Hillary did cinch my vote for her tonight IF she beats Obama in the primary ... and I wouldn't even fault Obama for putting her on as vp, maybe she could learn to trust herself (& not her lameass advisors) & have more "Texas Moments"

But then, I'm just a sucker for all this "Sweetness & Light". Maureen - forgive us who want politics to be something other than an ugly street brawl & who believe that the tone to US politics could actually be raised up by the dems, rather than down to the level of republicans.

I could spend a lot of time with MO'D - she is very amusing - but it is the more reasonable anonymous who unexpectedly draws my attention.

As you've seen, the sanctimonous Irish have another quality I've tapped into it, namely the ease with which one can wind them up. Of course I wasn't talking about Maureen Haughey per se, I was trying to point out to you that charismatic rogues like Haughey - and Bill Clinton - appear very differently domestically than they do to foreign audiences. You went down a rathole of assuming I was picking on the poor Haughey widow, which again exposes the huge chip on your shoulder. I'm embarrassed to even point it out to you, but let's just say you seem to have it in for the boys.

Now to serious postings. I don't share Anonymous's pessimism in regards to Obama. I think instead that the electorate will be presented with two very distinct choices: on the one hand, an elderly war hero who actively pushes even more illegal involvement on Iraq and gamely confesses his ignorance about the economy; on the other hand, a young energetic bridge-builder who wants to pull us out of Iraq (the number one foreign policy problem we have) and wants to invest heavily in our infrastructure (the single best thing the government can do economically.) I like our chances with that choice. Don't you?

Why are people so antagonistic and bent on making Obama supporters out to be mindless dolts?

There really aren't that many of them, I don't think-- a few people who can't shut up, one or two I suspect are sockpuppets of the people who can't shut up, and then all these anons, who are really just us hiding under the covers pretending to be ghosts or Cassandras.

I mean, if you throw the negative arguments of the last two pages of comments together, you get Obama losing to McCain in California because he was mean to Gavin Newsom.

And yeah, Grassroots Mom isn't straight Hillary-bashing but I do feel obligated to give Hillary Clinton some credit. I'm glad she's a Democrat, even though I've gotten frustrated and angry at her during this campaign for a variety of reasons. I hope we'll be able to pull off a reconciliation and really kick ass in November against McCain.

The Democrats' recent woes seem to be the result of being overly cautious and defensive, and choosing "safe" DLC-type, uninspiring candidates. Nominating Senator Obama over Senator Clinton would be a departure from this trend of having great candidates and ideas, but chickening out when it really counts. I'd argue that nominating Clinton would be "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".

Hillary Clinton is an intellectual leeche. She stole remarks from John Edwards and her husband last night. She stole one of John Edwards answers in a debate nearly word for word previously. She has tried to absorb other candidates campaign themes when her's has flagged. youtube her embarrassing "Yes we will" moment. When she cried in NH it all was suddenely "This is personal for me" conviniently mere days after John Edwards used "This is personal for me" as his thematic device in the debate. She was the candidate of "experience" until Obama gained traction with "Cahnge" then she was all about change.

Please don't get into the old "depending what the meaning of 'is' is. She's intellectually dishonest.

& her "pearls" of wisdom:

"I've noticed the endless repetition of the fallacy that Hillary Clinton "authorised" the invasion of Iraq and the deliberate avoidance of any criticism of Colin Powell who supplied misinformation to the UN five years ago this month, in an effort to cajole other countries to support the American adventure. There are Americans who are so insular that other people scarcely exist in their consciousness."

So Americans are "insular" because they are attempting to hold Clinton accountable for a vote with DID authorized invasion of Iraq (and the hence taking the lives of many Iraqi men, women, & children, not to mention US soldiers).

Hmmmm ... anyone see the problem with the logic there?

Hillary's craft at emoting another swelling of sacararine sympathy won't make me nostalgic for another Clinton dynasty as a new decade dawns. Out with the old and in with the new, it is time for this country to find and fix upon, a fresh new view. Houston is hot for Obama. Enough political dissection, bring on the election!

The debates don't matter anymore. Most people have made up their minds. If Obama wins the nomination, I'm voting for him in November. If Clinton wins, I'm voting for McCain.

Nuff said.

There are some of us who have decided to support Obama because we think he has a better chance of beating McCain in November than Hillary Clinton does. Obama is clearly an intelligent individual and, if elected president, would probably govern very capably. It's not like we have to choose between the dumb jock quarterback and the valedictorian. It's more like we have a choice between the valedictorian and the president of the National Honor Society. Why are people so antagonistic and bent on making Obama supporters out to be mindless dolts?

Her party might not nominate her.

The big point I got from that post was not the 1-1 comparison of legislative records, but the fact that Hillary seems to struggle to get consensus and support behind her bigger ideas. Obama pointed this out last night when he talked about the failure she was met with on UHC. And I think she highlghted it by driving home the notion that any idea that is not hers is a failure.