This March 4th will be one of the most critical dates – ever. Hillary Rodham Clinton must win the plurality of delegates in both Ohio and Texas to recapture her momentum for the Democratic nomination for President.

Of the two candidates, Hillary Clinton has the only resume that is appropriate. The resume of Mr. Obama is no comparison. What Mr. Obama does have is a great gift of glowing rhetoric; but we are electing a President, someone to lead the Executive Branch of our government, not a preacher to take over for the legendary Reverend Billy Graham.

Mr. Obama means well, is a nice person, but in my opinion is far too full of himself, and is bringing thousands along with him (so far) with his glowing hollow feel good rhetoric that in my opinion will lead to nothing but total disappointment and failure for the American people if he is the nominee and elected President. It will be George Bush and the year 2000 all over again.

Mr. Obama must be stopped here on March 4th in Ohio and Texas, and he can be.

To help me present my case, I will present some quotes here from some people far smarter than me.

Cal Thomas: "Misplaced Hope Can Be Dangerous", February 22, 2008, Tribune Media Services. From the article: "The hope being sold by Obama and his true believers is misplaced. Obama cannot deliver; he cannot save; he cannot improve individual circumstances by redistributing wealth and talking to America's dictatorial enemies. He is selling snake oil".

Paul Krugman; "Hate Springs Eternal", February 11, 2008, (New York Times). From the article: "Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there again".

Even the ultra conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer weighs in with: "The Audacity of Selling Hope"; February 15, 2008 (Wash. Post). From the article: "Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow". Continuing in the same article: "ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek." "That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

Ladies and Gentlemen in Ohio and Texas, please vote on Tuesday March 4th for Hillary Rodham Clinton. IT’S URGENT! She is the only candidate with the resume to do the job. And remember, this election is not about race. It’s about the most qualified person to take on the work to be done starting in January 2009.

Thank you.

Common Sense - Bruce

@ pantanal

The only voters with whom Hillary still has a slight edge are undereducated(no college degree), over 55 blue color whites. Do you guys believe that you can win a general election with this group?

To answer your question, (even though I am not "the Clinton campaign", just another Mossad agent like KateTex) these are the voters lovingly known as "Reagan Democrats", and no democrat has been able to win without them. Hillary is popular with them. Obama is not. They will likely go with McCain this time if Obama is the nominee.

I don't have anything in particular against under-educated white people except that they seem to be uncomfortable with non-white persidential candidates, ...

Could you please provide examples of, oh let's say 3 or 4 other non-white presidential candidates and supporting documentary evidence for your contention of the "discomfort" ? Thanks.

@ cecilbeanie

The glee with which they predict that Obama can't possibly beat McCain and, boy, "won't we be sorry then" is childish.

I have no glee, but it's not childish... it's history.

The Republicans will (as always) run a dirty, ugly, nasty, and bloody campaign - it will make Hillary and Barack seem like Sam and Diane on "Cheers." And it will be that way whether Clinton or Obama is the Democratic nominee.

I agree. The only difference is, all the stuff they will throw at Clinton is OLD... Whitewater? Cattle Futures Travelgate?.... Big Yawn... Ah, but Obama is fresh meat for the republican slime dogs... Rezco? Farrakhan? votes, speeches, associations? who knows. If there are skeletons, real or imaginary, the republicans will find them.

I have another post where I lay out a few other reasons that I think history predicts that Obama will not win the general should he get that far, so I won't repeat them, but I'll add one other here. If Obama fights the seating of the Florida delegation in particular, how do you think they are going to feel come November? Well, maybe Florida is not important for the democrats to win in November. I'll have to go check history on that one.

I really don't want to join the chorus suggesting that Obama supporters are delusional, but if anyone really thinks he can win the general election by winning the red states and losing the blue states.... well, maybe I just won't comment. (And, just to head off any suggestion that it is impossible for a democrat to lose the blue states, please check the results for the elections of 1972, 1980, 1984 & 1988).

Since neither Clinton NOR Obama will have the required number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination, no matter what happens in the contests ahead, the nomination will be determined by superdelegates. Face it. That's what has to happen. I admit I want Hillary to stay in until the convention. So, if Obama implodes before August, she might be able to pick up the pieces. If he holds on to his current popularity, the supers will likely vote for him. They are not stupid. If, on the other hand, "things" happen and lets say by August the polls show McCain beating Obama 70 to 30 or something equally unforseen, well, the superdelegates were created in order to keep the democratic party from going over a cliff.

So, who beats McCain? Well, if the Democrats are destroyed before they even get to the general election, McCain wins. Unfortunately, that could happen.

In this sad tale I must unfortunately concur. It is quite likely that we have, once again, managed to shoot ourselves in the foot... a presidential campaign strategy we seem to have perfected.