If you're in the majority, and expect such a vote to cripple the unqualified jokers you wish weren't running.

Hey I'l be first to admit that I'd have loved to see old Teddy Kennedy (present situations not withstanding) make one final glorious push for the whitehouse.

And yes, there is a fear of liberalism in this country that will cause Senator Obama's (or Clinton's if the roles were reversered) Honeymoon to be decidedly short.

The bottom line is, you can't wait for the perfect candidate, one doesn't exist. The liberal icons are far too liberal for the centrists, and the centrist bridge builders are far to centrist for the liberals, and same story goes on the right.

All these men and women could drive off the cliff if the world gives them another Katrina or 9/11, but we have to play the hand we're delt.

I support Obama not because he's the absolute best guy ever to done a suit jacket and flag pin, but because he is very on the ball politically, an supports an agenda that I mostly agree with.

That's all you get in politics. someone you mostly agree with, and someone who can manage scandel, play the press to his advantage, and keep his organization organized.

For a no name Senator from no where to come out and knock down big names and big money, tells me he's on the ball. then the only issue is if he's a force for good or evil?

I'm checking the good box on Obama, as I would have for Clinton had she shown the political skill to win (and if she pulls out an 11th hour victory god bless her, she deserves the seat).

McCain, I'm going to click evil, not because I don't think he truly belives he's doing good for the country, but because I think he's going about it all wrong.

And we can finnally wave by by to the crazy math, and stretched argument.

I really wish she would focus on some kind of policy or electability argument, rather than just making up numbers.

But then again, her policy arguments are pretty weak (excepting of course her brilliant gas tax holiday idea). And electability, well that based on Obama not carrying her constituancy, and that leaves open the question of how she'll carry Obama's constituancy.

Oh well, 76.5 hours and we can all go home.

Let's here it for Super Delegates.

At this time Obama is polling better than Kerry or Gore among working class whites, that combined with his record support levels among traditional Democratic constituancies suggests that every state that Kerry and Gore won will be won by Obama. Meaning Michigan & Pennsylvania are unlikely to go to McCain.

Ohio & Florida because of the closeness of the Kerry/Gore/Bush competitions, and given Obama's greater support among working class whites than Kerry or Gore had should mean that Obama will win these event handily.

Check the numbers, you will see that Obama does better than the previous candidates, perhaps not as well as Clinton, but given Clinton's weaknesses among other groups it is evident that Obama is the stronger candidate, based solely on the numbers.

Now as we learned from the Gas Tax Holiday Debacle, Senator Clinton nor her supporters are big fans of numbers, but since they are raising the issue, we might as well be honest about them.

He's qualified, more so than Senator Clinton.

Look at the way he ran circles around her and managed scandals, while she remaind flat footed, ham handed, and generally unprepared for a fight.

Goodness I'd hate to think how her chronic exhaustion might make her mispeak on a three am phone call.

No, we need a person with the skills to lead on day one, and that person after this exhaustive campaign was clearly not Senator Clinton. Not that she wouldn't have been better than McCain, but clearly Obama was the stronger candidate, and better organized politician on the ground.

Politics is about convincing one to your side, something Senator Clinton did an excellent job at, but which Senator Obama did a little bit better.

She's not being asked to step aside, she's being asked to accept reality. There's no shame or scorn in that, out of respect for her, people have held their tounges far more than they would have for another candidate.

So let's take this to the extream.

Candidate A) completely inept at picking qualified people to handle the work of implementing their ideas.

Candidate B) highly capable at picking qualified people to handle the work of implementing their ideas.

Candidate A) may be better in a debate (debatable of course) but on the ground because the candidate has chosen to surround theirself with cronies and hacks, they still lose to Candidate B) who understands that one skilled person can not make up for a team of talent, lead of course by Candidate B.

If Senator Clinton were as skilled as Senator Obama in selecting, managing, and leading her team she would be the nominee and Obama and Edwards would be jockying for Veep.

And for once I'll take the Bush comparison, look at what a skilled team can do. Bush himself is a weak politician, but his team was strong, and his agenda got through, dispite his numerous weaknesses at the polls and even in congress.

I'd rather have a good manager who can push their agenda (universal healthcare & and an end to the war in Iraq)dispite weaknesses he may face, than a talented politician who has no organization behind them.

Carter was probably one of the most intelegent qualified and skilled politicians to hold the office, but he lacked the managerial skills to run his show.

Let's be frank, we don't need another Carter, We need a Bush who uses his powers for good.