Mr. Dickerson's analysis is so typical of the media who continually side with the "fresh face" aspect of Sen. Obama and his speaking skills. As an independent from Illinois, Sen. Obama is not the impressive candidate that the media both created and fawn upon. The bias among the CNN pundits after the debate was so evident that it reminded me of their "execution" of Edwards as a viable candidate. Mrs. Clinton's performance was a blend of knowledgeability, facts and heart, and I'm not even one of her supporters. Sen. Obama's "substance" is basically a clever comeback, citation of other candidate's position papers, and his eloquence is substantially overrated. The "plagiarism" contention is more substantive than Sen. Clinton's "xerox" line; during his time in the Illinois legislature, Sen. Obama only co-sponsored one bill, and was missing 17% of the time. A person without accomplishment can easily copy another candidate's ideas. Most of his positions are standard Democratic issues with slight nuances. His Illinois accomplishments that he touts are largely based on participation with other more experienced Illinois legislators. The standing ovation that Sen. Clinton received from a largely academic audience should indicate who was the clear winner. Sen. Obama's popularity is literally a voter herd-like mentality that discounts experience and is enamored with media glitz and the superficiality of a huckster revival.

I sense we are going to see a repeat of the McGovern-Nixon contest, which is probably not even remembered by half of the primary voters who cast their votes in caucuses and primaries for Sen. Obama. After the Republicans get through with him, many will question why they selected him in the first place, and will blame the media, not themselves for their lack of thoroughness and voting by emotion, and ignoring simple logic.

"Sen. Obama only co-sponsored one bill"

Source?

"The standing ovation that Sen. Clinton received from a largely academic audience should indicate who was the clear winner."

What about the booing she received when trying to score points with her lame-o "plagiarism" charge? Does that indicate anything to you?



"I sense we are going to see a repeat of the McGovern-Nixon contest"

If he can out maneuver the Clintons, he can out maneuver a republican with shaky support from his own base.

Look, its obvious you like Clinton, but if the dems nominate her, it will go a long way towards snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. She can galvonize the GOP like no other.



"After the Republicans get through with him, many will question why they selected him in the first place"

According to this logic, Hillary "Tough Guy" Clinton should be ripping him apart, but instead, he is pulling further and further away.

Face it, Obama is winning because he's ran a more organized campaign and has a more appealing message.

Save the "blame the media" crap for the right wing cry babies whenever something doesn't go their way.

I remember the Obama bid for Illinois Senator, before the distinguished Republican candidate dropped out, Obama was still winning that race and it was on the merits of his work in the state Senate.

ChrisHahn,

I agree with you. I would also add that HC came off very dignified, gracious, and compassionate. Unfortunately, she didn't show what I consider to be her most exciting and unique asset. She didn't communicate her approach to problems, out-of-the box thinking process, etc. - kind of thing that doesn't show well on stage. For example in Virginia, when she was asked about global warming, she came up with countless solutions from totaly different disciplines and directions. She sees confluences in issues and common solutions. She wants to understand what works, what doesn't, why. She wants us to understand her thinking process. That is so exciting to me, after 8 years of being in the dark. Democracy depends on this, for citizens to understand what the adminitration is doing. when I listen to HC I know and undertand what's going on, with Obama, I don't.

I can't even tell you how many posts I read by hand-wringing Democrats who are so tremendously troubled by the fact that Republicans seem to like Obama, by the fact that it's the young people who form the base of Obama's support, by the "emotion", by the "herd-like mentality".

Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor. We are in a time of consitutional crisis. Obama was a community organizer. We are in a time of chronic division. Obama tells us he'll speak to nations this current administration has sent to the corner. Hillary tells us thinking differently than Bush is naive. Obama stated before this war began that it was a dumb war, and that he won't maintain these policies. Bush wants to attack Iran. Does Hillary contradict that? Does McCain?

It's pretty clear to a lot of us what we want from our next President on day one. And it's pretty clear to a lot of us who we need to vote for, and what we need to say to that candidate, to get that.

I thought HRC did better than in previous sit-downs. She'd gotten some sleep and looked fresh. None of that hurts. But the crowd belonged to Obama, and you don't mention that. The TV people weren't going easy on him and I don't know where your paranoia -- so much like that of the wingnuts who trust Fox and Rush and them alone -- goes to feed. I am used to radical and reactionary paranoia -- will we now have moderate paranoia as well? Now there's a revolting development.

Hillary was clearly better at some of the job-interview bullshit questions, like the one about "what was your most trying moment." She has a nice packaged answer for that one. Woo hoo. But her one moment of real crowd enthusiasm was when she seemed to be warming up to a concession speech.

I don't think she's been a red-hot senator; what I see, when I look at her senate resume , is a comer who's getting a lot of help polishing her resume. And one thing stands out in the last few weeks: her people were doing oppo research and shopping it to the press, and his weren't. She was doing proxy mud-slinging and he wasn't. I regard this graceless and snotty attack on both Obama and his supporters (millions of them) as puerile and hysterical. When Al Gore, a serious and hard-working candidate was beaten (well, not really, but close enough) by a simpering flyyweight, THAT was a national tragedy. And if you think this is a repeat of Nixon/ McGovern then you clearly don't know shit from fat meat. I worked that election, doing precinct organization for Abner J. Mikva. The McGovern people blew into town thinking they could run a national television campaign without any ground game at all. Apparently Gary Hart had had some kind of cocaine-induced revelation that television was the wave of the future and nothing else mattered.

McGovern was a wonderful, decent man, a military hero and a warm, funny stump speaker. There were dozens of good reasons why he lost, none of them his fault, except maybe his decision to leave his campaign in the hands of idiots.

The Scoop Jackson Dems had decided to sit it out and the Teamsters were working for Nixon. This year we have a nearly united party and a clear majority, and the Teamsters are supporting Obama. So what's your problem, really?

Senator Obama is so unimpressive in Illinois politics that the chairman of the Dupage County Republicans and a fellow state senator with him, Kirk Dillard, cut a campaign commercial for him in Iowa. Yep, he's pretty unimpressive to those who know him in Illinois. Pretty doubtful that he could bring about any cooperation across party lines.

Melvyl, all I can say to you is right on dude! Obama is galvinizing huge numbers of people to get up off of their asses and get involved and we will swamp the effing Republicans with numbers and enthusiasm, come November! Bring it on Mr McCain, come and get the ass kicking that you and your war mongering bretheren so richly deserve!

Yeah, I remember my first beer...