When I read the posts from the pro BO people, I do not get it. Have you never been in an election before? Guess what? We all look at the candidates and we see and hear different things; we think about those things in our own way and decide our vote. I would not like a BO win today but I would accept it and move on. You should listen to your leader; when he was asked to explain Hillary's win in NH he just said, she ran a good campaign. The culinary union item has brought up for many people the excess side of unions in politics---strong arming and manipulating. HRCs performance in the Nevada debate was very strong and she had a real experience record on Yucca Mtn. Absolutely HRC can not win if Black Americans turn their back on her in the ge. BO can not win a ge without women and core Dems. It takes a united party to win the general election and we will all lose if we get ourselves wallowing in our personal choice cult of personality and forget that we are a party, we have serious issues and it will take all of us in November. Knock off the name calling, "dissing" and all the other negative stuff. We will all win some and lose some but somehow we have to come back together again for the real fight! Let's all move on to South Carolina where probably BO is going to take the gold. I won't like it but I'll look forward to Super Tuesday and work for my side of the street; I will respect your side. Jangles

Am I the only one who remembers that early in this campaign, before Iowa even, HRC was "staying above the fray" and not taking any shots at her competitors. She was accused by some of being arrogant and taking her lead in the polls for granted/believing she was inevitable. BO was swooning in the polls and was being urged by the pundits on Cable News to come out swinging or see his candidacy collapse. And, politics as usual, he took that advice and vowed to come out swinging in the next debate scheduled with MSNBC. And he did. And he landed punches particularly dismissing Clinton experience of the White House years (afterall she was just the wife). So did all those other Democratic candidates. As Clinton responded, as her campaign responded she was accused of playing "the cards"; the feminist card, the race card, the fear card. In other words it seems that HRC can be attacked ad nauseam but she is not permitted to swing back without having her punches "characterized" as some Rovian tactic rather than responded to in a straight line. An example of this is in the Nevada debate when BO characterized HRC's example of the British PM experience "terrorist testing" after his election---BO characterized this as playing the fear card---what he could have done was talk about how he has thought about and would respond or give evidence why he thinks that is not going to happen in the US. What did the media pick up on? Playing the fear card, not on BO ducking the issue. Jangles

One can only look at this long public dialogue posted here and the passions unleashed and conclude either that Obama and Clinton are each major polarizing figures in the political arena today or that this is a very tight race and people supporting these two candidates feel very strongly about their choice. I am a Hillary supporter for many reasons but if I must some day support BO rather than not vote, or vote for a Republican, I will. I would like to know if BO supporters (and/or Edwards) can make such a statement and commitment? I believe that many independents probably have these same feelings about a Republican choice in November. In NH while BO got more of the independent vote than HRC, she did get 40% of that independent vote. I hope that all of us as Democrats can conduct ourselves with enough passion, reason and dignity in this process so that this nation does not switch over to anyone but a Dem in the White House. This country has a decided preference for keeping political power divided between the executive and the legislative branches. I hope we can get over that hurdle in November. None of us and none of you really have any way to make a valid prediction on electability---using some hypothesis about where the American people will be about this election or any candidate in November is a real fairy tale premise for voting today. We all need to make our best judgment about the facts and delete the arguments based on hype, hyperbole and hearsay. In the end our collective choice made on such a foundation will probably be the right one. As for Karl Rove, I have seen him play back and forth between Clinton and Obama and what I think about that is that Karl is just out there trying to stir up the Republican slime machine and get some red meat on the table. Do not feast at that table. Jangles 7

Each time I hear or read someone dismiss HRC's role as "First Lady", I am angered and I remember the abuse that was heaped on Eleanor Roosevelt and countless women who have stood beside a man and contributed brains, energy and hard work so "the man" can have fame and fortune. BO's put downs of HRC in this regard have totally soured me on considering him, even though I originally welcomed his candidacy. I am not alone in this feeling! Jangles

Katy et al: HRC is the one democratic candidate who can win the general election. Check the reality meter; Bush's poll numbers are moving up; Iraq is fading as a mandate; the economy is tanking. So folks the repubs are going to be in much better shape come November and they are going to be hot to hold power---they will have BO for breakfast, lunch and dinner. When you revisit the Clinton years, we had a very robust economy, a budget surplus after decades of deficit spending, real welfare reform (welfare was the #1 national issue and was killing dems---example 1 on bi-partisan getting things done) welfare is not even on the list of issues people talk about today. Our status in the world was high. Jangles