I am starting to think that, contrary to the dominant meme, HRC supporters are the ones that need to grow up.

To be fair, most HRC supporters are grown-ups. It's just a certain vocal minority that might make you think otherwise.

Nah, don't hold back. I already got myself called a "Hitlary SS soldier" today, so anything else will seem insignificant by comparison.

I've been listening to Obama since before he started running for President. I'd love to have a good all-around president. Maybe Obama is "the one". I have yet to see any evidence to suggest he'll be "the one".

Obama's success is partly that Obama is a great candidate, but also partly that Hillary is such a poor candidate. Her own supporters rarely make a positive case for her. It's mostly a case about how Obama is this or isn't that or said this or did that, etc. Ask them about the AUMF and the reply is much more likely to be a statement about Obama than a straight explanation for Hillary's vote, and if you do get an explanation it will be evasive (except from the hawkish Democrats who support her for just that reason). The same for talking about her handling of health care reform fifteen years ago. The same for pretty much everything.

And if you make a case against Hillary based on her hawkish votes, her hawkish rhetoric, her inability to admit mistakes, etc., etc., you'll just be accused of being a "Hillary Hater." Much the way that anyone arguing that Bush has been a bad president is said to have "Bush Derangement Syndrome" in wingnut circles. Or you'll be accused of misogyny.

If the other choice were a genuinely good candidate, then Obama wouldn't be doing as well as he's doing.

Well, I grant you that he's an outstanding campaigner. I'm not sure whether he's the better candidate.

Yes, the AUMF vote was entirely boneheaded and it no doubt hurt her. I think that she was afraid of voting against the way in case it turned out well, given the example of what happened to the presidential aspirations of Dems who voted against Gulf War I 10 years earlier. Well, I guess she was being too clever by half then.

Still, I have hard time believing Obama would have voted differently. Since he's been in the Senate, his Iraq votes have been almost exactly the same as Clinton's.

I don't think any reasonable person is suggesting that Sen. Obama is not a truly talented man, with more than his share of accomplishments by the conventional sort of job-hunting measures we all typically use. Of course, we aren't talking about a conventional matter, we're talking about choosing someone for the most powerful position on earth.

I don't think any reasonable person is suggesting that any similarities between Obama and Bush are total in all respects. I think there ARE reasonable people who see a certain similarity in the process by which each has approached the run for the Presidency, and who see a certain similarity in the tendency of some of their supporters to discount more down-to-earth means of assessing qualification, in favor of more exalted wishes and hopes.

I don't think any reasonable person is suggesting that attractivenss and substance are mutually exclusive: The world's history provides examples of people who had both. I think there ARE reasonable people who honestly wonder if Sen. Obama at this point in his life is one who has conclusively demonstrated that he ALREADY belongs in that very exclusive club.

I think there ARE reasonable people of good-faith who do suggest that Sen. Clinton is more of a known quantity in both policy and personal terms than her immediate opponent, for better or for worse. To try to argue that she actually has LESS experience seems to me a very difficult stretch.

Finally, I don't think any reasonable person is suggesting that this or any Presidential election is anything more or less than a voyage into the unknown. We use the best evidence we can to try to make the best choice available to us, but there is of course no certainty ahead of time. Any of us on any side can be proven right or wrong by events. I will do my best to support Sen. Obama if it comes to that (as appears increasingly likely), and I'll hope along with the rest of us for the best at that point. Until then, I intend to remain a part of what James Carville has called the "reality-based" community. To me, that means Sen. Clinton.

The way you keep people down is to make them feel hopeless. You have to make them afraid to try to change reality. The hopeless do need hope.

If people aren't hopeless, you have to make them feel hopeless. Then you can offer them hope.

This is a complex campaign. Thin lines everywhere.

PMJ6,

Before you get carried away playing the wounded victim role, I would just remind you that names in the comments section are hyperlinked. Clicking on your hyperlink leads the reader to a page which gives a little list of your "greatest hits." By my assessment, you aren't getting any rougher or more unreasonable treatment than you're giving out...

There is a particular irony I've noted in the criticism of BO by some people, including some--not by any means all or even most--HRC supporters. I'm referring to the "he's a lightweight, more form-than-substance, show horse-not-a-workhorse" argument.

The irony is that the critics in question, while purporting to criticize Obama from a position of intellectual and policy rigor, almost invariably fail to show any knowledge about him beyond his current campaign speeches, if those. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the substance of his biography, his C.V. and his achievements (not to mention "Dreams from My Father," one of the best literary memoirs I've read) would know that, whatever else you may say about him, his intellectual rigor and grasp of policy detail are sterling. Indeed, were he not up against Hillary Clinton, extraordinary on both scores herself, he would be in a class by himself in this respect.

If you read what he has written; what he has said in extended interviews; and what has been written about him in detail by dispassionate observers; and especially if you focus on such materials generated before he was in the national spotlight; you can come to no other conclusion. Given that such sources are abundantly and easily available to anyone with the inclination to seek them out, I can only assume that those who knock Obama on this score are themselves either profoundly lazy, insufficiently sharp themselves to judge his abilities, or just speaking in bad faith.

I guess that makes only about half of the Democratic Party profoundly lazy, insufficiently sharp, or speaking in bad faith.

Believe it or not, one *can* come to a different conclusion than the one you have arrived at without belonging to any of the three categories you have listed. Geez, talk about arrogance... "If you don't agree with me, you must be lazy, stupid, or evil". Get a grip, man.

I guess that makes only about half of the Democratic Party profoundly lazy, insufficiently sharp, or speaking in bad faith.

You might want to take another look at my post.

I said I was characterizing "the criticism of BO by some people, including some--not by any means all or even most--HRC supporters."

It's of course totally baseless to suggest that "half the Democratic Party" has come to the conclusions I described, and I did not do so. On the contrary, the data has shown again and again that most voters would be happy with either candidate as President, from which I think it's fair to infer that they do not think either candidate is "more form than substance."

Believe it or not, one *can* come to a different conclusion than the one you have arrived at without belonging to any of the three categories you have listed.

This is a conclusion, not an argument. If you think Obama is a lightweight, on what do you base that conclusion?

Gee is right. Anybody who thinks Obama, a guy who graduated president of Harvard Law Review, taught constitutional law at the U. of Chicago, wrote those two books, and has his actual legislative record in 11 years of elected office, is a lightweight hasn't done their own research, isn't very interested in candidates' intellectual capabilities, or is peddling nonsense. That nonsense reflects badly on the peddler.

Gee and markg8, I have a slightly more nuanced view re: Obama and substance. It's not that I as a Hillary voter think he's a policy lightweight or that because he's a good orator then somehow he must be lacking intellect. It's just that for me, Hillary *comes across* as much more interested in the nitty-gritty of policy, and that is very appealing to me personally. If their policy positions were the same but their campaign rhetoric/style reversed, I'd gladly support Obama, as I think my views are more in line with his on most issues. But Hillary's natural tendency is to not only be wonkish, but to *appear* wonkish, whereas Obama is much more thematic. I think it's just a matter of taste.

When analyzing the two senators you need to be careful to distinguish between the person and the politician. There is no doubt in my mind that both candidates are extremely intelligent, genuinely concerned persons of integrity.

On the campaign trail, however, the focus should be on the politician. When I look at Barack Obama, I see a politician with the most liberal voting record in the Senate constantly bringing in 6-10% of the Republican vote. In primary season.

Think about it: If you wanted to advance a significantly progressive agenda in the current political climate, how would you go about doing so?

The time is ripe for such an accomplishment: The majority of Americans agree with the Democrats on most of the major issues (the war, health care, the environment, the economy), and the Republicans have a candidate who has trouble aligning himself with popular opinion on these issues.

The decision to run the type of campaign Obama is running was deliberate and has proven very successful. He has determined that this is the way to accomplish the goals of the party, and the external evidence seems to suggest he is right.

If Obama wanted to run a detailed, policy-oriented campaign he could. Unfortunately that is not the way to advance a progressive agenda at this point in American political history.

For those of you who insist he is an "empty suit", please look beyond the political presentation of the man and see if you can't discover the intelligence and political savvy that foresees the long-term benefits of such a portrayal.