"And why is it not acceptable for Hillary Clinton to "bridge the gap with the right" but to laud the same thing when Obama touts it?"

This is going to sound blunt.

Because she sucks at it. Look at the primary results on cnn.com for confirmation.

It's unfortunate, but it's true. We have an important factual metric for measuring the "crossover appeal" of independents and moderate republicans. In droves, they vote for Obama. And, wingnut conspiracy theories aside, it's because they actually like him better than McBush or Hillary.

The Democrats lose election after election because they don't appeal to independents and moderates sufficiently. Here we have a candidate who doesn't have this weakness, and yet the Dem establishment rejects this golden opportunity. This would be riotously funny if it weren't so pitiful.

in addition to the ccn data, you can see their history in the senate. Someone on Salon posted a link to a blog examining BOs and HRCs activity in the senate (I'll try to find it but....)

Info can also be found in the congressional record. I read through the length blog and it was interesting to note that despite the bills introduced by Hillary she often failed to get a single co-sponsor...which I found to be odd given her tenure. It also listed several bills sponsored by Obama and their co-sponsors. It was also telling to notice that be sometimes had both republican and democratic co-sponsors. He's a JUNIOR senator with (presumably less people owning him favors etc etc). This was very telling and also reassuring.

I think he has a natural ability and temperament to collaborate, negotiate and reach resolution - something that will be vitally important in dealing with everything from the economy, to the war, to health care, to foreign policy, to trade relations, to jobs...you name it.

Everything in life involves winners and losers...potential beneficiaries and those who may feel as if they will not benefit. The key to implementing anything is to collaborate and find benefits for both groups while urging some concessions from both groups. He seems to be quite adept at this which is why many registered independents (like myself) and even some republicans (I've voted repub before as well since i am actually libertarian in my political views) are choosing to support his candidacy.

Right now, his stance on the war and his ability to collaborate with others (hopefully to address this huge deficit and sinking economy) are the most important issues to me. I don't believe Hillary has the skills necessary at this time in our nation's history to effectively implement the plans and policies she'd like to. Her congressional record bears that out.

You are the true sense maker.

Please explain, if you will, why moderate Republicans and Independents who voted for Bush last time around, are voting in droves for Obama - cited as most liberal senator of 2007. Clinton is actually more moderate than Obama, and does have a track record of working both sides of the aisle as senator from NY. Also, one of Bill Clinton's hallmarks was an ability to pull Democrats towards a more conservative agenda and thus avoid further erosion of the party's ranks. This should've worked in Hillary's favor, should it not?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

I found this interesting. I'm one of the indies voting for (and $upporting) Obama. He's showing us that he can FIGHT when needed and also display collaborative leadership along the way.

Hi KateTex...Bill ain't Hillary that's for sure.

I repeat, 0 %.

Even if she does get nominated, she energize the right like no other. I can't believe how many people on Salon can't see something so basic. Her lying and manipulative ways, in order to win the nomination, will piss off many Democrats, who may not turn out for her in large numbers, many Obamaniacs especially.

I saw the Slate.com articles stating that Democrats prefer Hillary. I'm not so sure...what is the definition of a Democrat, someone who has voted as a Democrat for years? I would believe that older voters prefer Hillary, but not lefties, or younger voters. I think that this is where the numbers come from. Also, as the article pointed out, caucus data is very hard to interpret.

Hillary would need many more voters that just Democrats to win and she would convince absolutely nobody from now to November. Everyone has made up his/her mind about her; there's little to learn that is new about her.

Her real problems are 1) trying to seat MI and FL delegates (the lying and cheating Hillary); 2) Her Iraq war vote (please, she didn't think that Bush would actually INVADE); 3) NAFTA 4) her increasing bitchiness on the campaign.

Let's face it, Hillary has beaucoup baggage. She's tired, last century, stale, and offers nothing new. The Clinton years sucked: they sucked for working people, period, and in this regard, were little better than the Republicans, whose collective ass they kissed too much.

You say: "The Clinton years sucked: they sucked for working people, period"

That's not what blue collar workers in Ohio were saying today when interviewed by public radio. Those interviewed were big Hillary Clinton supporters who said they did quite well under Bill Clinton's administration. Neither did the Clinton years suck economically for most Americans. You're pretty much denying the undeniable here.

You obviously weren't living in Ohio in the 1990's. The Clintons, as Dems, campaigned on a lot of promises, only to deliver too little.

The centrist Dems, like their Republican cousins, deserve a good old-fashioned ass-whipping with the result to be voted into oblivion. It cannot be too soon.

With union membership at an all-time low, and class consciousness pretty much near comatose, I'm not at all surprised that grandpa union dudes would slobber all over Hillary. As Malcolm X famously said "The only way they can get you to vote for a fox is to show you a wolf." My own father, whom I love dearly, fits this voter demographic; the poor old fart can't find Iraq on a map.