Maybe this really isn't about Hillary being the problem.
Maybe it might be that the issue is now news that isn't about hard data any more.
Maybe its what Rove hath wrought in making news manipulation the New Media.

Maybe what this really means, just maybe, is that there is something wrong with the two party system that can come up with such inappropriate choices in the midst of the worst crises we are incrementally facing.

I don't care how young Obama is or how old McCain is.
An election is essentially a job search and neither of these candidates strikes me as credible or capable. So we have the extraordinary good luck to have a third person who is. But we should discard her because some pundit says it would do damage to the Democratic party.
Why not let it?

Do we sacrifice the best qualified so that a party that has shown us what it can't do for the past eight years can keep not doing it?

If all the Democratic Party is good for is what is what it has shown us it's been, why would anyone expect citizen loyalty to it?
How loyal has it been to us?

If anyone has the guts to go off and embody the idea and spirit of being an Independent , it's the Clintons.
There are just too many of us who believe in Hillary Clinton and find no credibility in what there is supposed be to subordinate herself to.
We are supposed to vote for Obama if we don't , very sensibly , want Mccain. But why would we want to vote for Obam?
There simply is nothing there other than displays of increasingly bad judgement. And yet another politician who has no relevance to the average American and no connection to us.

I am so disgusted with the hypocrisy if this election.

It's not supposed to be about race, but is it EVER. And in the oddest way. White racism is rightfully not tolerated. It's gone th eother way. if you are black you get a free pass to say the most vulgar ignorant things and be unchecked in continuing. Worse you use to get to use it as a justification when there is no justifying your behavior.

Of course what this will do is cause onlookers to go over to McCain. Who, unlike Bush, comes across as a kindly ,affable sort of warmonger who knows the power of schmooze to defuse....Just listen to him with Jon Stewart compared to Obama being interviewed. Millions will and Obama does not come out ahead.

It's not supposed to be about misogyny, but every time I post about Hillary Clinton I've been called---and this is just today's load-without anyone ever having laid eyes on me or my beliefs--an old wrinkled feminist.
As if any of those things were fates worse than dying young and stupid and under the thumb of whoever calls the party shots.
Some of us just know better than to get flocked.

It's a Twilight Zone scenario to see the Obamabots adopting the ad hominem nastiness of the right and taking to it so exceptionally easily.
We now have an alternate reality where Obamabots have taken over marketing the media and simply don't reflect anything about what really exists every time I converse with anyone I know. i have just not heard much interest in buying Brand Obama. He's being foisted on us. And we all know what we see around us as opposed to what we view on-screen.

As far as i am concerned, Obama is a marketed insipidity with no track record and no accomplishments.
But his followers are a credit to Karl Rove.

Probably the true legacy of Karl Rove is that he has pioneered the death of the two party system.
If anyone deserves that distinction, how fitting it should be Karl Rove.

He showed the world what it is to have America play dirty as a matter of course .
And now it seems we can't stop.

No one has asked these hysterical pundits what any American citizen gets from voting for another ambitious rhetoritician like Obama.
It's somehow like he is the first person to run on what we want to hear.
And like this inexperienced lambchop is going to be able to deliver when up against a Congress that will spend four years relentlessly chewing him up on tier way, as always, to cashing lobbyist's chits.

And no democratic party wonk sits there and looks at putting Obama up against a personable, intelligent war hero who is a longtime congressional veteran who just happens to be a warmonger and corporate shill and thinks about whether Obama has anything possible to show for the balance.
It's a Karl Rove wet dream, folks.

How can we have lost all our foresight.
Maybe the real problem with Democratic Party is that it is now so decrepit and useless and flat-out vestigial, there is no point in NOT creating a third party.
Because right now it is functioning as a Republican Party subsidiary in providing a candidate that will conveniently steer people to voting for McCain

gala1

gala1,

Your commentary was totally dramatic. Mrs. Clinton isn't entitled to the Democratic nomination anymore than Mr. Obama. They both competed, they both gave it everything they had, but in the end, there could be only one--and that turned out to be Mr. Obama. What more do you want? Let me guess, an overturning of my vote and the votes of millions of others to the candidate you feel is "better?" No. In a democracy, we get only the right to support the people and the policies we believe in, with the knowledge that a majority may or may not agree.

Your rather emotional tirade is an example of someone who is not keeping in mind that perhaps the opposite is true about Obama. That maybe he is the right man for this time in history, and that he ran a better campaign than Senator Hillary Clinton, and maybe his post-partisan approach is far better than Senator Clinton's er...au... "evolving" standards of campaign.

The fact is, while Sen. Obama remained consistent and tapped masterfully into our need for change, Hillary was an ever changing wax doll. First, she was Inevitable, then she was the woman in distress, then the policy wonk, then she became a fighter, and finally a Lou Dobbs populist nut who would lynch the first CEO that came between her and the common man. She was shameless, and her pandering completely over the top. But time and time again, Obama was the same man with the same message. He wanted to change DC, make Americans feel good about their country again, and to bring new people into the process.

Who is to say he cannot win? And to win big, for that matter? You honestly believe people who supported Hillary's ideas will support McCain's conservatism and his Bush 3rd term? He's wrong on judges, on the economy, on the war, on,well, everything, and yet you seriously think BHO ain't got what it takes? Well, he had enough to beat a Clinton didn't he? (Wink)

I just want to remark that Black "racism" was indeed challenged. Look at the response to Jeremiah Wright's tirade at the Press Club two weeks ago. It was a mass onslaught on a rather shameful performance. As an African-American, I was offended by much of what he said. I think we all agreed that he was off the charts, but to claim as you have that Black racial insensitivity was never criticized is just plain false. I suppose sexism was at play somewhat, but I don't know where sexism began and Hillary hating ended. She isn't very popular, rightly or no.

And by the way, a little history lesson. In 1932, a governor with only a few years in office was called a light weight. He could give a speech, but he had no ideas and he wasn't qualified to be president. Since he never actually explained how he'd get America out of the Depression, people did not take Franklin D. Roosevelt seriously. Well, history had another idea. FDR never explained because he had no idea how he would do to put America back on track, but he made Americans feel good about themselves again, and when he spoke you felt as if everything was going to be OK. The New Deal is secondary.

You apparently think if someone rambles about this idea or that that they are qualified to be POTUS. To a degree you're right, but what also matters is that a president have a clear vision of where he wants to take America and why. Obama had that and it never changed, Hillary never quite did and as a result she failed. Obama will do fine and I predict he will win in a landslide because at the end of the day Americans will prefer the man who says, "Yes, we can!" over the man who says, "No, we can't."

Then again, I'm young. I'm crazy enough to think America's best days are not behind her.

See you at the polls!

@ cos1979:

Very nice post! A welcome change from the rancor in these threads. In an episode of Frasier, Frasier described himself to his brother Niles as being "middle-aged". To which Niles retorted "Do you expect to live to be one hundred?"

It is with Frasier's optimism that I call myself "middle-aged". Nevertheless, I'm caught up in the historic potential of Barack Obama's candidacy. We desperately need another FDR at this point in our history. Obama could be that kind of transformational figure.

Obama 08!

AMEN to that, cos1979. Couldn't agree with you more.

But we should discard her because some pundit says it would do damage to the Democratic party.
Why not let it?

Maybe because it's important to get a Democrat in office for Supreme Court appointments, for those who think Roe v. Wade should not be reversed?

We are supposed to vote for Obama if we don't , very sensibly , want Mccain. But why would we want to vote for Obam?

See above. Also, I'd think Clinton supporters would want someone who would sign Democrat-passed health care legislation. And energy policy. And that's only for starters.

Do we sacrifice the best qualified

If people really wanted the best qualified, they would have voted for Biden or Dodd.

It's not supposed to be about misogyny

It's a mistake to take the comments of a few and attribute them to everyone. Yes, there are some people who may dislike Clinton because she's a woman. But there are also many people who support her for the exact same reason. And while there are some people who support Obama because of race, there are some who oppose him for the exact same reason. Let's not pretend that race and sex are one-way streets for either candidate.

How can we have lost all our foresight.

Some of us think Obama is foresight. He talks (at least sometimes) about reviving people's role in government, about people taking responsibility for their government. As long as we continue to threat government as "them" and not "us," it will be hard to develop the support to back up words with the action needed to follow through on the policy proposals we say we want. Some politician has to start saying that it's not about what elected officials are going to do; it's about what those of us in the public are willing to do.

There are plenty of reasons to support or not support either candidate. We should not let our own allegiances blind us from considering that people on the other side may have good reasons for their beliefs.

And by the way, a little history lesson.

Here's another one. There was another person from Illinois who served in the state legislature, served one term in the US House which went badly and didn't even bother running for reelection, returned to private law practice, then ran for Senate and lost.

That was Abraham Lincoln. He did OK as president, by most accounts.

Close to a million people died in war during Lincoln's presidency -- including himself. Please, please, please find another comparison.

You are welcome to your own opinion regarding Hillary Clinton. You will just have to learn to deal with the fact that the majority of voters in the Democratic primary election disagree with your assessment.

You know what? You and the rest of the Hillary crowd simply need to grow up. YOU LOST. Pick up the pieces of your shattered life and move the fuck on.

What a bunch of sore losers.

I couldn't agree more. What a whiner.

Who is to say he cannot win? And to win big, for that matter?

Sweetie, you are outnumbered

what can I say to someone who just does not want to hear what is really happening?

When was the last time you walked around a small American town? Or sat in a congregation there. Or went to the walmart there.

That's how I can tell you so absolutely that Obama without Hillary cannot win.

I will say this over and over, even if you can't hear it.

these people simply have no context in which to connect to Obama and so they won't

. And just like in the previous elections, they a e seeing their values mirrored din GOP candidates.

What that means to me is Obama is unelectable.

Believe me , dont believe me.

What do i care if you reject what is here?

Voting day will merely prove it to you.

You get the exact same number of votes as the guy who won't vote for Obma and will make sure that all his kids and family won't either. Or the people in the next pew. Sam e thing. Or those old folks see on their slow march through Walmart's . how many of them do you seriously think are even going to give Obama a second thought.

Why on earth would they?

I do have to hand it ot you .

Gullibility runs pretty deep.

gala1

I have never cited the Civil War.

If people can't figure out what's going on today, history isn't going to be much help to them

so I don't know what you are referring to.

gala1