Lots of talk about whether its Hillary or Obama. Most of the talk seems to be from Hillary supporters who think that she was the Democrats only shot at salvation, only she could lead us out of the wilderness that has been the Bush administration. They may be resigned to her defeat but they are really pissed off. The glee with which they predict that Obama can't possibly beat McCain and, boy, "won't we be sorry then" is childish. And scary: if she isn't the next Democratic President there won't be one. That they would rather see McCain become President than Obama is remarkable - and they see the "cult of personality" as an Obama thing?!! Look in the mirror guys. (But chin up, Clinton supporters, as it is said "it ain't over 'til it's over" - who knows? HRC, She Who Must Be President, has no intention of losing - so, hang in there.)

So, who beats McCain? Well, if the Democrats are destroyed before they even get to the general election, McCain wins. Unfortunately, that could happen.

The Republicans will (as always) run a dirty, ugly, nasty, and bloody campaign - it will make Hillary and Barack seem like Sam and Diane on "Cheers." And it will be that way whether Clinton or Obama is the Democratic nominee. The Republicans are more than prepared to fight either one of them tooth and nail - they have already stockpiled their "anti-Clinton" weapons and their "anti-Obama" weapons. They're just waiting to see which to bring out. Really, what matters at this point is not who can beat McCain but how to beat McCain. That is the question that everyone who believes that the Bush administration has been a disaster for this country should be focussed on. Republicans obviously think (hope?) that Obama will be the nominee and have started to attack him. I am encouraged by the way he has not backed down from these attacks and has answered them convincingly and forcefully.

It is easy to say that voting for the war was a mistake and that if you had it to do over again you would vote against it.

Of course no one can prove or disprove that Obama would have voted against the war had he been in the Senate at the time. On the other hand, there are no "do overs" in real life. Here's what is real:

1.) Hillary voted for the war. You can look it up.

2.) Obama was a candidate for the Senate when he opposed the war in 2002; think back to what the mood in the country was like back then - opposing the war, going up against the Bush administration was not exactly the most popular thing to do but Obama did it anyway and he probably lost votes because of it. That is what I call judgment and courage.

You write: "Since I have not sought out information on www.barackobama.com, I really don't know what he's about, other than lifting up the country, uniting the country, and changing the country."

Strange this. You don't support him yet (a) you have never bothered to find out "what he's about" (what would you have done in the days before radio, television or the Internet - egads! you'd actually have to read something to get information about a candidate rather than relying on a 20 second sound byte) and (b) what you do know about him "he's about...lifting up the country, uniting the country, and changing the country" seem like pretty good reasons to support him.

...Obama's response to Hillary's Rovian "3 a.m." ad, along with his swift and forceful responses to recent Republican attacks should convince all but the most rabid Clinton fanatics that he is more than capable of holding his own and, indeed, besting his Republican opponents. This is what a fighter looks like!

The war resolution in question is the one that authorized us to go to war against Iraq. Not one ounce of proof has ever been found that showed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. So, what would Obama have done if the planes hit the Sears Tower on 9/11? He would have supported action against the proper target: al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama was never against war in Afghanistan. And his position is that the Bush administration's abandonment of Afghanistan to take on Iraq was a blunder of monumental proportions that has made the world less safe. The Taliban (the very folks who nurtured and gave haven to al Qaeda) are on the move and the Bush administration seems to be clueless or just doesn't care.

pieceofcake is right - not all Obama supporters are like BryanS - one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch. BryanS' post to HRCin08 was gratuitous. Was there a deadline that HRCin08 missed and, therefore, forfeited her or his right to participate? Please. She has every right to be here. So, HRCin08 as an Obama supporter I say to you welcome and enjoy.

Writes:

"[Y]ou will never convince me that Hillary Clinton was too stupid or too clueless to be clued in to all of this."

and, if someone could convince him (or me) of this it would mean that no way in hell should she be President!

And

"There is only one explanation for her vote, and it can be summarized in two words: political cowardice. And while it is true that many other Democrats showed similar cowardice, none of them is currently running for President."

again, yet more proof that Clinton should not be President.

Stereotype much?

Just what makes Obama supporters "insufferable"? What you really should have said is that you were fine with Obama until he started gaining supporters, until it looked like he had a chance to win.