It's just the double-edged sword. Nobody knows what to do with the Clinton supporters. Say nothing and they're ready to bolt. Say anything and it's the wrong thing.

They've derided and put down Obama so much (young, naive, cultish, Obambi-- that one's Maureen Dowd's fault, useless, criminal) and threatened to vote for McCain for so long one almost HAS to take them seriously. At that point, for the sake of your country, you pretty much have to speak up. A McCain administration would be truly, truly dreadful.

What too many, like Joan Walsh, are missing is you have two sides who have said what they're saying for so long and so loud the other side has no choice but to believe them.

Well Democrats voting for John McCain is frightening. And when they ask for reasons not to do so we give them some.

I'm leaving it there. Abraham Lincoln, a one-term Congressman from Illinois, beat out an entire field of supposedly more qualified rivals including one particularly powerful Senator from New York (Charles Seward) with far more experience and political connections.

Seward, and more importantly Seward's supporters, remained a figurative and literal pain in his rear end for the next 4 and half years. Even when he tried to run for re-election they continued haraunging him. Up until the time of his death, even after the Emancipation Proclamation and Appomatox, they continued yelling about how he was a horrible president. And how Seward would have been better just because he would have been. Even after Seward himself told his supporters no he wouldn't have been. And they should fully support Lincoln.

Doris Kearns Goodwin has seen these same parallels. She's tried to point it out on numerous occassions. People ignored it. Time Magazine wrote an article on how little relevance experience has to being a good president not too long ago.

If it were all about experience Herbert Hoover and Richard M. Nixon would have been our 2 greatest presidents ever. Every major historian, ever has told you there is no foundation to it. People HAVE to get this out of their heads. Give Senator Obama a chance. Just a chance.

That's the point. You have to judge people by more than that. And you have to understand just because some people think it's a deal-breaker others might not necessarily agree with that.

That's all. And when we tried to point out what can kindly be termed as outside of D.C. experience, like his time as a community organizer, this was made fun of and downgraded. Even though, in many ways, it would have more relevance to the job at hand and everyday people's lives than just living in D.C. would.

Point is: Obama's an outside the box kind of candidate. If people aren't willing to even consider looking outside of the box, well we're gonna have problems.

Now granted he's gotta do what Joan said: appeal to regular people more. But those people who are able to look outside of the box should take the chance to do so. And understand the guy ain't ever gonna be Pat Buchanan (which Joan seems only too eager to turn him into. After her repeated hagiography of her Irish-American ancestors, one wonders if it has something to do with this. ) He's just not. So let's find a middle ground and go from there.

Just think sometimes Joan should consider keeping in mind that Obama is, by definition, breaking the stereotype. So sometimes you have to give him room to operate just a little bit outside of it. The same way you would John Kennedy breaking down barriers.

People sometimes seem willing to do this for Hillary Clinton but not Obama. Anyway I appreciate your kind words.

Am going to go get some work done for a while. Thanks everyone for keeping up a spirited and interesting discussion as always.

Can understand why. It seems like a move just to appease women by putting another woman on the ticket, even though it isn't.

She's clearly the best governor in America, and Obama needs an experienced, effective executive on his ticket. Sebelius: stood up to Bush on overdeployment of the Kansas National Guard after the Greensburg tornado, wiped out a $1.1 billion debt in 6 years, built jobs, increased education funding, test scores K-12 went up. Plus her father was governor of Ohio, and she grew up there. So she would, potentially, have pull in that swing state.

Sadly it might still end up being Hillary. Wouldn't have bothered me at all, if prominent Clinton supporters hadn't went around trying to force Barack to put her on the ticket. Now it's going to make him look weak if he puts her on his ticket. Oh well.

All of the others mentioned (Warner, Webb, Richardson, Clark, Strickland) would be good. But Sebelius remains my number 1 choice (like others) in the hopes Clinton supporters can regain some sanity and realize Kathleen's qualified on her own merits.