Maybe it's trite, but Obama's "hope" message has permeated all of us (well, many of us). His charisma changed the dynamic of this entire election and is infecting the country.

There is NO WAY Hillary Clinton could have done that. THAT is Barack Obama.

If we talk about a dream ticket, Obama/Clinton. Put the most charismatic one on top.

I really liked the necklace and earrings by the way. Very very pretty :)

I've never quite understood your handle. Who won't fool you again? the republicans? Bush?

and I just don't understand how you promote the very candidate who did participate, in the worst sense of bipartisanship, in a cowardly bipartisan (non-partisan pro-Republican) Congress for the past eight years, and no touts it as part of her "experience" upon which we should elect her.

If you want someone who has said no to Republicans in that 10-20 point margin where they disagree--by your own logic, you should support Obama. He did not vote for the Ky-Leiberman, he did not join in the rush to war. He has distinguished himself from the conservatives on issues far more than Clinton has (I don't understand sometimes how or why she defines herself as liberal--other than health care. She is certainly not much different--according to Ann Coulter--from conservatives on national security. A point which worries me.)

As for admiring Reagan--will you Hillary supporters please stop saying something that isn't true just because you want it to be true. He said that Reagan's ideas had "played out." Meaning they're through. Anyone who mistakes that for admiration needs to have their head check.

If you don't want to get fooled again--then be more cautious this time. Consider all the angles. Don't just go with the flow, go against the flow. The flow for the past eight years has been to get a Clinton back into office. But now that the time approaches, maybe there is a better option, and a candidate who has the ability to win in a Reaganesque landslide. Reagan was able to convince one in four Democrats to vote for him--that's the kind of thing that all of us can agree would be great in a Democratic candidate (a one in four vote of support from Republicans). And Clinton will never be that kind of Democrat in her lifetime. And it's not even because of her liberal voting record--she's not that liberal. It is only over leftover bitterness in the public over who knows what. I don't frankly care or want to worry over it.

The old idea was to elect Clinton because she deserves to be elected. In some sense I don't disagree--however, I think the new thinking is: which candidate is better for the country right now? In asking this question, Clinton, on the being too bipartisan for her own good as well as being unable to win over people who are on the other side as Obama has in every primary thus far--comes up short.

These are issues worth your consideration.

Bipartisanship requires some "good faith" and "fairness" on both sides ... and the GOP doesn't play fair ... they play dirty....

Meeting them "half-way" and not rocking the boat in a "divisive" manner is what we're had for virtually the entire Bush presidency ...

I have not seen Barack Obama in the "vanguard" of any of the fights.

Oddly enough, Barack Obama reminds ME of Bill Clinton ... and I fear another Trojan horse ... I've never liked Hillary Clinton but, after all this time, I do know what to expect from her.

Hearts and flowers and hope just don't move me at this point. There's too much work to do.

I know what you mean about the "sexiness." But not in a literal way; I got a Hepburn/Tracy energy from them, as two extraordinarly intelligent, witty, decent people who would be a tremendous power duo.

I think as a presidential/vice presidential team (with either in either position), some great, and truly smart, things could happen in this country.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Wonder if Salon's got the huevos to touch this.

to believe in things like liberty, freedom, the pursuit of happiness without undue government influence, secure borders and staying away from wars of opportunity, making sure there is such a thing as an intact Bill of Rights and US Constitution, I will GLADLY take on the mantle of being labeled degenerate.

We have seen the degenerate my friend and it is you.

That you fell into this rhetorical trap you yourself constructed is so funny, I will be giggling thinking about it all weekend.

The progressive focus of last night's debate just would not have been there if John Edwards had not driven its ultimate direction. Health care would not have been on the agenda as it now is.

Paul Krugman explains how he did it and why he is still relevant. Please take the time to read about how the guy who won't be at the top of the ticket may have done the most to give us a progressive president in 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?em&ex=1202014800&en=9086ff727708993c&ei=5087%0A

I miss John Edwards as a candidate and I am profoundly grateful to him for what he is doing for our nation.

I have been meaning to address the sheer hysterical illogic of the "dynasty" argument, but you did it so well that I need add little. I just want to say that dynasties usually involve rich people. Neither of the Clintons started out at all rich by American standards. Whereas the Bushes might be construed as starting a baby dynasty. However, compared to the the Rockerfellers the Bushes are just nooooooveau riche, which is better than no riche at all for grasping and distorting power.

Also, The Who love your name and I love your name.

I thought Toni Morrison's piece was interesting for ascribing wisdom to Obama regardless of his (relatively young) age. I thought he illustrated this in the debate last night in several ways. Among them:

1) It was important that he mentioned the displaced people in his comments about Iraq. This hasn't been mentioned a lot in the mainstream (particularly television) media, but something like one in four Iraqui's has been displaced or killed since the Iraq war began. Since this was supposed to be a war of liberation, we have a moral responsibility to not only pull out, but to do so with the most humanitarian action that we can. Obama's observation of the humanitarian crisis reassures me of the kind of leader he will be. He has also been first in Congress to send aid to the Darfur region in sole-sponsored legislation, and he has a humanitarian Samantha Power, Pulitzer prize winning author of "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide" on his staff (a former Clinton administration staff). This reassures me that on foreign policy he understands that the weakest people in Iraq also have his concern, he is not just exiting the country for political points in this election.

2. His comment on illegal immigrants not being scapegoated for the loss of inner-city jobs. That was an important point to make because as a social worker, I have seen minority populations "turned" on one another by desperation, poverty and crime. Right now a genuine enemy is the G.O.P. economic policies (and NAFTA) that have pushed jobs overseas and created more poverty in Mexico, creating the increase in illegal immigration. However, people do need to pull together for change, for the better good in these communities and all of their (our) members.

3. His kind courtesy toward Clinton. Much ado about nothing has been made about his turning away when she was reaching out to Ted Kennedy's hand. I could feel the discomfort of that moment, but it never seemed to me in Obama's character to be turning away to "diss" her. Rather, maybe he didn't want to lord over her the endorsement he had just received from Kennedy, and he was embarassed, humbled by the "triumph" of the endorsement over a person who he has looked to as a mentor and teacher in the Senate. (There is an article in the Atlantic Monthly online that interestingly dissects this relationship called "Teacher and Apprentice" by Marc Ambinder--http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama ). His courtesy made me happy because the Democrats do need to come together in order to win, and I appreciate that he respects Clinton, even though they do have differences in opinion on some issues.

There is one other thing that Obama supporters need to say here, and that is that there will not necessarily be another chance to elect Obama. This isn't just because of Michelle's comments, but because of the way the world happens. Sometimes there is a window and opportunity that you think will come back--but it doesn't always happen that way.

That said, I think that the "older" generation that has been criticising Obama and saying that he's "not ready" needs to consider that some of the younger generation who have been so excited about his run for office--they are also the generation that has been serving or watching their friends serve in the Iraq war. The Atlantic Monthly has also pointed out that the former Clinton advisors who are now on Obama's team are those who believe that America made a mistake to invade Iraq. Those on Clinton's team generally believe that entering into the war was not a mistake.

This is a genuine difference in the "teams" of leadership that will be entering the white house. I know that Obama may seem "naive" to those who are older, yet he speaks the truth to a generation who has been making the sacrifices in America's imperialistic war.

These are things to consider as we go into the big enormous race on Tuesday. Go Democrats. As a friend of mine says, Go Edwama.