Hey Roger64/psychologist...

Get your head out of the Freud and back into some history books.

The dirty work of Republicans and the New York Times in the 1990s did not make Hillary Clinton vote to allow Bush to start a war.

That was Hillary's decision, and hers alone.

That decision was her political Waterloo. When she cast that vote, she proved, unequivocally and clearly for everyone to see, that for Hillary Clinton, politics ultimately trumps logic, reason, ethics and even common sense.

It is that shining moment in her career that has come to represent her as a politician.

So, as a psychologist, would you suggest that Hillary was self-destructive when she made that vote? Or is it narcissistic personality disorder -- in that she thinks she can do anything, including voting to send Americans to war, but then somehow explain it away with no repercussions because she's just so darn amazing -- and experienced, of course?

Sorry -- but I'm not buying that Hillary's latest woes can be blamed on vast right wing conspiracies and media attacks.

Because Hillary, in all her wisdom and experience, did it to herself with her monumentally bad vote.

Seriously, if you want to learn more, I'd advise you to check out his 64 page "Blueprint for Change" at the barackobama.com under the "Issues" section. It is a downloadable .pdf document. I read it, and I found it to be instructive, pragmatic, and elegant.

@SusieQ2:

I never thought of that. But I'll do you one better: Obama/Boxer. The idea makes me swoon with delight.

Such lopsided coverage will certainly earn Mr. Shapiro careful consideration for a slot as a political analyst at CNN. His statement that "the caucus process, in effect, measures intensity of support" is his newspeak way of saying that only a tiny inkling of a fraction of eligible voters are willing to drive long distances (if, that is, they own a car), wait outside for an hour on a winter day for volunteers with clipboards to direct them to a room, then stand for another two hours listening to speeches and waiting to vote. This Darwinian approach favors the young, who think they're voting for the next American Idol, as well as Republican activists who can turn out in sufficient numbers to knock out the strongest Democratic candidate.

If Obama eventually lands on the ticket, Karl Rove's strategy will have succeeded, and he will use the senator's long-running relationship with indicted criminal Tony Rezco to defeat the Democrats in the fall. For more on the strategy, check out the article I've posted at thecityedition.com, which links to other sources.

Most of Obama's supporters believe, as do I,

that he will actually accomplish what he says he will do once in office. The Clintons had 8 years and didn't accomplish nearly as much as they could or should have. They were too bogged down in the political tug-of-war with the GOP. Why expect anything different from HRC now? Obama is clearly able to get many, diverse people motivated behind an agenda and he will be very hard to stop. Just look at Bush and his ability to get NCLB passed once and then passed again in 2007 despite huge criticism from states. That's the power of the "bully pulpit" and the Clintons did nothing even close to that dramatic during their tenure in office.

I'm not sure I'm following your thought...but no. Once one makes up their mind, it is pretty hard to change it.

What isn't known is why one makes up one's mind. We all have our reasons.

In fact, I'll posit that the people who write into Salon have thought them out more than anyone in the country (except for the rumoured, mystery paid shills....how much do they make?)

I doubt I am going to change the minds of any Clinton supporters but I certainly don't need my own reasons questioned by pop psych. It's the details, and the desire to win the White House for the Dems in 2008, that motivates me. Certainly not hatred for Hillary Clinton. I respect Hillary Clinton, but she is dragging along some immense baggage. It might not be fair, but that is the fact.

All of Obama's crowds are "already rapturous."

All that uplifting talk, all those noble platitudes seem different coming out of Obama's mouth...can't put my finger on exactly why...hmm...but when I see him on TV something makes me think "Change."

Let's not mention that on a number of issues he's to the right of Hillary, that is, to the extent that he's anywhere on anything.

The right is going to have a whale of a time demonizing Barack, and he's going to let them...

We don't need another nominee who's too dignified to fight back, whose need to be loved won't allow for the debasements necessary to getting elected.

Democrats ought to heed the criticisms of Paul Krugman-- especially concerning this whole business of "getting people together." I'm sure the republicans, big insurance, big oil, big whatever-you-care-to-name, will love Obama so much they'll just sit right down and mend their greedy ways. Yay!

Obama's getting my vote - in the primary and in the election.

"If Obama eventually lands on the ticket, Karl Rove's strategy will have succeeded, and he will use the senator's long-running relationship with indicted criminal Tony Rezco to defeat the Democrats in the fall. For more on the strategy, check out the article I've posted at thecityedition.com, which links to other sources."

You are totally confused. Obama's marginal, tangential, and totally irrelevant relationship with this guy is not gonna even come up, except when posted by Clinton supporters. Besides, McCain has the Keating thing, where he took actual money.

Please, stop posting crap. It does nothing for Hillary when her rabid supporters post the same moronic, bullshitesque lies over and over and over.

Bill Clinton made himself and his admin easy targets and BTW, he was no great shakes on ethics either. Not as bad as Dubya but this is just a very low point in governmental accountability right now. McCain would be better I have no doubt on this issue. Hillary Clinton? I'm not convinced and I voted twice for her husband.

On Ethics McCain better than Clinton. Let me see. The John McCain of the Keating 5. The John McCain who only months ago was threatning the media when it planned to run a story about his relationship with a lobbyist. The John McCain who left his first family under unusual circumstances. Ethics is always in the eye of the beholder. Thats why its always better to focus on the issues and not buy into the character counts charade. But it will be interesting to see if the Whitewater standard applies to McCain and Keating. Back then 15 years wasn't old enough to exhume and examine an old scandal. I suspect the media will say for Keating the issue is at rest.