"can your guy survive, Shapiro? The wave out of Iowa was unstoppable--until it stopped in New Hampshire. The wave out of South Carolina was overwhelming--until it got whelmed in New Jersey, Massachusetts and California. Now, watch out--here comes that tsunami again! If your fella doesn't win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania now, what will your story be? Oops, we scheduled a coronation but we dropped the crown--three times?"

I'm not sure how many Obama supporters really thought he would win NJ, MA, NY, CA. The polls and momentum was certainly exciting but did anyone really think that there would be this wave? Not unless you were in the media and even that was muted to some extent. When was Hillary ever expect to NOT win? If you want to talk about coronations, perhaps you need to look back before Iowa and your candidate when she was the unstoppable candidate with national and state polls having her winning by double digits with 7 people in the race.

What is funny to me is that you post something like this that suggests somehow Obama supporters are coming up with excuses for not winning or not having a wave. Like we all are suggesting such a thing and can't 'explain' it. But then you look at Clinton supporters and they suggest that the states Obama won in don't matter because they are red states, or no..no, that state is all blacks and that's why she didn't win, or oh that state doesn't "represent America", or it's a caucus where "real people" don't get to participate, etc.

So which is it? Why is Hillary losing in February? What will happen if she doesn't win by double digits in Ohio and Texas? What will be your excuse then?

I'd really like Clinton supporters to stop reinforcing the stereotype that she is doing and saying anything to win. If you really want me to support your candidate if selected, then you should be extending positive ideas to me and other Obama supporters, not more negative, biased, self-serving positions that seem to suggest winning is all that matters.

You stated that I "insinuated" that the Bush presidency was better than Clinton's.

You most certainly did, effectively implying there was no difference. Which is where someone else finally said the left was completely unhinged.

Wrong. I stated that Clinton failed to rally people behind big issues during his tenure and Bush was able to do just that. My example (which I know well as a teacher), is NCLB.

What would you have had him rally you behind. He tried to get the nation behind the biggest effort for universal health coverage and the people who would MOST BENEFIT from it refused to support him - rural whites and city blacks, the former going so far as to SHOW UP at their national promotion points quite literally with pitchforks and riots and TURNING OVER BUSES and saying in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that they DIDN'T WANT IT.

NCLB was a flawed federal mandate from the start, flawed in its implementation, a burden for many poorer districts with few remedies and many constraints. And yet, this legislation was passed and has, for better or worse, transformed schools and districts across the nation. Criticize Bush all you want, but he got what he asked for and then some. That's what happens when you are able to stand in front of the American people and call them to your side.

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with having the votes in Congress cause his party had a handy majority.

The fact is they had these numbers in part because the left has stubbornly driven one damned constituency out of the party after the other for 30 years. You can't have any white blue collar workers, they're ignorant hicks. No Christians because you loathe those stupid religous idiots. Can't have Lieberman, he's a Jew and he's not an anti-war fanatic. Can't have Hillary; she's not liberal enough. Can't have WJC, 8 years of peace and prosperity was all fucked up now.

Nobody ever will be good enough for you nutjobs.

You're standing behind a candidate with a very questionable commitment to progressive values in fit of emotion ridden reactive idiocy. You divide the left and center left EVERY LAST TIME. McCain will assuredly win. You folks are your own worst enemies.

Perhaps if the Clintons weren't so busy putting out fires (some of their own making)during his administration, they might have been able to pass more ambitious and progressive legislation

Good God, woman, a rabid Republican Congress and partisan hack of a Prosecutor spent 8 years and 200 billion taxpayer dollars when all is said and done on these "manufactured" scandals and found NOTHING.

What sane person would blame it on the Clintons!! Seek help.

You wrote: "I support Obama for several reasons. He's a good guy, his ideas are sound, and he's not a Clinton. We did the Clinton thing for 8 years. One time thru that little merry-go-round is enuff."

Boy, those sure are great reasons. Really deep and solid. Gives me confidence in your candidate.

anonymous posters (Not even monkers) all coming out and calling people names for not liking their preferred candidate.

And calling on the super delegates to prevent that little thing called Democracy happening to the Democratic party.

Because hell knows nothing will get the Democratic base fired up to vote, more than having their choice for president overridden by the party bigwigs. That won't hand the Republicans 2008!

Pfft, whichever candidate wins the delegates wins the super-delegates, it is not going to be a matter of overriding the will of the Democratic electorate because for once, the Demcorats want to win - and hopefully send the Republicans the way of the Whigs.

because his cousin Teddy already was. Give somebody else a chance, will you!

ncawley wrote: "Maybe if Colin Powell didn't go to the United Nations with pictures of the so called "Weapons of Mass Destruction", we would not be in this mess."

Why are you focusing on Colin Powell?

ncawley wrote: "I am so sick of hearing how Obama didn't vote for the war, but I am sure if he was in the senate at the time, he would have."

What do you base this on? Are you psychic?

ncawley wrote: "Obama is funding the war, so you tell me where he stands."

This is a standard Hillary talking point. Funding the war is different from authorizing it in the first place. With the troops already there, there's little choice but to sign off on a budget that allows them to have armored vests and so on. There's a whole history to Congress's stalemate over benchmarks and timelines that is tied into this.

ncawley wrote: "The Obama sermons are getting old with the reference to the vote for the war in Iraq."

Only if you think Iraq is not a relevant topic. Which it is. Look at the headlines right now. Massive suicide bombing in Northern Iraq as Gates makes a tour of the country's security progress. Not good. See the documentary "No End in Sight" while you're at it.