I think "safe" was what the Clinton campaign didn't need to be; she needed to be bold and decisive, when instead she was cautious and calculating. Her iron determination might make "security voters" feel safe, but it's been done before and better by the Bush League -- look where unflappable, unshakable determination in one's own rightness has gotten us. Have people learned nothing since 2000? Maybe the immovable object of Clinton will somehow stand fast against the irresistible force of Obama, but it seems to mark a continuation of the approach of Bush (e.g., "we know best, and we're not changing based on the evidence"), rather than a departure from it.

It is difficult reading an article such as this one because I do not want Hillary to give up the fight. The reason--- I do not believe Obama will be elected in November over McCain. He is too unknown, plus as the media favorite, he has had every break which will soon end when he becomes the nominee. At that point, the press may very well depict McCain as the experienced candidate, the man with integrity, and the moderate political maverick while Obama will be cast as the liberal, the voice of hope with little experience, and a question mark in foreign policy saying on the one hand that we must exit Iraq but threatening to invade Pakistan on the other. Fickle is the media! The Rezko deal may prove a factor, also.

Polls taken now are not a real barometer about public opinion in November. There will be many older conservative Democrats who stay at home or even vote for McCain.

Democrats prefer Clinton over Obama while the latter is popular with independents, the young, and, of course, blacks (see Slate.com article by Christopher Beam entitled "A Number You Probably Haven't Seen" 2/28/08). Added to the picture are crossover Republicans voting in the primaries who will undoubtedly vote for McCain in November. It should be noted that the Rasmussen poll today has McCain beating both Hillary and Obama. That is a warning! McCain should not be underestimated by Democrats.

Many independents cannot be depended upon to go for Obama in the national election, leaving the young and the blacks to get to the polls. The blacks will be there but young people are not always so reliable. Certainly, there will be many Democrats who remain faithful to the party, but if they are like me, their enthusiasm may be more forced than spontaneous. I don't see Obama winning but Hillary may stand a chance because she is superbly qualified, a veteran in the political arena, and undoubtedly a fighter to the core.

I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't fully appreciate the making history part of this presidential election cycle. Maybe if the economy was in better shape, maybe if we weren't bogged down in Iraq, maybe if housing prices weren't dropping like a rock - maybe if there weren't so many serious problems in this country, I would be dwelling a lot more on the historic ramifications of the next Democratic candidate.

I was never a big fan of the Clintons - I admit it. I don't hate them, either. I could have voted for Hillary if she was the nominee, but I'm very happy at the prospect of voting for Obama.

But for me, race and gender were never the issue. The distinction between the two of them has been someone who wants to continue to fight, or someone who wants to work together. I'm voting for the one who wants to work together. The problems are too big and affect all of us.

They're basically even in Texas and she's winning Ohio (so far.) Seems like it's breaking Obama's way but it's too early to call it yet. The young people really need to get out in Texas and Ohio to help him win. Barack knows it, he said it himself today it's not over yet.

I just finished reading the "politics" sections of all the major Ohio newspapers, and Hillary seems solid in Ohio. The economic misery in the state, 200+ foreclosures a day, might suggest a desire for change, but Senator Clinton's highly programatic, information-laden "solutions" campaign seem comforting to an electorate battered by waves of layoffs and job loss, and though this is a change election, the extraordinary economic changes in Ohio seem to have made the electorate a bit hesitant to embrace Senator Obama's full-scale banner of change. It is Thursday, early voting has begun, and the election is on Tuesday, which is quite a while in politics; meanwhile, a similar exercise in Texas has begun to show some momentum for Senator Obama. In the two New England states: RI for Clinton; Vermont for Obama.

Why was she in a town of 279 people? Because her aides discovered, during her 2000 Senate campaign, that large audiences don't react well to her; she does best in small, intimate settings where she can practically touch every person in the room.

Did this get her tons of free publicity in the local papers for the next 20-50 miles? You Betcha!!

Will it get her votes? Maybe, maybe not...I wasn't there, but I'm not voting for her under almost any circumstance.

As a feminist, I started off being a Hillary supporter in spite of both the Clintons having moved the Democratic party to the right and in the greedy hands of corporate interests. I saw Obama as a modern day Elmer Gentry, full of crowd pleasing platitudes and no meat.

I could not shake off my anger at the Clintons for marginalizing the left wing of the party; for dissing Lani Guineer and Joycelene Elders; for signing into legislation the worst omnibus crime bill that has now incarcerated 1 in 100 Americans; for the don't ask don't tell policy in the military, going back on their campaign promise to gays and lesbians; for moving the DNC so far to the right that the lines blurred into the GOP agenda; for ending welfare as we know it. They triangulated but triangulation is a dysfunctional behavior pattern that leaves innocent people disenfranchised; Hillary also voted for the war on Iraq - she not only voted for the war on Iraq, but was instrumental in persuading hesitant Democrats such as Patrick Kennedy and others to go along; Hillary also sponsored a bill to criminalize flag burning, thereby attempting to encroach on our right to free speech. The Clintons, both Hillary and Bill can never be accused of having courage of their convictions.

So I started to listen to Obama. His words did not sound empty anymore. He does have the courage of his convictions and does not cower every time the right wing takes a swing at him or his wife Michelle. The ground swell of the movement is the rise of the left wing of the Democratic party that Hillary cannot stomach much less acknowledge. The downfall of Hillary Clinton is the rise of the people that she so gleefully left behind. Obama is reaping the rich rewards for speaking to the dreams and desires of this electorate that has been marginalized for over 30 years in this ocuntry. He did not start this movement. He just happens to be there at the right time and the right place.

Obama will win the primaries and the general election. He will bring with him the truest cornerstone of democracy, for the people, by the people and of the people, and not by, of and for dynasties, moneyed interests and carpetbaggers where corporate welfare bloomed as welfare for the poor got demonized.

I will not cry for the Clintons. Their time is up and I hope that they leave the primaries with grace and a little bit chastened. But their dysfunctional behavior played out in the pubic arena only makes me cringe to think that they will rather tend to destroy any chances of a unified Democratic party than hand over the mantle to Obama who so richly deserves to be the next President of the United States of America.