Well it seems like you wouldn't be depending on Republicans who are laughing while they got to the polls in Texas and bragging about gumming up the process so McCain can win in the fall.

Seriously what do Clinton supporters think is going to happen? These are not the independents he was appealing to. These are die-hard, tobacco-chewing, cattle rustling Republicans. They're going McCain. Wake up. You're destroying the party.

And hey Rocky! You want a fighter. Don't know if you saw the movie but you LOST. This is the one thing the Democrats can't afford again. No more pyrrhic victories, no more look how good we did, no more well she had to give it one good shot. We gotta WIN. Use your head, do the math, and for once let's actually elect a winning candidate.

For the record the arguments being used against Obama are the same ones used against every successful Democratic candidate dating back to at least FDR. I'll go more recent if you want, they're particularly indicative of those aimed at Jimmy Carter in his first (SUCCESSFUL) run in 1976. I.E. He's only winning small states and his opponent is so much more established (Teddy Kennedy in Carter's case, Hillary Clinton in Obama's) sure people dislike him/her, but somehow they'll come around right? I mean they got the name. Fortunately in one of the few wise decisions the Dem. Party's made in the past thirty years they actually IGNORED the conventional wisdom candidate, nominated Carter and won. Let's do this.

In terms of Bill Clinton we all know Barack obama, stylistically, governing wise and everything else is far closer to Bill than Hillary. By no math known possible can she or will she ever win.

Missouri which has gotten every election except one right since 1952 is the purplest of purple states. Frankly it's a better indicator than Ohio (i.e. it's been more right.) As is Virginia (don't think so ask Jim Webb), Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, Minnesota (they also have a Republican governor and are leaning right before you ask me) and Connecticut are all crucial swing states. He won these. And we all repeat he's not going to lose California in a general so let's get past this.

No it is not inherent on parents to let children take the reins over. First of all Barack Obama is not a child and neither are his supporters. This is why Hillary Clinton continues to lose the race, she can't seem to get this through her head. But yes it is inherent on the world to take the reins of power from the parents when they are burning the house down (in this case the planet), shooting at the nieghbors (Iraq), not paying the bills (the economy) and generally neglecting the children (all citizens in this case.)

No "parent" in this situation would be allowed to keep power over anything let alone their own well-being. They'd be in jail.

And the amount of genocides occuring during the past 16 years are a very distrubing trend. More than disturbing enough to diassociate ourselves as a country from the entire leadership structure that was in power during this time and allowed them to repeatedly happen. I mean this is beyond George W. Bush standards of incompetence. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. We're on 4 times now in less than 20 years. Atrocious and inexcusable. No other way to put it. This is before global warming, Iraq, the economy, etc., etc.

Which Clinton supporters keep maintaining he's somehow magically going to lose in the general.

Also you need to do some research. Connecticut has a female REPUBLICAN governor. M. Jodi Rell. Maybe you forgot they also have the Chris Shays another Republican in Congress. You need to check your electoral map again. Connecticut's much more evenly divided, and based on the latest demographic trends, even leaning Republican than you obviously know.

I don't really know how else to say it. Thank you though. I forgot they'd been on the ballot that long. You make a good point George H.W. Bush started running in 1980. My guess is well over 40 percent of the party has not been allowed to vote in an election that didn't have a Bush or Clinton on the Presidential ballot. This is not a good thing.

And people keep forgetting their are more of them. Jeb Bush has political aspirations, George P. Bush has political aspirations, Jenna Bush has political aspirations, Chelsea Clinton is looking like she has political aspirations. This is quickly turning into a dynasty. If it's not please tell me what else to call it. I live in Illinois. When the Chicago Bulls won 3 straight championships, Michael Jordan played baseball for a year, and then they won 3 more we at least went ahead and called it a dynasty.

Is there any rule they can't do this? Certainly not. But for their own continued prosperity in the field they should take a couple years off. If only to just make it look good. The fact that the American people won't demand they do so and are apparently comfortable with these two families potentially ruling the political dynasty for another 40 years on top of the 20 they've already ruled is equally disturbing. And yes I used the term ruled because so far they all have a record of drastically increasing the power of the presidency 2 minutes after they step into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Geesh, it's like living with Tudors and Boelyns here or something. It's not healthy.