"Barack is more the one who has proven he will say anything to win. He and his campaign have said so many things that are so low - that she would never say.

For instance?

There are many things Hillary could say that she has not said - that she would never say - that Republicans will say.

For instance?

The issues that came up at the debate, would be some of the biggest issues in the general election and Hillary wouldn't be doing any Democrats a service to forecast these important issues that Republicans will use against Barack.

Wait, so your argument here is that she has some damning stuff on him that she knows the Republicans have but won't use it because...why?

I'm confused. Hasn't Clinton said herself, with regard to Wright, the Weather Underground, etc., that the Republicans will use these things so they're fair game?

You're saying there's something she's holding back that's far, far worse then the stuff she's already sought to capitalize on?

Would you care to be concrete here?

Democrats who think they will somehow be able to sweep these issues under the rug are being foolish and foolhardy indeed - trying to sweep them under the rug will just trip them up even more.

Again, what are "these issues" and who's talking about sweeping anything under the rug?

These are serious weaknesses for Barack's candidacy and electability at this time. There are many socially conservative swing voters who would never vote for him in the general election because of these ties, no matter what his economic promises are. Some things just cross a line - that goes too far for people. It is better we find out who those people who would not vote for Barack knowing those are now, then later, when it would mean that we would lose to McCain.

Now I'm not following your argument. I thought you were arguing that Clinton will not say anything to get elected?

Now you seem to be arguing that it's appropriate for her to make Republican-style attacks so we can get it on the table before the fall?

Sorry, I'm really not following you here.

McCain already has great, solid poll numbers, and the Republicans having even really started attacking their opponent yet. Hillary's baggage is old news. Barack has a lot of baggage yet to be opened, there's still many unknowns about Barack, and too many of the knowns have extreme edges that will make many feel uncomfortable. Hillary is more of a proven political entity. Barack is not."

Ok, so Clinton is more of a proven entity, but the question on the table was whether or not she'll "say anything" to get elected.

To be clear, my contention is not about who is electable and who is not, but rather about what kind of campaign I want to endorse and what kind not, about what kind of person I want to endorse and what kind not.

I say again, Clinton is a world-class panderer and this is why I can't vote for her.

I will concede that perhaps world-class pandering is what it takes to win. But that's not the kind of victory I'm interested in having a part in, because the next thing you know we'll be at war with Iran because we failed to recognize Hillary Clinton for who she is, and who she has been.

I don't know for sure whether her hawkishness is a function of her pandering or is genuine hawkishness (I suspect the line is completely blurred by this point), but either way, I think she's bad news precisely because her chief concern is not with "the right," but rather with "winning."

It's for this reason that I think she's dangerous.

"As a former Midwest farm girl who has lived as a well educated "liberal elite" in San Francisco for twenty five years I just have to weigh in on this. The working class is mostly uneasy with Obama because he increasingly appears to be unprepared for the task he has taken on.

Would this be the same "working class" that voted for Bush? Or is this a different demographic we're talking about? Are Democratic working class voters far more demanding than Republican working class voters? Because for Christ's sake, if your theory were valid, Gore would have trounced Bush, whose basic premise was "Just trust me on this, I'm white, I'm a good old boy (wink-wink) and I love Jesus."

Do you see the flaw in your argument, or am I missing something?

George Bush wasn't cocky?

You mean to say people don't want a black man who seems cocky. It's ok if you're white. In fact, it's probably obligatory if you're white.

From a small town perspective, there is no quick fix solution for Obama's experience deficit. Respect has to be earned and that takes time.

That's just not true. Not only did George Bush do little to earn respect in 2000, but his first term was so destructive, so spectacularly bad that he should have squandered whatever respect he had.

Your argument just doesn't hold water.

"Entitlement" is a concept that is alien to the majority of working class, women and older folks who still remember the Depression and the World War.

Again, what country are you living in?

Bush is the archetype for entitled mediocrity and people loved him! These very people (presumably) that you're insisting are all about meritocracy!

Obama supporters castigate Hillary for acting as though she is "entitled" to the Presidency. But others see in her someone who has been working very hard for a long time to get where she is.

Fair enough, she's a hard worker. But so is Obama. Her work has just been higher profile, is all, which in fact plays into the entitlement thing.

They may actually "like" Obama better, but they "respect" Hillary more. And, in small town America, that makes all the difference.

And Gore and Kerry lost why?