I wonder today if Clinton's weakest moment in the debate was when she called for a "reality check" on promises of hope. I think kids born after the 1960's sometimes get a little frustrated with the generation that was all for youth power...until they grew up. Giving the kids these days something to hope for is spot on. The baby boomers are starting to go on social security this year. The mantle (and the tax burden) is shifting. Offering hope to the "kids" isn't a bad thing for a candidate or for the party.

I've been thinking about it, and didn't Edwards began his first campaign for the presidency in 2000, after he had been only a Senator for two years? Although he may have gotten some flack for being so young and good looking, I don't remember this intense grilling as if to say "he's arrogant to be trying to become President after only two years in the Senate under his belt."

Ditto for Clinton. She was only four years in the Senate and many seemed to implore her to run. Yes, she had experience as first lady, but only four years in elected office. People didn't question one Senate term as sufficient experience to support her bid for the nomination.

So why is Clinton calling foul in the debates over Obama, this johnny-come-lately with pretty words, yet she seems to have at least considered running for President at exactly the same juncture of her Senate career?

anyone?

am I the only one who has looked at a map

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

and wondered why the media refuses to allow three candidates who are still close in the polls--still getting their message to their supporters--battle it out through more than ONE SMALLISH STATE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BOONDOCKS before pundits declare the winner and everyone else leaps on the bandwagon?

This is a Democracy. If you want voters to turn out for the General Election, let them actually help choose somebody.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but the rampant, ceaseless speculation of the actual end of her campaign so quickly into the process is making my stomach churn.

you make a good point. I was feeling tense until I found this on you-tube to make me laugh:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Hillary vs. Obama

I want the best person to win the nomination whoever that is. I'm behind Obama, but yes, given a different campaign and perhaps Clinton speaking more about her own accomplishments (as distinguished from Bill) I could support her.

I don't hold it against her, for the record, that she has stayed with Bill since I know human relationships are complex. I don't necessarily think its a calculation. Still, she hasn't walked out far enough from under his shadow.

It's also frustrating because I think there are at least two kinds of criticism coming at Clinton, both the harsh vitriol that we all who lived through the 90's hate and that is bad for the party, and some constructive criticism. I think its a weakness of her campaign that I don't see constructive criticism getting through the personal barricade that is built to protect her from the vitriol. Unfortunately, as a result, she appears more isolated from the ground than either Edwards or Obama.

the one thing that would really make me go sour on the Clinton brand is if she goes super-negative on Obama to try to save face, helping the GOP at the same time. The fact that the scuffles have been more or less minor up until this point have helped all the candidates look better. I hate to see someone losing who thinks the only way to win is by a massive Rove-like television ordnance. I don't think she can turn things around by doing this, but she could make herself look like a bad sport, and ultimately make it harder for any of the Democrats to gain the white house.

I just want to say I'm in your fan club. You're way of saying things is succinct, and your vision of the world is coherent and smart. I had to look up haberdasher. (For anyone who doesn't know: a dealer in men's clothing--In Britain a hat or dress maker). Really cool. And you're right about the boy's club stuff. My best friend and I saw Courage Under Fire together and at the moment Meg Ryan said she was crying because of tension, we said, why haven't we seen that before in a movie? Then we thought maybe too many films portray women has having lives entirely wrapped up in their husbands/romance/children where the 'tension' of career stress just wouldn't come up. And as I recall, in Courage Under Fire, Ryan is a marine, and after she cries essentially her men band together to usurp her authority and later destroy her in a frag. Interesting.

Giuliani this:

On Groundhog day people wait for that cute little Groundhog to poke his head up from the ground to show that spring is finally on its way. You know--like on 9-11 we sure could have used some cute little animal poking its head out of the smoldering rubble as a harbinger that America wouldn't cave eternally to the cold winter of Islamo-fascism....But hey! I mean......

I was thinking 9-9-9-9-9-11 to the tune of Ba-Ba-Ba-Ba-Barbra-Ann!