Joan, I take issue with your characterization of Obama as "inspiring-if-vague."

The place to get nitty-gritty policy details is not news soundbites, campaign rallies, and televised debates.

For anyone who is not clear on Obama's positions, read his books -- and yes, he wrote them himself, no ghostwriters- "Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams of My Father" cover to cover.

Go to the Obama website to read about his positions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues

Download Obama's "Blueprint for Change"

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

In his public appearances, Barack Obama focuses on the daunting task of trying to help treat a profoundly ill America -- an America that is torn apart, hurting and sick from years of an unfounded war abroad, a culture war at home, creeping religious theocracy, "terror" fatigue, and the shock that comes from realizing that we are quickly losing our Constitutional, human and civil rights.

He is an inspirational, charismatic leader, an astute strategist, and, given his experience as a legislator, activist, professor, and legal scholar, is fully-equipped and able to tackle the "implementation" of policies at the micro level.

All three of the Democratic candidates have legislative experience, legal experience, administrative experience -- they all can handle the micro level "busywork" of being president. And yes, perhaps Hillary, as the oldest in the field, has the "most experience" at the busywork part.

But we are not electing an "Administrator in Chief." We are electing a "Commander in Chief," a president, a face for the world stage -- someone who needs to shine at the world level, the macro level.

They all can handle the day-to-day aspects. They all have similar policies.

They all can monkey with positions and policies and the "face" they show the public until the day of the Democratic convention, but there are some immutable facts.

• One candidate alone comes to the world stage without the permanent stain of having supported war against Iraq -- Obama.
• One candidate alone is biracial, with an international upbringing, including a Muslim father, which can be a bridge to better relations with other countries -- Obama.
• One candidate alone has incredible communications skills, world appeal and powerful charisma -- Obama.

These are aspects that the other candidates don't have, and never can have. Bring in every strategist you can find, change the game plans, rewrite the campaign literature and TV ads, but Clinton and Edwards can never change the profoundly bad decisions they made about the war in Iraq. They can't become charismatic, biracial, internationally appealing "leaders" for America.

Who alone has the power to affect not only minds but hearts, here, and abroad at a time when hearts are heavy at home, and hardened abroad?

Obama.

P.S. I also recommend Andrew Sullivan's excellent piece in the Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

You want a fairy tale, Bill? Here's your fairy tale.

Once upon a time there was a smart and capable woman, who wanted to change the world herself, but who instead married a charismatic philanderer, became first lady, tried to change health care policy and failed bitterly, was publicly humiliated, tried to redeem herself by getting herself elected as a carpetbagger Senator, made a supremely cynical and stupid vote that helped send America to war and thousands of Americans to their death and America's reputation into the toilet, then decided she needed to be president, then said she didn't really mean to make that vote, and declared herself the inevitable winner...

And then... "Happily ever after?"

Nope...

"...and had it all come back to haunt her.

Hillary failed to bring about health care reform

Hillary failed profoundly when making the most crucial vote of her career -- the war vote

Hlllary failed AGAIN profoundly when faced with the Iranian Rev. Guard vote

Hillary can not hold up her marriage as a "success" by "conventional" standards many people hold

Hillary, who I'm sure is a lovely person when you meet her personally, has in public, for TWO DECADES, failed to regularly or honestly convey warmth, caring, compassion, concern, or a sense of vision to all but her most ardent supporters

Hillary has failed to develop -- much less possess any inate -- charisma

Hillary has failed to inspire the young, failed to inspire the Independent votes, and failed to inspire the those who haven't previously felt they had a interest in voting or politics

The fairy tale of Hillary Clinton as President is fatally fractured.

Jadedlens wrote:

Salon, which I must say I usually agree with 100% of the time, is one of the most ardent supporters of the pro-Obama, anti-Clinton media narratives, as exemplified in this war room article. Give us a break.

Ok, I'm sure that the Salon staffers are sitting around, scratching their heads, sipping at their lattes, and thinking "WHUH?"

Jaded -- have you been reading Joan Walsh's blog posts, or Broadsheet, or Debra Dickerson, or anything else but Tim Grieve? Because there is a really vocal contingent, of which I am one, who have been taking Salon -- and Joan in particular -- to task for the constant and steady drumbeat of Hillary worship and passive-aggressive Obama-bashing that has gone on regularly at Salon for months.

Right now, I really do feel for Salon. Because it does seem like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. I actually have appreciated that Joan et. al. seem to have somewhat gotten the message that the overt Hillary campaign advertising -- aka, articles -- weren't going over well, and that we readers at least demanded some semblance of coverage for the other candidates, and less of the passive-aggressive attacks to bolster Hillary, and it appears that they've listened.

Tim, well he seems to be walking to his own beat, and may not be a Hillary worshipper.

You want more a Hillary lovefest? Head over to Broadsheet or Joan's blog, and you'll certainly find much more of it.