You OBVIOUSLY don't get it, at all.

Most Americans don't vote based on policy positions. Most Americans don't read, let alone populate thoughtful websites and write for TPM. The poor slobs who voted for Bush like him because they could "have a beer with him" (as if that's his primary job, to have a beer with YOU), or in the words of my illustrious, brilliant city councilwoman, who was Bush's Southwest Ohio Chairperson for Re-election in 2004, he's a "fatherly figure" who will "keep us safe." I'm not making this up, watch "So Goes the Nation" and there she is in all her glory, Leslie Ghiz).

Most Americans don't take time to learn the positions of their candidates. This is what sets Obama apart from Clinton: he's capitalizing on how to hog the media limelight with style over substance. He clearly gets it and can manipulate the media and give rousing speeches. Clinton is BORING. Who wants to hear some old broad drone on about policy and how she's had all that experience? Besides, Black don't crack; White get old real quick.

He's taking a page from the play book of the Republicans.

Slider-

I'm confused. I thought the Clintons moved to NY in 2000. The Senate's terms are six years, right? She voted to authorize Bush's authority in 2002, not run in 2002. She's not up for re-election in 2008, she won re-election in 2006.

Dear Ms. Walsh,

This is a pretty easy question to answer: Obama. Simply because he doesn't have Hillary's baggage. She's damaged goods (most unfairly harassed and ridiculed since 1992, I must add). I think many Democrats, many Obama supporters, think very highly of Mrs. Clinton, but would prefer to avoid the re-run of the 1990's. And besides, the rabid-drooling Right hate her and could capitalize on that irrational hatred. McCanine would harness the same sleaze-bags and energize the Hate-Hillary crowd, the same goons who spread rumors of him fathering a "black" child out of wedlock in South Carolina in 2000.

There is a VERY good reason W gave Clinton a morsel by saying that he didn't think that Bill is a racist and that he didn't know what Obama stood for. The Republicans are MORTIFIED of the Democrats choosing Obama, knowing that it would be an uphill battle. His one big advantage is that he NEVER flip-flopped on the Iraq War, and he should capitalize on that. If the Dems choose Mrs. Clinton (flip-flopper), we will see a re-run of 2004, close, but she'll lose. Again, I hope I would be wrong.

If the Dems want to capture the White House, there is only one choice for them at this point: Obama.

Obama, Clinton, they all have their rabid supporters.

As I've written before, Obama is a better choice in the Fall. However, yes, we must support the nominee, and I'm confident that either of them would campaign and support the other for the sake of defeating McCanine.

No other conclusion is possible.

However, I agree with Ban, the rules are the rules. The bigger issue is how the Clinton campaign is trying to seat the FL and MI delegates! NO! The rules are the rules, and they shouldn't be changed midstream either way.

This whole issue can be addressed after the convention. I will not vote for Clinton if she tries this crap. I would rather see the party (and her) go down in flames for the sake of the greater good.

You're missing the 800 pound elephant in the room: Hillary trying to get MI and FL delegates seated.

STENCH!!!

In order to satisly her craving for power, she'll try anything. This is why Clinton is a stench. Such a tactic reflects poorly on her and she should be denounced in the strongest terms possible. She is too drunk with her own self-importance to think of the party, or democracy, or the greater good. Her disastrous vote, her colossal mistake of voting for Iraq is a good indicator.

Don't forget Condasleaza Rice!

Everyone is concerned about the disenfranchisement of the FL and MI voters and that Clinton is right to object to this. If that's the case, then why did she sign an agreement to NOT campaign in those states? Why did she not bring up these arguments strenuously before the start of the primary season?

That's my beef with her. Trying to change the rules when it's convenient for one candidate is disgusting. The arguments that "this is a democracy" and that we "can't disenfranchise voters" don't hold water at all. The candidates, the DNC, the state party leaders all screwed this one up big time, and were either too chicken or too stupid to see where this one would go.

I lay most of the blame on the idiotic DNC for letting this happen to those voters. But Clinton crying foul now is really a stench that I can't get over and if she gets her way and clenches the nomination, no way in Hell am I voting for her. In fact, I'm probably through with the Dems for good.