You write:

"What do you think, at this point, differentiates Senator Clinton's campaign from the Rove playbook? Repeating distortions over and over again until people think they're true? Check. Trying to swiftboat Obama at his point of greatest strength (opposition to the Iraq war)? Check. Sending out brazenly false mailers on abortion and taxes? Check. Painting the candidate as a flip-flopper based on out-of-context Senate votes? Check. Indulging in union-busting rhetoric when useful? Check. Wallowing in the politics of fear? Check. Encouraging wedge divisiveness by rather blatantly playing the race card? Check. Voter suppression? Check. Chain e-mail smears and robocalls? Check."

Did any of the mailers or emails smears you mention, or got, really sent out by the Clinton campaign? I think not. They would have been roasted by the media in a nano second, if the Clinton hating media had gotten a whiff of this kind of "swift boating." I too got a horrific email on Obama's religious affiliations to Islam and his connections to Al Qaeda to which I promptly berated everyone on the email list for indulging in this type of distortion. This email certainly did not come from the Clinton camp and blaming them for this kind of right wing nastiness is just another form of Clinton hating if your candidate is not up to snuff.

Here is what I found so irritating about Obama. When asked in a previous debate about this email and his religious belief, Obama was not adult enough to take a stand on respecting ALL religions. Instead, he answered flatly "I am a christian." So much for bringing disparate people together to bring unity to this country.

Hillary is not a union buster. I don't know where you get that from. Much of what you have stated is misinformation.

Just for your information, I was an Obama supporter, but my primary vote is going for Edwards. At least he is bringing more bread a butter issues to the table. Obama is getting hoisted by his own petard, flying too close to the sun, and you know what is going to happen.

They are ALL lying and exxagerating (sp) their positions and want to portray themselves as bigger than life do-gooders. Your injecting "rovian" dirty tricks on the part of the Clintons is a code to give Obama a free ride on his pack of lies. Obama is like that youngest sibling in the family who starts the fight but runs to his parents when the big kids beat him up. Comparing the Clintons to Karl Rove is certainly specious.

To be fair, Obama is the one who started the snarl about Wal-Mart, after which Hillary came back about the slum lord in Chicago. But time and again, Obama got himself in the cross hairs. He did not come out as good as the press would like us to believe. Hillary was able to stay on message even with Obama's home court advantage with a mostly African American audience. Hillary stood her ground and responded well under pressure, while Obama seemed to want sympathy from the audience with the attack on Bill Clinton and having to answer to 2 adversaries. He appeared like he can dish it out, but he certainly cannot take it.

Obama is certainly a neophyte and appears uncomfortable in the rough and tumble world of national politics. Hillary has found her voice. Go girl

I just sat through a contentious debate between Hillary, Obama and John. I am glad they went for the jugular. A good rough and tumble of politics. Hillary did come off strong, and in my opinion or perception if you will, Barack came off arrogant and a bit of a neophyte. The audience was predominantly Arican American, some of whom did give Hillary a standing ovation as she entered the stage. I hope that Barack does not take the African American vote for granted, even though he is running ahead in South Carolina.

But Hillary is going to win the nomination. She may lose in SC but she scored big across the country. Race and gender do matter, and chances of a white woman winning the nomination are much higher than those of a black man. Unfortunately both Hillary and Obama are playing the race and gender card, subliminally.