The Democratic Divide

I find fault in the blatant omission of John Edwards in this article. The mainstream media would like to paint the Democratic primary as a two-candidate race. That could not be further from the truth. The facts are Edwards beat Hilary Clinton in Iowa and got great numbers in New Hampshire. Furthermore, Edwards is in a statistical dead heat in the states of Nevada, South Carolina, and Ohio. One would hope that the media would have learned a valuable lesson in New Hampshire with Clinton's surprise win. Sadly, what you are doing is analogous to what the pollsters did in New Hampshire. Also, it is also important to realize that less than 2% of Americans have voted. It ain't over until it is over.
I think people are leaning towards Obama or Clinton for the wrong reasons: they want to elect a history-making official. As much as I would like a black or female president in office, I first and foremost want a qualified candidate with vision, experience and without strings attached. The Obama and Clinton campaigns are largely funded by corrupt corporations, special interests groups and lobbyists. Does anyone really think a person can serve two masters? Well, I certainly don't. Remember there are no free lunches. This money might be offered to Obama and Clinton but the real cost will be passed along to the consumers. Lastly, this is not high school popularity contest. Sure Obama speaks eloquently but talk is cheap.

I find fault in the blatant omission of John Edwards in this article. The mainstream media would like to paint the Democratic primary as a two-candidate race. That could not be further from the truth. The facts are Edwards beat Hilary Clinton in Iowa and got great numbers in New Hampshire. Furthermore, Edwards is in a statistical dead heat in the states of Nevada, South Carolina, and Ohio. One would hope that the media would have learned a valuable lesson in New Hampshire with Clinton's surprise win. Sadly, what you are doing is analogous to what the pollsters did in New Hampshire. Also, it is also important to realize that less than 2% of Americans have voted. It ain't over until it is over.
I think people are leaning towards Obama or Clinton for the wrong reasons: they want to elect a history-making official. As much as I would like a black or female president in office, I first and foremost want a qualified candidate with vision, experience and without strings attached. The Obama and Clinton campaigns are largely funded by corrupt corporations, special interests groups and lobbyists. Does anyone really think a person can serve two masters? Well, I certainly don't. Remember there are no free lunches. This money might be offered to Obama and Clinton but the real cost will be passed along to the consumers. Lastly, this is not high school popularity contest. Sure Obama speaks eloquently but talk is cheap.

Clinton has taken on the republicans for years and keeps winning. They have thrown everything they could at her and she is still the Best canidate in the race.
She can win and has republicans scared that she will. Republicans however love the notion of facing a man with a troubled past and drug history who has not even a full single year of office experence and if were not careful and Elect the only Democrat who can win in Clinton then we will be forced to sit and watch the republican machine tear down a crackhead with no experience.
Crackheads should not be even on the Ticket. Obama is a Crack head just goggle it He admits it.
Clinton in 2008

while these to yo-yos slit eachothers throats before the general election, lets start house cleaning where it will really do some good. Get rid of all the career polititians like Kennedy and such. Until these people are replaced, NO new president can make any difference!

while these to yo-yos slit eachothers throats before the general election, lets start house cleaning where it will really do some good. Get rid of all the career polititians like Kennedy and such. Until these people are replaced, NO new president can make any difference!

He didnt say anything about emulating he only stated that Regan during the election changed the trajectory of America the way Nixon and Bill Clinton could not...Thats not emulating thats a fact..and i believe that comment by myoporum was out of line..looks like we have a typical Hillary backer, taking Obama's comments and skewing them out of context. For shame.

Yes, Clinton is certainly a divider-- both within the party and across the larger political spectrum. If the Republican party nominates someone that's socially moderate/liberal, I would fear for Hillary's prospect in the general; I know far too many Dems-- myself included-- that would vote for a moderate/maverick Republican than would sign up for 4-8 more years of Clinton.

The burning question in my mind is when someone is going to finally point out that-- when it comes to experience-- the Empress Clinton has no clothes. She is a 1 1/2 term senator with few noteworthy achievements and not a few odd votes ("I voted for that bill, but I'm glad it didn't pass", she's said...); her explanations of her votes (the war, etc.) ring patently false-- any thinking person can see she's obfuscating her record as much as possible. I submit that her terms as First Lady-- both in the White House and in Arkansas-- are intangible in terms of record; she had no security clearance, she wasn't briefed, and she doesn't appear to have made any hard decisions. The experience factor? It's straight out of basic marketing-- sell your weaknesses hard, because the strengths will be self evident. I'm still fuzzy on the 35 year math that Clinton has been touting; do Obama's terms in the US/IL Senates, his years of neighborhood activism, his years of teaching constitutional law not count for anything?

If she does end up being the nominee-- and our president-- I worry about the eventual backlash. If history offers any clues, I seem to remember that the Contract With America folks came in 2 years after Bill's particular branch of excrement began hitting the presidential fan. I do not think that another term of a Clinton in the White House is what this country or the Democratic Party need right now.

Would we rather have a nominee that is running on building new coalitions and new bridges to the future or would we rather have a nominee that we know a dead even 50% of the population heartily dislike?

African-Americans will vote for African-Americans, no matter if they are qualified or not (re: W.Wilson Goode) former mayor of Philadelphia, in the 80's. He bombed an entire street and he was still voted in for a second term. He brought Philadelphia to the brink of bankruptcy, and African-Americans still think he was the best mayor this city (Philadelophia) ever had. Whites will vote for the Clintons, again because of race, although many will deny it. I hope the most qualified person gets in, but then again we're talking about qualifications (re: George W Bush), the last president ??? we had.

I am more certain than ever that the only candidate who can get the job done is Hillary. She has shown more strength, courage and vision than all the other candidates combined. No one has been more scrutinized or more tested than she.

Gee, are you a right wing nut job posing as a journalist? Nice fake smile by the way, fascist scum.

The more I listen to the candidates, the more I worry about an Obama presidency, The more he uses feel-good speeches, compares himself to Kennedy, MLK and Reagan and mocks experience, the less confidence I have in him as a leader.

Just what we need another tunnel vision story about HRC and BHO. When one steps back and takes a good look around and sees the whole picture the only candidate that is speaking to and for Americans is John Edwards.Hopefully the American people have better vision than the media.

Obama apparently believes that the Reagan presidency is worth emulating. He appears to be a man of little political conviction an no historical understanding or principle who wants to present an "optimistic" attractive image to propel himself into the presidency.

Gipper redux.

Extremely biased article.

I am extremely fortunate to be living in a time where a qualified woman and a qualified black man are running for President. I am a Democratic woman from California. I am convinced, especially after attending a lunch in S.F. on Thursday, that Barack is the only candidate who can unite the party, can return us to being looked up to and effective in the international arena, and can equally focus on pressing domestic issues. I trust him, am in awe of his vision, the way he thinks, and his healthy ideas. I am sold that he will bring the needed change. Even my Republican husband is leaning toward voting for him.

Eleanor, one more thing. Thank you for not making the focus of this piece a racial issue. I think to a great extent, the media has been dying to inject race into this primary season. It finally got its wish, with the comments -- like you said designed or not -- made by the Clintons. Listen to every pundit, at every turn, they've tried to make this about race. Jon Stewart, the other night clearly demonstrated that.

Also, can you or someone at your magazine look into this one fact: Amongst all the candidates -- Democrats and Republicans -- the Clinton campaing has been the only campaign to have someone associated with it apologize more times than I can count for hits on Obama. From Billy Shaheen to Bob Kerrey to the people in Iowa fired for spreading the ugly e-mails about Obama -- prompting Senator Clinton, herself to apologize for the acts, of course of late Mr. Bob Johnson. Can you understand all of this put together seem to be a pattern.
By the time the apology is offered, the damage is already done. They have succeeded in planting into the American psyche an ugly untruth.

I think that after the media -- thanks to Mark Penn -- who longtime ago claimed that Hillary would be inevitable, never in their wildest dream imagined that this upstart Senator Obama would be as formidable. They never imagined that he could put together an organization as such. So when Bill Clinton ask what happened to the campaign, I think herein lies the answer. They never saw Obama coming, hence there was no plan to confront him. With their backs against the wall, they began fighting the only they knew how -- only it had always be against the Republicans.

obama has no experience and radical idea of a minority president of suburban country..