I would challenge any one undecided after last night's debate to look at how Clinton and Obama have managed their campaign. I think there is a lot of foreshadowing of how they each might handle the presidency in how they've conducted themselves in this historic campaign.

Clinton - the shoe-in for many months - has been lackluster in her ability to run an effective campaign in this critical time. She assumed she'd have sealed the deal on Super Tuesday. When it came down to a draw she was left floundering. She had no clear and concise plan for how to go after votes in the post-Super Tuesday contests. Several top members of her campaign left at critical times for her. Her exhaustion is palpable in her voice, facial expressions and how she holds herself. True, it would have been hard to anticipate the momentum that Obama has garnered, but I think that after Iowa her campaign should have been more aggressive in their plans to stop Obama or at least have a plan just in case Super Tuesday didn't go as planned.

Obama on the other hand has run a powerful campaign. He has assembled a team that has been invaluable in building momentum for his campaign. He's grassroots efforts are second to none and he has clearly planned ahead at every step of this campaign. Yes he was the newcomer and has had to establish his name and yes, he naturally would have been planning more aggressively than Clinton given his status as newcomer, but even after his surprising wins in Iowa, his amazing turn on Super Tuesday and his sweep of wins since Super Tuesday he's never let down his guard. He's still campaigning as if he were fighting for the nomination as the newcomer.

I, personally, would rather have a person capable of thinking ahead, planning for each battle, and able to assemble a strong decisive team running our country than someone who leans on a perceived shoe-in victory, doesn't plan for the "what-if" scenario, and who assembles a team that splinters and scatters when the road is longer and harder than expected.

Nothing in being president is set in stone. It is full of hypothetical situations and I think Obama has a stronger ability to handle and manage being president than Clinton. How else can we judge how either candidate "might" run the presidency if not by how they run their campaign for president?

A campaign is all about spin, popularity and momentary impressions. The Presidency is a bit more complicated than that.

Bush ran a great campaign and somehow got re-elected in 2004, but his Presidency has been a miserable failure.

If it is truly all about spin, popularity, etc, then Clinton with all her clout in Washington should have been able to maintain her position as the shoe-in for the democratic slot. She started out with more money, more people, and more name recognition from day one. Had she run a more effective campaign and really honed her ability to counter pressure from newcomer Obama - she would probably still be the front runner.

Instead, she opted to take a tact similar to Guiliani and put all her energy in the big states. When Obama was clearly gaining on her momentum she didn't fight back - she still ran her campaign the same way. And now she's fighting to stay in the race.

I don't think Bush necessarily ran a great campaign in '04. I think he ran a better campaign than Kerry.

And I agree, the presidency is much more complicated than the campaign - obviously, but I think the campaign and how it is managed is probably our best indicator of what we can expect from our next president.

Honestly, I was surprised Clinton ever got anywhere in this campaign. There has been an irrational hatred of her since 1992, and maybe even before that. Just yesterday, some Repub.'s I work with were talking about the worry over Obama's safety, and basically said they would welcome it if someone were to kill Hillary.

The Clinton's, both Hillary and Bill, tend to draw that love them or loathe them response. I'm not surprised she's still the race - she seems to feel like she's entitled to the presidency for some reason. But I am surprised she hasn't fought harder to keep up with Obama.

I can't stomach the idea of anyone being ok with killing a candidate. I don't like Hillary in the least as a person and much less as a presidential candidate, but I wouldn't wish her dead. Yikes. Just goes to show how much venom she brings out of folks who dislike her and how much is riding on this election.

Hm. well, that's interesting to consider...could a democrat ever turn into a Tim McVeigh or a Lee Harvey Oswald? There was John Hinckley but he was more of a JodieFostercrat. Will anyone debate that Republicans show more murderous potential than Democrats? (if so, I'll post a recent debate I had with Ranger...)

Lbutterfly:

Honestly, I was surprised Clinton ever got anywhere in this campaign. There has been an irrational hatred of her since 1992, and maybe even before that. Just yesterday, some Repub.'s I work with were talking about the worry over Obama's safety, and basically said they would welcome it if someone were to kill Hillary.

Lbutterfly:

She had practically a double-digit lead over the majority of the candidates from day one.

She was the most recognizable name from day 1.

LButterly: you can't use the fact that Bush 2 got re-elected as an indicator because no incumbent, war-time President has ever lost in an election....history was on his side, so the argument fails.

By that reasoning, Obama could never win because no black man has ever been elected POTUS.

thats a ridiculous comparison.

We have always had wars, but African-Americans have only, truly, had the right to vote without restriction since the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. Yes the so-called "right to vote" happened with the 15th amendment in the 1860's, but socially, black men and women haven't had the opportunity to truly voice their vote without restriction until the mid 20th century.

Wars are something that happen without regard to race or anything else, so my fact that an incumbent, war-time president hasn't lost before has nothing to do with a black man never being elected president before. America just hasn't given a black man the chance TO be President before now.

Obama in 2008.

I agree with you 100% about Obama. He has run a campaign to be proud of.

One of the many fatal flaws in Hillary’s campaign has been her constant personality changes. Operating as she has says many things about her: she isn’t being herself – she’s being what she’s told to be or what she thinks will work at the moment; she doesn’t have a strong personality of her own; and she will vacillate on her views as easily as she does her personas. It also makes her appear disingenuous, even if she isn’t. It obviously isn’t working – but she continues to do it.

She’s also playing by the “old” political campaign rules. Obama has shown us he can refuse to take lobbyist money, not constantly bash and tear down his opponent and still win! Every time he takes the high road, Hillary winds up on the low road by comparison. He’s taking American politics to a new level and Hillary doesn’t seem to realize the old ploys don’t work.

Campaigns may be about “spin” – but ultimately, they’re about votes. Being able to observe these people before they’re voted in as president (or not) speaks volumes on how they’ll think on their feet and make decisions. Besides, “spin” is just a term used when something untruthful (or unpalatable) is somehow made to look truthful or better than it is. It reminds of the invented word, “misinformation”.

The bottom line is going to be Iraq. When confronted with her vote for the war, Hillary wishes she could take it back. I’m sorry, that’s too big of an “oops” for me! That – and the feeling I get that she somehow thinks she’s entitled to the presidency – has cost her my vote.

IRS eyes UCC over Obama's Hartford speech "The IRS said in the letter that it was concerned about articles posted on the church's Web site and on other sites stating that Obama had addressed nearly 10,000 people at the event. The agency also said Obama volunteers had staffed campaign tables "outside the center to promote his campaign." <link>