, if we can't recognize just how special this guy is, God help us.

Not to say everyone must vote for him, but at least recognize and evaluate the very real strengths he has.

For my part, I've concluded that Hillary's strengths suit her better to policy jobs. A cabinet post, her current seat in the senate, whatever.

But I've not seen evidence that she brings anything unique to the table as a president.

The president hires wonks and then listens to them and makes decisions.

The problem with Bush wasn't that he was inexperienced, but that he's an entitled, empty, intellectually lazy, totally shallow hull of a man.

Whatever you can say about Obama, none of these things apply to him.

He'd make a great and original president, if only we'll give him a chance.