but that doesn't mean his point is not valid. There has been disproportionate support for obama in red states which is highly suspicious. People don't undergo instant conversions and if they do it is based on them seeing what they want to see; a lot of independent and republican obama supporters are either gaming the system or convincing themselves he is really a republican, either way they won't be there for the democrats in november. I'm not saying this explains ALL of his support, the problem is we don't know how much because there has been a total news blackout of any examination of obama(this is also suspicious in itself). It will be interesting to see what happens when/if the republican contest is over. Will there be more evidence of more republican mischief making?

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.

Interesting.

As a feminist, I would have liked to have seen Hillary individuate herself from Bill as it seemed she was poised to do when she first ran for the Senate. Her claiming of his elected-office experience in office now as if it were her own is disturbing to me and a bit of that problem with the truth that you mention. Given his past scorchingly public humiliation of her, I think it would have been more healthy of her to become more of her own person thereby becoming less of that mirror you mention.

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.

Obama's method of reaching and motivating such people aligns with Plato's definition of rhetoric, "which is, in relation to the soul, what cookery is to the body." ...

"She has answers to hard questions," says liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., "but he has the one answer that voters hunger for: He offers himself as the vehicle for creating a new political movement that will break the country out of a sour, reactionary political era." ...

"When Cicero spoke," Adlai Stevenson said, comparing himself unfavourably to John F. Kennedy, "the crowds declared, `How well he spoke.' But when Demosthenes spoke, the crowds exclaimed, `Let us march!'"

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/301885

People who say Obama should wait his turn are deficient in imagination. Let us march! Now.

I've decided to head in another direction altogether and am working on that. I agree with you that globalization is here...and yet I wonder what kind of response we can create to it. I actually like the idea of "green jobs" although I'm not sure what these are and where they are.

Washington State. In fact, our two U.S. senators -- Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray -- have been extremely successful in this.

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=288680

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=289041

Unfortunately, as Murray notes, President Bush is still the main obstacle to providing the type of tax and other incentives to "green" technology/energy that would help move it along faster.

Washington State has an abundance of active wind energy sources in Eastern Washington, geothermal, and hydroelectric (thanks to an abundance of water in the PNW...)

Puget Sound Energy will soon be converting garbage to fuel sources, thanks to technology developed in the PNW.

We also have companies in the Puget Sound area that are developing battery powered and other green auto technology, among others.

Washington State is, I believe, the "greenest" in the country with regard to energy, transportation, environment. It's not perfect and we have a long way to go, but...

...and we are sick of war.

She wants to spend MORE money on the military. She's unwilling to talk to Iran (as if we need another war!)

She says, "All options are on the table," meaning that a nuclear first strike on Iran is a strategy (and if you don't believe you meant that, you have to explain why she refused to clarify when asked by Mike Gravel if that was what she meant. What else would that mean, anyway?) That she's already willing to commit crimes against humanity for strategic purposes is enough that I could never, ever support her for dogcatcher.

Clinton was very competent but didn't change anything. Hillary is offering us the same. Things are screwed up. We need a serious change or the bottom will fall out.

Hillary is a hawk. I won't support her. I wouldn't go so far as to support McCain but I wouldn't exert myself to see her elected.

If the Democrats again fail to field an electable candidate, perhaps the party will collapse and we'll get something we can support in 2012. The next President is going to look terrible after dealing with all the problems the chimp caused, perhaps we need to wait another four years for real change.

You write:

"For example, yesterday you were willfully spewing all over that Mrs. Clinton had voted against the Ethics Reform Bill of 2007, spouting McCain would kill her in a debate over it, and some sorts of idiocy until I produced the actual votes demonstrating you to be a liar. Undoubtably you continue to peddle that misinformation elsewhere though.

You are indeed a foul pox on a democratic society."

Hold on to the facts here. I went to bed last night and later I noticed that you had posted at two in the morning...sorry I was asleep. But I did not say that Clinton voted against that bill. I said that Obama had helped to sponsor the Open and Honest Government Act with Feingold and that Clinton had made disparaging remarks about Feingold's position ("you aren't in the real world, Russ"). KcM explained better than I have about how Clinton worked to weaken both bills, both the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and the McCain-Feingold bill.

But I do sort of enjoy being called a foul pox on a democratic society.

Seriously, your arguments all seem to boil down to the fact that you think that Obama will be crucified or unelectable in the general election. What if you're wrong? What if he's not unelectable?

Your bitterness towards neoliberals I might even understand if I knew why you think "neoliberals" are supporting Obama and not Clinton? Do you think the neoliberals are responsible for Nader's campaign? Are you referring to libertarians?

I know that you're angry, but I don't understand exactly why nor at whom you're bitter. A lot of Obama's supporters are college students and teachers and every day people. Are these neo-liberals? I earn less than $20,000 per year. Am I a neo-liberal? I have serious problems with globalization and outsourcing--but I'm not sure why Clinton is a better bet than Obama on this issue. Please feel free to enlighten me. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have enemies, anonymous, but that you should know who your enemies are. I never voted for Nader for President. Like the majority of Americans who bothered to vote, I supported Gore.

I'm also afraid that if conversations like this continue with so much anti-Obama bitterness and anti-Clinton bitterness, it will be moot who wins the nomination. McCain will be elected. About that, at least, perhaps we can agree. So what's your deal?