Let's face it. This is all about a shift in societal and political power far more than it is on "the kids being dumb."

As people have pointed out the U.S. education system has been failing for a number of years now. Young people have increasingly asked for a larger voice since at least the early 1990s (understand those people are not so young anymore and now in their mid-30s) and certain segments of the older population have always been, shall we say, grumpy. But it is all coming to the forefront now. Has anyone bothered to ask why?

One need do no more than that "research" that the older generation is constantly vaunting. Read through the leaders on this site. It's clear. What we have is a shift in the power dynamics. Young people have finally reached the point where there are enough of them that they have a coherent, strong political voice.

This is the source of the tensions between young and old that are coming to the surface. Many older people, as all groups of older people do, fear this change from an inherent belief that it means the loss of their own political power.

Also given the lack of any activity in terms of stopping global warming, the spark in the number of genocides across the world (that started with Bill Clinton's administration), the collapsing economy and the disastrous war in Iraq (which both of the older candidates supported) I think they also know they are on thin ice with regard to the leadership argument. Baby Boomers, who as a generation HAVE been a great success, have been dismal leaders falling into the trap of being too self-absorbed (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton) and they know it.

Only one of the two candidates is taking credit for an administration where the Vice President was the foremost expert in the world on global warming and their spouse chose to pay no attention to them. That person is Hillary Clinton.

It has repeatedly been described how Hillary Clinton tried to minimize Al Gore's role in the White House at every turn. The most recent and best example is in an article by Gail Sheehy in the November 2007 issue of Vanity Fair.

Hillary and Bill Clinton had their chance to stop global warming. They were too busy schemin how to minimize Al Gore's role, shut him out of the process, and ensure they held onto power (through Hillary's Senate run) to pay attention to real, important issues like global warming. Hence they have lost my vote.

Anyone who is serious about global warming needs to take a long, hard look at the Clinton's record and willingness to ignore the topic for their own personal gain. She is not serious about it and never has been. Check the record.

He's clearly the best political talent we've seen in this country in the past 30 years (or at least since 1980) and they know it. It pisses them off. That's what has them so angry.

I'll repeat, the one assertion which has yet to be answered, why did white candidates who were just as charismatic (Lincoln, JFK, RFK, Reagan) get just as far? Give me a break this is politics people. Part of it is getting people to like you. That's not a foul. It's fair.

The second part is running a campaign and it's the part one candidate (Hillary Rodham Clinton) should have had a HUGE advantage in, she got to watch first-hand two successful campaigns. Yet hers has been a disaster. This is a FACT. You're wanting to change it cannot do so.

You want to talk about Jeremiah Wright? Fine, let's talk about that. Barack dismissed his statements months ago. Again, just plain good commmon political sense. So while you all get up in a tizzy talking about it, he can point to statements he made weeks ago and people will go, "Hmmm. Well I might not like it, but he did say it way back in October. Gotta give Obama credit for that." Obama can then distance himself further. This is good politics.

This is an election, not a coronation. No offense, but Hillary's side has never gotten this which is why she continues to lose. Barack's running a better campaign, hence his winning. And guess what? He will win. When the best candidate runs the best campaign they tend to win regardless of gender, race, religion or any other stupid factors we try to force on them.

I have respect for older white women, older white men, older black men and older black women. But if they honestly believe in the Democratic platform and choose to sit this one out then they will have only themselves to answer to if we somehow end up with another Republican president, more wars, and the continued narrowing of a woman's right to choose.

My hunch is Obama knows they don't like him. And again he's going to keep moving forward. They're angry that he won't bow down and beg them for support. Too bad. We're going forward, Barack is going to continue winning, as he has done so far, and WILL BE the next president of the United States come November 2008. Maybe when he walks onto those steps and holds his right hand up on January 20, 2009 you'll finally accept this or not. Either way it's going to be reality the one place HRC and supporters have refused to enter for the past month and still won't come near.