I agree 100%. All I know is the letters I am getting from my friends that are supporting Hillary are educated Asian Americans, hispanic friends in the SW and of course members of labor unions. In otherwords, save for the latter, the people supporting Hillary are the among the growing demographics of the country and the people who know how to get out the vote.

The people urging me to vote for Obama (and I will not be doing that because he simply is not qualified to be President) are the same tired old white liberal men who told me there was no difference between Gore and Bush, many of whom supported that equally fatally flawed decision to contest Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman, who insisted the country was on the "turning point" of flocking behind Ralph Naders banner and then Howard Deans. I'm not finding them very convincing that Obama who truly is unqualified to be President will somehow persuade all of the electoral votes to his banner either.

So I'm staying with Hillary; she'd be a great president, WAS already part of a great President's Administration and that's that.

Hillary winds up being lumped with all those who did support the silly-ass war. She's not alone, and I think that's what maureenodonnell was trying to say. She's right. But in comparing the two Presidential candidates this liability is bound to come up. It will continue to, I'm sure.

You might have a POINT if Obama had BEEN there for the vote instead of appearing conveniently afterward and telling the neolibs what they want to hear.

You might have a point if the neolibs other favorite sob to fawn over John Edwards, hadn't voted for the same war.

You might have a POINT if Obama had refused to vote for Bush's bills to FUND the $&%# Wa.

But none of these things are true and it's obvious that you and the other neolib hypocrites have one standard for HRC and one standard for everyone else so let's just all come out of the closet and call it what it REALLY is misogyny and bigotry

So much for liberal tolerance. But that's been obvious for a while now hasn't it.

For those who took the time to post, especially to Little Lord Baltimore, for some excellent material and good points. I have one overriding worry about Senator Obama. I saw the Republicans take basically decent men like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, and rip them a new one while they stood ineffectually by, expecting the press to do their job and rebut the worst and most stupid of the charges against them The press did nothing. I will not contest the basic premiss that Senator Obama is a good man. On the contrary, that's what worries me. Because no matter what the facts are, his background, religion, and immersion in Chicago politics will be used against him. If Hillary is the candidate, when the Republicans start this crap she will come out swining; McCain is neither used to such tactics nor particularly likely to weather them well. My fear is that Obama will "do a Kerry" and let the smear campaign gain so much traction that it buries him. I may be wrong, but I fear it.

Which means with Obama, you stand something of a chance of putting an end to the Republican Party, and having the slow rise of the Greens as an alternative to the Democrats. With Obama you stand a chance of permanently discrediting Republican conservatism as a policy viewpoint, with Hillary, not so much

That's NOT how it works. It's not how it ever has worked and it's not how it ever will. Many of you spewed this same nonsense just as persistently in 2000 Bush v. Gore and you got two terms of Bush.

As the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Indiana recently noted, you rebuild parties and make them strong with WINS, not with losses.

To still believe after so much discrediting, as do the nutty neolibs that they will finally punish those of us in the center left enough by enabling the Republicans (and making THEM strong), and somehow out of the ashes will emerge a Herculean Leftwing Majority , is to believe in fairy tales.

You may as well leave a friggin quarter under your pillow.

mjkoch is lifting whole paragraphs from Frank Rich's vile, Hillary-bashing column in today's NY Times...

It's amazing that Hillary's been swift-boated by none other than the so-called liberal mainstream media.

The whole world's gone mad...

That doesn't even warrant the dignification of a reply, but I do have a point, I made it, and I'm done.

By the way, I'm a lifelong Republican and congenital conservative. So much for the convenience of jamming people into boxes.

Actually, it was me that brought up the information about Colin Powell.

My words were to be used to state that it was not just Hillary Clinton who voted for the war and I am so tired of hearing from Obama and his supporters of the vote for Iraq.

What we need to hear from Obama is how he plans on getting our troops home, but instead he uses his sermons to keep on stating about the vote for the war.

He needs to be told to move on and if he really has a plan, then just state it and stop bringing up the past.

I just noticed Colin Powell is now making television appearances and I am sure his goal is to get a seat in the Obama administration, if he is nominated. If that comes true, then this whole candidacy will be a true mockery.

We are in between a rock and a hard place regarding the ill advised Iraq war. Withdrawing may very well cause a bloodbath. Staying might avert that, or it might further destabilize the Mideast. Moreover, the war is draining our finances and has only increased terrorism. These reasons are only partially why invading was so freakin' stupid.

Now obviously Hillary Clinton didn't do this. However...

There was a War resolution. Reading the newspapers revealed the evidence was being cooked. (The CIA was reaching out to the media asking for help.) Because of 9/11, many politicians voted for the resolution to not appear to be weak on terror. Hillary Clinton was one of them.

She wasn't "Placed" in her position. She ran for office and therefore fought to be part of the leading governmental process. She voted to save her political hide, unless Hillary Clinton is dumb.

She didn't stand up at a time in our country, when we desperately, desperately, needed people to stand up.

That single vote, yes THAT SINGLE VOTE, is enough to override any saintly things she might have done. Hell, Social Workers do great things, I however don't think we should make all of them President.

Was she the only one? No, but she made a very very bad call at the wrong time.

Now for those of you who have trouble understanding the continuation of war funding, our soldiers are in the field. It is unconcionable to cut off funding while they are still there UNLESS and UNTIL there is a withdrawel plan.

By the way, I am no leftist. I am a moderate who is appalled by the last 8 years in our country including the horrible lack of leadership. Hillary had her chance, she blew it.

If she becomes the Dem candidate I will support her as much as I can. Anyone is redeemable. But I am so amazed, the some people have amnesia over what happened in the build-up to the Iraq War.

----------------

Regarding Dem election losers, Gore's election was stolen (but he also ran a lousy campaign, thank you advisers), Kerry's campaign was flat out awful, and we have the DLC to thank for that. Hillary Clinton? DLC. You want a winner? Listen to the people who "get it" and are not on the coastal echo chambers.