The Democrats' recent woes seem to be the result of being overly cautious and defensive, and choosing "safe" DLC-type, uninspiring candidates. Nominating Senator Obama over Senator Clinton would be a departure from this trend of having great candidates and ideas, but chickening out when it really counts. I'd argue that nominating Clinton would be "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".

Anonymous,

You managed to work middle-school level homophobia ("rbhomo") and more sophisticated ethnocentrism ("Hussein-Obama") into your post. This is suprising behavior for someone who professes concern for the direction of the Democratic Party. Let's all try to be a little nicer.

Shockingly, Congressman Kingston repeated the claim that Obama "refused to say the pledge of allegiance" on Bill Maher's Real Time Friday night.

That one has been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked (and traced back to a chain e-mail) that I was surprised to hear it trotted out again. At least they could have the decency to come up with a NEW lie, instead of just repeating an old one.

I just read an article synopsis at cnn.com that featured the line "Obama cited for not wearing American flag lapel pin, among other things". It sounds as if he's broken a law of the self-appointed patriotism police. Is there a fine associated with this citation? What's the penalty for "politicking without mandatory American flag lapel pin"? Something tells me that Senator Clinton will appear next week wearing an outrageously large American flag lapel pin! Senator Obama just needs to get a big foam novelty hand that says "U.S.A. # 1", shout out a couple of Woo-hoos, and he'll be fine.

Senator Obama certainly responded diplomatically in this case. Unfortunately, I think this latest incident IS reflective of Senator Clinton's approach to campaigning, even if Obama is kind enough to not point that out. One dirty trick can be an isolated incident, two a forgivable mistake, when the attacks reach double digits I think it's safe to say that this is a pattern of behavior. In other words, shame on you, Hillary Clinton.

Dear W.E.S. and Ironocrat,

Most of the pro-Obama posts here are civil and respectful in tone, some are not. Try not to focus on the nasty and/or immature Obama supporters. Above all else, the Obama campaign is supposed to be positive and inclusive. We'd really appreciate your help going into the general election.

Distributing a picture with the intention of furthering the fear- and ignorance-based notion that a political opponent is Muslim is a "below the belt attack".

This quote is not: "Certainly I don't think that photograph was circulated to enhance my candidacy. I think that's fair to say."

Let's maintain a little perspective here.

This is a fascinating question and one well worth asking, but we should be sure not to let an affirmative answer diminish Senator Obama's accomplishment. Don't forget that Obama began this campaign with everything stacked against him. If he ultimately wins the nomination it will not be because of some "god-given" (or, as some Clinton supporters assert, "unfair") advantage. Certainly, many factors have combined to influence his success, most of them the result of hard work, good decision-making, and the unwavering support of millions. Baritone voice or not, Senator Obama has run against an "inevitable" candidate and is on the verge of winning.

Many thanks to Juan Cole for writing about Senator Obama's links to that little-known place called "the rest of the world" and that neglected era called "human history". Articles with global and historical perspective are refreshing. I hope Barack Obama's "controversial" middle name leads people to learn more about the larger world.

Part of being a political spinner is creating an alternate "reality" more favorable to the candidate that you support, and contrary to the reality observed by everyone else.

Lose a state, justify, excuse, lose another state, new justification, new explanation, lose another state, yet another excuse as to why that state or those people don't really matter, yet another justification, lose another state, pay no attention to what's happening - we're actually kind of winning, despite what the facts might suggest...and so on...and so on.

Next week: we never had any intention of winning Texas and/or Ohio, anyway. Losing one or both was all part of the master plan. We're riding this wave of "success" all the way to the convention!

It's a big part of the "politics as usual" we're trying to go beyond.

Many of us have enough experience to known that a campaign slogan can be repeated again and again, without being true. Senator Clinton's repetition of "experience" is an example.

Clinton has more "life experience". She has been alive 14 years longer than Senator Obama, but Obama has more legislative experience than Senator Clinton.

All in all, I think we can (and have been able to for months) take "experience" out of the equation. Vote for Clinton or vote for Obama, but don't do so because of some perceived difference in experience.

If running a Presidential campaign is any indication, ask yourself which candidate has demonstrated greater competence thus far.