It must be quite a shock to the system to go from from the media-driven smear campaign of Senator Clinton to actually being live with the candidate and her black-brown-white array of supporters. And that speech was one for the history books. When I later listened to Obama railing bitterly at Washington politicians and then say he was a unifying force, I had to wonder if undergraduate schools no longer included a prerequisite class in critical thinking. From the look of his voting demographics, that seems to be the case.

Furthermore, you do what other Obama-ites do, which is fudge Obama's "legislative" history. He was in a state senate, not the U.S. Senate till recently. Senator Clinton was a junior senator, representing her state and did just that.

---She came into office in 2001. He came into office in 2005. She's got a whopping 4 years on him. The "35 years of experience" claim has always been specious at best. And no, 8 years of first lady does not count.

Maybe I'm not reading the same media as these people, but who was predicting an Obama sweep and Hillary's imminent demise? Everything I read indicated that Super Tuesday would be very close and unpredictable, that the nomination would still be in doubt on Wednesday, and that Hillary was looking strong in the biggest states -- all of which turned out to be true. I think this is just another example of the tiresome strategy of talking doom before the polls open so as to claim to have exceeded expectations and confounded the naysayers afterward. Obama does the same thing.

... you are a filthy-mouthed lot.

As filthy as your candidate is arrogant.

In a match-up with John McCain.. who has already loudly declared that Obama is not qualified to be president (is he a racist too?) you will lose again. And your childish devotion to a man with a speach will mean a total loss for democrats.

white house & supreme court handed to the republicans. That's about all a speach full of empty platitudes will buy you.

BTw.. what happened to the grand Kennedy effect?

Ahaaaaahahahahahah.

Best development of the camapign so far!

I'm not sure why Jaben has a star, but as several posters have pointed out, Jaben's post isn't his own idea (it's copied from Dick Morris), and it's grossly inaccurate.

Were Jaben's letter a paper in my class, Jaben would receive an F on the assignment, and get written up for academic dishonesty.

Let Jaben keep the star if you must, but at least star some of Jaben's rebutters.

Bill Clinton would have gotten as far as he did without Hillary?

But anyway, on to more important matters. That statement about Israel has me pretty worried. I care a lot about the safety of Israel, but I care about THIS country more. I care about women more. I care about poverty and health care more. Holy crap. The willingness of otherwise sensible, otherwise liberal people to get into bed with the Christian right on this, is fucking terrifying. (My mother is such a person, but as she is not a citizen, this willingness is thankfully theoretical only.) Scary, people. Okay, I don't think this woman represents the majority, and there is no centralized location from which a council of elders operates, deciding what American Jews think and feel, but gah!

That is the main reason why Hillary is NOT dominating amongst the educated and higher income groups while Obama is.

He has more substance to him.

-- Taliesan

This is just a mite condescending, don't you think?

Alhtough I agree that Kerry is the perfect example of why never to vote for someone because that someone is more "electable".

One message that comes out of last night: New York and California aren't the only games in town. For too long the Democrats have assumed victory ment winning New York and California the rest of the rubes don't matter. Obama focused on alot states the Democrats don't seem to care about. NY and CA, of course they'd go for Clinton, that was no big suprise, but Clinton's margin of victory wasn't as big as I expected.

He's winning states the same way he's getting donations.

A very quick search of Thomas Legislative shows it thus: Obama 123 sponsored vs. Clinton's 150. Now, I don't have the time to pick through the previous Congress's legislation, but when one finds errors of fact is an obviously biased letter, one is forced to disregard the entire article as partisan demagoguery. Furthermore, in my perusal of the legislation it appears Clinton was the sole sponsor on significantly more legislation than Obama.

Obama is certainly a most dramatic and effective speaker but his ideas on several programs are significantly less than what Clinton offers this country. It is time for a woman President.

If Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, let us all pray for deliverance by Mike Bloomberg. Without him, a Hillary nomination could mean near-certain victory for McCain. She remains far too polarizing a figure to guarantee a Democratic win. She's also, let's face it, largely a blank screen onto which various factions' fetishes and fantasies are being projected, from those championing the mere principle of a woman president to those yearning for the good old days of Bill Clinton.

Her old-school maneuvering and bare-faced, craven sense of entitlement (not to mention the shameless Dixiecrat mudslinging to which her husband has stooped) make Hillary so unlikable that there are too many Dems who, like me, would have to hold their noses and vote for her. Meanwhile, on the other side, there are far too many conservatives who absolutely loathe her for reasons they no longer bother to recall. Just like with Kerry back in '04, the electorate wouldn't be voting FOR her, we'd either be voting AGAINST the prospect of another Republican administration or AGAINST her.

Obama represents the only viable, positive choice - his groundswell of support is unquestionably FOR him rather than against someone else. If we make the mistake of passing on him and the rare opportunity his candidacy represents, the only alternative on the horizon will be Mike Bloomberg.

As his tenure as NYC mayor attests, Bloomberg appeals to all races, classes, genders and political persuasions. He's a strong coalition-builder who would lap up independents, moderates of all stripes, those whose primary concern is the economy or the environment, those seeking temperance in foreign policy and perspicacity in domestic affairs.

We cannot afford business as usual with another Republican White House, let alone one run by a bloodthirsty isolationist maverick like Coo-Coo McCain. If we're short-sighted enough to put up Hillary over Obama, let us beg, bully or if need be blow Bloomberg to enter the race. It'll be our only hope.