How did he betray his party? Let alone his race? The argument makes no sense. I see no connection between the Soviet-Nazi pact and this race. Not to mention that in your analogy, Clinton is a Nazi! You tell me which is worse.

I can't imagine what Obama has betrayed. He's run for the presidency. A black man "isn't supposed" to have gotten this far, but he has. No one was supposed to be a more likely contender for the Democratic nomination than Hillary. But someone else came along the voters found more appealing.

Obama has steered clear of personality-assassination poltics, he has talked about the issues, and he's made a winning case for his beliefs. I'm certainly not saying anyone has to agree with his arguments, that's the political process. It so happens that a lot of voters have agreed with him.

But unless you can tell me in clear and simple language how he has betrayed either his party—when he's the first crossover candidate in years likely to lure away Republicans to vote for a Democratic ticket? think Hillary can pull that off and secure a White House win? (she's alienated every centrist and conservative out there; and the Democrats aren't going to win with only Democratic support)—or his race—when he exemplifies that race is no longer a barrier to success, and in fact encourages America to have an honest talk about race and the politics of race in this country?—then your post doesn't really answer any questions for me.

Please link an article.

My question about race was to NY Shooter. I agree with you about the distinction between playing up the racial issue and being a racist.

I mean, who cares, really? Who cares when Hillary got radicallized—though as the article points out, she didn't get all that radicallized—especially as she didn't stay that way. You could do a piece recalling her participation the Watergate trials. It doesn't much alter her record as governor, her support for the Iraq war (and we all knew that voting for the war meant we were going to war; if she thought otherwise, she's too politically ignorant to hold any sort of office anyway, let alone be President), and the other mistakes she's made. Being on the board of WalMart, destroying health care for sixteen years, etc.

It might have been interesting if McClelland had pressed the question of how she reconciled supporting human rights with joining a party where they beat up people for questioning election practices (how did she manage to wipe out the memory of those bruises, or learn to live with them?). There's no irony that she's now courting the blue collar workers. The Clintons always did that. It's no sudden new thing. I call it "patronizing." We'll see who falls for it.

The digs at Hillary in this thread are largely unfair, but they crack me up. That bit about going on BET to talk about the black girl who was her childhood friend. A cheap shot, but I laughed.

Then again, how can we talk about substance when it comes to such a pointless topic (I don't mean her candidacy, I mean this article). No wonder people get bogged down on the existence of bookbags. What else is there to discuss? For real news, you have to go to other articles.

Hillary was IN FAVOR of Health Care

Newt Gingrich and ilk are the people who destroyed it for 16 years.

Nope, she did it with an incomprehensible, behemoth plan that no one could follow and the Republicans could sabogtage. Yes, she in favor of heathcare. But she killed it. She was clearly the wrong person for the job.

Very good point. Everyone knows she killed healthcare. Before that, she was being referred to as "St. Hillary." Remember those days (he asks, gagging)? She destroyed the Democrats' shot at healthcare, stalling at first at her father's bedside as long as she could, before presenting an unworkable plan. And then after the huge failure of it, boy she ducked and ran and had nary a thing to do publicly with the politics of the Clinton White House ever again. That's how bad she tanked.

I think they're less romantic then men, less emotional, much more practical, uh, much more independent then men are.......

In what reality? More independent? Then why are men still having to pay wife-support? How many women support their ex-husbands?

Less romantic? Less emotional? Do you ever read chick-lit? Do you look at what movies attract women as opposed to men? Do you look at the demographic for what women are most likely to watch on television as opposed to men?

It’s quite the Bizarro world you’ve tapped into, Andrew.