A couple of things.

I presume you're saying that Clinton addressed the housing issue first -- I'd have to do some research on that -- not the stimulus, as it's pretty well substantiated Edwards was the first with a stimulus package. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5486180.html)

Second, I'm a big fan of RFK -- more, even, than JFK -- but his experience was negligible. He had been AG for 3 years and a Senator for 3 years. Arguing he was more experienced than Obama is, I'm sorry, a distortion, even notwithstanding the crucible of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Finally, the presumption that young people are backing Obama merely for charismatic and "celebrity culture" reasons is inherently false and insulting. Forgive me for reposting from an earlier comment, but it gets tiring responding to the same sad generalizations.

"The reason I decided to vote for Obama many months ago -- despite having worked for the Clinton rapid response team for several years -- was this: Campaign Finance and Ethics Reform. I believe most other problems in DC are insoluble until you get at least some of the money out of politics. Sen. Obama passed the first comprehensive campaign finance law in Illinois in 25 years. In the US Senate, he's worked with Sen. Feingold to craft the new, post-Abramoff ethics package. Meanwhile, even notwithstanding all the campaign finance "confusion" of the Clinton years, Sen. Clinton has been openly on record speaking against McCain-Feingold ("You're not living in the real world, Russ") and voted to weaken the provisions of the Obama-Feingold ethics reform package, which she now deems too weak. (She voted against an Office of Public Integrity.)

Edwards, of course, has also been very good about speaking of the problem of money in politics, and he's my strong second choice. The reason I originally chose Obama over Edwards was for the reasons Feingold recently mentioned -- Edwards' voting record almost exactly contradicts his current stances. Nevertheless, I do like Edwards and I'm glad he's run."

So please stop arguing that youngish people -- I'm 33, for what that's worth -- have fallen into some cult of personality. We've thought it out just as much as you have, and I'll put my years working for the Clinton response team against anyone else's when it comes to evaluating the Clintons -- and Obama -- with clear eyes.

Thanks. It is much appreciated. :)

For what it's worth, I tried to explain -- in more broad and general terms -- why I support Obama here:

http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/005164.html

And I tried to wrap my head around this hugely depressing generation gap here:

http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/005179.html

I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all -- that's the American way. But I do get very frustrated with people saying that Obama supporters are unthinking idiots buying into an "empty suit." And I also get frustrated with the considerable amounts of misinformation floating around. You can disagree with my opinion -- in fact, please do -- but don't act like I/we haven't spent time thinking it through.

That's not really all that cryptic.

I'm just saying.

There's no way of knowing, of course, but to be honest, I think Florida would've been a pick-up for Clinton even if both candidates had canvassed the state constantly.

There's a reason why they call Florida "God's Antechamber," as both George Will and Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2183036) have referred to it in past days. Which is not to say that all older voters are pro-Clinton, of course, but they have been skewing for Clinton 2-1 up to SC thus far. And the generation gap, to my mind, has seemed more deep and persistent than either the more-press-covered race and gender gaps.

Hopefully the Kennedy endorsement and the Clintons' recent questionable behavior will encourage older voters to give Obama another look.

At any rate, it's too bad (for her campaign) that Sen. Clinton didn't protest the stripping of delegates when it mattered. It would've been a relatively easy pick-up for her.

I'm only watching CNN at the moment, but they seem to be handling it pretty responsibly. They covered Clinton's speech, they called Florida a win for her immediately, and they occasionally have Bill Schneider and Soledad O'Brien do their exit poll routine with the Dem numbers. But they also keep explaining the zero delegate situation and are devoting most of their coverage to the GOP.

This is, to my mind, as it should be. I guess the Clinton supporters would like to see this covered like SC was last week, but, frankly given the rules, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The Berlin Bunker has other things on its mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2triiYXSY8

If I had to guess, I'd actually think Edwards voters would probably split down the middle for Clinton and Obama. If the posts of some Edwards voters here are any indication, there does seem to be a good bit of animosity for the "empty suit" among their ranks.

I actually think it's in Obama's interest for Edwards to stay in, thus keeping the delegate count relatively close between Clinton and Obama...until he gives his delegates to Obama at a later date. (Put another way, I'm guessing that Edwards' delegates would be easier to transfer to Obama than his votes.)

In any case, Edwards should stay in as long as he wants, imho. If he's "stealing" votes from either side, so be it. Those are his votes. I'm an Obama supporter, so I'd love to see those votes go to the Senator from Illinois...but they're not his (or hers) by fiat.