He's not the only candidate who attended an Ivy league school. Having a platform and being able to execute are different things.

Both are smart political animals.

I know I'll get slammed for this but here's my take on the situation:

1. The Hilary hate machine is left over from an aggressive republican effort when Mr. Clinton was in office (How long and how deep did Ken Star dig - how much tax-payer money was wasted on THAT effort?)

2. Many of Obama's supporter's feel an obligation to support him - how to you counter that kind of lemming mentality without looking biggoted?

what kind of racist wouldn't support the candidate of change? ;)

J--Brilliant! that's excatly what I mean but I can't put it into non-crazy woman language (as crazy-woman language is my mother tongue)

I'm agreeing with what Bri just said!

Sure, but can Hillary execute anything in the unlikely event she gets into the oval office? The hate machine isn't going to go away once she gets elected.

There is no Obama hate machine. There is a Clinton hate machine. Why would a Democrat choose the one who will have the uphill battle once in office?

The first black man to be leader of this nation who compares himself to Kennedy WON'T have an uphill battle?

Whatever happened to "who would you rather have a beer with" ...?

(As y'all can see, J and I have been at this a little bit on the home front.)

Hillary can't execute her platform and probably doesn't even intend to. Her platform is put out there as a political building block.

To attempt her medical plan would be to re-ignite the fierce left-right divide, to re-focus and re-energize the opposition exactly as her first shot at it in 1993 did.

Remember how, two years after the Clinton election, the Republicans announced a clear, philosophical promise to the public and re-took control of Congress?

That was largely the result of a vaguely-lefty medical plan; so now she wants to present a firmly lefty medical plan in her first year in office? I doubt it!

Part of the game is thinking a few chess moves ahead. The pro takes advantage of their base with Big Promises; for example, the righty will suggest, we'll end abortion. But once elected, they don't get their way, because the operational politics are more powerful: if we end abortion, the pro-choicers will become ultra-motivated and cause us to lose elections. The end result: ban partial-birth abortions, something that effects almost ZERO actual people, but keeps the pro-life foaming-at-the mouthers content enough to believe some actual change happened, and to believe their big donations were not in vain.

The only way to affect actual change is to motivate and convince 75% of the people, not 49% or even 51% of the people. That is how a President gets political will: if the people believe in him or her. Right now, P. Bush is in such dire political straits that he could not solve a problem that the majority of people believe in (social security insolvency), even after proposing a rather lefty solution (a highly progressive structure more painful for the rich). He can hardly stake a position at all, because once he does the rest of the pols make political hay by staking positions at the polar opposite.

Obama is farther to the left than Clinton - despite his WORDs about reaching across the aisle - I think he'll have as tough a battle (if not tougher)

It's not a monarchy - you have to have connections and be able to influence others not necessarily on your side to accomplish your goals

You have to reach across, and sometimes you even have to give a reach-around.

Remember that Eddie Murphy bit about the first black president's inaugural address (he gives the speech while darting around the stage presumably dodging snipers)?

Just a funny thing, I certainly don't wish anyone shot. I think both Clinton and Obama would have a battle, but I think Clinton would battle back better (awesome alliteration, eh?)

Obama is slightly more to the left than Clinton, sure. But he doesn't cause the conservatives to foam at the mouth the way she does. He represents a chance for politicians to do some politics. Negotiate a bit here and there and maybe get something done.

I think Clinton will cause a backlash wherever she goes, regardless of what she does or proposes. There will be an instant wall thrown up because the idea came from her. Her ideas and proposals will not be judged on their merits because they came from her.

It's unfair, but I think it's the reality.

Obama has a chance to get things done. I don't think Clinton does.

I used to like her a lot. I bought a pin in 1992 that said "Hillary for President in '96," so it's not like I'm a lifetime member of the Hillary hate machine. I just don't think she will be effective.

My wife and I are split over this one too.

It's blatant anti-woman thinking here. "Oh, she's a bitch!" And, like all the men in politics aren't motherf*ckers? Riiiiiight.

but see the problem is that we can only assume that obama is a motherfucker because he is a politician, whereas we know hillary is a bitch because we've been watching her for 16 years.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't ;)