Get real. McCain will be our next comander in chief.

How does this win in SC leave Obama heading into Super Duper Tuesday? Did Billary succeed in defining Obama? The thought infuriates me; I can only take solice in his awesome victory speech. What a orator. The best since...dare I say it: Reagan.

In 2000, McCain was an extremely viable candidate. As a Democrat, he had my vote. By his unbelievable capitulation to the Bush machine and his subsequent support of 43, it will do him in. The Republicans are doomed!

Obama is the only democratic candidate with a chance of beating McCain. Billary's got to get out of the way - or risk being a liability for the party and ruining their legacy.

Obama is, indeed, a better orator than Reagan, by quite a long ways.

The Clintons are getting desperate, and its showing. OBAMA IS CHANGE....OBAMA 2008

I was looking at the boob tube. Obama was giving his victory speach in SC. I was shocked to see mainly white folks sitting behind him. Why would he set the stage in such a way? Did only whites attend the event? No! He is playing the RACE CARD! I have been to dozens of events such as this. Staff workers hand out posters and direct attendies where to sit and when to applaud. This makes my stomach turn. Wake up and smell propaganda.

The Democrats have got to figure out that Billary Clintons are screwing up a once in a lifetime opportunity -- and if the party isn't careful they will BLOW their chances at winning the presidential election. The people want OBAMA -- and are sick of the Billary Clintons willingness to do anything and say anything to get power.

Former President Clinton stated that Obama is just like Jesse HighJackson. Talk about race biting and the race card. The Clintons will win because they are use to getting down and dirty and a southern brawl. Poor Obama is at a disadvantage at this. He will lose, like all gentlemen in a street brawl. The Clintons have thrown the Blacks overboard, like the slave traders use to do to the uppity ones. The Clintons will rely on the new favored minority, the Mexicans. Oh, a few "Uncle Bills" will continue to support the Clintons just like the Blacks that support Bush.

So, Obama is "clearly" the black candidate. All along the Clintons cleverly planned to lose by a massive margin in S.C. simply to brand Obama as such. Wow. What, did Bill call last night, Johnathan? If anything is clear it is that your baldly pro-Clinton spin at the top is entirely deconstructed by the demographics data that follows. And you get paid for this? By whom? You might try some critical analysis next time, rather than cutting and pasting someone's talking points.

There, there - I know many people have never experienced a strong woman - Darlin's, now your gonna see what change is really all about -Us right brains have only just begun - the trenches have been dug- Hillary Clinton will - get it? - SHALL be President of the US for the next 8 years - Omama is a nice child with great ideas, but no idea what it takes to make things happen - the keepers of status quo are counting on that - with training under both Clintons especially the Big H - he'll be a great President - in 8 years - Hold onto your seats - the witch hunts tried to get rid of us and guess what - We're baaaaaaaack! Women of the World are watching - Beijing has not been forgotten.

Collea-Devi Goetz
Pleas DO print this!!!!! `

Collea, you are a racist to call Obama a child. The racists for years have referred to us as such. Shame on you. Without the Black vote, Hilliary can not get elected. 8 more years of GOP.

If bill clinton thinks he is a help to his wife's campaign he is out of touch with the people. Folks are just tired of his brand of politics. He has been as polorizing figure as bush 43 and he really ought to get of the campaign trail. He is really hurting Hilliary's chances.

Billary got nasty. Well, all Obama has to do is run an ad
showing Nixon(watergate), Reagan(Iran contra), W (Irak and WMD's) and Bill Clinton (I did not have sex with that woman) in the moment of lying. Then someone with a grave voice says
"Want change? Obama for President"

Collea u are racist to refer to Obama as a child he is a 43yr old man and a serious candidate for president and to try to marginlize him is just wrong. Just because Hillary is a woman doesn't mean she deserves the nod. Let her inspire the dems and stop all of the Billary attacks. If she can not inspire then she needs to quit

The swipes that the Clinton's take at Obama are laughable. I remember Whitewater, Travelgate, and the rest of the crap Billy was up too when he was in charge.

I'd mind my P's & Q's if I were him...It can get very nasty if all the stops are pulled out by Obama.

Regardless of the "polls" (we know who controls them), I like Edwards & Huckabee!!!

I was on the fence about Obama until during the past week. why, you may ask? I heard him comment that If he won the nomination, then the Clinton supporters would support him, but he doubted if his supporters would support Senator Clinton. I believe this is a veiled threat. All of this will do nothing to unite the Democratic Party and will do everything to divide it. I do not believe that Obama can continue to call himself a Democrat and threaten to pull his supporters away from whomever the party nominates. If he is going to take his marbles and go home, if he looses the nomination, then I say good riddance. We have three very competent candidates running for the nomination. If any one of them wins the nomination, I would hope and pray that they will unite to defeat the Republicans and return this country to some sort of sanity. And sorry, but even though I think others may not like what Bill Clinton says, many times he has spoken the truth--especially about the media stirring up the pot and drawing this whole nomination process down into a battle of female vs Afro-American, etc. etc. instead of what we as a people need to hear--what these candidates intend to do to remedy the mess we're in. We need to put a solid majority into Congress with a strong Democratic president so that the Republicans cannot continue to block what needs to be done to help the people of this country. If worse came to worse, a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Edwards ticket or any other permutation would be good.
Let;s just get over all of this. Enough already! WE need to beat the GOP! Not divide our own party.

One year from this week we will see our first woman president. In 2012 maybe our first African American president. Obama needs more experiance, just as badly as I need on on spell checker on my phone.

Levy, admit it, the Jews hate Obama because his middle name is Hussein and they know that he will not be their puppet.

This is ridiculous. Honestly Levy, were you ever going to vote for Obama?

Side note Latasha - don't use a last name to make your arguments - it is unbelievably sloppy and, in this case, antisemitic. If you're trying to talk about Israel than say so.

Back to Levy. In terms of dividing the party: Isn't it much more serious that Billary is trying to label Obama as "The Black Candidate" and use racial lines to win this primary election? Obama's comment was trying to say that he appeals to a broader coalition of voters. These voters might not vote for Hillary anyway. He's not saying: Don't vote for the democratic nominee.

Arjun, Arun Ghandhi got it right on the Washington Post's "On Faith" page.

Oh, for crying out loud. Now it's the Jews that don't like Obama because his middle name is Hussein? Can you for once use your head for something other than to keep your ears apart? I did for quite awhile think I would support Obama because of his oratory and because I do feel that we need inspiration in this world. If I were black, I would be insulted by the premise that I would only vote for a black man. Just as much as I am insulted by the thought that as a woman I would only vote for a woman. I am hoping that whomever gets the nomination will truly be a uniter. And if Afro-Americans think that the Jews hate Obama, then we are adding another dimension of hate and hostility to this process. Just what we need. So you probably think that I support Bush in the Middle East, too, don't you because as we all know, the Jews and the Republicans are all in bed together. Get real. I am really sorry that we can't have a rational discussion of views anywhere on the web. It appears that it has been highjacked by the intellectually impaired who only use the web to spout stupidity.

Rachele, the Democratic Party has built a party based upon "identity politics", now we are seeing the natural outcome of such a strategy, the deconstruction of the party over the scraps that are suppose to go to each "identity" group. Unfortunately, there is not enough to go around. The Republicans will be the beneficiaries. Since Wall Street has taken over the party, we are not allowed to discuss "class", only "identity politics" which does not endanger the economic ruling class. We see that our jobs are going overseas and we are sinking to a third world colony status where we export raw materials and import finished goods.

"As the Clinton campaign admits".

That wasn't an admission, it was a talking point. Why are you advancing it with a complete lack of skepticism, not only for the rationale, but for the source?

he's 46.

R Levy and Allen - thank you.
For the thinking impaired - Obama was asked by a New Hampshire voter WHAT would he do to MAKE the change he so magnificently in/aspires to (It's on one of the NPR stories- look it up if you must - it was right before the primary) He had nothing to say only sputter - then he stole Clinton's ideas and tried to make them look like his - Racist! I wouldn't elect anyone who spouts off rhetoric - no matter how inspiring, without a plan or strategy to back it up, anymore than I'd vote for two men that said they would use nukes on Iran - that is why he is a child - I wouldn't care if he was purple and 100yo - he doesn't know what it takes to be President and further, after his first mansion purchase he stopped being one of the "people". Hillary has dedicated her entire life to PUBLIC service - go to her web site - read - watch her speak- better yet hear/see her in person - way different than any soundbite - after having lots of money and loosing everything I owned two or three times - I know what it takes to live. She hasn't had my experiences but she knows what I've been through - She knows what it takes to keep a business - big or small - what it takes to get upon your feet after a fall - how to get legislation passed - is respected around the world and can clearly think with her entire brain - like multitasking - basically a right brain forte. She has many more qualifications for President and experience with the "people" that qualifies her to know what we need and imagine this... if she doesn't know and sometimes even when she does - she'll ASK - like asking directions - imagine that!! Bill is sweet and still maintains 60's values - but Big H doesn't need him to speak for her and he knows it - She does an excellent job. She is strong and won't run away from a fight when necessary but will do her best to avoid it - Drop the gauntlet and watch how Presidential she is, every time. Obama found that out when she spoke truthfully that he doesn't take responsibility for his decisions. He is a foolish child who will make a fine President someday - frankly I know lots of men who have never grown up and after being at what was then all male positions, I see how they cry foul when you give them a dose of their own medicine - I give you permission to start using your brain and maturity - truly, it's not something you can fake.
Collea-Devi Goetz

Collea,

Hillary has dedicated her entire life to the greater service - the greater service of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her longest career was as a corporate lawyer. As first lady she made no lasting changes to the office except to remind us that, yes, the FLOTUS can fail at policy too. As a senator, she has no major legislation to her name, and as far as passing legislation, I'll try to not let you forget that before voting for the Iraq War she spoke before the senate about Iraq giving aid to Al Qaeda (apparently this was in the briefing she got on the National Intelligence Estimate, since she didn't bother to read it). She and her husband spent last week castigating Barack Obama for saying nice things about Republicans (never mind that he didn't say it).

Feel free to call someone names (like child, not a man), but when you try to make HRC into someone she's not - honest, experienced, and presidential - please understand that for GP's sake (General Principle), we have to call BS on you.

A lot of hot air from the blog community on this one. I get tired of everyone being so confident that they know exactly what will go down. All these assertions are without substantiation. In any event, I only wanted to say that it is inspiring to see Obama do so well with such a diverse group and in the south. Really, the tension between whether Hillary or Barack will get the final sweep is still with us, despite what happened. They've had fairly equal number of gains on each other. Sadly and honestly, I prefer Edwards to both of them, but see his chances in a constant ebb.
And enough with the assertions about whether or not America can vote in a black or a female president. It would take a group of highly dedicated sociologists to come close to knowing if that's true, certainly not a rag-tag group of individuals like us with nothing but our own experience AS INDIVIDUALS to go on. I get weary of people thinking they can sum up all of America in one glib statement. Of course, I am at home with a cold, so more cross and misanthropic than usual.

Thank you to the posters that brought the level of this discussion back to the issues at hand. Listen, I'm from NY. Do I support Mrs. Clinton? No. Would I vote for her if she was the Democratic candidate? Probably. If Obama wins the nomination, would I vote for him. Probably. The whole idea is to get the Republicans OUT. By the way, the one candidate that I do support wholeheartedly is John Edwards. He has been the only one who has come out with clear plans for what he intends to do once he is President. Check out his Health Plan that was way out there before HRC and Obama even started to talk Health Care. And if you watched the first few debates, basically Obama was following his lead on many plans presented. If the media had not pushed the "star power" angle of this race and limited themselves to either the "inevitability" of HRC and the "rock star" image of Obama, we may actually have had a real discussion of issues. The only one to really do so in every one of his campaign moments has been Edwards. Starting from New Orleans and moving on to Iowa and he continues to push issues and discuss the place that class, not race or gender, has on the lack of power of the people. It's a fallacy to just focus on race or gender as the reason d'etre for powerlessness. Class position causes the frictions between the have nots and the other have nots. It is in the interest of the ruling class to keep the pot boiling among the the poor, the disenfranchised, the races, the sexes, however you want to divy up the rest of us poor slobs. By dividing the lower classes up by identity, it fractures the potential power base that we would have as a united front. Doesn't anyone remember "Power to the People", "United we stand, divided we fall", "We shall all hang together or we shall all hang separately".....These are not idle sentiments. We need to stand together. We learned this back in the 50s and the 60s and yes the 70s. That's MLK's message---power goes to those who are powerless by the strength of their unity. He was not a beacon of hope just for African-Americans, but for ALL those who had no hope of a better future. He was for the poor, white or black, Asian or Latino, Christian or Islamic or Jewish, against war and the sins against mankind. Why did this message get lost and just become a "black thing"? That belittles the man and his vision. That is why we all need to keep out eyes on the prize--black or white. If Obama becomes the best candidate for the Democratic Party then we must stand together. If HRC does, ditto. If Edwards, does, again, ditto. The GOP loves all this fighting among ourselves. They practically salivate when they see this. And all those white guys in suits all stand shoulder to shoulder against the rest of us. Check out any scenes from any GOP candidates rallies and all you see are white folk. Are we going to break down into the Black Democratic Party, the Female Democratic Party, the Jewish Democratic Party....ad nauseum?

Paul, you are right to support Edwards. He is my man.

I couldn't agree more with Rachele, as this is part of my overall view of society and politics. Money is the great dividing line of opportunity and comfort, not color or gender or faith. And yes, we need to get around the GOP strangle hold on progress. Does anyone know of any precident for someone like Edwards actually coming through at the last hour, despite the hype to the contrary? Any dark-horse candidates in recent history to shock the established media by sweeping Super Tuesday regardless of the odds? I'm not being ironic. I can't think of one, but I didn't pay much attention to politics when I was a young republican at the beginning of the nineties. [Thankfully anyone can change.]

Lesson learned here, or perhaps just a reminder, never ever speak out about anything which can evenly remotely be twisted and used as being about race, even if it happens to be the truth. i.e. Jesse Jackson won in S.C. OMG! How dare Bill Clinton say such a thing. The point being made by Mr. Clinton, is a win in S.C. by a black person, is not necessary representative of a nationwide pulse. Oh, wait, prior to his saying that, no one had noticed that Obama is black, right? Just like no one has noticed that Hillary is female, right? Would it be just too much to ask for voters to look inside the package and examine the contents? Obama is highly unqualified and focusing on the wrapping of the package, rather than the contents is an advantage for Obama, but a big loss for everyone else.

"Obama is highly unqualified and focusing on the wrapping of the package, rather than the contents..." Sharon, please substantiate this claim. I want concrete bullet points.

Mr. Miller, "Any dark-horse", this is referring to the Black man. You whites just don't get it.

Leroy, stop distracting the conversation with your trolling. Is Edward's black? I don't think he knows this - perhaps you should give him a call.

Paul Miller: Bullet point one: When Obama was elected to the Senate from Illinois, he had weak competition, did not have to stand a hard test to qualify for the job. Point two: In the Senate, he has abstained, just given a 'present' on more than 130 votes. This is either not informed enough to make a decision or refusing to make a vote that could come back to bite you when you run for president which makes your just another politician at best, looking out for your career rather than serving the government. Point three; Has little contact with world leaders and little influence. Picked up the phone to call some of his contacts in Kenya to ask them to stop the blood shed and of course, they were not impressed as they are still busy chopping each other to pieces with machetes. Point four; Has chaired few committees of importance in the Senate. Point five; Has co-sponsored few bills and the one on ethics which he touted in one of the debates, is certainly one he should practice for himself as he had been in the Senate only a short time until he began to push for additional funding for the avian flu and he just happened to own $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies which just happened that two of his biggest financial supporters where major investors in and they just happened to be starting to develop a drug to treat avian flue. I could continue, but one of my pet peeves on these back and forth discussions are the people who feel compelled to write a book. Please understand, I like the heck out of Obama, what's not to like as he is a charming and motivational person? I just happen to love my country and I refuse to get caught up in the motivational hype. I remember when everyone was hyped about George W. and that certainly turned out to be just what everyone should have been looking for. Not!

Sharon, it is obvious that you are a bigot. If Obama was a EuroAmerican like Edwards, you would say these things. Just lay off of Obama. Wait until November, we may just go fishing if Hilliary gets the nomination.

Willy...Say what?????

McCain won't be our next President, neither will Obama or Hillary or Romney. I'm so tired of presidential candidates spewing all of these promises, and then when elected, it never happens. They just become hypocrites. I see that already in some of the candidates now.

Sharon,

PT 1 - He had a weak test when elected to the Senate. Yeah, and? He's not responsible for that. He had a strong test when he ran for Congress and lost that one. It didn't seem to destroy him to lose that race; he learned from it to become a better candidate later. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html

PT 2 - He voted present 130 times. Out of 4,000 votes. Sometimes at the urging of Planned Parenthood to give cover to other politicians. Sometimes against his own bills. Sometimes to make a point about a popular measure that was going to pass overwhelmingly, yet he thought went to far. Out of 4,000 votes.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437

PT 3 - He has little influence with world leaders. As a lone US Senator, how much influence should he have? How do you even measure that? You think if he becomes President the rest of the world will blow him off? And if he were to drop all active campaigning and move to a foreign country where he is not a native and doesn't speak the local dialect in order to prevent their civil war, could he count on your vote this fall?

PTs 4 & 5 - He has little senate experience. Compared to whom? I'm sorry, if you wanted experience Biden and Dodd have already left the race. Oh, and that stock purchase? It was purchased through a blind trust and eventually sold for a loss. http://mediamatters.org/items/200703090008.

During the week before the SC primary, I spoke to Bill and to Hillary after attending their presentations and heard Obama for the second time when he appeared at Clemson Friday afternoon to a huge crowd who stood in line for over an hour in the cold to clear security. I was undecided among the top three candidates still, but was surprised to get a message on my answering machine at 6:05 Friday night that was very negative about Edwards by the Clinton Campaign, according to the call. I was furious and called the Columbia Clinton office where I was told that they were not making the calls, but recorded the message I received and said they would do a news release to the larger papers about it. I found out on Sunday that there was an article in the Washington Post saying that the Clinton campaign did the calls Friday night to try to take the white votes from John Edwards. Although neither of the Clintons were in any way negative in the appearances I attended, I felt lied to about this dirty negative last minute campaign tactic.

Unfortunately, Regan the "great orator" was a fiscal and social disastor. I fear that Obama, while I admire him and his vision has offered very little of substance and is wearing rose colored glasses as far as the "change" ( a term I have really gotten tired of hearing) he thinks he can bring to Washington. I really think I see another Jimmy Carter coming.

Hillary Clinton did not make Obamma black.He(Obamma)just imagines himself as white and when he realized that people knew that he was black he cried foul on Mrs.Clinton for blowing his cover.He cant take even one little reference to his blackness.If he thinks this is bad,how will he hold up under the attacks from Karl Rove and the Republican machine?The Clintons will look like his fairy godparents compared to Rove and company.Also he will not get by without answering the important questions when he debates with the Republicans.No stealing their Ideas like he has from Edwards and Ms.Clinton.Mr.Clinton has every right to campaign for his wife.If Obamma cant take it he should get out of the race.This is American politics not a garden party for his benifit alone.

I think you are absolutely right.

Wow--if everyone who says "I prefer Edwards, really" VOTES for him in their primary this could be a whole new ballgame after 2/5. Besides this blog, I've heard that comment from about five people in the past few days. Why isn't the media even considering Edwards as a contender? Could it be that the media is very largely owned by the kind of corporate overlords Edwards excoriates? Hey! Do I smell coffee???

Hillary didn't make Obama black, but it was the Clintons who used the Southern Strategy the Republicans are so fond of to label his as a 'black candidate'. Do I want a Democrat who uses the Republican playbook on other Democrats? That's a traitor.

Furthermore, Hillary cannot win. She's alienated the black vote the very base of the Democratic party.

All these new Democrats that are coming out of the woodwork aren't coming out for her, all these new voters are voting for Obama.

This 'new generation' of democrats are inspired by Obama. To deny him the nomination is to disenfranchise an entire future generation of leaders and voters.

If the Billary is nominated 1) Republicans will come out enmasse 2) Independents will all swing for McCain 3) The blacks won't vote due to disenfranchisement from the Southern Strategy used by Billary 4) The new generation that is topping the polls with record numbers will lose hope and not vote.

Get it straight, Obama does not have the establishment the Clintons do, and he doesn't play by the most foul Republican playbook. He can unite. His message is consistent.

When CHANGE was the big byword out of Iowa, Hillary said 'Change, Im change'. When UNITY Was the byword out of Iowa, Hillary said she was a uniter.

Then they used the Rove playbook to make Obama look more black. Is that uniting? That makes Democrats angry.

Giving her the nomination would the be the worst thing to do now that the Clintons have shown a side of themselves most Democrats didn't know was there. Now that they do, there will be no excitement, no hope, no unity, no black vote, no independents - and no record turnouts.

If Obama is black than I'm blue!Mulatto,yes,but if he wanted to win the presidency at allhe would have dropped the Muslim Name,,This is a Christian country and unless the men dying in Iraq and Afghanistan mean nothing to the voters he has about as much chance of being president,as I do...

Kathleen, you've got it right

A oner term senator, no major legislation under his term, has promoted zilch, has missed more votes than any other democrat in recent history, has never been to Iraq, has no foreign policy experience, Yes hes a puppy and one that still needs to be potty trained.

You can bring all the advisors on board that have foreign policy experience but that doesn't give him the feet on the ground experience that he needs .

Has nevve met with any fordien leaders on iissues relevant to the worlds condition and your calling someone a racist for calling him a little boy??/ god damn what else are you simple minded bots gonna come up with nev=xrt that were unpatriotic for not supporting an empty suit that virtualy has no experience in doing anything but take money from corrupt lobbyists,

Naw Oblapie isn't ready for prime time in your simple and vacous mind he may be , but then again bots can be excused for their reflexive actions.

If Obama is black than I'm blue!Mulatto,yes,but if he wanted to win the presidency at all he would have dropped the Muslim Name,,This is a Christian country and unless the men dying in Iraq and Afghanistan mean nothing to the voters he has about as much chance of being president,as I do...

Barack and Hillary are so close on the issues that for most Democrats the differences are irrelevant and the primary question becomes one of intangibles (a popularity contest) and, more importantly, tangibles, i.e., how important is it to win in November and which candidate gives Democrats the best chance to capture the White House.

No one knows the latter; however, there are some knowns from this primary season.

First and foremost, what happens in SC in terms of the general election is irrelevant. No Democrat is carrying SC or any of the other firmly Republican states in the Bible Belt.

That said, the states at play are numerous, far more numerous than in '00 or '04.

Where is the "base" of Hillary's support? (1) people earning under $50k; (2) Jewish folks; (3) Latinos; (4) older folks; and (5) women.

Add African-Americans to that group and you have the traditional winning coalition for Democrats.

Now what about Barack? (1) African-Americans, (2) young people, and (3) the upwardly mobile and college-educated crowd.

Now imagine a worst-case scenario (for Democrats): a ticket with a blue-collar, war-hero "independent" Republican (McCain) and a "democratic" Independent (Joe Lieberman).

While some African-Americans and young people may be uninspired to go to the polls if Barack does not win the nomination, those few would only count as minuses in the Democratic column.

In contrast, consider Hillary's supporters.

Hispanics? If Kerry carried Clinton's level of support among Latinos he would have won FL and the White House. And while it's strictly verboten to speak of it in polite Democratic circles, anyone who lives in a community with large African-American and Latino or African-American and Jewish communities understands the tension and bitterness between those groups.

What about Hillary's supporters who are earning under $50k? Try to find a father in Scranton, PA or Buffalo, NY or Cleveland, OH who wouldn't be proud to have his son grow up to have the integrity and courage and resolve of McCain.

And what about those over 65? Hillary's support has been the strongest from that group (plus women). Given the power of the shared experience, will people of that generation wholeheartedly shift allegiance to Barack and disdain a war hero of their generation?

It seems likely that in the worst-case scenario if Hillary is the nominee, particularly if she has someone like Ed Rendell as her running mate who would only strengthen and broaden her support with the working class, Democrats could end up with minuses from African-Americans in states that Democrats have effectively zero chance of winning and some young folks (who are notoriously fickle when it comes to November: note the steady downward trend in under-25 participation since the hyper-micro-managed Iowa caucus).

In contrast, if Barack is the nominee, Democrats could end up not only with minuses but Republicans may very well gain many pluses in these key states: FL (Latino, elderly, Jewish); OH, PA, MI (working class); and NM, NV, AZ (Latino, working class).

As '00 reminded everyone, the passion and support of voters is important, but not nearly as important as the national distribution of that passion and support. While the outpouring of support for Barack from the African-American community in SC was heartening, if all African-Americans in the Bible Belt want to participate or stay home in November based on whether Barack wins the nomination couldn't be more irrelevant.

Is Barack inspirational? Sure is. He's the most dynamic candidate in quite some time. But if you're a Democrat and Mitt doesn't buy the Republican nomination, you have to ask yourself, how much will Barack inspire me IF (and, yes, that's a big "if") it's the summer of '10 and we're into the second year of a McCain administration, the excess inventory has been bled out of the real estate market, the stock market is ripping along, inflation is low, the dollar has appreciated, Iraq is moderately functional, and McCain's approval rating is at 73%.

Idealism earned America eight years of neo-conservative unilateralism when 96,837 people in Florida opted to vote for Ralph Nader while Al Gore lost by 1,725 votes. Imagine the difference 1,725 votes made over the last eight years.

S Ash, R Levy - I may not agree with everything you say but you speak elegantly, and, as far as I can see, most factually.

David - just because Bush says something it doesn't make it so and the same for you - hope you're not like him - don't confuse him with the facts - his mind is made up.

Here's why Hillary!! from my POV, of course:
1. To end the war in Iraq. To combat terrorism, strengthen our military and care for our veterans effectively. To restore America’s standing in the world and repair our alliances. To build a more tolerant, united America, working to achieve big goals again with a President who is ready for change and ready to lead from day one.
2. She is a moderate and is experienced in working with all sides of the aisle; can work well with global leaders; is intelligent and has good manners where it counts. She has proven herself a diplomat when visiting more than 80 countries, working with Congress and all interests. However you view Bill, he is a global asset to this country. She is the only candidate with enough EXPERIENCE to lead this country. You can trust that she will do and CAN accomplish what she says she will, because she has already demonstrated that
3. She is strong where it counts. She has learned from her mistakes, knows how to ask for directions and from whom, and has devoted her ENTIRE adult life to serving this country and its people. When she speaks she deals with the ISSUES not slimy muck and only responds ~ appropriately ~ when absolutely necessary to answer unfounded, erroneous and/or malicious gossip.
4. To achieve universal, affordable healthcare. To create good jobs for middleclass Americans with the right investments in modern infrastructure and in new, clean, energy efficient technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and combat global warming.
5. To provide world class education from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college for all. To promote 21st century scientific innovation, including stem cell research.
6. To return to fiscal responsibility, move back toward a balanced budget and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations. To restore competence and end cronyism in government with a President who cares about and works for Americans who have been invisible to this administration.
7. MOST IMPORTANT TO ME. I believe that she will end our current “Disaster and War Economy” paradigm and replace it with a Universal Trade / Production / Scholastic / Artistic economy while making the other changes that will promote a NEW paradigm.
I believe she is the ONLY one who can make the necessary changes for our great nation. She has more than rhetoric, she has a strategy and the experience that will work —
For an America that works for ALL Americans – there's only one – Hillary Clinton - President 2008 - Thank you Collea-Devi goetz

If newtie newt is correct in his prediction that mccain will be the next 'commander-in-chief', then, we as americans are doomed to idiocy...(so what else is new, newtie???)

"Here's why Hillary!! ", Collea dear, please learn to spell your candidate's name correctly. It is Hilliary, with two i's. You are not smarter than a fifth grader. Go back to school.

Nightslider dear, you have too many spelling and grammar mistakes for me to bother with. It appears to be that people that support Hilliary are not smarter than a fifth grader. It appears that too many of the losers and dregs of our society support Senator Clinton. I am not one of them. It is all about class honey.

Webster - you are WRONG
Collea-Devi

The "black candidate" ? I don't know, I looked at all the candidates and decided Obama was the one for me. It didn't have anything to do with race. And it's a silly claim, since he won the majority of votes in many different groups. The Clintons can call him the "black candidate" but I'm not listening. I don't think he is a candidate only for blacks, but even if such a claim were more credible, I'd still vote for him because I like his policies. I hope people think for themselves about such an assertion and don't just accept it tacitly. Besides, look at Iowa!

And I don't think this was a top-notch article in the respect that it didn't show that people were listening to the Clintons. Maybe they are- maybe there's a media furor over it that I haven't heard- if so, write about that, don't just assert the Clintons' claim. It makes me suspicious.

Sharon Ash, thanks for the response. I recognized most of your points from the last debate, but what I was standing up for was the idea that we should not be repeating bites that pundits give us, but instead formulate our opinions based on observation and fact gathering. I wasn't picking you out specifically, but I happened to be in a mood to challenge anyone to show that they were keeping their eyes and ears open to more than just the blurbs. So, thanks.

As always happens when ethnicity is part of a conversation here, we bog down like a light weight truck in the mud. If indeed the Clinton campaign is hoping to use ethnicity to divide us, our best collective response is not to waste our energy duking out the nuances of our 'race relations'. Instead, we should all learn to simply take a breath, let it out and say, 'At the end of the day, we are all just people, the kind of heart, the shitheads, the benign and the malignant - just people.' From that place, we can better assess our true opinions without feeling defensive in our positions. Just a thought. Otherwise, they win in creating confusion and division. After all, if the Clintons are a little guilty of this now, than we all need a better defense to get through what the GOP will try to do with it later.

Just some facts about american population data - 53% of the American population is Female. I think its about time a woman had a go at running this country - NOW THAT WLD BE REAL CHANGE. Woman have lead muslim, European and Asian countries , but never in this wonderful American Democracy of ours - what a damn joke!! Its time to change - Its time for some WOMEN POWER baby!!

I think what everyone is really wondering is - can she deep throat an elk? I mean, really? Or perhaps someone like porn star Mandingo and his 15" dong? Huh, whaddya think, Hillary??

I love Obama's pretty prose, but wish he could back it up with specific policy plans--which Hillary tends to go overboard on. These aren't anybody's talking points, just a report from an avid viewer of c-span.

The thing I don't get is everyone getting so appalled by tough campaigning and a strategic maneuver of trying to connect Obama to Jesse Jackson. Hello?! It's the obvious move in a competitive nomination battle. Suppose Obama wins this nomination: What do we expect to hear from the GOP?!?!? (Have you seen how even righteous John McCain is twisting a Romney remark about timetables for exiting Iraq?) They are going to have a field day on the drug use. The only hope that Obama could ever have of becoming president in 2008 is this: That Billary makes all of his weak points (real or just apparent--including the name and the meaning of his skin color in a nation with our history!) so well-worn in the American psyche between now and the Democrat nomination being sown up that no one will be very excited by any of it when the GOP starts repeating it all. (And the thing Hillary has going for her there is that there's nothing new under the sun to get upset about, just lots and lots and lots of old stuff.)

My point is that Obama and his supporters need to get used to the idea that people compete hard to get their hands on the kind of power and prestige that goes with that office. He can react to that junk in any way that he thinks will help him win, even if it's to whine, I guess, but I don't think whining is going to seem very presidential. Either ignore it and get on with naming some specifics (particularly what sort of NEW and MODERATE positions he's going to move to, from his undistinguished liberal record to date, to bring all Americans together!!), or dish back as good as ya get. But to pretend it's racist when anyone voices a question about whether he can deliver any specifics to measure up to all his rhetoric is really silly. And worse, it makes all the expressions of true racism out there look less harmful than they really are. 'Where's the beef' is not automatically a racist question just because one's interlocutor is black. (And, sorry, but most Americans already realized he was a black-skinned man long before Billary "painted" him as such. Let's not start blaming the Clintons for the size of his ears or his height next, ok? Even they cannot control absolutely all of reality, much as you love to hate them for any excuse and none.)

Nelly, it is our turn now, the Black Man. Without the Black vote, the Democrats will lose, 8 more years of GOP.

Wow- So much passion and wrong headed opionions. If you don't think Obama has a plan, listen to his words, not just his outstanding oratory. Why does that seem to irritate so many people - he speaks clearly enough. If you think Obama is not saying anything of essence, just because he says it well, then you're not listening. If you can't listen, read his book. If you think Billary isn't manipulative you didn't watch the near tear scene in N.H. or pay attention to the mojo in MJ by Jonathan Stein. He nailed it. Bill Clinton is not that stupid, to alienate so many people by becoming so hostile to someone who not only preaches unity but practices it or tries to by keeping race (and gender) out of the debates from the start.(And he was unjustly criticized for that by claiming he was pretending to be white). Don't you people get it? He doesn't think race or gender should matter. And it shouldn't. He has more ties to the white community anyway if it comes to that. Why can't everyone just lose the freakin' concept of race. Why is Hillary predending to run for president when it's now obvious Bill is the candidate? Bill Clinton tried to ridicule Obama and piss him off right from the start so he could start the racial thing. We all know the media ignored Edwards completely and Obama mostly for months now, in favor of Hillary who was obviously being groomed to be president by everyone, so his accusation that the media was behind Obama was laughable. Clinton did make it clear that he will be in charge if Hillary wins. Is that supposed to be reassuring or acceptable? Is this a monarchy where families reign on and on? What happened to the first woman president and all that crap? When a man of vision with great leadership talent (since when is inspiring people a bad thing?)came along with a a new vision and the charisma and inspirational magic to make other people see and feel it - it caused hubby Bill to worry that he might miss his grab for the power ring again, and they cooked up the S. Carolina landslide deliberately to make it look like a white against black issue. Obama probably knew he was being set up but had to fight back to avoid looking too weak to be president but by doing so he fell into the Billary trap. Thank heaven there are a few ethical people of power out there who also saw what was happening, and stepped in. I'm talking Ted Kennedy of course.. S. Carolina would have gone to Obama anyway, but probably not by much. By pissing everyone off , Bill managed to make it a landslide to sway public opinion because they are gambling on getting the next important state, California,
which has a whole lot of the Mexicans who love Hillary (and admit they are prejudiced)
and it just might push some (now) nervous whites her way too. I think Bill Clinton may be reverting to what he was probably born and raised as - he sure seemed to enjoy his attack. And did anyone get Hillary's nonchalant explanation as "oh well, that was caused by sleep deprivation". How stupid do they think we are? How cleverly contrived and manipulative. Is this a set up between Bill and the media as well - pretending to be mad at the news media, when Hillary's nomination and election will obviously benefit the sponsors? Is it all just a joke and we are the ultimate fools? I'll take a chance on Obama, at least he hasn't had time to learn to be so slimy. (and all you people who say you want Edwards, how come nobody votes for him then?)

Thanks to Mother Jones its smart, fearless role in the media.

How can one read all these comments and not want to speak up! I guess one can’t. As an environmental scientist and humanist (labels for orientation), I do need to put in a few points about SUSTAINABILITY (environmental, social, economic) as a bipartisan focus. The stability of our 'modern' society is precarious – and has become more so since the 80s when, symbolically Reagan turned us away from climate change, planned parenthood, social sensitivity, etc. and towards the enclavism, the divine right of the rich, and the American Dream. Look at the world food indicators (per person); nearly all of them peaked back in the 80s. Since then, we have had 12 yrs of similar policies. Clinton did make a difference in many of these trends despite little backing from congress and he failed with others – remember Kyoto, gays in the military, the 4cent gas tax. He did reinstate funding for Planned Parenthood, which was again withdrawn with the inauguration of GWB. This seemingly small act made a huge difference in the lowering of the rate of world population growth during the nineties. Also symbolically, the year 2008 was predicted to be the year in which we would see peak in oil production as demand overcomes supply (naturally there were other predictions). This is a complicated computation, but one can understand easily that the down side of this curve is much less friendly than the up side. Oil wars and price increases are expected responses to this problem. If one researches the data, there are plenty of other unfavorable global trends in food, available water, fish, desertification, immigration, arable land, deforestation, rich-to-poor ratios, sales of military arms, etc. It’s bad enough to look at the fragility of our economy, and thereby the global economy. Neither may respond, as we would like, to simple knob twisting. History has taught us that failure to adapt to resource, cultural, or economic changes is a precursor to collapse.

What I believe adamantly is that the worst thing the US and the planet could have is continued policies of the present administration. A full sweep for the Democrats is the only hope, and this should be our primary objective. However, the leader of this sweep must understand the magnitude and urgency of the problem, must have experience in the functioning of both the US and international governance, must understand the dysfunction of our democracy (corporate influence), mush understand the dysfunction of the global market (no social, environmental, political accountability), not be a social bigot.

What I know scientifically is that this is likely to be our last chance to stave off a planetary crisis of incalculable dimensions. Considerable damage is already done (as Al Gore has explained about climate) but to keep the ship afloat we need an all-out effort, NOW. I realize that because of the learning curve, this is difficult to accept for persons who had less exposure to the information. This is why leadership, knowledge, and experience are so critically important in this election. Like it or not, the US is the best, and maybe only, country to lead us out of this predicament. Like it or not, the US is not at all independent of the rest of the world. Like it or not, we cannot solve an issue here and issue there, most of our problems are irrevocably connected. This is why accepting a practical vision of SUSTAINABILITY is essential to guiding a bipartisan reform of our infrastructure, governance, economy, and social attitudes.

If I could roll up Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucnich, and Gore into one leader, I would vote with hope and confidence in that one.

Ditto, Tommy, you belong on the Blue Marble blog or drifting down Old Man River. This line is for serious talk about "identity politics". What is the future of "identity politics"? We have a Civil War going on in the party.

Paul Miller: Your reasoned thinking in a country in which far too many voters rely on sound bites of information rather than dig for facts, is a breath of fresh air.

If you think that Obama supporters are going to support Hillary and reward Bill for their less than honorable conduct during this campaign YOU ARE SORELY MISTAKEN. We are TIRED of the same old dirty tricks, and divisive politicking. They throw a rock and then complain when someone picks it and says something about it. They throw the race card, then blame Obama when anybody disagrees or calls it what it is. Anyone who calls them on their crap is labeled "part of the Obama campaign - or Obama himself."

I suggest those of you who are seriously thinking about rewarding Bill and Hillary rent the movie "Primary Colors" and watch it in light of what is going on today. It is illuminating - and it would be even if it were not based on the Clintons.

OK. This post is just plain cracked. No politician tries to lose a precinct, a county, or a state. Sure, maybe they don't fight in areas where they know they can't win, but that's not what you wrote about. The risk associated with an attempted loss is far too high. Especially in a presidential race, and especially considering how cloase 2000 was and how divided the country is right now. Even the internal Democratic and Republican divides are too close and bitter right now to risk a "calculated" loss in the primary.

All the way with L.B.J
who hoo!!

I hope you are right. I am totally disheartened. If the Clintons brought back to life the pall of racism we thought was dead in Iowa, they will succeed. Sadly, Hillary will win to McCain who will be another mad King George insofar as war. Of course, he will have to renact the military draft and then let us see what the "patriots" in our midst react when they start killing and maiming their own children.

Everyone quit stressing, will you? Hillary wins the nomination: everyone votes for Hillary. Obama wins the nomination: everyone votes for Obama.

As has been observed, the main thing is to get the Reds out.

The bad news, of course, is that our choices are limited to these two. The good news is that, despite the bad news, the debate has advanced immensely from eight years ago.

Now, even the Reds are giving lip service to National Health. True, their version is just another giveaway to the HMOs (as Billary and Obama's are, to a large degree), but at least it's in the debate.

The democratic voter turnout in the primaries so far is more than encouraging. It's almost as though voters have discovered that politics is at least as engaging as "reality" TV!

Now all we need is a third party.

----------
Kill your TV, and free your mind!