The Clinton's can't, barring some gaffe or tragedy befalling Senator Obama, win the Democratic nomination for President without defeating Senator Obama in a way that his supporters will find unfair. Having thus won the nomination, the Clinton's would not be able to get enough of Senator Obama's supporters to turn out to vote for them to defeat the Republican nominee, assuming that nominee is Senator McCain. If the Clinton's were able to win the Democratic nomination, and defeat Senator McCain, despite offending Obama supporters, the presidency that followed would emulate the divisive presidency of George W. Bush.

If Senator Edwards is sincere about the causes he is championing, and I believe that he is, he will eventually need to work for Senator Obama's nomination and election. So will all like minded Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Senator Obama is a uniter, not a divider. Senator Clinton can never be a uniter, and Senator Edwards is not going to get enough votes to get the chance to be a President who unites.

Charlieb

Remember South Carolina is only 1 place, were next. Lets see what happens.

Hmph. If Obama can somehow restrain himself from stooping to the Clinton's level, maybe he can eke out a win. But there is some serious Hillary machinery in play in the big states. But...as Time or Newsweek's cover recently informed us, "It's the VOTERS stupid". They have shown an interesting penchant for surprising us this year.

are we forgetting Iowa where there is probably 3 black people in the entire state?

More like a nightmare..but easy to kill after Edwards is out of the picture.

Right after that Clintons will remind the "American People" as furer Bush puts it that Mr. Obama can choose his cabinet at will.."IMAGINE AL SHARPTON AS SECRETARY OF STATE" will be the ammunition the Clintonians will have an expendable aide "leak" out.

Oprah wountn't make a bad one..but nobody can make Obama tell who he'll repay for favours taken.

A dream??? Come on!! I understandt that children might believe in fairy tales, but adults???? We need people who know what they are doing and that can solve problems. Come down to earth pal! To change the status quo, it is not enough to dream, it is not enough to repeat and repeat, "Yes, we can!.

For the first time in the history of this country the voter is being asked to chose between a female and an "African American" to run at a time when the opportunity for the Democrats to take over the Presidency is the highest its been is decades. It would be very ironic if the Democrats chose the "dreamer" over this very competent female and lose the general election. I remember the Clinton years and they were in all aspects the best 8 years I have seen in my long life time.

Dreams are dreams; reality is reality. I am tired off dreamers. Dreams without wisdom are dangerous. W "dreamed" of democracy blooming in Iraq (I believe he was sincere. Stupid, but sincere) Whoever is the next President please be pragmatic.

I won't vote for someone just to make a historic first but if I had to choose between gender and race then I go with gender. Why? One, I think people of the same gender have more in common than race. Race is a concept that is highly artificial, pernicious, poorly defined/undefinable and a concept that should be discarded (understanding history and respecting sub-cultures is perfectly legitimate). Gender roles are based in culture by have roots in biology and division of labor needs. Gender identification is more legitimate and more enduring concept than race. So I would choose to bias toward gender. Further, I think a women have been more willing to cross the lines than black men. I met/made friends with many white women working for racial harmony/justice but I can recall any black men coming by to support gender equality. But maybe that is just me.

No one, not even Hillary, can lay claim to more "experience" than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

She has her husband's record, not her own.

Well, the Clintons have succeeded if they've gotten you to buy into the "fairytale" or "dream" stuff. I know you didn't think it up for yourself. How sad.

Question: Was MLK misguided and incompetent when he said, "I have a dream." ? Please educate me, great sage.

Was JFK misguided and incompetent when he said that men can walk on the moon someday?

Was Bill Clinton misguided and incompetent when he felt that there existed a third way of politics?

Was Reagan dreaming when he felt that the Soviet Union could be defeated WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT?

All of these people asked for a chance and got one.

I hurt for you, Stinky. The Clinton's negativity appeals to more than just you. Hillary doesn't want you to hope and dream. She wants you to fall lockstep into her ideologies and be a good little you-know-what. My guess is you're born to the role. Yes, she will probably win. What a sad day that not even her fellow Dem heavy hitters seem to even want her now. Thank God she at least has you and other fellow cynics.

I don't think Obama winning South Carolina indicates he will be the nomination. The high number of black voters we certainly in his favor. It will be interesting to see if this happens as more and more of the voters are Caucasian. I am concerned that there is little thought going into voting by many. My hope that people listen and don't vote just because Obama is black or because Clinton is a woman.

Edwards needs to quit bouncing back and forth between whomever he thinks is winning. It is time for him to quit. Anyone he endorses will be disingenuous after all he has been saying.

I imagine the only dream that Hillary or Obama have any interest in killing is the one that the Republican elite powerbrokers have of forever continuing their domination of American interests and ideology.

Hillary and Obama simply represent two perspectives and the eventual nominee will tell us which perspective of the American people is the strongest right now. That perspective will probably win the presidency for the Democrats. Neither perspective is neccessarily better than the other but with all that is at stake in this next election many Clinton supporters feel (despite their misgivings) any means will justify the end. The Republican machine will take no prisoners and they are more dangerous than rabid dogs when their backs are against the wall as they will be in this election.

As much as I admire Obama and his desire to do things differently I do not believe he would not be as effective as Hillary at moving a change agenda forward. Like it or not triangulation or Bill Clinton's third way of politics gave the nation more peace and prosperity than it had acheived since the Eisenhower years. Hillary plays the game like a man would and many men are intimidated by that. She will beat McCain because the country does not want to continue this war. She will beat Romney because many Republicans would rather just stay at home and hate Hillary than vote for a man they believe has little conviction. Republicans respect power and they know Hillary has it behind her.

Finally if Hillary or Obama runs against Ron Paul I will vote for Ron Paul because I believe he is the candidate that has a real passion and conviction for change and will never sell the American people out.

Did you even read my post? I railed against dreams without wisdom, not every dream , goal, wish a person can have. I said I am tired of dreamers not dreams. I don't want be asleep at the wheel "dreaming" about a road; I want someone with a destination in mind and eyes on the road to get there. Further, pulling 3 (I won't count your reference to Bill) historical dreams that have shaped a nation does not really mean anything. Some people dream of hateful or insane things, should we follow them? But even when a dream is good, it does not change anything with out work and intelligence. MLK had a dream but there were also marches and boycotts and speechs. What progress we have made toward the dream has been the result of sacrifices by many. JFK had a speech but NASA had a budget and scientists and engineers and pilots had a lot of work. The Soviet Union impoded but that does not mean RWR was Nostradamus or positive thinking brought it about (btw, it is highly debatable about how much Reagan strategies had to do with collapse). Having a goal, an idea, a wish is not sufficient to creating a reality. Dreams can inspire but remember Edison and the other 99% of success.

BTW, I am not a cynic (in the generally accepted though innaccurate sense of the word). I am a pragmatist and skeptic. As a skeptic, I accept as little as possible with out questioning, probing and testing. As a pragmatist, I ponder costs and benefits of actions; understand that the world sets limitations on how things can be achieved (limits can be challenged and, sometimes, changed but everything has a cost involved)

We need the next Pres. to be someone who can inspire others to greatness. Hillary with all her well-thought, detailed plans does not do this. She pontificates about what she must do not so much what we can do. Because she and her people realize she doesn't move people like Obama does, they have framed the argument in terms of competence and experience. If the citizenry (especially Congress) aren't inclined to support or work with her, it really doesn't matter how competent or experienced she is.

She may get elected - probably will. But she will not have won hearts and minds and this country will be in for 4-8 years of partisan hell precisely because she is so oft-putting. I am simply trying to look at the larger picture, sorry.

Inspire others to GREATNESS??? What are you talking about? Has you god Obama already made you do something great?? If you have, please tell us. It will be pretty interesting to know about an Obamabot who was not only inspired to greatness but who really achieved greatness?