It goes well with the Clinton spin: The only people who support my opponent are black people (Noble People for whom we have the Greatest Respect) and little children. I saw her on TV the other night and she actually said “I think it’s great that Obama has brought so many young people into the Democratic Party. But this election is serious business.” (Not verbatim, but very close.) My jaw dropped. It was so unbelievably condescending. It seems really stupid of her to write off young voters - the Democratic party desperately needs them to come out and vote in the general.

History says that my boy will learn to fly first. I understand the hopes and dreams and change message. Heck, it was what got Bill Clinton elected the first time. Then he arrived with his backpack filled with conflicting messages from the divergent groups that supported him. His own party turned on him because he was an outsider, they fell hard due to their own ineptitude and he was forced to start compromising to keep the government running. One by one the divergent groups started hating him, popular opinion stayed high because he actually kept the trains running but the loud voices started to pick away at him.

I can hope and dream that the Democratic party has changed but they eat their young, always have and always will. Hillary has no expectations left to be smashed, can Barack say the same?

Don’t vote for Nader. Nader doesn’t care about choice or about gay rights. You want a perfect candidate? Write in your own name. You won’t have compromised yourself in any way, and your vote will be every bit as meaningful.

And if McCain gets elected by a narrow margin and kills 100,000 people in Iran, and if he appoints the justice who finally provides the margin to overturn Roe v Wade, and if the deficit balloons further, thanks to another round of war and tax cuts, you can take comfort in the fact that Obama and Clinton would have been just as bad.

Illinois is coal country, especially southern and western Illinois. Coal feeds and clothes a lot of Illinoisans who have few other job opportunities. Obama was just supporting his constituents.

It doesn’t count for you. It does for me. Ok, its really hard for me to campaign for Clinton even though I support her because I only support her because she and Obama are the last 2 standing. The only progressive running I can’t vote for. There’s a reason Nadar started an exploratory presidential committee the day after Edwards left the race.

To me its like flipping a coin, the 2 candidates are so alike. So I understand why some might go heads while I go tails. What I don’t get is why some people like him, why they really care. I see two centrist establishment politicians.

That he’s inspiring doesn’t count for me. I’m totally unmoved by speeches. in fact I rarely watch them. If I’m interested in a speech I read the transcript.

I see 2 politicians that have been involved in deals with rich backers that I think are distasteful. Not quid pro quo, nothing illegal, but clearly I’ll scratch your back you scratch mine.

I see 2 candidates that have been on the corporate payroll. Like Obama’s vote for the energy bill a few years back.

They both have done things on the campaign trail that go against my principles.

I see 2 candidates that have done virtually nothing to halt the war or the dismantleing of our freedoms. While I give him credit for opposing the war he’s certainly got a lot of mileage with one speech. In 2005 obama was talking about a 10 year plan to withdraw from iraq. When Sheehan was in Texas where were they? When you think of someone in congress fighting the war Murtha comes to mind. Does either Clinton or Obama come to mind? They both reauthorized the Patriot act.

I don’t buy either of these two but I have to chose one of them. They both are intelligent and knowledgeable but I think Clinton is the bigger policy wonk. I like policy wonks. Her depth and breadth of knowledge exceeds his. I think she understands the corridors of power in Washington better then him, she has more and longer term relationships she can use to get things done.

But the main reason is that the Clintons have been fighting the right wing for years and each time they thought they had delivered the knock down punch the Clintons were still standing. I want someone who will fight tooth and claw. I’m totally turned off when someone tells me the problem in washington is the bitter partisanship and extrols the virtues of bipartisanship. It makes me think of Liberman.

But I will vote for whoever gets the nomination.

And if he wins (oh please Ceiling Cat) then he might well be the second coming of Jimmy Carter…or he might not. Maybe having a Democrat president will put some starch in the collective Democratic Congressional spine.

Thanks, Eric, for reminding us that you definitely have your dickish side…

Picture the next four years- not what the various candidates promise but what they are going to have to deal with before those promises can be met. A massive debt, an equally massive deficit both monetary and trade, every department of the government is disheartened, underfunded and understaffed, a crumbling infrastruture that is already taking lives, a military that is undermanned and overcommitted, an emergency response organization that has been gutted and run into the ground and an economy that is at best teetering on the brink of collapse. With luck the Democrats will get enough legislators in both houses to be able to actually pass legislation, which if they are actually doing their jobs right will be radically unpopular among almost every demographic imaginable.
So as I see it, Hillary knows how to keep working even when she is radically unpopular. She has the brains to wrangle politicians into the meetings that may result in unfortunately necessary legislation.

I see Obama has brains and the charisma to do the work but even he won’t be able to meet expectations for 4 long years of this.
I’ve said it before- you throw Hillary under the bus this time and you save Obama in reserve to keep the Democrats in the White House for the next two terms. Otherwise I see Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan.

Obama may be a lot of things, but he hasn’t had his personal life turned upside down in a 70 million dollar investigation, he hasn’t been accused of murdering half of Arkansas, and raping the other half. or stealing from the elderly, or selling secrets to the Chinese, etc. Maybe he’d cope just fine with those attacks; maybe he won’t. While I’d be happy to be proved wrong, I’d rather not take that chance, and that goes for a lot of Dem voters too.

On the risk of repeating myself, Blue Jean, on what basis do you claim that Hillary survived these attacks? That she’s still standing? Sorry, but survival like that isn’t the best criteria for choosing a president. She has moved so far to the right on some very important, morally and politically relevant issues, that one can’t really say her survival strategy is good for many people but herself and her political machine. It’s certainly bad for the party and the country.

Amanda knows a bit about not adequately anticipating attacks.