thanks for your really well-done postings. There's so much that idealogues refuse to see.

Obama does not generally talk to his audience about what he actually intends to do, or how his policies and programs will work. Rather, Obama uses his speeches in the same way that Martin Luther King used his, to motivate and inspire the followers of his movement. On the other hand, Clinton delivers a much more pedestrian and wonkish speech. She talks details. I would agree with Joan that Obama is taking a risk by focusing so completely on the inspirational at a time when many Democratic voters and others are worried about the future.

That's it exactly. Only throw in that I'd also like someone with international diplomacy experience, not someone who insists it's ok he doesn't have any because he lived overseas when he was 8.

Anon, please cite evidence for your claim that caucuses are being "gamed" by Republican voters.

You state that more people are showing up to caucus for Dems than voted Dem in the last election. Please specify which states you are referring to.

I picked four of the reddest states Obama won and did some checking:

Kansas: 37,000 participated in Dem caucus. In 2006, Kathleen Sebelius, the Dem governor, won 480,000 votes. (side note: the losing candidate in the first congressional district -- THE most conservative district in Kansas -- had 37,000 votes)

Iowa: 220,000 participated in Dem caucus. In 2006, the Democratic candidate for governor won 569,000 votes.

Nebraska: 38,000 participated in caucus. In 2006, Sen. Ben Nelson won 378,000 votes.

Idaho: 21,000 participated in Dem caucus. Dem gubernatorial candidate in 2006 (who lost) got 198,000 votes.

Caucus numbers came from local newspaper stories this week. 2006 numbers came from the secretary of state website for each state.

Where do your facts come from?

For what it's worth, once I decide someone is a bigot, misogynist or otherwise obnoxious blowhard I typically refuse to acknowledge their existance any longer. ( I do occasionally enjoy debunking some of the more persistant baloney they promote though).

This all noted, it's very disappointing how much wholesale misogyny has been directed at HRC from a supposedly liberal website.

Apparently misogyny, not weight,is the last acceptable prejudice and the so-called liberals who patronize AND edit the website are just fine by this despite the support they've enjoyed from feminists for decades.

Shame on Salon.com. May they reap much of what they have sowed.

are going to saddle the Dems again with a potential loser. Obama is as weak a general election candidate as McGovern or Dukakis was. If it weren't for the anti-Bush climate and the tanking economy, he wouldn't stand a chance against someone like McCain. Even the favorable climate won't protect him from ferocious attacks, from a fickle media that loves McCain, or from his own inherent weaknesses. This is going to get very ugly if he is the nominee. For example, do you think McCain won't be happy to pander to Latino swing voters by playing up black-brown racism, or to older voters by playing up Obama's inexperience, or to white voters in the South by playing up his race, youthful drug use, and so on? Man, considering how Obama and his supporters have whined at the really gentle treatment they've gotten from Billary, they clearly aren't ready for the tsunami headed their way from the Repugs. Have any of you seen that cool short film Godzilla versus Bambi?

"This all noted, it's very disappointing how much wholesale misogyny has been directed at HRC from a supposedly liberal website.

Apparently misogyny, not weight,is the last acceptable prejudice and the so-called liberals who patronize AND edit the website are just fine by this despite the support they've enjoyed from feminists for decades."

What cheese do you favor with your whine?

I couldn't help noticing this discussion about the states that Barack Obama has won.

In 2004 John Kerry won every state that Barack Obama has won so far, except South Carolina. John Kerry also won California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Ohio (close between Kerry/Edwards), Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida and Michigan

My point is, "So what" that Barack Obama has won these heartland and southern states? It might look to you as though Obama is "sweeping" across the country, even winning in Red States, but "sweeping" means nothing when placed in historical context, and neither do Red States wins.

I disagree with Shapiro about the speeches. Even though I'm an Obama supporter, I'm also an old speech major and debater who thought that Hillary had the better speech on paper last night. However, she seems to have a certain wall beyond which her delivery just can't go. It has to do with what acting coaches call the "element of discovery" -- the sense that everything the speaker says is new in the moment. In short, she sounds like she's reading a speech, even a very good one, as last night's was. The element of discovery isn't about fooling anybody that the speech (or role) isn't prepared; it's about establishing in the present a palpable relationship with the audience.

In response to other posters, I hope people realize that there are honest liberals out there who were disappointed with Bill and, later, Hillary, for their actual performances in office. Many right-wingers have a Clinton hatred that strikes me as some kind of possession; but just become some people have bad or silly reasons for hatred, it does not follow that there are no *good* reasons for preferring an alternative to Clinton. I'm getting a little weary of this false dichotomy that either you're for Hillary or your views of her (or another candidate) are irrational.

In addition to votes and policies that seem to compromise too much, I sense in Hillary something that Carl Bernstein called her "difficult relationship to truth." Take Iraq, for instance: I know what Obama thinks about it, and I know what McCain thinks about it. Even with the vagaries of changing situations, critiques, and votes on legislation before them, both show a coherent position that is grounded in their values. I honestly don't know what Hillary thinks about Iraq, then or now. I know her voting record, and I have followed her public statements on it for years. In all that, I don't get a sense of her own convictions in her public actions. All I can find is what she wants me to think she thinks. It's rather like that disturbing feeling one gets when someone is trying too hard to come across as sincere. When the other even thinks in terms of "coming across as sincere," something is wrong.

If I am to vote for a candidate, esp. for high offices, I need to start by knowing clearly where the person stands on major issues. I put in some effort to find out; with Clinton, all I see is a hall of mirrors, and no door that would open on to her real thought and convictions.

Her story does remind me of tragedy (which I teach) in that she's a protagonist who keeps bumping up against something in herself that limits her in certain ways -- and seems completely unaware of what this quality is, and that it is indeed her own.