Sean, the fact is, Hillary is a moderate democrat. No one contests this. Some call her "republican lite", which is another way of saying the same thing.

We ran a republican-lite in 2004. Kerry was meant to be a war hero, just like a republican, voted for the war just like a republican, yadda yadda yadda. And how did that work out?

Meanwhile, the republicans don't tack to the middle at all. They tack hard right, promise eternal war and tax cuts for the billionaires. And what happens? People vote for them.

It's all the triangulation that puts people off voting altogether. Obama's campaign has been demonstrably different from this, which is why so many non-voters have come out of the woodwork to register. That's why he's favored over McCain, and Hillary isn't. That's why he's raised so much money, largely from small, private donors. He's given people the idea that they can reclaim the government, possibly for the first times in the lives of many.

OK, you were born during the Clinton Admin, and you went to high school during these Bush years. (I assume that's what you meant when you said you lived through Bush and Clinton.) That clearly hasn't provided you enough insight into politics to make well-founded predictions.

Wait and see.

From all this talk among Hillary's supporters about the large percentage of independents in this country, you might think the independents preferred Hillary to Obama. From the polls I've read (but unfortunately, can't seem to Google right now), the exact opposite is the case. Independents prefer Obama over Hillary. In all surveys I've seen Obama does better against McCain than Hillary. So, I really don't see where this whole "if Obama gets the nomination, the Dems will lose!" line comes from.

My guess is it's sour grapes. Which is fair enough. People want Hillary to be president, and now that it looks like she won't be, they're terribly disappointed. I just wonder if these sour grapes will translate into a self-destructive impulse to tear down the democratic nominee as an attempt to prove themselves right.

He wants to keep Americans dying over there until he's out of office, pursuing an utterly failed policy, so that when the shit truly hits the fan, a Democrat will be president and he can blame the failure on the Dem.

He should explain that to the troops. I'm sure that would do heaps for morale.

Obama is going to have his head handed on a silver platter to him by the Republicans during the general campaign if he gets the nomination.

Actually, I'd say Obama has handled Clinton's nastiness pretty presidentially. He hasn't been so bogged down in shit slinging, he's made some bold and direct moves, and he hasn't really complained. I think, for most Democrats, the main issue is not that Obama is getting attacked unfairly per se, it's that it's being done by someone who will eventually need to support him. She's essentially making up for McCain's budget deficit by using her own money to make many of his points for him. That's the objection.

Once the general election starts, sure, the republicans are going to sling so much shit it will look like mating time in the monkey exhibit. And I expect Obama will handle it brilliantly, as he's handled things so far.

I can't stand listening to some Democrat spout meaningful platitudes, it's all starting to sound like drivel to me

I'd say you've become quite cynical. Understandably so. However, that says probably less about Obama than it does about you. (We'll see if he gets elected, and whether or not any of those platitudes comes to anything.)

Wait! Didn't we try that before in 2000 with the compassionate conservative still in office? The guy who promised us no nation building? That's right! George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of bipartisanship and promising not to interfere unnecessarily in the business of other nations. He's a Uniter, Not a Divider!

Naah. I don't buy that comparison. My opinion of Bush hasn't changed significantly since the first time I laid eyes on him. I immediately knew he was a corrupt imbecile with the unique combination of ignorance and hubris to cause a lot of damage. Obama, I get pretty much the opposite feeling. Sure, his legislative record is sparse. So this is all gut-feeling type of stuff, based more on how he's conducted his campaign, his life story and how he communicates it, and his general policy positions. He seems like he's got a great head on his shoulders, and has some very bright people involved with him. In some ways, the fact that he hasn't wallowed in Washington mire for decades could be a plus.

I think between him and, as you put it, the Triangulator, I'll go with him. With Hillary, you truly never can count on her, because trianguation is constantly shifting for the political objective. I think Obama has actual principles that trump politics, at least at times. With HIllary, I don't get that.

Sorry, I ain't buying this whole thing. A black woman leads a campaign song in favor of an endless war supporting Republican who lost the 2000 nomination due to a rumor that he might have an illegitimate black daughter. This woman uses a gay anthem to sing her song for the candidate of a party that would make homosexuality illegal if they could. The singing and dancing seem intentionally bad. And that bit about him serving in Vietnam is like an absurd tangent out of Family Guy. There are just too many "world doesn't work that way" elements for this to be true.

I think this woman is doing a Borat with her latest video, continuing to stick to the ruse. Good on her!