""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.""

First of all, the citation is hardly unbiased - if Obama's point in the debate is correct, the difference in the "liberal/conservative" rankings between himself and Hillary is based on exactly two senate votes, neither of which were terribly important.

I'll be as straight as I can here to try and answer your question - I don't actually know, because I am very far to the left wing myself and would never consider voting for McBush. But the point was that the crossover vote for O is happening. I can speculate some reasons:

1) Obama's rhetoric and charisma. It's good. Clinton supporters consistently label this his only strength, but what they are really doing is attempting to minimize this incredibly valuable political skill. Bill Clinton had it - I went to Bill rallies in '92 and he spoke at my college graduation, and I saw it first hand. Reagan had it as well. "Communication" allows a president to get stuff done in a way that no amount of policy expertise can provide. I abhor Reagan and his offspring, but there is no denying that his charisma played a huge role in the Reagan revolution, for good or ill.

I have not seen Hillary speak in person, so I don't first hand know how she comes across. In the debates, she clearly does know her stuff, but has indulged in a lot of lame cheap shots that haven't helped her campaign. ("xerox", "reject/denounce" eg.) More broadly, she does not seem to appeal to voters in the same charismatic way as Obama. Whatever the policies are, Obama would, on the basis of this point, be able to enact them into law more easily.

2) Policy differences.

a) Most sane Americans think the war was a bad idea. Setting aside the justifications for the vote, this is a huge strike against Clinton. I'm not saying that she didn't have good reasons for the vote [for the purposes of this argument, anyway] just that, to the average voter, her nuanced justifications will not sink in.

b) Health care. All the political addicts know that she has health care mandates for adults, Obama does not. Setting aside, again, the question of who really has the better policy, the *perception* is that Clinton represents Big government, loss of freedoms, more bureaucracy and inefficiency. Is this a fair charge? I dunno. I like Clinton's health care plan more myself, actually. But the real goal - a universal payer system - is too politically "socialist" to get considered seriously. Obama's strategy here is to skew ever so slightly to the right of HRC. Of course this is more appealing to indies/moderate republicans.

3) The pile-on effect. As Obama started racking up the victories, more people swung to his side irrespective of ANY of the differences between the candidates histories, personalities, or positions. From a "gamesmanship" point of view, this is a smart thing to do. There are many, many of us who believe that both HRC and Obama would be fine presidents, and that the ultimate goal is getting Bush out and a sane person in. Once one of the Dem candidates started building a lead, it only made sense for the anti-Bush voters (a group which includes many moderates and independents) to pull even further for that winning candidate, who in this case is Obama.

4) The pile-on criticism feedback effect.

As Obama started winning, and the bandwagon grew, Clinton sought to de-legitimize the independent/crossover voters and appeal directly to the democratic base. This is well documented. "Caucus states don't count." "Purple states don't count." Geraldine Ferrarro, a Clinton supporter, argues that Republicans and Indies shouldn't be allowed to vote in Democratic nomination contests. What is the effect of all of this? Of course it's going to p!ss off the crossover voters, who continually vote for O, if only to raise the middle finger at Hillary.

5) Ground organization. All of the coverage suggests that Obama's is much stronger than Hillary's - especially if her disdain for independents from the point above translates into ignoring them on the ground.

6) Sexism. It's out there, for sure. Is it the *only* reason why Hillary is losing? I doubt it. I also doubt that it's even among the most important causes. But it probably does have some effect.

7) The Clinton legacy. For whatever reasons, Bill's administration was incredibly polarizing. Moderates and independents have no desire to return to that.

Clinton's only answer to all of these is "I'm more experienced." Even if that translates into a better presidency, it has been overwhelmed as a campaign theme by all of the other factors working against her. Moreover, Obama is not inexperienced himself. He isn't the lightweight people make him out to be.

It's depressing that a lot of these factors may be unfair to Clinton, or that there is a lot of ignorance and fear about her positions, or that people think she would be a poor president.

"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?"

On health care, Clinton is getting pilloried for "socialism." It's a stupid charge, but it's definitely having an impact. The rating system you mentioned above is not exactly an unbiased measurement. Also, see #7. Again, it isn't the reality of Bill's policies that matter. He was quite centrist. What matters is that the right-wing nutjobs won the propaganda war, and the '90s were divisive.

when will you people finally get it - the "resume" has already been discussed to death on this threads and you will "change" nothing anymore. You might have a much better chance to prep your candidate for her visit on the Daily Show. I fell in love with Hillary when she was there in 2003 - and still don't understand her "change" - You seem to have a lot of "inside"

information perhaps you can tell me the most important thing: What happened to that wonderful relaxed and witty woman from

2003 - was she abducted by aliens and is now an "plant" from planet Misisumandoptudor??