Not on everything, but on that. Check the record. She's never done ANYTHING about it. Not saying you're saying the opposite just saying it's so.

She was the one who shut Al Gore out of Bill Clinton's presidency from almost the start.

Here's the link:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711

It's not biased, it's not some weird publication, it's Vanity Fair a major, respected magazine with a history of shooting straight down the middle.

Hillary Clinton knowingly set this country back at least a decade with regards to global warming, in an attempt to ensure she, not Al Gore, would be the next Democratic president of the United States. Fortunately she failed on both fronts.

Mostly because of the divorce from reality of many of you people. You've managed to take what should have been a very bad day for him and turned it around. Mainly through your strange dribble. So thank you.

In case you were wondering he had you at "categorically denounced." To be honest this is the difference between the two campaigns. He realizes when there is a problem and jumps on it. Senator Clinton does not, she allows it to hang out there, until everyone unmistakably knows it's her fault. Again he's just a better politicans. And better politicians win.

Charismatic candidates win. Boring candidates lose. Ask Al Gore. Ask anyone. He's more charismatic, he's run a better campaign, hence he's winning.

America's favorite modern presidents are Reagan (no I'm personally not a fan) and JFK. Why? Because they were charismatic, optimistic and gave us hope for tomorrow. Examine both of their records and you will find them mixed at best. Yet Americans maintain that they are our best presidents. Find an historian and they will tell you the same.

Now it's nice some of you are sitting around with your psychologist and psychiatrist friends in your upper Manahattan penthouse or lower Queens apartment, trying to psychoanalyze the Oedipal nature of this election, but it doesn't change fact. She's losing. He's winning. Seeing as how charisma and optimism relate directly to human psychology it seems like psychologists would have long ago realized what the rest of us have: charisma wins people over.

She's made fun of it and derided it from the beginning. She's belittled "fancy speeches". This is fine from an intellectual point of view. It is, however, no way to win an election. Elections are about making people like you. The most likeable person wins. You don't have to like that, but it's reality. And unless you come face to face with it you'll never win.

No I'm not arguing that it is the way it should be but the way it is. Others have said this even better than I have.

What I am saying is that Hillary Clinton as a candidate really has to get past this whole "speeches don't matter, charisma is irrelevant, being liked isn't important to me" phase of her campaign. Like others I think it's over, I don't think she can win.

However Uncle Fester has shown a way that, through a heck of a lot of crazy manuevering and unbelievable victory margins, she could still pull out a popular vote victory. I consider this impossible, but understand the argument and it is a good one.

However, IF she is ever to win this nomination she has to drop this whole "I don't care what people think about me" thing. People vote. Votes decide who win. This is a presidential contest, not a coronation. If she ever intends to get anywhere near the margins she would need to pull off this impossible miracle she will have to win more voters over. The only way to do this is to get people to like you. I'm trying to break it down to basics. That's really all she's got left at this point.

"Having read this excellent article, I noted that one of my "suggestions" to Senator Clinton declare the "War On Global Climate Change," be used in tandem with any "wars" with Jihadism or Global War On Terror. "

This is precisely the problem. I understand Senator Clinton and am trying very hard to respect her. But this very approach, this antagonistic, "fighter" stance is the problem I have with her approach. It doesn't work. Period.

Fighting people may be impressive and even worthy of praise, but it gets nothing done. What it does instead is divide us up into separate camps, set Democrats against Republicans, result in ensuing gridlock and guarantee that the problem will still remain.

How did this approach work on healthcare? How has "The War on Drugs" gone so far? What about the War on Iraq? Or the War on Radical Islam/Islamofacism/Global War on Terror? So far we have managed to create, not eliminate more radical Muslims throughout the Middle East. (I won't point out the logic that terror is a tactic not an ideology and as such one cannot declare an effective war on it.)

The point is always staking out claims, dividing ourselves into camps, and declaring war on things is not the best way to get real progress made. Hillary Clinton declaring "War on Global Warming" unfortunately is another example of this same old tired, failed policy of always fighting and never winning. I for one am ready to win. Needless to say I have voted for and plan to vote again for Senator Obama in the fall.