Conservatives and other haters of Senator Clinton be wary of your schadenfreude. Enjoying your enemy's downfall and struggles is a heady brew, but like any addictive substance, the price to be paid is often greater than the high.

HRC is not electable; she has brought too much baggage, laid down too much history and placed too many skeletons in her closet (including Vince Fosters?). Further evidence that Hilary' is not elactable is Obama's meteoric rise. While Obama's charisma is undeniable and the primary factor in his surge and HRC's slide, it is not a sufficient cause for the Billary crack up. (HRC crying actually helped her, but since tears sank any hopes of Representative Patricia Schroder getting a chance at running the White House, Hill's tear may have been a sincere expression of true emotion and not a calculated risk.) Dems are beginning to see the numerous liabilities that she brings with her (including a former president who continues to tarnish the honored post he once held and she lust for). Hillary is loosing ground she can't afford to loose: even with full support from the Left, she was supported by less than 50% of the voting public. (This was also true of both her husband's terms, but this election lacks a spoiler such as Ross Perot.) With many anti-war, MoveOn.org, and other ultraliberals angered with HRC's support, well, early support, of the war in Iraq, she would be even more hard pressed to beat Senator McCain. Are her struggles, frustration and obvious pain enjoyable? You bet your Park Avenue ass it is. Defeat where is thy sting? GOP, where is thy victory?

Obama is proving to be a formidable opponent. If the deep digging agents of destruction and demolition crews of the Clinton camp can't land a punch, throw dirt that sticks, or muddy the good name of the junior senator from Illinois, what can the RNC do against him? The RNC is not nearly as crafty Camp Clinton. Senator McCain doesn't always give the straightest talk, (ask Governor Romney about that) but he is not known as a guerilla warrior. In fact, he has often been called honorable and reputable, appellations that are not bandied about when talking Her Majesty Clinton. Hillary is beatable, without question, but what about the Left's newest messiah? Can Obama be beaten?

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Right now the Right is in full joy mode over the fall of Clinton dynasty (regime?), but the tomorrow the bill comes due. What price is to be paid?

What dyed in wool right wingers think is irrelevant here. Americans are thirsting for someone who can unite the nation, and they see Senator Obama as that person. The Clinton/McCain crowds are living in the past. They see them as two sides of the same inside the beltway coin.

Senator Obama not only appeals to Democrats, but also Independents. He will win in November because he will run on issues instead of attack ads. A popularity contest? Isn't the person who wins the popular vote supposed to win the election? Oh wait. that ain't always the case, is it.

Many Americans are looking for a change. Some are looking to a break away from the Baby Boomers who have populated the part of the country known as “The Beltway” for too long. Some just want a change from the current administration, “Anyone but Bush.” Obama is not guaranteed this dissatisfied and disaffected voter block because Senator McCain is a dramatic departure from Bush II. (This is one of the reasons “dyed in the wool right wingers [sic]” are fighting so hard to defeat a McCain nomination.)

Those who want change, and voters who are satisfied with the status quo, will a have choice between “hope”, whatever that nebulous cloud may hold and experience. (As a Libertarian, I oppose many of McCain’s positions and legislative acts (e.g. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc.). If the economy tanks, Obama may be able to sell hope and classic class warfare; McCain admits the economy is not his strong suite, but if the country is threatened by Islamofascism, McCain’s stature, experience and toughness will easily carry the day. Even if the country can avoid both these looming dangers, Obama’s appeal to independents is far from certain.

McCain has been a press favorite for many years. Obama is the flavor of the month. The question remains can he keep his brand fresh until November. McCain has a long history of legislative success in the Senate (again, many victories are dubious at best) and is a well established policy wonk, especially in areas of interest to the general public, foreign affairs, intelligence and defense. Obama’s record and expertise pale in comparison.

Another wild card in the election is Iraq. If the occupation continues to quell the violence and normalcy becomes more steadfast, McCain will be the one who seems prescient and Obama just plain wrong. If Iraq destabilizes, then Obama will have the upper hand, but a sad state of affairs has befallen our country if those who wish so ardently for salvation for our country take schadenfreude from the blood shed of American patriots and Iraqi citizens.

Your assertion, “[H]e will run on issues instead of attack ads.” is only partially substantiated by facts. Generally, Obama has been able to stay above the fray, even when Team Clinton got down and dirty, but he rarely speaks on issues with any fathomable depths. He has shown his comfort zone to be hazy promises and pretty platitudes. Hilary has been attacking this weakness, ineffectively, for over a fortnight. Once the nominations are locked up, Obama’s love fest with the media will be over. Once Obama gets the Dem nod, the press will demand answers to in depth questions.

Admittedly, like Kennedy, Obama is media savvy and telegenic. His ability to connect well with large crowds and intimate gatherings is reminiscent of great communicators such as Presidents Reagan and Clinton, but eventually the public is not going to demand real answers to real questions. On what experiences will Obama call to offer the sagacity demanded?

On your last point, is the presidency “[a] popularity contest? Isn’t the person who wins the popular vote supposed to win the election?” the answer is clearly no, it is not. Many presidents, legally elected, did not received the simple majority of the popular contest; the Electoral College is an equalizer put in place by the Founding Fathers so that all states had a proportionally equal vote. (Please see <link>

A change is gonna come. All three viable presidential candidates represent a major shift to the left of the current administration. In the words of the Village Bard, “The times they are a changin’.”