The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Being from SC and voting last Sat- I have to say that I was torn until the minute I voted at the local polling place...
I originally was a HRC supporter, but the prior 2 weeks of the negative campaigns, esp hearing interviews/comments by Pres. Clinton left quite a negative impression...
As for Obama- I had (and still have) my doubts about his experience and ability to handle the challenge...
Finally- there was Edwards- I respect his message, but knew electability (at least for the top office) wasn't there...
So- after much thought, I chose Obama...

Surprisingly (yes, I was surprised), he won... I followed the results displayed on CNN and the local stations with amazement that Obama won the state... Actually thought Edwards might have did so- being that he's the hometown son and all...

I was equally diappointed (and surprised) to hear that Hillary high-tailed it out of the state almost immediately- and her husband... well- his comments made from the live news conf in St Louis confirmed my opinions- politics were live and well - even for the Clintons...

So- after saying all this- it was a great disappointment to hear that Edwards withdrew- without waiting for the results of the 5th to occur...

I think and feel he will make a formidable running mate for Obama and lead the charge to bring the Dem Party - AND the country back together...

Do I expect the Reps to do so- no...
And that's coming from someone who is an independent (centrist overall) who voted and campaigned for McCain in 2000.

I was previously an Edwards supporter but am now FIRMLY in Barack Obama's corner. Let me explain why:

(1) Like Edwards, I trust that Obama will stick to his principles when the going gets tough in office, which it always does. Obama doesn't pretend that, for example, comprehensive health care reform will be easy to enact. He realizes that it will be necessary to convince those on the other side of the aisle to join the Democrats.

When the going got tough on Bill and Hillary in 1993, they just dropped health care reform as an issue completely. That says something. Health care reform was an issue Hillary claimed to care about, but when it became politically expedient to drop it as an issue, she had no difficulty doing it. This is the type of "politics as usual" that Edwards and Obama have railed against.

(2) Obama's judgment is better than Hillary's. Hillary's vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq is the primary example of this.

(3) I think Obama's policy prescriptions are better. For example, his health care reform plan would actually end up covering MORE people than Hillary's plan, which is "universal" only because the government would levy a monetary fine (that's right, just like a parking ticket) on people who don't buy health insurance. Whereas Hillary's plan would require the government to spend significant amounts of money on a "health insurance police," Obama's plan dedicates all of the money to subsidizing citizens' purchase of health care insurance, and his plan opens up the Congressional health care plan to everybody just like Hillary's does. Obama's plan literally makes health care purchasable AND affordable to EVERYONE who wants it. Hillary's does not.

(4) Obama has run an honest campaign. Hillary and Bill Clinton have not. If Hillary can't be honest to the American people during a campaign, why should we trust anything she says?

(5) Inspiration and leadership comes from the top, but change comes from the bottom. Obama recognizes this. He recognizes that if America is going to pass serious reform measures -- for example, green energy research and development, health care change, middle class tax cuts, etc. -- then the citizens are going to have to demonstrate their own committments to these causes. I think that Obama can inspire the citizens' support. I don't think Hillary can. I see a Hillary presidency as truly plutocratic, with citizens being treated as and feeling like minions that don't get actively involved in the process.

(6) Obama is electible. Hillary is not. Not only will Hillary fail to motivate much of the Democratic base after her malicious campaign, but she'll motivate the Republican base who won't otherwise be motivated by McCain. This is a really big deal.

(7) The Bill Clinton presidency wasn't all it was cracked up to be. We had eight years of peace time and prosperity that was created by a technology boom that Clinton had nothing to do with. Clinton's first two year's in office were also with a Democratically controlled Congres. What did he do with it?

Comprehensive health care reform? Nothing.
Alternative fuel legislation? Nothing.
Middle East terrorism? Nothing.
Federal prison reform? Nothing.
Gay rights? Don't ask, don't tell.
Social Security protection? Very little.
Education? Almost nothing.

We want eight more years on that?

Six days. Six days, Mr Edwards, to hang out and see what Super Tuesday would bring. Six days, and all of the time your volunteers in 22 states wouldn't have been for naught. It may have been a family choice, or perhaps there is polling data that led to this decision, but when you look at the numbers in Iowa and S.C., you can see he would have pulled some significant support, and perhaps even carried a large amount of delegates. This would have provided him with a much greater voice at the convention, or turned the tide. I just don't get it, and hope someone can explain it to me.... why he couldn't wait another six days.

My husband and I were both Edwards supporters. I think the US needs him now. But alas the lack of media and the superstar candidates ruined him. He needed the media before Iowa and through New Hampshire.

Hillary offers universal health care. The things John said were most important were universal health care, moving toward one America and hearing the voices of all Americans.

Interestingly, I saw Bill Clinton taking one of John's ideas for college students who go into public service positions. Their loan would be repaid for each year of public service. John wanted someone who would work on and with his ideas.

Hillary is trying to take on John's ideas despite her corporate money.

Also, as friendly as John was with Obama, you would have thought he would have endorsed him if that is what he wanted.

I think his silence is telling.

One doesn't have to be a poor to be advocate for poor. I don't have a problem with Edwards getting $300 hair cut. Let him spend his money. It makes the economy go around.

All interesting opinions. I am just curious to see if so many people really dislike Hillary or is it just a small handful of people who wants the dems to think that way.

And I don't know why all the brag about McCain. He is a joke. Do you honestly think independents are going to vote him when he supports the war and knows nothing about economics. By the way, I won't be suprised if he engages more war if he is elected as a president.

Edwards in a way, got further than he deserved. He spent his time complaining about his opponeents being on the take, and professing to be a spokesmen for the poor, but yet had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in 'consulting fees' from subprime lenders in advising them how to screw the poor. Those who need a hand don't need one from a guy with a $300 hair cut.

Hey guys, I am not from this great country. But over the past few months that I have stayed in it and watched how the excitements and the drama of the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election unfold, I cannot help but express this observation.

No doubt, more and more Americans are getting tired of the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Washington. They believe that if another Republican will run the White House in the next four or eight years, America will surely go down.

I agree. If another Republican will run this country, this great country will surely go into oblivion.

But who's to blame for the Bush Administration and the Republican's control in the White House?

It all started when the American people where duped into voting for empty rhetorics for CHANGE, UNITY, etc. - rhetorics without subtance - which Bush and the Republicans carried in their campaign eight years ago.

America needs leaders with substance - leaders with concrete plans to address the crisis it is in right now. Rhetorics are good, but certainly conncrete plans are better.

If only to overcome the present crisis it is in right now, America should learn its lessons from the past. It needs leaders with substance, if only to rise-up and remain as the leader of the free world.

Suicide rate is up for active veterans not just those who have come back to an empty home. Predictable. Look back at the Vietnam Vets who were dealing with the fall out from WWII and Korea through their parents, among the many other pressures. 20% are homeless for no good reason. America's conscience and immediate attention is overloaded with invited and welcomed distractions/stimulus away from WHAT IS IMPORTANT. Frankly most don't know what is important. Why? They didn't learn by example because their examples/parents didn't learn how to prioritize the fundamentals of life. The cycle won't ever be defeated until we hit bottom and face the reality that our American culture as a society is broken. Why? IMO it's because we have NO DISCIPLINE that is not questioned or adjusted for the loud mouth that refuses to obey because Mom and Dad don't....so we don't have to.
We can go about the day worrying about who is running for president while the children are failing in school, stealing candy from the local grocer, becoming sexually active by the time they're 12, experimenting with drugs, running away, having babies they can't support, etc. Television? Well TV is Mom and Dad. Now these very astute "grown ups" will help to decide who will do the best job as President. Finally a chance to help decide something important.

The problem with Obama is that he has had such an unremarkable record, both in Illinois and in Congress. He has consistently dodged difficult votes to avoid offending potential voters. Nothing he has done leads me to believe that he is ready to be the president. And his proposal for healthcare reform borders on laughable because it does not have an universal mandate, which shows me a lack of even basic understanding of healthcare issues.

Regrettably, the press loves him and never asks him tough questions. In some ways, he reminds me (though the comparison is not entirely fair) of George W. --- short on resume, but long on rhetorics. Remember how the media used to love George W. when he was running on a platform of "compassionate conservativism" that was going to unite the country? Media kept letting W. off easy because he was supposedly likeable, as opposed to Gore's "stiffness".

Even more alarming for me is the fact that Obama's supporters seem to enjoy demonizing Hillary. I thought Obama was supposed to be a "uniter"? But he seems to have problems uniting his own party. (This is in sharp contrast to Hillary, who has actually demonstrated that she can work with the Republicans and have won over the conservative NY crowd.). So I find even his supposed strength - the ability to unite - questionable.

Unfortuantely, most people vote on emotions and tend to focus only on style and rhetorics. Remember where that got us in 1992. We need to focus on substantive policy issues. I don't have to like my president; I just want him to be good.

Mr.John Edwards give up of the presidential race, would be good, if he endorsed the Barack Obama's candidacy, so, the race of Mr Obama could be guaranteed as a winner of Democrat's Party. But, the danger of happen of losing the race the White House is very big. It will be, Mr Obama would be capable to stop the war suddenly in Iraq? And if the winner went Hillary Clinton? Has she more courage to make decision about it? MacCain all of us know he not would stop this war. This time is the time of the Democrat's Party. Eight years of weak administration under Mr Bush's leadership, That's the end! A bad history for the world. Thanks God, God bless America and the Brazil together.

Mr.John Edwards give up of the presidential race, would be good, if he endorsed the Barack Obama's candidacy, so, the race of Mr Obama could be guaranteed as a winner of Democrat's Party. But, the danger of happen of losing the race the White House is very big. It will be, Mr Obama would be capable to stop the war suddenly in Iraq? And if the winner went Hillary Clinton? Has she more courage to make decision about it? MacCain all of us know he not would stop this war. This time is the time of the Democrat's Party. Eight years of weak administration under Mr Bush's leadership, That's the end! A bad history for the world. Thanks God, God bless America and the Brazil together.

Edwards had a populist message that didn´t catch up with the democratic electorate. Even thou he has charisma, it was not enough to encourage people to vote for him. Where will his electorate go? After second thoughs, most of it will go to Hillary.

If you want to know who is the democratic candidate of the republicans, watch Fox News, they almost praise Obama while attacking fiercely Hillary. Obama is not macht for McCain, so that is why they are (subjectively) backing him up.

If age gets into the ring then race will too, then forget about McCain being 71 years old.

There is something else that favors Hillary, most of the Latino vote will go for her.

Edwards had a populist message that didn´t catch up with the democratic electorate. Even thou he has charisma, it was not enough to encourage people to vote for him. Where will his electorate go? After second thoughs, most of it will go to Hillary.

If you want to know who is the democratic candidate of the republicans, watch Fox News, they almost praise Obama while attacking fiercely Hillary. Obama is not macht for McCain, so that is why they are (subjectively) backing him up.

If age gets into the ring then race will too, then forget about McCain being 71 years old.

There is something else that favors Hillary, most of the Latino vote will go for her.

I have a position for Edwards - the HHS secretary in a Clinton administration that pushes for universal healthcare. I don't see how he fits in Obama's banwagon. Kerry is already there. Does he want to compete for the affection of Obama with Kerry? Gimme a break!

JOHN EDWARDS for VP.

@ juandgarza thank you - your comment was worthy of scrolling down the page through the abyss of cynisism posted by others. We should ask ourselves what is the best for the country and the world _ the answer will not be associted nor linked to anything Clinton related. The 1990's are gone. It was a great time, however we have passed that intersection -These are moments in time we cannot relive once past. Our future lies ahead. It's not "us" verses "them" as the Clintons and Bushes would lead us to believe. I submit that it "We" and it's indivisible as in "We the people." The Clintons have a lot of baggage and most was exposed during the 1990's. Do we really want more pimping of the Linclon bedroom, Oval office rendezvous with interns, Travel-gate, White-water? I think not. Vote for McCain or Obama. Turn the page.

I just don't see the similarity of viewpoints between Edwards and Clinton. Being her vice president with Bill around would be a real lousy job for whoever took it. The only way I see him endorsing her is as a purely political calculation.
I think he would make a very good Attorney General for Obama though. I hope his wifes condition would allow him to serve. Go Edwards and Obama!

All you geniuses out there who believe McCain can beat Clinton but not Obama...look at the facts:

1. Hillary Clinton received 150,000 more votes last night in Florida than McCain. Huge in a red state. A red state where McCain campaigned and she did not.

2. McCain has pledged to keep the troops in Iraq forever. 65% of the country want the war to end ASAP. Clinton will end this unwinnable war.

3. The economy stupid. Clinton boom vs. GOP recession.

Well I think that if Obama becomes the Democratic nomination then I will have to Vote for A Republican do to the Fact that I don't think that Obama is telling us the truth about Rezko,and other thing that he has been invalved in.
I am Looking for a stronge Person ,and if he started out taking kickbacks then what will the rest be like ?

I love John Edwards - I think he is great. I would have been happy to see either John or Obama get the nod - because they had both stood up to the issue of lobbyist/corporation backing in running campaigns. This is a core value and I cannot see Edwards betraying that for Clinton.

Last year I started a thread on a forum entitled 'John Edwards is my new hero', I was so impressed with the positions he put forth in Iowa.

I think I also see two people who genuinely like each other and get on together with Obama and Edwards.

The only thing that edged me toward Obama over Edwards was that Edwards reacted more partisan to the Reagan comment and I thought it would be good to have a leader who was creating a working majority.

I know there is a whisper that Edwards might get the AG role in an Obama administration, but I would strongly urge both sides to consider that Edwards is better to be VP and they select someone with the same values as Edwards to the AG role instead.

This is because should something happen to Obama then the VP stands up to take his place as President. I could see no apparent better choice in such an event than Edwards. Clinton, obviously, would not be an option and her baggage would like drag both her and Obama down on an Obama/Clinton ticket (or vice versa).

If Obama and Edwards truly want the change that they stand for - then they should run together to maximize the likelihood of this becoming reality - this is the most important thing to achieve.

THEN, I would like to see reform on how campaigns are funded in the future. Both Edwards and Obama have clearly demonstrated that you can run a campaign fueled by the support of the people, and any such campaign ensures the people's voice shines through.

Good run, Johnny. As frustrated as I got with him, I do respect the hell out of him and believe that he would be a fine addition to Hillary's cabinet.

Endorse her, baby; you know you want to and NEED to at this point. If the SC debate was any indicator, he's leaning toward her for all the right reasons.

We'll miss you John!

i think it's a shame he's out of the race. he's good man and was clearly the best among the candidates.

John, please do not support the clintons. The United States of Arrogance may want them but the United States of America does not need them. Please do the right thing, and I feel that you will. Ken

What kind of foolish jibberh is that Hillary will unite the republicans. You think they will vote for a democrat and a black democrat to boot. I am not saying they will vote for a woman either but who is the best qualified and seasoned and intelligent. If you think Republicans are going to elect the democrats, think again. Obama is not an idiot but Hillary and many others can run circles around him. Wake up democrats.

He will only endorse if he gets a VP promise. But maybe he will get a joint promise from both to not endorse and get AG from which ever wins.

Everyone wants change? The way I see it, the candidate with the stronger resume but with less charisma (Clinton) is being bashed left and right while the much less experienced but more charismatic candidate (Obama) gets praised left and right. Sounds like an age-old fashioned popularity contest.
On top of that, it looks like the Republican smear machine was so effective that even a fair number of Democrats hate her. Shame on you.
And for any of the Kennedys to compare their late, great relative to Obama is political manipulation at its most disgusting. Please everyone, take the time to compare Kennedy's achievements before he ran for President to Obama's and you'll see how the latter sorely pales in comparison.
Hillary Clinton unites a lot more people than all of you are willing to select. That she is a moderate only shows that she understands that this is a nation of Americans not a nation of one party. What does Obama plan to do if elected? Who knows? Even journalists admit that he won't hang around after making a speech to answer tough questions.
Hillary supporters will make their voices heard at the ballot box. Don't worry.

Dan,

Tour article mentioned Edward's starting the race after Christmas 07. This means he was in the race for a little over a month.

I think you mean Christmas 06.

Tom

Those who say that Hillary can't beat McCain are in a deep state of denial.

Take a look at the Florida Primary results:

Clinton 857,208
McCain 693,508
Romney 598,188
Obama 569,041
Giuliani 281,781
Edwards 248,604

In the state that decided the last two presidential elections, Hillary got a lot more votes than McCain. (Consider also that the Democratic vote was irrelevant, and Democrats didn't campaing in Florida).

Remember 1960 - when JFK and LBJ swallowed their distaste for each other and LBJ ran as JFK's veep for the 'good of the party'. I wonder if Hillary and Barack could be this year's JFK and LBJ respectively...

Where will the Edwards vote go?
well for my and my lady, it'll be staying home.

I think Edwards was a marvelous candidate. As in every election, the candidates who do not rise up to the top one and two, do indeed bring issues to the forefront that may otherwise have gone unspoken. In this election period, it appears that the field amongst the dems is clearly before us: Hillary or Barack.

Why Hillary? She does have policy experience having served in the senate. It is also clear that her colleagues, both democrat and republican, respect her ability to strike deals over the aisle.

Why not Hillary? Her having served as the first lady in what can be largely described as one of the most scandalous-laden administrations in modern history is certainly no feather in her cap. The Clinton machine of wrangling, lies, and manipulation cannot be denied. Is the country ready for four more years of their kind of politics? I'm a Republican, and I voted Clinton the first time. I voted Dole the next time around. I've voted Democrat every time since. The Republicans have to go.

Why Barack? Smart. Young. Very well educated. Visionary - but without the cloud of arrogance that blinds the Clinton's. No dirt to muddy the waters. A clean slate who will hopefully surround himself with eager people in his administration who can overcome the log jam of Washington politics that has scummed up this country for far too long.

Why not Barack? Well, I don't see a reason. Experience? Look, an average person with extraordinary vision and a determination to realize their goals is far stronger than the biggest titan of all. Furthermore, a person who can inspire a nation onto something larger than itself deserves to be our president. Hillary Clinton is not that person.

Final analysis: This is a major turning point for our nation. Those Americans who will choose to not vote for Obama solely because he's black may as well not vote at all. Let's leave the playing field open to the people who will vote for a candidate because that's the person we need to lead the country into a brighter today and tomorrow. You have to admit, things pretty much blow right now. Getting Clinton into office won't shake anything up. Getting Mc Cain into office won't either. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree.

Edwards was my guy in 2004. Edwards was my guy in 2008. Edwards is now gone. I loved Bill Clinton (or at least I did until the last couple of weeks) but not so much Hillary. Obama knocks me out. I became a fan after his victory speech in Iowa. Hillary is hated, although I'm not entirely sure why. Obama can win. We cannot afford to lose this election. He shows good sense and good judgement and will exercise both, establishing broad parameters and selecting the very best people. Get over your respective selves and get behind Obama.

I really don't understand how is Obama more elecable.
1. Has a painful thin resume.
2. Holds ultra left position.
3. Has a funny middle name.

Some reality check.
Survey USA.
Massachusetts 01/23/08

Clinton vs. Maccain 49% vs 45%
Obama va Maccain 45% vs 50%.

If Obama can't beat Maccain in MASSACHUSETTS,how is he going to win South????

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=ad723bad-3bee-40ac-9b99-ab9b2043c2b3&q=44325

Lylee,

I sympathise with your dilemma. I also liked JE and think it's a real loss to have him out. He had class during the campaign and showed it again in the way he bowed out. One of the best things about him was the way he acknowledged his mistake in voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and really seemed to have grown and learned from that experience. So compare and contrast with the other two to help you make up your mind.

Hillary also voted for the war, and even shilled for it, but has refused to admit her error. She blames everyone else for the fact that she voted on bad information, when she didn't even bother to read the 2002 NIE that was hand-delivered to her at the Senate so she could make an informed choice. She lacks the class to admit mistakes, and more important, she lacks the wisdom to learn from them.

Barack Obama opposed the war from day one, when fewer than 30% of Americans were against invading Iraq. He has never deviated from that correct position.

Hillary's "35 years of experience" seems to refer to her long history of bad decisions (Iraq, Iran, her screwed-up healthcare reform), and to her well-established track record of backing Republicans on everything from the Patriot Act to flag-burning. Just imagine this: If McCain runs against Hillary, he will be able to truthfully claim to be the candidate who always opposed torture, while the Democrat flip-flopped and evaded. And if that isn't enough, consider this line from 2004: "He (she) was for the war before he (she) was against it". It worked against Kerry, and it will work against Clinton. She will lose this election for the Democratic Party and plunge this country back into the Republican nightmare we all need to awaken from.

THIS HARD-HEADED EDWARDS SUPPORTER WILL WRITE IN EDWARDS ON MY BALLOT. I have to live with myself!

Why has John Edwards quit today?

Why not after Feb 5th, Super Tuesday.

I look forward to the answer to this question.

He will be missed in Los Angeles at the debate tomorrow night tremendously. The debate will be less than wonderful without his balanced, classy contribution.

Only Clinton and Obama are left. Did I say left? I mean remain.

It seems to me they have both become copycat mouthpieces of John Edwards positions on issues. Even some of the Republicans have adopted sound bites of Johns messages. What a great compliment. How pathetic.

Candidates really need to show up day one as WHO THEY REALLY ARE and WHAT THEY REALLY STAND FOR, in written, concise specificity, like John Edwards has done for YEARS.

If John did nothing else but form the issues for the 2008 election and bring the horrific plight of our fellow Americans to light, we all own him a big THANK YOU.

Now, which candidate will carry the torch, help the majority of Americans in economic hardship, end the wars and use our troops to protect America and it's borders/ports, and return FAIR and BALANCED news coverage to the airways OWNED BY AMERICANS?

I, frankly, do not know. I feel anxious, really.

I know the majority of Americans are good, hardworking, and possess a natural integrity and soft heart. We truly do care about those who are suffering, even if they are a whino and/or a drug addict. As we so often quip "There but for the Grace of God, go I". This is the American way of thinking, I believe.

Sadly, greed and envy have covered the hearts of too many in power and who possess undo influence on our policies, both domestic and foreign, and our media choices.

Who can we trust to deliver fair and balanced solutions to our many problems?

In my opinion, "mandated" health care policies make me cringe, too. No one should be forced to buy a product that enriches private companies UNLESS those companies are MANDATED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, with no HITCHES. Our bodies are always pre-existing. That the term "pre-existing" exists speaks volumes of the audacious, cheeky, free-for-all manner the health care industry is allowed to operate.

AND, when I hear the other party using "personal responsibility", implying that we are all on our own to make it in this world I cringe, again.

It seems so heartless to use "personal responsiblity" to define wounded, homeless Vets, the physically and emotionally handicapped, workers paid too little to afford escalating housing costs, $55 tanks of gas, 35% increases in tuition, and skyrocketing food costs I simply cringe! How is it "personally irresponsible" to work full-time and be paid too little to afford your own studio apartment? Not everyone gets to choose!!!

Where is the "personal responsibility" that includes integrity on the part of those who are excelling?

To not gouge the people?

To not put people into bankruptcy because of medical bills?

To not make college affordable even for students who work full-time?

To allow companies to charge $200-$300 for one college text book?

To allow powers to rally and tank the stock market seemingly at will?

To send our youth into the jaws of jihad?

To allow over 10 million people to invade our country and take our jobs?

To allow US companies to ship our jobs overseas?

To allow finance companies to write millions of bad mortgages?

To allow torture?

To turn America into the most indebted nation in the world?

To spread vitriol to young America directed at today's senior citizen "burden"?

To continue to pollute the planet?

To continue to develop nuclear arms?

Do those who have allowed the above to transpire exhibit "personal responsibility"?

Does responsibility end at finite point just beyond our epidermis

When did we evolve into this "dog eat dog" "survival of the fittest" mentality?

Everyone knows that the elite clubs, of all races in America, assure those who are their members a hands up at birth. That has always been and will always be. Good for them.

What is puzzling is this seemingly sudden reluctance to offer a modicum of hope and a minimum hands up to remaining masses? At the very least, wages that afford minimal private housing and basic survival needs.

Doesn't PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY go both ways?

Isn't that God's way?

The problem with the Clinton campaign in the general election is two fold. One it will galvanize the Republicans and two it will fracture the Democrats. How can you win with that??

I am a lifelong Democrat and I will not vote for the Clintons in the general election. Hillary reminds me of some people I know who are intelligent but deeply lacking a moral compass. She and Bill are deeply flowed and dysfunctional that they will divide this country further and really fracture the Democratic Party. The most amazing part is their total lack of respect for the intelligence of the American people. It is really insulting to witness how they try to use the subtle fears and biases of people to their advantage. I don't see much difference between them and Karl Rove. They are all bad for America; they exploit our weakness to their selfish end.

craigslist2007, I believe you overlooked one pertinent fact...Clinton(s) and Obama can't stand to be in the same room together for just reasons...I too wanted to see a Clinton/Obama ticket at the start of this race, but I'm smart enough to understand that too much damage has been done for that to ever happen. That's so unfortunate, because the way I saw it was Hillary, Obama, and Bill were the ultimate dream team of politics. But again, not gonna happen--too much damage. On the other hand, an Obama/Edwards ticket is a definate win. I hope the two of them will come together to win the House back...the White House that is...

Dept of Dream On??

Edwards as Attorney General is much more likely that playing second fiddle a second time around. How about Obama/Clinton--do you think she'd have the guts to take second place on the ballot??

1.
Bottom line: I think Clinton would be a more effective President, but Obama, at this stage, seems more electable. So I really don't know what to do, come Feb. 5.
Posted by: lylee65 | January 30, 2008 02:38 PM

Electible and effective are the same thing. (1) You can't do anything unless you are elected. (2) the President is not a legislator, much less a dictator. No President can do anything without getting Congress to act and no Congress will act on important things unless the President is able to mobilize public opinion to create pressure to act. That involves the same skill as getting elected. The ability to "wonk out" is irrelevant. No President ever got anything out of any Congress by "wonking" them to death. The great oval office "wonks" couldn't get anything done: Hoover and Carter.

2.
Obama says he stands for change, hope, and unity. Yet he continues to attack Hillary after promising to run a negative campaign. Today, Obama started name calling again...and called Hillary a "divisive figure". That's an attack.
Posted by: riskytime | January 30, 2008 03:16 PM

Well, gee whiz. Maybe, just maybe, Obama is savvier and smoother at playing hardball politics than famed hardballer/slime-artist HRC. People who prefer HRC because they think she is better able to dish and deflect slime than Obama may want to think twice.

3.
In South Carolina, he got less than a quarter of the white vote. How exactly does that add up to his being more electable in the general election?
Posted by: georgiaremedies | January 30, 2008 03:16 PM

South Carolina and Mississippi are the most racially polarized states in the U.S. No Democrat, black or white, is going to win either in all probability. Still, Obama ran close to even with Clinton and Edwards with white SC voters and actually beat both of them with white voters under 30. Therefore, Obama may be the best chance to win SC and Mississippi. If he can carry white voters under 30 and generate a huge black turn out (80%+), he could actually win these places, as strange as that may seem.

More importantly, so far, Obama runs better than Clinton with white voters in "Purple States" like Iowa or large parts of Purple States like Nevada - i.e. he beats Clinton in geographic areas where the Democrats are weak and among demographic groups - e.g. white men, independents - where the Democrats are weak. That's what it takes to win. Any Democrat is going to carry the constituencies that Clinton is winning. But to win the general election, the candidate has to win over men, win over independents, and, in the process, win in the Purple States - states, like Iowa, which Kerry lost but which Gore and/or Bill Clinton won in 1992, 1996 and/or 2000. These include Iowa, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio. They may also include Colorado and Virginia at this point.

4.
Hillary ain't scared; I don't know Obama enough yet to know if he is or not, but he doesn't seem to be scared. That's the type of people we need as president, not those that totally give up when the going gets tough.
Posted by: 2229 | January 30, 2008 04:39 PM

Obama seems to be a lot tougher than HRC. He has to be to run a campaign the way he has, with none of her advantages - i.e. fame, connections, a spouse who was President. She didn't look very tough when the chips were down, during the five days between IA and NH. The female sympathy vote is not going to carry the general election. Republican women dislike HRC more than any other segment of the electorate.

5.
Hilary is the only one who can beat McCain.
Obama will be "tuna-belly sushi" to the Republicans. Look at any posting by "brucerealtor" to see what I mean.
Their strategy against Obama is very effective.
Posted by: svreader | January 30, 2008 04:46 PM

The electorate wants change. Even Republicans, which is why wackos like Paul and Huckabee are in contention and a previously despised "maverick" like McCain is now the front-runner, rather than classic right-wing businessman Mitt Romney (who is also ludicrously talking about change even though he perfectly embodies everything that has gone wrong in this country for the past 40 years).

The Obama/McCain contrast will leave no doubt as to who is for change. White& Black v. White. 47 vs. 72. Surge Dog versus opponent of the War from day one. A now unreformed supporter of tax cuts for the rich and endless deficits versus a clear stand for fiscal responsibility. A physically fit Obama versus a wreck of man who cannot even comb his hair by himself and needs his wife to prop up his arms to wave or acknowledge cheers.

McCain is not a slime baller in the vein of Bush41 and Bush43. He is not even in the Clinton's league. If Obama can beat HRC at this game, he can easily beat McCain at this game. That's if it is played at all. For some reason, many impute Bush-family slime to all Republicans, even though Ford, Reagan, Dole and McCain didn't/don't use these tactics, with the understandable exception of McCain on the ultra-slimy Romney, who is odious and repulsive beyond words and should be burned alive or beaten to death with a stick.

6.
While I think Hillary could take the likes of Romney, I don't think she has much of a prayer against McCain. Independent voters tend to vote much more heavily based on personality, and let's face it, Hillary has none compared to McCain.
Posted by: BABucher | January 30, 2008 04:51 PM

HRC would probably beat McCain. McCain has become Bush lite, endorsing the surge and even tacking to Bush's position on taxes and fiscal policy. It was his dissent from these that made him attractive to moderates and some Democrats. I think he has cooked his own goose. Moreover, the age issue is going to kill him. Not only he is 71 going on 72, he is a physical wreck, very much unlike the youthful, dark haired, horseback riding Reagan. John McCain cannot even raise his arms over his head (e.g. to comb his hair) and needs his wife to prop him up. This will become very noticable in a general election campaign.

Still, it will be a squeaker because of HRC's high "negatives." A squeaker will NOT suffice to enact the kinds of reforms that HRC and Obama are both advocating. Technocratic expertises is not enough. You have to sway 60% or more of the public in an election or in opinion polls to get Congress to move on anything significant.

Obama gives Democrats the chance of a more sweeping win -- the kind that is necessary to get anything done after the election.

7.
i prefer to place my bets on a tested commodity than on someone as risky as obama. which is just as well because i prefer hillary's hard-headed policy wonkiness and toughness to obama's empty, lofty speeches. he can say "yes, we can" as many times as he wants to and drive college kids into a hysterical frenzy but they leave the slightly older cynic in me wondering: "can" what? "can" how? "can" you really?"
Posted by: ad78 | January 30, 2008 05:05 PM

As a cynic -- i.e. one who believes that politics and government can't do any good and the less of both the better -- you might want to become a Republican. That is their message. If ad78 is right, then no Democrat should bother to vote at all.

clinton is the change american woman for for president
god bless america
www.juliusalvarojesus.es.tl
thanks

Dept of: I can dream, can't I?

Wonder if McCain would consider Edwards for Atty General?

:)

Edwards pulling out is the democrats best hope for winning the white house gone. I still think this country is to racist and sexist to vote for either Clinton, or Obama. As someone who saw Edwards as the only candidate who was willing to take on the Corporations and lobbyists who are running this country, I am very sad at this time. I was for the first time going to contribute to a political campaign. At this time I could not bring myself to vote for either Obama or Clinton as I do not see either one of them as qualified to undertake what needs to be done to get this country back on track. The best hope we have is to maintain and increase the democratic majority in the senate and congress to keep whoever gets in to the white house honest and do what the people want and not corporations, lobbyists, or religious extremists.

I'm feeling an Obama/Edwards ticket for sure a win...

Here's the thing- If Edwards IS as savvy as this article assumes (and I honestly believe he is- in a different election year, he'd probably win the nom) and he really does want a cabinet post, he will endorse Obama. Here's why-

McCain effectively locked up the GOP nom last night. Sure, Romney has money and press coverage, but he has more uphill fights- Nevada has many many Mormons, and Michigan is his home state- natural home-field advantage in both cases. Everywhere where that hasn't been the case, he has been unable to win. McCain is the de facto nominee at this point.

Hillary has no legs to stand on against McCain- She wants to tout experience? McCain has more, both in terms of years and the activity of those years (I personally find it hard to count her years living, not working, in the white house and governor's mansions as "experience.") She wants to talk about being tough? And ready to be commander-in-chief from day one? McCain is a bloody war hero- he has actually served. She simply has no "experience" to respond to that point. And the Bill was bashed for letting the military atrophy- she has tied herself too much to him to escape that past. Those are two of the points that she has been running on for the last month, and to switch her tune for the nationals would prove her to be the kind of "change" candidate people actually don't like.

The traditional conservatives, and the neocons in particular, may not really like McCain, but they HATE Hillary- her being in the race will draw them to him, simply because they won't want her to win. He'll take every vote W did, plus more from the moderates who may have voted for Kerry because they weren't too wild about the incumbent. Centre-right moderates are McCain's bread and butter.

Hillary will take few independents, and next-to-no Republicans.

Obama has already proven that he can convince rank and file Republicans and moderate independents to cross the aisle and support him. Obama will be the OBVIOUS change candidate, if only because McCain is old enough to be his father; plus there are the policy differences, Iraq being the major one. And he simply won't energize the animosity that HRC does- on the contrary, he only seems to generate positive enthusiasm, with the exception of the Billary responses.

If Edwards wants that post (I've read rumors of Attorney General), he'll back Barack.

Edwards for Vice President

Last night in Kansas City--right on the border between Kansas and Missouri, Barack Obama held a town meeting. The event was full to over-flowing and almost 100 people waited outside in 10 degree windy weather to hear him after he made his indoor speeches. I don't remember the last time that a candidate even paid attention to us, let alone a Democratic presidential one. Kansas has been proud to elect a two-term Democratic governor (you may have seen her in the Dem response to the State of the Union?) even though we're considered a Red State. She endorsed Obama.

Hilary polarizes out here in the Midwest. Obama brings people together...and his experience be da&%ed. If one more Republican harps on his "lack of experience" I'm going to throw up! At least he graduated at the top of his Harvard Law class (and was the first Af-Am to edit the Law Review). Compare that to what we're stuck with for another year?!

Obama can build coalitions--he did it in Iowa; he can interest young people in the democratic process; he personifies the diversity that is this country; he's honest enough to correct his misteps in public and yeah, Washington may corrupt him a little, but at least he's not headed there tied to PACS/corporate America's apron strings. Who thinks that if Hilary is elected a Republican Congress (perish the thought!) would work with her on ANYTHING?

Read Caroline Kennedy's letter to the editor of the NYTimes (after they endorsed Hilary). It's full of hope and vision--the kind us old-timers haven't seen come around since John and Bobby. Bring on the Peace Corps, and Americorps, and health care, especially for children, and good education for those same young minds. It's about time that America got back to being a leader in the free world.

So the point of this article is that Edwards will support Obama unless he decides to support Clinton. And I thought insightful, hard-hitting journalism was dead.

Contrary to popular perception, dog-headed, battle-tested political baggage do not great fighters make. The best fighters are those who not only can take the punch, but get up, punch back, and still be true to themselves. Hillary admits that she is battle-scarred, and certainly does fight back, but she also finds a different "voice" with every poll that a decline in her support, a decline in support for her agenda, and with evey unsuccessful attempt to undermine Obama's message (and to all those who mulishly claim he has no substance, stop repeating Billary's now dated mantra and LISTEN to what he says instead of how he says it). The Republicans will be no match: two Clintons, two of the most brilliant politicians of this generation, fail to subdue him---brute, coarse reactionary smear tactics will be far easier for Obama to engage than Clintonian subtleties, and in the anti-Republican bent of the current electorate, these smear tactics will surely backfire.

As a two time Edwards caucus voter I feel like the rug was pulled out from under me. Had I know that he did not in fact intend to 'go all the way to the Convention' I would have voted for either Biden (to at least have given him one token delegate) or Obama (my second choice to help him get another delegate). Granted it was hard to campaign against Obama and Hillary's star status, but Edwards could not have run a worse campaign. Even the people who came out with me 4 years ago for Edwards backed off him when he put on his angry man demeanor, totally missing what the voters wanted this year. I don't see what would have been the problem with continuing until at least Super Tuesday to see how many delegates he could have gotten and used to bargain with Obama or Hillary on actual programs or appointments. What he has supposedly gotten, a pledge to talk more about poverty issues, will possible get toekn mention at the next debate and then be totally ignored. Why take on the cause of the guy who couldn't sustain a campaign with that issue? I can't believe that such a supposedly adept trail lawyer did not get more than empty pledges, if so his end game was worse than his play. Moat of the Edwards supporters I know would have gone to Obama.

John McCain supports a guest worker version of immigration reform, that a lot of Hispanic voters are in favor of. Obama has clearly shown, that he cannot get get the Hispanic vote (and he never will despite a Kennedy endorsement), so John McCain would win easily over Obama. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, can get those Hispanic votes, and beat McCain.

There is nothing more to the "Clinton can't be elected" yarn than the media's perception and accepted by a guilable public. Hillary Clinton, a white women is just as electable as Barrack Obama, a black man. Some will not vote for Clinton because she is a women, some not for Obama because he is black. Either are better choices than any Rebublican candidate and after the Republican White House disaster of the last eight years, I cannot see a Democrat or a Independent majority wanting more of the same.

It's time the American voters start reading between the lines of our writing media and listening closer to the TV and radio side. We do not need the media leading us like sheep in their attempt to dictate their choice of candidates. Read and listen but keep an open mind and recognize spin when you see it. There is much of that in the daily media reports.

I have concern about Obama's lack of experience and feel Clinton has the experience and toughness needed to get the job done. However, in no way will I abandon my opportunity to vote Democrate as a vote against another Republican White House. If Clinton loses the nomination to Obama, Obama gets my vote. I would expect the Democrat party to come together and support the Democrat candidate regardless of who it might be. I find it hard to believe anyone would be so petty to allow the last eight years to start all over again.

Those of you who talk "more of the same" take a good look at the Republican candidates. They might change the words slightly, they might talk in negatives with regard to bush, they might talk about change in America but in the end they preach the same bush sermon. They back the Iraq war and justify the enormous cost, they talk of policy that favors the rich, corporations and business, they continue to support tax reductions that hurt the poor and middle class but favor the rich. Tax reductions that take needed revenue away from the U.S. Treasure while the country goes deeper in debt with borrowed money from China and other foreign lenders. It very much is a time for change. Time to change the Rebublicans out and change this country's direction. Unified Democrats can do it.

I hope that he will be on the ticket as a vice president. I liked him the most out of all the presidential canditates.

I would love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket on the Dem side. I believe it would have the best combination of what the party offers and would be an extremely powerful competitor to a McCain/Huckabee ticket.

Edwards was the Democrats best candidate for the general election. Poll after poll both nationally and in battleground states showed him out performing Hillary and Obama against McCain. Democratic primary voters, as usual, did not see that. Instead they saw a chance to elect either a woman or a black man.

This race becomes much more difficult when it shouldn't be as Iraq stays a bloody hell-hole and the economy goes down the tubes.

When I make up my mind it will be for the candidate who has the best chance of getting elected and reversing the decisions of the last seven years. It will be for the candidate who will most help other Democrats in their races in Red States.

Neither Obama nor Hillary look that electable in the states that will count. Obama has more potential but Hillary has more experience but brings the baggage of right-wing hostility and irrationality. Obama would still get most of that in the Red States if he was the nominee.

I will not sit this election out but will concentrate on trying to win Democratic races in my red neighborhood. Both of them will likely be harmful for the rest of the Democratic ticket around here.

The Nov election is TOO HUGE for Dem's to blow it. The way to win is this:

Let Super Tuesday unfold. If nobody lands a knock-out punch, then on Valentine's Day, Clinton and Obama jointly announce in New Orleans that he is pulling out, to run as her VP.

Think of it. Any other year, if she won the nomination, she'd look like a genius for tapping Obama as VP, and for good reason. He represents the future, as in 'future, not present.'

Why should Obama wait? First, he simply lacks the experience to win, especially against McCain. But 4 or 8 years as VP gives him the invaluable experience that he can get no other way.

Also, if the ticket fails (God forbid), he's automatically the front-runner in 2012. That's not very long time to wait. (That race begins in December.) Either way - it's still a WIN for African-Americans, who deserve it.

If we can stop the internal divisiveness now, before any lasting damage is done, we can focus on the real enemy - the legacy of GWB. That will take all our energy and money.

Despite what we've seen on stage, Hillary and Barack are natural allies, c'mon they're practically twins! Settle this Alpha Dog issue early, and the nation wins!

As for Edwards, an appointment to AG is fine, but it sounds like he might prefer DSHS for his War on Poverty. Either way is cool.

And this political advice?? Priceless!! (Can I deduct it on my taxes?)

Neither can win. Clinton is to controversial. High negatives. Obama is black (no offense) He made himself that way to win big in SC. Ga.Al.Ms. and SC are predominantly black but are Repub,by 15-20 percent. No chance for a Dem. NRC will run racial ads in Repub. leaning states. They will and they work. Ask Harold Ford Jr. I'm sorry. The leaders of the liberal wing of the Dem. Party has left us with losers again. Will they ever learn?

I hope Edwards voters come to Obama. Edwards voters shouldn't forget that the Hillary camp as trashed Edwards too in this campaign. Accusing him of using a family for photo op in New Hampshire. And Edwards respond that the Clinton camp had no consience.

The republicans will clobber Obama and he would NOT be able to blame Hillary for that as he does now..What kind of negative campaigning could he do against Mccain, a known hero..People will NOT tolerate that. He can pick on Hillary with the help of those anti-hillaries, but he wont have her to pick on anymore and I am certain he will have to go whining to Ted asking him what to do next ..Edwards better be careful whom he endorses and he needs to do some researching and a background check..

That future role for Edwards could be as Attorney General assuming a Democrat wins the White House.

i agree that hillary will have a tough time winning over mccain. but contrary to some of the obama supporters here, i think obama will have it even tougher.
for one, his main strength lies with independents and modeerate republicans who will choose him over mccain any day (they have been waiting for the day mccain can run for president, especially after rove's wicked games got him out of the race in 2000). no truly red republican will vote for either him or hillary. and many socially conservative republicans will come out in massive numbers to vote against a black man for president (i hate saying this but i think its true). so he does not really score over hillary in terms of electability.
second, if he lost the white vote because of clinton's allegedly playing the race card (something that i don't completely agree with but apparently thats the consensus), he is going to be killed on that front by the republicans. add to that, mccain's veteran experience and all his other credentials, obama is going to end up seeming like a babe in the woods next to him. the only people who will choose obama over mccain because of the age factor are obama's usual college kids and other young fan club and thats not going to be enough.

third, if clinton wins, she may offer obama the vice presidency and that way he will bring in some of his younger fans. but she would never be his candidate so he would lose her strengths if he were the candidate.

finally, hillary has been attacked by the right wingers for years now and has withstood the attacks. i tend to think that there will be not much more thats new that they can attack her with (although of course, they Will attack her with all their mighty).
i prefer to place my bets on a tested commodity than on someone as risky as obama. which is just as well because i prefer hillary's hard-headed policy wonkiness and toughness to obama's empty, lofty speeches. he can say "yes, we can" as many times as he wants to and drive college kids into a hysterical frenzy but they leave the slightly older cynic in me wondering: "can" what? "can" how? "can" you really?"

did I read right that someone thinks Obama is sophisticated for using "moral hazard"? Gee, this is economics 1.01 - nothing sophisticated. Please, can anybody start taking that man serious enough to asume he would be president of the US and not in the competition for the cutes guy on earth. that would be helpful for the rest of the world which needs more sophistication than blablabla about "moral hazard". what is it with all you "change" and Anti-DC people? Was this not the story George W. sold to the mayority of dumm americans and got elected twice (and the world in a mess)?

Edwards should now follow the realistic assessment of Ted Kennedy. Only with a new candidate like Obama can the Democrats still hope to win in November. Sure, Hillary may collect enough nostalgia votes for the convention among her admirers, but she honestly cannot win over all Americans in November. She simply carries too much old baggage. Do the math, people!

Hello from Canada!
From my computer room in Canada, I did my best to help John Edwards win at least one primary election State; but it was not enough!
The first Black or the first Woman President of the United States has become too much of an editorial attraction for the pundits and the publicity hounds and for their corporate Media sponsors. As an elected president, one or the other will make history within the United States.

This editorial dream effectively cut out and ignored John Edwards but then to be fair, he would have cut off their corporate heads if elected...and I would have cheered from up here in Canada. Edards is a fighter but he is also polite, ethical and intelligent. He would have made one hell of a World leader....> XTRA! XTRA! BREAKING NEWS! Read what Edwards and Obama read before Edwards stopped his race!
http://www.storyofstuff.com

peterdc, you say "Clinton can match McCain in experience."

How exactly do you figure? Hillary has been a senator for 7 years. McCain has been a senator for 21 years, was a congressman for 4 years, and was in the Navy for 21 years before that. That's 53 years of service! When it comes down to it, I just don't think that Dems can try to match McCain in the "experience" department, and will only look extremely silly if they try (especially if Hillary tries to throw her 8 years as First Lady into the mix). This election isn't about experience, it is about change, and Obama is candidate who best represents the country's desire for a new direction.

I realize I am behind in posting a response to this that anyone might read, but the article is off on its timline for Edwards' decision on Obama/Clinton. In order for him to stay relevant he will need to throw his support behind one or the other before Super Tuesday. He would be taking a HUGE risk by not picking a horse by this weekend. One candidate could topple the other and by then his support would not matter. I can't believe I am writing this, but he should take a page from Guliani and back a candidate ASAP.

Edward's exit will ultimately benefit Obama more. In the South, it will benefit Clinton, mainly because of the white vote and stronger racial polarization there. Outside of the South, Obama has shown consistently strong white support among the highly educated, affluent, young, and first-time voters. Ironically, in terms of the white vote, Obama will probably do best in states with sparse Hispanic and black populations because frankly, among those for whom race might be an issue, a non-white is less threatening in those states. The Kennedy support will bring more Hispanics and blue-collar workers to the Obama camp. On another note, Obama is also more electable in the general election. A Clinton win would mobilize the so-far apathetic Republicans en force (and I, an independent voter, would certainly join them!). If Obama (my first choice) lost the general election to McCain, then I would be disappointed, but McCain is a far more worthy candidate than Billary (yeah, he's running too) and the rest of the field. If Obama selects Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate, he would be even more formidable a candidate, given Sebelius's similar record of bi-partisan work.

And remember that Obama split the white male vote evenly with Clinton in S.C. The leading vote getter among whites was Edwards with 40%. None of them got 50% of the white vote. So Obama's pull there was very strong.

And in states like S.C. Obama can bring voters to the booth that none of the other candidates can bring. And I'm not just talking African Americans. In fact, the under 35 vote will come out across America for Obama. We won't for Clinton or McCain.

I hope Edwards doesn't endorse either candidate until the nomination is over. I hope also, that he does not elect to serve in either's cabinet. He deserves better than them. Obama has been my second choice until this morning. When I read about him snubbing Clinton. It is not the snubbing itself. Two things: 1. Intelligence= you would think he would know better than do this at the SOTU. He should know every one would watch he and Clinton like a hawk. 2. Lying-Any politician who can't lie any better than that bears scrutiny. Even his admin. and supporters didn't get their stories straight. Pitiful. I don't know whether to vote for the liars or the liar who calls them liars. I don't know who to vote for' I might not vote for the first time i n my life. Understand now why people don't vote.

dakoi: Keep in mind that Hillary has only ever been elected in New York. Not exactly a bastion of conservatives.

While I think Hillary could take the likes of Romney, I don't think she has much of a prayer against McCain. Independent voters tend to vote much more heavily based on personality, and let's face it, Hillary has none compared to McCain.

Obama could have had the VP slot.

Now he'll wind up with nothing.

I bet Edwards will really enjoy living at the Naval Observatory. I've been told its quite lovely.

Lots of interesting comments above. This is how it seems to me. Even if Bill Clinton is right and Obama represents a roll of the dice, the possibilities with Obama, for all kinds of reasons, are too good not to go for. He really might be the real deal. I sort of have the feeling he is. And I'm a 63 year old southern lawyer, not an impressionable eighteen year old kid.

Exactly, that is the big question and for good reason as the race is tight (See"Edwards Factor" and end of article in link below)

Super Tuesday Analysis -
The Democrats Web Battle
Google Trend & Web Hits Reports

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=43

Hilary is the only one who can beat McCain.

Obama will be "tuna-belly sushi" to the Republicans.

Look at any posting by "brucerealtor" to see what I mean.

Their strategy against Obama is very effective.

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who can beat John McCain.

Hillary cannot be elected. When the campaign began, her "negatives" were dangerously high with conservatives, moderates, and independents. Now, the way she and Bill have attacked Obama--trying to "define" him as a token black protest candidate--has alienated far too many progresssives and threatens fatal splits in Democratic ranks, not only black/white but also Latino/black and male/female. There can be no doubt now that a Hillary presidency will be in fact a co-presidency, with Bill as the virtual Rove AND Cheney. If Democrats nominate Hillary, that will cement all conservatives and the majority of independents (and some angry Democrats, alas) behind McCain. McCain--who now appears on track for the Republican nomination--is an honorable and decent man, but he will also keep us embroiled in Iraq, maybe embroil us with Iran, and appoint one or more ultra-conservatives to the Supreme Court. That's why we cannot afford to elect him.

Please, Democrats: understand this! Think strategically, as an earlier poster put it well. We have to put forward a candidate who can appeal across the partisan lines and give this nation a sense of a fresh start. Now, that candidate is Barack Obama.

I hope that Obama can hang on through the rest of the primary season and amass enough delegates to deny Hillary a first-ballot sweep. And I hope that other senior
Democrats and former Democratic candidates--Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Gore, and Carter--will join Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and responsible "superdelegates" in making sure that Obama is nominated. Because he ALONE can win. With Hillary, we will lose.

There should be a place for most of the other Democratic candidates in the Obama administration: Richardson as VP, Biden as Secretary of State, Dodd as Secretary of the Treasury, and Edwards as Attorney General. They would all render distinguished service. Hillary should remain to grace the Senate.

"Electability" was the criterion that senior party figures got to use in the past in effecting the nomination of presidents like FDR and JFK. We need to return to that strategic principle. This is common sense, not "boss rule."

"If you want to be an Obama supporter, then first understand it is not an us vs. them scenario."

It certainly is. The current administration is loaded with criminals, liars and traitors - most especially Cheney and Bush themselves.

Don't give us any crap, like this is a normal Repub vs. Dem thing. This is, freedom for the people vs. corporate and military dominance and ever-shrinking Constitutional rights.

I don't know where you've been. Bush has not only wrecked my country, he's wrecked the standing of the U.S. around the world.

I don't know if you've been in a coma, but McCain elected would simply be more of the same. We'll see how Grampa John holds out against a fiercly-debating Obama *or* Clinton.

They'll chop him into mincemeat. I'm gonna *love* whatever stock answer he comes up with for why he helped kill poor children's health care after allowing President Worst Ever to spend a billion dollars a *month* on the sad, theocratic country of Iraq.

Yeah, this is *exactly* us vs. them: to be more accurate, us vs. fascism.

All the comments about whether Hillary or Obama would be a stronger candidate against McCain missed one very major point: There will be one maybe two strong third-party/independent candidates in 2008. With nearly 80% of voters dissatisfied with Washington, watch out, be it Bloomberg or someone else. So the dynamics would be totally different. So don't think strategically when casting your votes, b/c you can't forecast the future.

You know, Obama puts plenty of specifics in his speeches, and has just as big and well developed a list of policies on his website as Clinton. In fact, they agree on about 95% of their policies. They're both democrats afterall.
Its easy forget about his social security plan, however, because we get carried away with the excellence of his rhetoric. If you just get past the stereotype that he has no substance, its easy to find the substance.

Clinton, however, is never going to excite most people's passions.

Hillary should be President nominee and Obrama should be Vice President nominee.
With the problems we are facing,Hillary is the best candidate for this country right now. Obama can has some time to learn in the White House while he is the Vice President. I am sure that not only Democrat will win the White House with this package, we will have Democrat in the White House for 16 years. Let's vote Hillary for President.She will have Obama as the Vice President nominee.

I think Ewards voters will split. But someone suggested that Obama could get more votes against McCain.

Just imagine if between the time Obama is nominated and the election there is some incident involving terror. Obama can kiss the Presidency goodby.

One woman here opined that Clinton is the more prepared to be President but is afraid she can't win. Don't forget NY. She won nearly every Repubican stonghold in upstate NY.

In addition Clinton will win every state that Kerry will win and then you can add Arkansas and Ohio if she picks Governor Strickland as her running mate.

Clinton is tough and knows how to win. Obama has never had a real race in his life except his first one and that he lost.

Obama may bring out more African Americans but Clinton will bring out more women and in an election where 54% of the electorate is women that gives her the bigger advantage.

The other thing that I think people need to remember is that Clinton's negatives are at their highest now when you do the match-ups and she and Obama come out about the same against the various Republicans.

But the press has given Obama a generally free ride which the Republicans won't. Those negatives will jump up and his votes will go down. Clinton can match McCain in experience, Obama can't and I'm afraid the country won't vote on rhetoric with the Country at war and the economy in the gutter. They will vote experienc and who can be the best Commander in Chief. Clinton beats Obama in both areas in every poll.

I'm getting pretty tired of hearing that Obama has no substance. Does anyone bother to listen to what he has said on health care, the environment, energy policy, social security, raising the cap on social security contributions for the rich, etc. Or go to his website. But if it is policy wonkishness in minute detail that you are looking for then you are indeed a fool. Laying out these policies in that level of detail before you are elected, much less before you even know the makeup of the congress you will have to work with, is an exercise in futility. What needs to be done is what Obama is doing and that is to lay out the goals that he would like to see achieved. The details of how to get there come after the election and selection of key and knowledgeable staffers and cabinet members. Obama has said what he's for and what he's against and that doesn't lack substance. I'd rather follow a person I trust than one who triangulates every decision based on the polls.

"Edwards could have beaten any in the GOP...It's amazing how the real job of ousting the GOP has been missed by the Dems..."

How do you come up with this fairyland drivel? Once Edwards got beat up in '04 by Cheney after mentioning Cheney's daughter (Kerry and Edwards apparently too stupid to shoot back that it had been the Repubs using homosexuality all along for political purposes), Edwards went silent. The great big debater, he of the cunning verbal jab, did nothing the rest of the way but submit to the GOP kicking the crap out of Kerry.

Edwards blew it in '04. There's no way he could get elected president. He showed zero moxie against the GOP and I, for one, am sick of tepid and scared little Democrats.

Hillary ain't scared; I don't know Obama enough yet to know if he is or not, but he doesn't seem to be scared.

That's the type of people we need as president, not those that totally give up when the going gets tough.

Until today, John Edwards set the pace on the policy debate.

Now Obama and Clinton might have to take time out from their sniping to obtain first-mover advantage on the issues.

By the way, where is that rabid, foam-at-the-mouth husband of Hillary's hiding this week? It has been several days since he demeaned any group in the Democratic coalition.

"Democrats can take back the south, they really can."

While I appreciate your thoughtful post, I'm afraid I can't agree. For now, the South is solidly GOP, as a good portion of those Republicans are blinded by ideology; it may take another generation to change that. But keep up the good thoughts.

camdena wrote:
"Say goodbye to the white house democrats. Money was able to sway your minds from a candidate that actually would have changed America for the better."

Thank you, camdena -- you summed up the '08 election. Get ready for a President McCain or Romney, everybody. Obama and H. Clinton have positive attributes, but it will not be enough to win the White House. Let's all pray that either GOP cand. will do a 180 from the Bush style of leadership. If not, we're in trouble.

To Lyley65 and everyone else that wants more detail from Obama...
Read his book the Audacity of Hope.
It doesn't provide details about exactly how much he will tax people making between 60 and 85 thousand per year level of details, but it provides a LOT of detail about what he will do and why. Look at his website too. It isn't that he lacks details. He has a different approach and doesn't try to boil down a complex issue into a simple soundbite. One of the things I admire about him is he CONVEYS the big picture, but still has the details. Yes, you have to go look for them, but if what you want as policy speeches can be summed up in a 30 second sound bite, go vote republican.
Obama has a rare gift that allows him to convey a vision for america in a few short minutes. Hillary can't match it so she tries to claim it isn't as good as the details she provides, but she doesn't really provide true details-just the impression of them. Go read. Think. This is what truly separates us from republicans. We can rise above what we are fed by the media and reach for truth. Don't just read what I write and go along. Go look it up. Research and THINK. Then you will see Obama does have all the details you could want.
When obama is communicating in a way that inspires people to action, he isn't going to dwell on each detail. Don't expect him to. That doesn't mean it isn't there at all.
Hillary has a history of losing sight of the forest for the trees. That is why her health care initiative failed. Instead of changing her approach to convey to republican and others that have a knee-jerk reaction against "socialized medicine" why we need to enact these reforms, she tries to claim her approach is superior. That won't work.
Explaining why we need to make changes, laying out the big picture and direction, and only THEN working hard over the details is how things really get done.

"Please look to the future and realize that not only is Obama ready on day one, he is the only one that can unite us for a common good!"

I don't agree. If anyone would be ready on day one, it's Clinton. She has far more experience.

As for being a uniter, I've heard Obama say that repeatedly. But, all I've seen is churlish behavior. His rants against Clinton make it sound like Bill sucked as president, and that Clinton is almost evil.

That ain't a uniter. He's been ticking off more neutral and Clinton supporters in recent weeks.

As for "ready on day one" - no way. Obama has zero foreign policy experience, and I haven't heard him explain much of anything that he spouts platitudes about. If he's ready, he's yet to prove it to me.

Try not to sound so stupidly black and white about this. ANY of the three Dems, down to two now, will be GIGANTIC improvement over Bush.

If McCain really can kick her butt - which I deeply doubt - then it shows Americans really do want far-right wing, religiously saturated, divisive and anti-science leaders. For all of the people in the GOP that "hate" Clinton, far more Americans of both parties despise Bush and Cheney as criminals and traitors.

This current president has been easily the worst ever; the most anti-Constitutional of any president in history, more interested in gathering unConstitutional power for the executive branch that thinks it's not only above the law, but that it doesn't have to obey any law that gets in its way of powergrabbing.

If Americans want more of the same Bush crud - which war hero but political coward McCain will provide - then do it, so I can decide if I even want to live in an increasingly fascist state.

Here's an unbeatable ticket - but we have less hope of it happening than a snowball has a chance in Hades - wish it could be Barack for President, Hillary for VEEP and Edwards with a major role in their admin..I know, I know, I'm dreaming, but what the heck.

For what it's worth, I was looking forward to voting for Edwards in the Georgia primary, but uneasy about maybe throwing away my vote. I'll definitely go with Obama now. Clinton's qualified, but she's toxic to so many potential Dem voters and I'm not convinced she could win the general election. Besides, it's time to turn the page and Obama's probably the best prospect to do that.

The "Obama lacks substance" argument is a myth perpetuated by the media and the Clinton campaign. He has a very good understanding of the issues, substantive policy positions and talks about the details often, however, these details are not nearly as sexy or deemed as newsworthy as his larger vision. I often think those people who complain that he lacks substance aren't really bothering to do any research. Here is an excellent interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that contains a lot of specifics, if you are interested:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=23636

Also, check out the Obama website:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Obama will also attract the best and brightest people to his administration.