My wife just came in from work. She said she'd heard Hillary speaking about Obama's whines that the debate the other night wasn't much about substance, just more or less, "gotcha" kind of discussion. "She said it far better than I," my wife said, "but essentially she said [in response to Obama]: 'If you think the other night was bad, boy, wait until the general election!" And indeed, this points out a very serious flaw in the Obama campaign. He and his followers (some of whom are so accurately described in Rebecca Traister's excellent commentary in Salon.com a few days ago ("Hey, Obama boys ...), believe and demand that the type of politics which have shaped our nation for the last twelve or so years, will change.

"Obama doesn't want that kind of dialogue," my wife said. "He's saying, he wants it different."

Right. What a load of horse manure that is.

Obama has struck back at everything Senator Clinton has raised as a legitimate issue, and just recently as the other day, in his mocking tone, asked: "What does she think she is? Annie Oakley?" when he zinged her on her discussion about guns and the use of guns. Unfortunately, Obama will have to decide what to do when organizations like Swift Boat Veterans Of America begin to question: Indonesian history; Muslim associations; Arabic sounding name; trip to Pakistan as a young man; association with former SDS folks (I'm one of those, albeit, not in The Weather Underground. Tony Rezko; his views on just about everything.

If Swift Boat Veterans can take a man who legitimately won TWO Bronze Stars; the Purple Heart; and courageously attacked a Viet Cong in an ambush that saw some of his men wounded, and turned him into a coward and a liar, and made George Bush into a hero of the Vietnam War ... well, they're going to depants Obama. And it won't have a damned thing to do about what John McCain says are the rules of engagement. McCain won't call those kinds of shots any more than Obama would, if he is the nominee.

I wanted to say that these are flaws that Hillary is talking about ... because her retort, from living in the White House for eight years was: "if you think the other night was tough, wait until you get in the White House." And she's right. Obamistas are just too thin skinned, and idealistic to think that because THEY suddenly, have ARRIVED on the stage, NOW the rules will be called BY THEM!

Silly.

Stupid.

And bound to lead to Democrat defeat in November, because the fact is: Obama IS an Ultra Liberal Elitist Intellectual candidate. He can say his upbringing is anything but elitist, but that was then: this is now.

And, piggybacking on Rebecca Traister's article: women might want to take a deep breath and look at how close they could be to grabbing the golden ring. This is a competent, intelligent, VETTED, experienced and tough woman they have as a presidential candidate. Look at someone like Queen Elizabeth I, as portrayed by Cate Blanchet. Does SHE look all that much like a monster? Oh, she has her quaint and charming and vulnerable side: but in her darker moments, she also said: I am my father's daughter. And that meant: she could be as cold-blooded and vicious and murderous as daddy dearest -- Henry VIII.

Hillary is hardly that kind of monster.

She is ambitious. Isn't that one of the fruits of a leveler playing field that the sixties and seventies and the Feminist Movement promised? She can be "calculating?" Meaning: she thinks before she makes a really stupid statement about Pennsylvania voters being bitter and clinging to their guns and religion because they're filled with antipathy over the economic plight.

Hillary is ready for the Republican onslaught. Obama won't do well under the strain.

Hillary also has a more developed and direct understanding of what the President DID when HE got the 3 A.M. phone call. Those next to us in bed usually learn A HELLUVA LOT by watching our spouses react to professional crises in the middle of the night, not too mention, what they SAY when they come home. We may not know the details, but we are aware of the process used to deal with the problem. And that can mean very rough attacks by opposition parties.

Senator Clinton has a far greater chance of being the next President, if women stop allowing men to tell them they cannot vote for a woman just because they're a woman, even though African-Americans can vote for an African-American because they're African-Americans. Or, that Hillary is a "nut cutter," and therefore, if they vote for her, they've voting for THAT!! And, she's a calculating "b...h." And some of our Presidents haven't been bastards?

And somehow, women should want to grab for the golden ring of history, and support the first viable woman candidate for President because ... well, a whole lot of bogus reasons.

I urge women to reconsider: don't tell your male friends, if you don't feel like it. On the other hand, you might just say: I don't give a crap what you think. I voted for Hillary, and you can kiss my butt if you don't like it! It's time we changed the equation: instead of 43-0 with men v . women; it's going to now be: 43-1. Shake in your boots, Obama boys! This time, the women are going to go all the way!!!!!

I'm a man. I support the time for a woman. It's needed. THAT'S real change.

An earlier version had Rebecca Traister's name at the end. I cut and pasted for the title reference. I am NOT Rebecca Traister!!!

"By contrast, Sen. Clinton wrote an accurate account of her landing at Tuzla Airport in "Living History," her bestselling memoir, which suggests that the over-dramatized version she recalled more recently was more a mistake than an intentional lie."

Possibly. Maybe she just got mixed up and was recalling one of the other occasions in her life when she ducked sniper fire.

Nevertheless, I think the story has run it's cycle and pretty much petered out except amount the die hard Hillarly haters

I really think some of the apoplexy Salon writers and readers feel about the MSM is partly due to mentally exaggerating its role in bringing forward and hashing out issues about the candidates that are important. That people like Chris Matthews think something is important and talk about it endlessly doesn't mean it isn't an item of utter trivia and meaningless to actual voters. The broadcast media in particular are often lazy and uncreative and chatter about what they read in newspaper, see on the Drudge Report, or what they're fed by the campaign staffers. Not too many Americans pay much attention to this stuff.