...is that he can't run in the Democratic primary as Mr. Above It All Nice Guy. He has to run in the Democratic primary as a DEMOCRAT. And if other Democrats are like me, we're not in the mood for someone who isn't ready to stand up and fight for the Democratic party, nice guy or no nice guy.

Hillary Clinton is the wife of the last Democratic president who actually WON--who won TWICE. And he won back in 1992 when nobody said he could win. And SHE won her senate race when nobody said she could win. The Clintons have been kicked around just because they were Democrats and never apologized for it--that appeals to many Democrats, because we've been kicked around as well. We're tired of being called traitors and America haters and everything else. We identify with the Clintons. Attack the Clintons and you're attacking us. We're sick of it.

The issue is not whether Barack Obama is a better person than Hillary Clinton, but whether he's a better DEMOCRAT than Hillary Clinton. He says he wants to 'heal the divisions' in this country--yet he's running to be the leader of the Democratic party. That's a contradiction in terms. How can he heal the divisons while standing up for one of the divisions? How can he reverse the tax breaks for the rich, for one example? That's just going to promote more division, more howls of outrage from the right, more shudders from the wishy washy middle. It won't heal a thing. If Barack Obama doesn't want to be for division, then why should Democrats want him to be their leader?

He seems to think he can just be a wonderful guy. But no matter how good he is, in this climate of smear and slander his virtues will be turned to vices and his good deeds to crimes. Look at Kerry, who fought in Vietnam and was called a coward for it. Look at Al Gore, who was honest and was called a liar. Look at Bill Clinton, who was a clear speaker and called a 'parser.' No human being can withstand the kind of derisive scrutiny our media is prepared to visit on ANY Democrat who makes a claim of being a better person. And Obama won't either.

Democratic politicians need to FORGET character and run on principle and party. That's what the Clintons did--like them or not, as flawed as they were and are, they represent something bigger than themselves, which is the Democratic party. That's why attacking them has always been besides the point. So far, Obama only seems to represent himself. Once he's attacked, he's finished, because he only represents himself. That's why he won't defeat Hillary Clinton.

"Democratic politicians need to FORGET character and run on principle and party. That's what the Clintons did--like them or not, as flawed as they were and are, they represent something bigger than themselves, which is the Democratic party. That's why attacking them has always been besides the point. So far, Obama only seems to represent himself. Once he's attacked, he's finished, because he only represents himself. It amazes me how blind some people can be."

So, you are just another one of those sheep who can't think for themselves believing that everything your party tells you is the perfect situation for all the people and follow it blindly. Politicians, "SHOULD" be representing something bigger than themselves and that is the American people, not the Democratic or Republican party.

A Democrat is no better than a Republican and a Republican is no better than a Democrat. Democrats aren't significantly smarter than Republicans and Republicans aren't significantly smarter than Democrats. We are all Americans who are individuals with opinions of our own and no-ones opinion is better than anyone elses.

You say that Obama is only representing himself, well maybe you should open your eyes and see that Hillary is the one who is only representing herself. She is a blatant liar who is only interested in going down in history as the first female to be elected President of the United States. She will say anything and do anything to get what she wants.

In my opinion, I think it always comes down to what is available to present to the public and how well it is presented. A candidate must have the following:

#1 A good fund raising and publicity campaign, the well established and exploited "mechanics/strategy" of a campaign.

and

#2 Charisma, with Character being only a subset of this. This in term must be well manipulated by the former to demonstrate it to the voting masses.

Hillary Clinton's team is doing better than Obama's team at the former and Barrack Obama is doing better at the latter than Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is helped, however, on the Charisma side due to her association with Bill Clinton, although her own personal Charisma is not as great as Obama's.

However, when it is all added up, Clinton's advantages outweigh Obama's.

If Obama could do both better than all the other candidates, like Bill Clinton did when he ran, then I believe he would be in the lead.

nerdnam is right.

I have a question. They are scrutinizing Clinton too harshly. Why was not Bush scrutinized like that in 2000? Everytime she speaks, she is branded as evasive, obfuscater, want to have it both ways. Where was the media when Bush was doing these same things. Bush never answered a single question pointedly. Bush always addressed only selected audiences surrounded by military people. Bush's townhall meetings were all staged. Yet when Clinton answers a question intelligently, she is branded as evasive.

There is something wrong with the media.

I_try_to_be_moderate:

If Obama could do both better than all the other candidates, like Bill Clinton did when he ran, then I believe he would be in the lead.

That is a darn good point, but the democratic field in 1992 was there for the taking. This time you really do have the pre-Anointed One against whom all must batter their ships before they get anywhere.

RM77:

nerdnam is right.

I have a question. They are scrutinizing Clinton too harshly. Why was not Bush scrutinized like that in 2000? Everytime she speaks, she is branded as evasive, obfuscater, want to have it both ways. Where was the media when Bush was doing these same things. Bush never answered a single question pointedly. Bush always addressed only selected audiences surrounded by military people. Bush's townhall meetings were all staged. Yet when Clinton answers a question intelligently, she is branded as evasive.

There is something wrong with the media.

I disagree. Bush was the "cowboy dumbass lightweight fratboy cokehead drunk duty-dodger" who couldn't possibly stand a chance against the genius of Al Gore. So all Bush had to do was show up and not make a fool of himself and let Gore sink his own ship. Gore's campaign advisers managed him horribly--they turned him into the much-parodied humorless wooden robot. Had the Gore we met post-the 2000 elections shown up--loose, humorous, generous and sincere--the election would have been his in a cakewalk--Nader notwithstanding.

If you're running for the nomination of the Democratic party, then you *have* to represent the Democratic party, Otherwise you won't get the votes of Democrat primary voters. That is just basic reality.

Once the candidates are in the general, THEN you can talk about who best represents AMERICA. That's what the general election is supposed to be about. But right now the fight is about who represents DEMOCRATS.

BTW, why is it that it is almost always the Democrats who are supposed to stop being so mean and harsh and partisan? Insofar as Democratic politicians stop being partisan and start being above the fray, that means I as a Democrat don't get represented and my views are shut down.

But somehow nobody ever complains about how mean and harsh and partisan the REPUBLICANS are. Somehow, the Republicans get to be as mean and harsh and as partisan as they like to be. Somehow, nobody thinks it's strange that Republican voters, such as evangelicals, can go to the polls and insist that their candidates be a certain way. But when Democratic voters do it, everyone starts having fainting spells.

The fact is, there's NOTHING wrong with being partisan. I vote for a party or politician; they represent my views. You vote for your party or your side; your views get represented. Then all of these views get hashed out in the Congress and the general elections. What's wrong with that? That's what a Democratic Republic is supposed to be about.

Saying that I shouldn't be partisan is saying that I shouldn't have views. It's saying that I should shut up. That's what that's all about.

What's really going on here is a long standing effort to put down and suppress Democratic and liberal views, by condeming them as 'partisan'--(and also as demagoguery and 'class warfare' and socialism and all the rest of it). And Obama, whether he knows it or not, is at least partially going along with that effort.

Pre-Annoited because, again, Clinton has a good campaign strategist(s), probably the same ones that worked for her husband, that successfully promoted her as such, then used it to get more funds, which in turn payed for this image of Pre-Annoitedness to grow. I think its called a "snowball" effect.

Again, a good campaign strategy.

I_try_to_be_moderate:

Pre-Annoited because, again, Clinton has a good campaign strategist(s), probably the same ones that worked for her husband, that successfully promoted her as such, then used it to get more funds, which in turn payed for this image of Pre-Annoitedness to grow. I think its called a "snowball" effect.

Again, a good campaign strategy.

Oh, it's great campaign strategy, no doubt: shame about the candidate, though.

"BTW, why is it that it is almost always the Democrats who are supposed to stop being so mean and harsh and partisan? Insofar as Democratic politicians stop being partisan and start being above the fray, that means I as a Democrat don't get represented and my views are shut down. "

I am not affiliated with any party as I believe that both have valid points and I look for whomever best exemplifies what I believe in. Both should stop as far as I am concerned. Since I was responding to a Democrat you took it as I was only criticizing the Democrat veiwpoint. Neither one is better than the other and that is what I stated in my post.

"Saying that I shouldn't be partisan is saying that I shouldn't have views. It's saying that I should shut up. That's what that's all about."

I never said that you shouldn't have views, I said that just because someone elses views do not match yours do not make your views better or more important than anyone elses and that is on both sides. Because someone doesn't have the same beliefs as you doesn't make them a lesser person. I see way too many people acting like they are superior to anyone who isn't affiliated with their party or believe in the things that they believe in. We are all Americans and we should all want what is best for the country and it doesn't necessarily mean that the person that the Party decides should be the one running is the best person for the country,

Do we really make the decision of who is going to run for the party? We only have the choices that the parties allow us to have.

It cannot be true that no point of view is better than another. That is just ludicrous on its face.

Should we stay in Iraq or leave? Should Bush's tax breaks for the rich be reversed? Should we have universal health care? these are just some of the choices SOMEONE has to make.

Once you make a choice, you are then 'partisan.' Someone won't like the choice you make and will very likely call you 'divisive.' There will be fighting, resistence, argumentation. That is what politics is all about. It is about making choices.

If you won't make a choice, then someone else will. If we the voters don't make the decisions, someone else will make the decisions for us. One way or another, decisions WILL be made. Why shouldn't we make them?

There are people who don't want Democrats to make any choices. They oppose Democratic choices, such as universal health care. They fear the public and the choices the public is likely to make. They have spent a good deal of money slamming and smearing Democratic and liberal politicians. They have spent a good deal of money defaming Democratic and liberal positions. This is one reason we don't have unviersal health care. This is one reason we're still stuck in Iraq with no apparent way out.

And one of their tatics is to decry 'partisanship.' Democrats are too partisan, they say. They are saying people should be non partisan. They are saying people shouldn't make choices. And once they convince people that 'partisanship' is a problem, then they get to make the choices. That is their plan.

They are hoping for people like you; people who only want to rub their hands together and wish that all the fighting would stop and that someone would come along and make all their decisions for them. Well they are only too happy to oblige you.

"It cannot be true that no point of view is better than another. That is just ludicrous on its face.

So what makes another person's view better?

Should we stay in Iraq or leave? Should Bush's tax breaks for the rich be reversed? Should we have universal health care? these are just some of the choices SOMEONE has to make."

If you believe that we should leave Iraq and another person believes we should stay, what makes your view the better view? Because it is what you believe and everyone should have the same viewpoint as you?

Yes, someone has to make a decision but that doesn't necessarily mean that the decision they make is the right or better decision. Just because you may believe that it is the right decision does not mean that it is.

"And one of their tatics is to decry 'partisanship.' Democrats are too partisan, they say. They are saying people should be non partisan. They are saying people shouldn't make choices. And once they convince people that 'partisanship' is a problem, then they get to make the choices. That is their plan"

You are actually making good points against partisanship. Both parties are too partisan. That is the problem, people aren't making the choices, the parties are. People are just blindly following what their parties tell them are the right things for the people.

"They are hoping for people like you; people who only want to rub their hands together and wish that all the fighting would stop and that someone would come along and make all their decisions for them. Well they are only too happy to oblige you."

People like me? Where did I ever say that I wanted others to make my decisions for me? Again a good argument against partisanship. I am not the one who is allowing a Party to make the decisions for me. I am not the one who is blindly following a Party. Neither party exemplifies everything that I believe in, both have some good and some bad. I am the type of person who weighs what everyone of all the parties are saying and then decide who best exemplifies what I believe in no matter what party they represent.

nerdnam:

Democratic politicians need to FORGET character and run on principle and party. That's what the Clintons did

Bah, humbug!

You're confusing Bill with Hillary . . . Bill was the consenus-builder, Hillary is a panderer:

Today, she urged Bush to sell oil from the reserves to lower prices . . . a dumb plan, it never works, as she knows perfectly well . . . score one for Hillary . . .

Awhile ago, she introduced a bill to ban flag-burning, a popular issue . . . and plainly unconstitutional, as even Justice Scalia has said . . . score another point for Hillary . . .

Or check out her support for the Iraq War and for the Patriot Act, which shifts with every poll . . . score, score, score . . .

No one is more convincing, or less sincere, than Hillary when she tells Iowa farmers that ethanol is the answer to our energy needs . . . big score . . .

Hillary is so busy scoring points, she has forgotten whatever she once knew about policies based on principles.