winning is for losers. Obama keeps showing his inexperience by winning primaries. Losing primaries is an indication of toughness, intelligence and experience. How can you trust Obama as the commander in chief when he naively keeps winning primaries? Every primary lose proves that Hillary is ready to be commander in chief from day one. How can Obama hope to beat McCain in November when he keeps winning so many primaries?

The only voters with whom Hillary still has a slight edge are undereducated(no college degree), over 55 blue color whites. Do you guys believe that you can win a general election with this group? Another thing-if the Super Tuesday primaries were held today, Hillary would lose California by 8-10 points, as well as most states she had won then, and her margin of victory in her present home state of NY would probably be no larger than 5 points, if that. Does all this give you an impression of a candidate who is capable of beating McCain?

The exit polls indicate that Hillary has an edge, and even that edge is getting smaller, among under-educated whites. This doesn't mean that she doesn't have any support among other groups, including college educated voters, some of whome may be your collegues and friends, only that her supprt there is progressively diminishing and is significantly smaller than Obama's. Even in the group that was supposed to be her greatest strength, white women, she's now tied with Obama, and her support among independents is dismally low. There's no chance of taking this to a general election and getiing trounced, which is all I'm saying. I don't have anything in particular against under-educated white people except that they seem to be uncomfortable with non-white persidential candidates, and i don't see why I should accept a mentality that is basically racist, being white myself.

Why was it OK for the Clinton camp to use racial put downs when commenting on Obama's victories, but "shameful" to denounce racial bigotry among her one remaining core voting block, under-educated whites? Imagine Clinton running against a Jewish candidate and losing New York by a wide margin and then having her husband dismiss her opponent's victory as:"of course our opponent has won NY, he's Jewish after all, so it's not a big deal", she would lose the Jewish vote, which what happened to her with the black vote in the aftermath of Bill Clinton's reaction to Obama trouncing Hillary in S. Carolina with its large African-American population. It's fascinating that Hillary has lost her edge over Obama with every single voting block with the exception of the one most prone to reject a candidate solely on base of his/her race-lower middle class white voters.

Actually, stated positions on issues by presidential candidates are useless and I pay almost no attention to them. Once a candidate becomes president, things are totally different, circumstances change, so much depends on the working majority in the congress, assuming the president even has one, etc. It's really about intelligence, the ability to make correct decision, core values and world views and the ability to surround yourself with very bright people who hold a diversity of views and who will not hesitate to present different views options to the president even if they contradict his/hers. When Hillary was faced with the most important decision of her life, regarding war authorization, she failed miserably, and her voting record on that issue has been that of a neocon. This alone should disqualify her from becoming the democratic nominee, although there are many other, like not making any attempt to reform the voting system which allows the republicans to "win" elections they have actually lost.

If the California primaries were held today, Hillary would lose to Obama by 5-10 points. The same would be true for most states she won on Super Tuesday. She would even struggle to win her present home state of NY. Obama may very well lose to McCain, although I doubt that very much, but Hillary woule get trounced by him. She's doing terribly among independents and young voters, and not that well among many other groups . To make matters worse, many Democrats are so mad at her Iraq war vote, they consider her as bad as McCain and wouldn't bother to vote in November. It's simple, with Obama we have a fair chance to win, with Hillary no chance whatsoever. Another point her supporters should consider very seriously-if she is being trounced among Democrats by a young and inexperienced candidate to whom she managed to squander a huge lead she held in every public opinion poll only a couple momths ago, if she's being booed by Democrats during debates because of her anger and self-pity while Obama drwas massive crowds an immense enthusaism among diverse voting groups, how in the world can she be a viable candidate in the general elections?

Being able to memorize lots of statistics and position papers doesn't make a good candidate or a good president. It's about having the ability to make good decisions and excercize good judgement. When the Iraq vote came up in 2002, Hillary Clinton made a terrible decision and her judgement was just as awful. That vote disqualifies her permanently from being worthy of the Democratic nomination. All her propaganda about being more experienced and qualified than Obama is garbage and an insult to the Democrats. She doesn't deserve to be in the same arena with Obama, who is immensly more qualified to be president. it's time for her to go away.