What kind of oversight allowed her to even consider using the suffering and courage of disabled American veterans in her closing remarks, given that they wouldn't be suffering and disabled had she and others like her voted their conscience instead of their perceived political good?

And how is this point so overlooked? We were all sucked into the emotion of the moment, I guess, so that's one thing she's improved on in the course of this campaign. But the moral tone deafness betrayed by her use of that image alone is enough to confirm that I could not in good conscience vote for her.

I found it more ironic that in a debate where she needed to knock Obama out of the ring, she not only got booed for her xerox line, but also used whole lines from Bill and Edwards in her closing. It was also ironic that she refused to even mention her huge losses in post-loss rallies, but in the debate where she was supposed to turn it around she finally gave a proper concession speech...

All true. Perhaps I found the above example most offensive as it was so flagrantly exploitative. Either the purest lack of awareness of the consequences of her own actions and her responsibility for them or the most horrendous cynicism. I suspect the former...I also suspect I'm preaching to the choir here ;-) but maybe someone else will read us too...

Also, she started with the same line from New Hampshire: "People ask me how I do it.."

She, again, brings it back to her, and how hard she has worked. Which she has, and she's allowed to point it out, but it really just turns me off. And, the imagery of the soldiers, to me, was another cheap ploy to tug on the heartstrings. I know she's not a robot, but her "moments" seems so generic and Hallmarkish.

You're preaching, but you're not thinking very much about it. Why are the people who preach the most the ones who fail to consider issues complexly? Does morality always have to equal simplicity? Is there a form of morality that can come from research, consideration for the situations that other people are in, and the fact that life is not a black and white proposition? Or does it always have to be based on a false dichotomy?

Also...why do those who preach and feel the most superior to others, fail to consider that human beings are complex creatures? That no one is purely bad, and no one is purely good? Or are our perceptions doomed to be based on simple scripts (i.e. you stole a dollar from me, so you are nothing but a thief. You gave me a dollar so you are nothing but a saint). I dislike Bush's policies and I've disliked him more than any elected official probably ever, but sometimes, when I see him speak, or I see a photo of him, just sitting there, he just looks so...human...and I feel for him.

I'm not sure you can call something a "genuine moment" when said moment is borrowed from other people. I have not doubt that HRC is as human as the rest of us, she just has difficulty showing it sometimes, which may explain why her last moments on stage were, well staged and not at all genuine.

I find it very difficult to trust a person who can't trust themself.

She has a stronger personality than most of us and she has more "go-getter" to her than most of us, she has more ambition than most of us, and she's smarter than most of us (and she's a woman which makes it more conspicuous to most people), but I don't doubt her humanity. If she wasn't human, she'd be Anne Coulter. Hahaha, just kidding, sorry Republicans, that was a low blow. I'm sure Anne is a lovely person once you get to know her and she stops calling people "fags." :)

I do feel for Hillary, often, and I admire what she has managed to accomplish and I respect her fierce energy and commitment and courage in the face of a great deal of unfair and yes, sexist abuse over years. You can't assume I don't based on my assessment of one action of hers.

But I found that action personally appalling, and if I came across as simplistic in addressing it, maybe I am, if judgmental, maybe I am (although maybe not more so than you yourself...;-)

But I know that if I had voted to authorise a war which turned out to be unnecessary and wrong, whether through unpreparedness, lack of judgment or for political reasons, I would not, under any circumstances, use any of the victims of that war or my emotional response to those victims in any public arena to advance my own agenda, no matter how I believed in that agenda--or how genuine the emotional response.

I guess I think that it is possible to vote for a bill that could lead to war, and still feel for the soldiers of that war (but I wouldn't label them as "victims," because they are soldiers, not civilians, and that is their job). I didn't think it was exploitative, and it made a very good point. Just how I feel about it. Of course, I'm biased because I'm a Clintonite. :)

Fair enough. We're both biased, but we probably have a lot more in common than we do that divides us. Whichever of our candidates moves on, may we come out with a winner in November!

HRC's ambition, go getter attitude et al has nothing to do with her authenticity or lack thereof. I find the fact that HRC cannot find her voice, cannot stick to a theme to accurately convey her message during this primary, and convey that she is trustworthy and capable of listening to advisors and then ultimately making a good decision on how to coney who she really is, to be problematic. If she was the leader some of her supporters believe her to be, she would connect better with the country using her own words, and showing her true self.

Who do you think Clinton will end up being in the White House? We know *exactly* who she is, and we know *exactly* where she stands. We know she's tough and smart. There are many press accounts that she is also warm and funny (that self-deprecating joke she made at the end of the debate was funny). Her staffers are also incredibly loyal, and even the ones she had to let go during her campaign seem to still adore her. Most of the stories that counter that usually come from dubious sources with agendas of their own. But i'm not saying she's all sweetness and light. When it comes to business...she's very much about business.

On the other hand, I don't know who Obama is. I don't trust that he is who he says he is because he cannot be that person. He *can* be a community activist and someone who feels strongly about change. But he is *still* a politician who is guilty of as many negative campaign tactics as Clinton (you can read about it in this months NY magazine). He hasn't been vetted yet, but there are holes in his ethos and contradictions in his rhetoric that are blatant. He makes promises that he absolutely cannot keep. He inspires things in people that make no sense given his limited role in government (Presidents create the budget, appoint Supreme court judges, have veto power, and meet with foreign leaders...that's about it).

Yes, bi-partisanship is important in the Senate when Senators sponsor legislation. Presidents do not propose legislation. Even if the President advocates bi-partisanship, it's up to the Senate, not the President, to see that through. Instead, the executor *has* to have a firm grasp of the veto (even if the veto might make the opposition angry.) The executor *has* to understand the ins and outs of foreign policy. The executor *has* to have a platform that is economically viable (and not just the ability to raise money from an endless stream of donations).

Hence, Obama might be an excellent person and a fantastic Senator, and he's run a great campaign. But I have no idea what kind of *President* Obama will be. His platform of hope is great when giving State of the Union addresses, and he *might* be able to get foreign leaders on board with us...but many of them are jockeying for global power and might see Obama's naivete' as a sign of a sucker and an easy mark. Maybe his ethos will rub-off on the Senate and make them more receptive to his budgets (assuming that's a good thing). But it's all a little shakey and untested, and that is a little scary to me.

And there are just too many Obama supporters that don't know anything about him other than he's charismatic. I'm not saying he is a bad guy or some silver-tongued Mephistopheles. I'm just saying that, for the position he is going for, it would be nice to know that he had some executive experience to back it up (even Bush was governor...although he did a pretty crappy job running Texas).

Yes, Clinton's main executive experience comes from being a First Lady, but that is nothing to sneeze at. She's met with foreign officials (and was not afraid to use diplomatic/political pressure to improve human rights), she developed SCHIP, and her husband regularly came to her for advice. She just knows, more than Obama, how it all works. Plus she's tougher, and sometimes the Commander-in-Chief needs to be tough, not nice. I don't agree with the war vote, and I do not want a President who will be hawkish about military action (and, although the war vote led to an unpopular war, Hillary advocated for moderation, thorough weapons inspections, multi-lateral coalition building, and U.N. intervention. She is far from a hawk). And I also don't want a President who will be too afraid to act if necessary.

*However,* the potential upside to Obama is that he might be able to convince the people to accept things they wouldn't otherwise--like a tax increase. He might be able to get the people to ignore a diplomacy mistake. He might get the people on board with an unpopular war (not through fear, but through the idea of "noble sacrifice.") But he can't be a panderer. His charisma will come in handy when he has to do things that are *unpopular* (like passing a health care mandate). But I'm not sure he'd be willing to do that, and that is a problem. That makes no sense to me. If he has this amazing charisma, shouldn't he be using it to get people on board with bolder policies? It seems a waste otherwise.

Regardless, I think Clinton IS showing her true self. Her true self might not be "warm and fuzzy" as Slate notes that the Dems eat up with a spoon, but to me she's the best of both worlds--a person who has practical goals to improve the daily lives of Americans, and the toughness one needs to be an effective, trustworthy, Commander-in-Chief. But still, it would be nice if she had some Obama charisma and an inspiring vision for the future (which are both powerful and positive).

I know we don't agree here, so let's just leave it at that. I personally would like them to combine into a kind of Presidental Voltron. Is that so wrong?