Yes the Clinton years were good, but why people insist on taking the things that were bad about it and trying to make them good defies all common logic.

She screwed up health care once before. Fact. She admits, her husband admits it, the campaign admits, all sane people admit it. It lost he Democrats both houses of Congress and ensured that we did not have decent health care in this country for the past 16 years. Period. Fact.

Now if you want to say this means she knows what she's doing and won't make the same mistake again (which is highly doubtful, but whatever) fine. But to say she didn't screw it up the first time or cite "her good record" on healthcare is untrue and patently absurd. Again I don't know why her supporters bother to deny what even she herself would not.

Bill Clinton inherited a quickly improving economy. Had the election been six months later George H.W. Bush (the first one) would have won reelection. Clinton admits it, Bush admits it, even Alan Greenspan admits it. I don't see the confusion there either.

Granted, she could still come back and take the popular vote. I considered this even a likely outcome, until word came down that Howard Dean is working out a way to seat Florida and Michigan. If this is done, delegate wise, and there's no re-vote in those 2 states I just don't see how she catches up in the popular vote count.

And look at some of the spin now. It's becoming HRC has to somehow win North Carolina to really change things. That's just not going to happen. So now she can take Penn and Indiana and all Obama has to do is hold North Carolina? I think we're starting to cross a threshold here.

The pundits could be wrong, we could all be wrong and end up with egg on our face, but it's looking more and more remote. I just don't see how she wins.

For several reasons, the first of which is any one who has ever read the Page or seen Halperin on CNN knows he's in the bag for the Clintons.

The real solution to this whole thing seems obvious to me: Bill Richardson, whatever else his shortcomings might be, is probably one of the best negotiaters we've seen in this country over the past 20 years. Hence he let the Clintons think what they wanted to think.

The art of negotiation is all about getting what you want out of someone without them realizing what they're giving away. He went into North Korea, Iraq and just about every other trouble spot in the world and was able to get what he wanted out of the some of the world's worst dictators. This is what Richardson did to the Clintons and, for once, they just got outmanuevered. No tears for them here. That's the game of politics.

Yes he will win the election, and more handily than Hillary would. The notion that he wouldn't is by those who aren't actually looking at the electoral map. And he can do it without both Pennsylvania and Florida (not that we don't want votes from there too, so please get out and vote for him.)

All Obama needs to take is: Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Hawaii. That's it. He takes it 278-260 right there.

The only one of those states that's even remotely tough for him to take in the fall is Ohio. Michigan, with a Democratic governor, and just about universally Democratic Senators and Congressmen/women goes easily to whoever the Democratic nominee is. Have you seen the job situation up there? And notice I didn't give him Kansas (which he'll take with Sebelius) or Nebraska (which is leaning Democratic and where if Obama won just 2 out of 3 congressional districts the electoral rules there would push the margin of victory even higher up to 280.)

This idea he can't win is moronic and idiotic. It's simply not true. Frankly given the map and the new electoral rules he wins more handily than Clinton. Obama easily takes the general.

Sorry forgot that one. He's got to take that. Don't think it'll be much of a challenge either though.

Funny this wasn't a problem when Bill Clinton was running and he didn't even have the speech Obama had at the convention.

I thought the point was to elect Democratic presidents. Obama's a true Democrat, even his detractors don't deny this. He can get elected. He's winning. What's the problem?

Again I find it interesting we Democrats didn't have any of these problems with Bill Clinton. In fact we were told to shut up and overlook his character flaws for the good of the Party. And this was after he lost us both houses of Congress.

Anyone who can't support Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee, particularly when he's going to win the general, the Repubs haven't been this screwed in years, is not a real Democrat. Period.