Hillary knows what's coming from the media, and probably knows how to deal with it. Obama? I just don't buy it.

When you say that Obama is the greater political talent, though, what exactly do you mean by that?

A)  Why keep trying to explain and justify the Reagan and "party of change" comments, thus keeping the story alive?  Why not move on and let the story die?

B)  Why let the Media keep finding racial entrails to pore over, letting himself get tagged as an "identity" candidate, even more than he is anyway.  Ask him or his surrogates if the Clinton campaign is injecting race, Obama always goes agnostic, will not comment.  This tacitly keeps the story alive, to his ultimate detriment, because a near-term boost in SC will backlash in later states.

C)  Why let Rezko feed that photo of Rezko with Bill and Hillary to Drudge and Matt Lauer?  If checking out the Clinton's connection to Rezko is legitimized, the he said/she said frees up the press to look into Obama's connections also.

Neither Obama nor Hillary match my position on issues. No candidate would. (Kucinich came closest.)

I have praised and criticized both of them. Example: I've criticized Hillary for her statement that she had concerns in principle with retroactivity of the crack-powder sentencing guideline changes and I've praised Obama for his work to protect the wrongfully accused in Illinois.

That said, what I object to most is the "change" meme. I don't buy it for a second. It's a tired, generic phrase used by every politician who ever tried to get into office or unseat an incumbent.

I don't want to buy a pig in a poke. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. I want a President with experience who can get things done in Washington, not just complain about how Washington has to change. It's Congress that enacts and repeals laws and the President needs clout there.

I don't want someone who will compromise on my issues and claim a bi-partisan win. I don't want one who goes into the White House seeking "a working majority" which is a code word for "working with Republicans."

I could go on   and on, but for me, it's Clinton or Edwards, and I'd be happy with either one. I'll support Obama if he gets the nomination, but I hope he doesn't get it.  He might be the right candidate in 2016, but he isn't ready now. I think he knows it and that's why as recently as last night in his speech, he's warning people not to expect change overnight and says it will take years. It's almost as if he knows he can't make it happen.

There are many ways that he could have made his point of his campaign being the way of the future without being so dismissive of the performance of past generations of Democrats. While he speaks of unity, he has unnecessarily persued a divide and conquer campaign IMO. I,personally, do not see how framing the problems now facing the country as being the result of both parties being almost equally at fault is good for the party or for the Progressive movement.

How much time and how many important programs will be lost before he is willing to fight partisan battles or learns to do so effectively. I question that he could actually do that without being called out by the MSM as being a hypocrite and attacking him viciously due to the fact that his entire campaign is based on the theme of Bipartisanship Forever.

1. She knows the White House and how it works.
   
2. She learned how the Senate runs.
   
3. She works hard.
   
4. She likes government, that is very important.
   
5. She wants to make government work.
   
6. She will make all those lazy ass fat old Dem Senators do something for once (watch her interview with Reno Gazette)
   
7. She is a woman...yes a woman.  

1. The couple of things he did in the neighborhood he flubbed up and blamed the victims (his work in affordable housing).
   
2. He is a carefully packaged by Axelrod and backed by a political machine that we don't know.
   
3. His positions are to the best right of Hillary. Yes, when it mattered he voted with the system.
   
4. He loves power for power sake.
   
5. He does not care or understand how government works.
   
6. The idealist package will blind the masses while his cohorts continue to rip off our government, while he trains, and looks pretty, two-three years of nothing.
   
7. He will delegate and do nothing but happy talk. (watch the Reno Gazette interview for one hour)
   
8. Why do the right wingers love him?
   
9. Why does the media love him?

I hate it because it means the nation is driven by the ill-considered opinions of people like David Brooks.  They seem to have developed a crush on Obama that is, I'm pretty sure, not connected to his positions or his political ability.  Their love for him may or may not be borne out by circumstances if he is elected (I hope so) -- but is this what we want to base our governance on?  David Brooks' man crush?

And the media is fickle.  If Obama is the nominee, I hope that they stick with him through eight years.  I think it will be important to brand Obama explicitly the media candidate so that the media understands that they made him and they mustn't abandon him.

But I think it's all too likely that, should Obama blow Clinton out on February 5th (a not impossible result in my mind even if unlikely) that come February 25th, and the Rezko trial, the media might be reporting "Gee, it's hard to see what those Democrats ever saw in the guy".

 1.these two are not progressives

 2. I definitely want to move towards national healthcare

Obama will be no different. They will turn on him...Unlike the Clinton's the attacks on him will be real, brutal and sly and the media will play along.

And I disagree with you, compromising ahead of time is his DNA. Read Krugman's book to see how crucial  the  success of a universal health care is in ushering in a potenial new Democrtic and progressive era.  

In many other arenas she is more progressive and more partisan than he is.  The inability to understand why what he said about Reagan was bad is telling.  That was framing which helps and keeps helping to build the Republican brand and not ours.

This is a visceral gut reaction for me, and for a few others here, and it won't be overcome by BS.

I'm not ready to move towards Sen Obama yet. I feel like the "Gangs all here" with Sen Obama. There has to be some hand outs.

Ted Kennedy's endorsement turns me off as a women. And the effect of these endorsement will have an effect on the women's vote.

At this point.. I beleive that the Dems do not have a very strong chance against McCain should he get the nomination. That goes for both Sen Obama and Sen Clinton. It may not be a populat idea but.... I'm looking at 4 more years of Repub in the White House.

As a result, I think the dem party will benefit in huge dividends under President Obama.

We are already seeing the increased interest, the higher turnout, the young people voting for perhaps the first time (once a dem always a dem). The Obama campaign is serious about its promise to reach out to red states and independents and we see lots of endorsements from red state superdelegates who know that the Clintons will hurt them down ticket.

Obama's charisma and likability will broaden the dem party and as a result we may see more purple states. We will undeniably have a 50 state strategy in 2008, 2010, and 2012. The Clintons theory of winning is to get 51% - fight over Ohio or Florida. Obama will fight in Kansas, Arizona, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, etc etc

And finally with a strengthened and more diverse and inclusive dem party we will have a better chance to discuss and tackle the things that divide us like racism, and classism, homophobia and religious intolerance...

Ultimately my reasons for being an Obama supporter tie directly into the premise of this post.  If you looked at the three candidates, there overall positions on issues are pretty similar.  So it comes down to deciding who's got the best chance of success at making these positions reality.

What I think is frequently ignored is that the difficulties we face in putting together a truly progressive agenda is not just about party divides.  How many blue dog democrats are there out there who'd vote against serious health care reform?  How many hawk democrats are out there who'd want to keep us in Iraq forever?

To make headway as President, you have to be able to convince people to work with you.  The only reason Bush could get things done without doing so is he had the 9/11 club to wield and nobody wanted to get in the way of that.  If you look at everything he's tried to do that wasn't somehow tied to 9/11, it's been an utter failure.  Why?  Because he won't get people on his side.

My sense is that of the three candidates, Obama is the best at being able to convince people to work to common purpose.  To convince people to vote their conscience on one issue, against party lines.  If you look at his record in Illinois, he did this.  He managed to take good legislation and make it happen, not by playing partsian games, but by simply working the players and convincing them that it was the right thing to do.  

My sense is that Clinton will never be able to get past the zero sum game that we have now.  Republicans will be hard pressed to work with her because she's seen as the bride of the anti-christ by the right.  I don't see her being able to persuade people within her party to move beyond their existing positions.  So my fear is that we'll just see a lot of good legislation stalling to vetoes in the Senate as we do now.  

But i think she took that "experience" to a higher plane, saying that she was the only candidate to have fought and won against the right wing slime machine. Guess that depends on how you define winning.

Hillary may define winning on how many convictions or settlements were obtained or not. I don't think the right wingers saw convictions as a result of any of the investigations as a goal, more some gravy they would love.

i think the goal of the right wingers was the "perception" that was created after awhile that she and/or bill must have done something wrong to have so many investigations conducted. i think the goal was using the civil process to leak dirt against the clintons, and then they got pay dirt when clinton lied during paula jones proceedings.