Agreed!

it's pretty funny to listen to people talk about how unelectable Hillary is and then propose Obama as an alternative

And complain about how ambitious Hillary is!

Obama is the only major candidate not saddled with supporting the Iraq war, and he comes free of all the general Clinton baggage. I think you're forgetting just how much the Republican right hates the Clintons, they'll come out of the woodwork like crazy if she's the democratic nominee.

Additionally, Obama stands a good chance of being competitive in Southern states with large black populations where no Democrat has been competitive in years.

Ghillie writes:

"No. I will leave the presidential ballot blank before I will vote for such a calculating, dismissive, cement-souled candidate. Even if it means another disastrous Repub regime."

And that is precisely what it will mean.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but the white population of the south is considerably larger than the black population, not to even mention the fundie Christian population. A black man, any kind of black man, like a woman, is working against a tremendous political handicap and it takes a special person, or very unique circumstances(Colin Powell prior to the Iraq debacle), and lots of specific talents including being a "natural" politican (Roosevelt, Reagan, Bill Clinton, Hillary??) to overcome them. Obama comes closer than Hillary, in my opinion, to having what it takes to be "first", but I don't think it's anywhere near enough for either of them. Do you actually think there is anyone who thinks Bill Clintons blow job was worthy of a major political crisis who will vote for a black man named Obama? Get real.

"Since the 1992 campaign, she has been scrutinized and psychoanalyzed (armchair division) more than any woman in America -- and maybe even more than her husband."

What the hell is this article if not a piece of fluff presented as a positive review of the public Hillary Clinton persona? I see no mention of any policies that have been good for America for which Hillary has been responsible.

" Nearly 14 years later, that comment about ink blots remains truer than ever, as it is almost an American birthright to have a personal theory about the Clinton marriage, Hillary's motivations and potential power-sharing in the White House.

Excuse me??? It is an American birthright to have an opinion about any damn thing we please, and certainly about the state of the American presidency.

Hillary Clinton is as "authentically moderate" as George W. Bush. She is an ambition-driven political animal as much as Dubya is an ideologically-blinded partisan stooge.

What really makes Clinton unelectable is that she is disliked by both the left and the right, and the 'center' she thinks she holds is thin as a rail. Usually, it can be useful for a democrat to tack right (or a repub to tack left) to grab some support from the other side of the fence, but Clinton has stronger right-of-center negatives than any other candidate, most pointedly Obama. There is no point in trying to be a 'conservative' democrat, as Clinton does, when conservatives hate your guts with a spooky passion. In contrast to Clinton, neither the left wing of the democratic party nor the right wing of the republicans seems to have it in for him. People 'think' the racist yahoos will turn out in force to vote against him, but I don't think survey/poll data is bearing that out. Racist yahoos don't vote as much as you might think.

and hard as it is to accept the obama/osama thing WILL matter. Millions of people wallow in faux news for many hours a day. They don't do this to rationally process information but to get a fix which faux is happy to deliver. Sure they will try something with any dem, but some are more vulnerable than others.

It's un-American, period. America is descending into a worse form of monarchical rule than Britain ever had, let alone still retains. When I was stationed in Japan I watched a BBC program where Tony Blair had to sit in a room with a handful of average British citizens, in close proximity, and face tough questions about why he was leading them to the war, which had not yet begun (this was probably around Jan/Feb 2003). It may not have changed his eventual course of action- and maybe it did -but it was at least nice to see him have to sweat a little bit in front of his citizens.

We get nothing like this in America. Instead we get behind-the-scenes cronyism and overt oligarchy even during election run-ups, in the form of "Town Hall" meetings where the candidate answers questions while surrounded by a sea of Party operatives at a nice, safe distance from any discomfiting peasantry who are quickly told to sit down and shut up once their questions have been deflected by meaningless rhetoric.

Let's stop this nonsense and elect someone outside BOTH Party "mainstreams", i.e. the political elite who have been running this country (into the ground) since 1988 (or much earlier, if you count the Vice-Presidency and cabinet positions).

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/hillary_clinton_tries_to_woo

This question is for those of you who are not right wing plants. What are you so afraid of? The name calling alone is a clue that the dislike and fear of Hillary Clinton's candidacy is emotional and not rational.. Shrew?, Soap Star?, iron-souled? A rational woman who is articulate and able to negotiate within a legal political structure is scary? Why?

The second question is for all of you. What makes you think that another president with only a single view of his/her world and completely unable to adapt and change as the world changes is a good idea?

I'm truly curious. Do you want a leader? Are you really looking for entertainment...how someone acts, dresses, looks...what does that have to do with their ability to lead our country safely and positively?