So let's not worry too much about one faction not supporting the other faction once this is all said and done. Emotions are running high right now, but we're better off spending that energy fighting the other side rather than each other.

I was for Edwards, I'm currently for Obama, but I'll vote for Hillary -- just not one second before I have to.

I agree with the sentiment, as long as the winner wins fair and square: in other words, pledged delegates. Superdelegates are neither fair nor square. Superdelegates are simply the preferences of Democratic party bigwigs who feel their votes should matter a thousand-fold more than regular citizens.

Michigan and Florida counting, after the candidates were told they wouldn't, wouldn't be fair either, obviously. Didn't we all learn as children that changing the rules in the middle of the game invalidates the game?

To repeat, as long as the nominee's victory is fair and square, most will be on board. If it's slimy and questionable, the Democrats will be fractured for a generation, and they'll certainly deserve to be.

Sen. Clinton needs to find a way to beat Obama on pledged delegates if she wants to be the nominee, and currently she's behind in them. Pledged delegates are those pesky things based on how actual citizens voted at primaries and caucuses.

The army of the young, affluent, black, male, and rural Democrats Obama has assembled would be lost to the Dems for a generation if the Clintons somehow slimed through on 1) undemocratic "Superdelegates," or 2)Michigan and Florida (which weren't even contested.)

"Hillary Clinton is the Salieri to Obama's Mozart. If Hillary wins this race it will be all of our loss."

Yes, he really is a rare talent. It will be a shame if that talent has to be put on ice for 8 years, but that still seems the most likely scenario. It's just extremely difficult to beat the only successful Democrat (Clintons) of the last 30 years in presidential politics, when they start with all the name recognition, connections, etc... The tsunami of states on Feb. 5 doesn't help him either.

That's not to say that HRC isn't an extremely impressive person. She is. She's wonky, smart, diligent, skillfully collegial, even charismatic and sexy in her way. She's just not a natural leader, and not a genius of politics. She could be one of the greatest Senate Majority Leaders in history, and ride that position the rest of her career, if her ambitions weren't so outsized. That's what always strikes me about her -- she's Senatorial, in the very best sense.

Oh well, she'd be a vast improvement on Bush in most ways, as would McCain. Still, it will feel to many like a huge opportunity missed if it's not President Obama being inaugurated next January.

The civility and substance were impressive tonight, especially from Obama and Clinton.

As Chris Matthews pointed out, Clinton deftly played the role of the establishment safe-bet candidate. I'm afraid that with the compressed schedule this year, that professionalism will suffice to get her the nomination. Clinton is in the Mondale/Gore/Kerry/Dukakis line of competent political mediocrities Democrats always seem to favor when push comes to shove. If she transcends that lineage by winning the general election this Fall, it will only be because the 1) Republicans are in such bad shape, and 2) enough people still like her husband, the only truly gifted politician the Democrats have nominated since 1984.

Even in this muted format, Obama still impresses as the great political talent in the field. Unfortunately, 3 weeks probably isn't enough time for him to entrench himself fully in the national consciousness for what in effect is a national election Feb. 5. Until then, of course, there's always hope.

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I want to like Senator Clinton; I really do. She has a fine lawyer's mind; incredible composure, diligence, determination; a noble bearing and visage...but not a shred of wit, wisdom, original thought, or ability to inspire. Meet The Press today reminded again how grim, condescending, self-righteous, and petty she often is.

She spent the better part of an hour making the most sophistical argument possible about Obama's record of opposition to the war...there's almost nothing to it. Her argument is based on 1) some remark Obama made around the 2004 Democratic Convention to a reporter who was trying to capture him in a gotcha moment where he'd criticize Kerry -- (to the effect of, no, of course I can't say for sure how I would have voted had I been in the U.S. Senate then to vote on the Iraq War Resolution) and 2)his yes votes to continue funding the Iraq War (same as Clinton, and same as many Senators who opposed and continue oppose the war.)

Surely she knows, in her heart of hearts, that this argument is based on so little, that it's negative, unproductive, and petty. Yet she has pounded away on it for weeks now. If that's what this "hard work" she keeps bragging about amounts to, I'll pass. Give me the dreamer instead. Politics just doesn't have to be so low and mean.

I don't see anything embarrassing in Bennett's words there, with the possible exception of "dignity" being one of those old-fashioned backhanded compliments for black people (sort of like "articulate")...but surely Bennett can be forgiven that much.

A black man winning the lily-white Iowa primary is HUGE news. Juan Williams on Fox used the word "astounded" repeatedly, and his eyes personally registered the fact. Politically incorrect though it may be, there are reasons Obama plays so well to white crowds, when previous leaders didn't. You mean we can't talk about those? Or just old conservative white men can't talk about those?

This kind of partisanship before the fact -- guilty until proven innocent -- is exactly the sort of old politics Obama is trying to overturn, and exactly the reason he succeeds where Jesse Jackson and others haven't. We really don't need to hate each other so much.