Period. If he were a Republican, no Democrat would consider him qualified to be President, regardless of where he stands on particular issues.

It's nice that a candidate shares your views. It's even better if the candidate can get elected. Otherwise, you can cuddle up with your shared views after another GOP win.

If Sen. Clinton's electability is a concern--I don't share this concern, but I understand it--there are others in the race now who are more likely to win a general election than Sen. Obama.

Because they're white? No. Because they have accomplishments that qualify them for running the world's largest economy and military and diplomatic forces.

When he ran for President in 1988, Jesse Jackson was more qualified for the office than Sen. Obama is today. Rev. Jackson had 20+ years of political experience. (I voted for Rev. Jackson.)

Apart from his rhetoric and personal narrative, Sen. Obama has nothing to offer America right now. He has the qualifications of someone who was recently only a short-term state Senator.

Sen. Obama and his supporters are worried about Sen. Clinton's honesty? Every time he brings it up, even indirectly, Sen. Clinton should hold up a copy of Sen. Obama's resume.

It would fit in a fortune cookie.

The point: Maybe Sen. Clinton isn't honest. (I don't agree, but I can see why someone would feel this way.) There's serious debate about this. But Sen. Obama is unqualified for the job. There's no debate about that.

If you don't like Sen. Clinton, please find another candidate, but kindly don't stick Democrats with Sen. Obama. Cf. George McGovern 1972.

You don't agree that Sen. Clinton isn't honest? What world are you living in? Just before the 2006 elections she assured the people of NY that she is committed to them for the next six years and then not even one full month into her new term she decides (yeah right, she planned that one a long time ago) that she is going to make a run for President. Then she proceeds to run around the country campaigning and leaving the people of NY without a viable representative. I know everyone will say that she changed her mind and if you think that you are very, very, very naive. There is a lot more that she has lied about to the people of NYS but that is the prime example of what she will do to further herself on the backs of her constituents.

Obama is not electable? All of the polls show him beating most, if not all, of the Republican candidates in a general election. And by quite a tidy margin.

Those would be the same polls that in 2000 showed Al Gore beating George Bush? Or the same polls that in 2004 showed John Kerry beating Bush? Or the polls in 1992 that showed George Bush's father (Old Man Bush) was unbeatable?

Voters tell pollsters one thing, but they do another. Sort of like Sen. Obama recently: he tells the NY Times he was gonna really lay it on Sen. Clinton. Last night, he remembers how special he is (vision, passion, narrative) and nada.

Rule #1 of the Obama campaign. Under no circumstance is Sen. Obama allowed to look like he's working. Under no circumstance is he allowed to act like a candidate for the Presidency. Under every circumstance Sen. Obama must appear to be a Greek deity. Beyond everyone, involved in nothing, ultimately irrelevant.

I would love for there to be someone Not Sen. Clinton who could actually win. Unfortunately, the only Not Sen. Clinton who could actually win is a Republican. Baby, if you're a Democrat in 2008, it's Sen. Clinton or a Republican. Take your pick.

"I would love for there to be someone Not Sen. Clinton who could actually win. Unfortunately, the only Not Sen. Clinton who could actually win is a Republican. Baby, if you're a Democrat in 2008, it's Sen. Clinton or a Republican. Take your pick."

Why do you think people would vote for Hillary and not Edwards, Biden or Obama? Do you believe that Republicans would vote for her but if she's not the Dem's choice they will vote Republican?

He was far more qualified than Obama. He had 4 years as a congressman, 10 as a senator, plus was a WWII fighter pilot.

Regardless, you Dems actually have a poor slate of candidates. Too bad you wont figure it out for another 53 weeks.

I'll be the first douchebag to say it, "but Gore did beat bush..." I don't know about the whole poll situation. With the exceptions of Edwards and Biden, its a completely different field than we have seen in a long time. Not to mention what people aren't even mentioning: can a woman or a black man even be elected in America? So I don't think you can call anything until the first primary.

As for the Democratic candidates being poor, uh, have you seen the republican candidates? Apparently none of them even know what is in the Constitution. The only one who seems close in McCain, and that "Christian Nation" non-sense should have nothing to do with American politics. If it weren't pathetic pandering, I'd call him flat out dumb. And as for Giuliani, if his inexperience and lack of qualifications arent enough, marrying your cousin typically doesn't play out to well politically.

Richmond:

I would love for there to be someone Not Sen. Clinton who could actually win. Unfortunately, the only Not Sen. Clinton who could actually win is a Republican. Baby, if you're a Democrat in 2008, it's Sen. Clinton or a Republican. Take your pick.

Are you really that stupid? Polls have shown that all of the top three Democrats (Clinton, Obama and Edwards) would easily beat any of the Republican candidates. I'd be surprised if this weren't true for the rest of the Democrats too (OK maybe not Kucinich.)

The Republicans have no new new ideas to offer. All they can come up with is more war, more torture and more tax cuts.

Are some of the Democrats unelectable? Maybe, but it appears that all of the Republicans are.

Don't get ugly. In a general election, I vote for whoever has "D" after his or her name. Can you say the same?

Polls this, polls that. The only polls that count are on Election Day, unless you live in Palm Beach County, FL.

Which leads me to my point:

If there were perhaps a touch less dreamy self-righteousness among the progressive camp, we'd have Pres. Al Gore to kick around.

Those 95K votes for Nader in FL in 2000 weren't cast by confused Republicans.

In the interest of disclosure, I'm about as liberal and progressive as they come. Honey, Dennis Kucinich and I sing from the same hymnal.

But I want someone my non-Democratic, non-liberal and non-progressive friends can vote for. And increasingly, they admire Sen. Clinton and can see her as their President.

Hmm. Sen. Clinton has been an elected representative (from her "home" state of NY) for one term, or is it a term and a half? I think Sen. Obama has a legislative history that's actually a little deeper than seven years when you include his time in the Illinois legislature.

Hillary does have more experience being the first lady though.

Obama has too many negatives that Republicans can exploit.

Putting aside the race question (which is bigger than the gender question - women being the majority and blacks a minority) which the Reps. will Jesse-Helms him with in the south -- what they will do is exploit fear.

"Can we afford to have an untried President to deal with.....war and terrorists....etc?"

"Can we afford to have Osama --oops, Obama --convening a meeting with Muslims --the Islamofascists trying to kill us--and have this naive man handing over the keys to our country?"

"Can we have a man who supports driver's licenses to illegal aliens, running our security depts?"

Since Obama tends to speak first, then think, then refuse to back down, he would be toast by July.

You probably noticed that she got into trouble over the question of releasing white house documents that would possibly speak to her experience, whatever it was, as first lady. Judging her by what Bill did is not rational since we don't know what her advice and counsel on those actions may have been.

YOU VOTED FOR JESSE JACKSON?!?!?!?!?

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!