Does Obama have the intestinal fortitude of an Alpha? Obama should be made to answer the following question:

Senator Obama: Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln were leaders who understood that, sometimes, the ONLY way for the good to prevail is if responsible leaders, when necessary, make a conscious decision to choose the lesser of two evils. My question to you, Senator, is this: If you cannot -- or will not -- even knock out the Clinton machine (which, after all, is SO vulnerable being rife with public scandal for twenty years), how can we trust that, should such be necessary during your Presidency, you will be able to muster the intestinal fortitude to make those kinds of decisions characteristic of a Churchill or of a Lincoln?

John W. McGinley, PhD

Obama simply was speaking the truth. Speaking the truth only very seldomly wins elections. Political discourse in our country has become so impoverished and ove-simplified that, I suspect, Obama will pay a steep price. Double digit victory for Clinton in PA. And that's all the Clinton's need to continue their desparate bid for the nomination, a desperate bid which, now, seems all but inevitable to succeed. John W. McGinley

I have contributed 240 bucks (I live on fixed income from SS) and have already voted early in NC for Barack. But my support for him has degenerated to not-liking him less than not-liking Senator Clinton. To be a good presdient in today's world you have to be tough in the sense of, when the situation calls for it, being merciless in the counter-attack. Ever since the South Carolina primary the Clinton team has practically begged to be hit back hard. But Obama never stepped up to the plate. The only real sin in Politics and in War is to shy away from whatever it takes to win. If Obama cannot knock-out the Clinton machine -- with its twenty year history of public scandal and tawdriness (and felonies in fact even if not convicted of such) -- he'll never be able to deal with the crazy man who is President of Iran. Yes. Give Obama points for, at least in the begining of is campaign, giving us a vision for what it would be like to leave behind the "old" politics. But that means nothing if you're still a wuss. I cannot see myself voting for Senator Clinto under any circumstances. But if it's Ombama/McCain I may just vote for Obama. I was really exicted about Obama. Now he reminds me of soggy speghetti. John W. McGinley

Don't kid yourself. It's now ten-fifteen PM and the cable outlets have all called the election for Clinton. A win is a win is a win. Will it end up being four or five percent? Six-seven-or-eight percent? It won't matter even it's only by one percent. A win is a win is a win. And once again Obama proves that he has neither the ability nor the intestinal fortitude to knock Clinto out of the race. The sun is going down on Obama. Very few people really like HIllary Clinton, even among those who support her. But here unliabiality quotient is not the issue. Obama's failure to do what it takes to win (which in this case would have been to have knocked Clinton out of the race by now)grows in its signficance each day. Look for A Clinton victory in Indiana and a closer-than-expected margin of victory for Obama in North Carolina. Then look for the Clinton people to muddy up the waters big time on Florida and Michigan. ((Has anyone been listening to Terry McAuliff?)) The super-delegates will begin trickling to Clinton. Indeed watch as some super-delegates who had already committed for Obama reverse themselves.

I don't like Hillary Clinton. But I admire one feature about her: She does what it takes to win. Having balls does not alone make one qualified to be Presiendent, but NOT having balls is a definite DISQALIFICATION for being President. Of the the two Deomcratic candidates only HIllary is equipped with balls. John W. McGinley