I should note that a published estimate of the attendance last evening was around twenty-one thousand people. They had the stage for Obama more or less in the middle of the Mall rather than at the south end as is usually the case. That probably limited the numbers allowed in to some extent.

It was slow going getting into the venue as everyone had to go through a security check. Obama didn't actually appear until sometime after 9:30. My knees are very grateful that we didn't brave the elements and the line. It appears that most everyone remained standing pretty much throughout the festivities. I'm not sure I could have done that, either.

I watched a bit of a McCain speech this morning in North Carolina. One of the pundits on CNN characterized it as a "dry civics lesson." It may well have been instructional, but it certainly did not have the verve or the punch that Barack (or even Hillary, for that matter) can bring to a speech. Anyone claiming that Obama is all style and no substance - or as Baronius said on another thread, that there is "no there there" just isn't listening.

Obama's speeches are not all about style or flamboyance. First, he does include specifics - perhaps not as much as McCain or Hillary - but what he says is not just all pie-in-the-sky. And he delivers with a quiet confidence, an intelligence missing in both Clinton and McCain.

Again, I don't know how all this is going to shake out. But Barack appears to be a new kind of politician, one that may well forge some needed change in D.C. Hopefully, we'll see.

B-tone

I think one thing recent events have proven, Obama is specifically NOT a new kind of politician. The idea that he represents a new kind of politics is really a type of marketing and branding, nothing more.

Sure, the usuals will come out and claim that I am reciting talking points, or worse, that I am a racist. But any fair analysis of Obama and his platorm shows his actual politics are as bi-partisan, negative or positive, and pandering as any candidate on the campaign trail. That said, I have to give Obama respect for selling himself as such.

In terms of the turnout, it really is impressive that Obama has turned out the masses in droves. It's hard to watch the (irrational) exhuberance surrounding his campaign and still consider that any other candidate even stands a chance. That said, McDonalds is the most popular restaruant in the nation (possibly the world).

I refuse to enter a McDonald's on principle nowadays, ever since I had an epiphany the day I was sitting in a Mickey D's munching a Big Mac, and suddenly realized that it didn't taste of anything. I extrapolated mentally back in time and came to the conclusion that nothing I'd ever eaten at McDonald's had actually tasted of anything. I might as well have been eating cardboard.

But that is my personal opinion. I do give McDonald's credit for responding to, and in some cases being ahead of, the market. I believe they were the first major fast food chain to offer healthy alternatives to fries and sandwiches, marketed specifically towards children. I have a sly prediction that they will be the first fast food company to discontinue serving burgers.

And apparently their coffee's pretty excellent. Unfortunately I wouldn't know about that.

So although, as I realized, McDonald's is largely about style, they do still have some substance and I respect them for that.

[/ridiculously extended metaphor]

Doc,

I am with you, although occassionally I do have a desire for their mcnuggets. perhaps this is conditioning from when i was a child.

OA,

Never take a pom's word on food; the taste buds were bred out of them generations ago, though fortunately for him, Doc has been Yankeefied enough that he's able to recognize that Mickey D's has no taste..

I went to the "obama LIVE!" rally in Houston and I experienced the same thing. It was insane. I never expected to be surrounded by so many people from every conceivable corner of our society. It was upbeat and electric. Inside, besides the annoying people who would come out to get everyone fired up (yawn) ready to go, I heard what I expected to hear. But it is a great feeling when you think that people are so immersed in apathy that they wouldn't even notice another candidate, to be so incredibly wrong.
Obama won Texas. His caucus organization was perfect. It was a brilliant campaign and it worked.

I had the same experience in Denver. My wife and I never got into the overflowing arena. The line was unbelievable. We ended up listening to his speech outside on the rugby field with 2-3,000 more people. We appreciated that he came out and spoke to those of us on the rugby field BEFORE his speech.

On good days it seems like there is a movement happening, but it can be discouraging when that enthusiasm at the grassroots doesn't get translated into votes. We'll see what happens.

Ob Am,

Again, I think you are wrong about Obama. While I don't look upon him as the second coming or even the first coming given my non-spiritual view of the world, I believe he brings to the table a sensibility, and yes, an intelligence that I'm not sure has ever been present in an American president, even including JFK. He is in touch with people in a way that I've never seen in any candidate for any office, er, well, maybe Bobby K.

It's interesting to note that no more than around 10% of the world's nations are led by a white male. It's well beyond the time when we should let both shoes drop. Barack has energized a large portion of not only the black community, but younger (potential) voters as well. There is a definite ground swell that could carry Obama into the WH like a tidal wave. I don't see that happening for either Clinton or McCain.

Of course, he will, if elected, have a lot of expectations to live up to; probably more than any one person can deliver. But I'd like to see him give it the old college try.

Just so you know where I'm coming from: I still eat at Mickey Ds on occasion, just enough to still appreciate fresh, hot fries. The burgers - not so much.

B-tone

In re McDonald's:

We have them here in Panama, and I simply cannot understand why they are so popular. You can buy a cardboard sandwich, some french fries and a coke for about $3.50, after waiting five or ten minutes in line and carrying your tray to a table, if you can find one.

There are lots of small, mom & pop, local restaurants where you can get a choice of pretty good chicken, beef, pork, or sometimes fish, with rice, a vegetable and a salad, plus home made soup and a beer if you wish, for no more than $2.50 (more expensive in Panama City than in smaller cities; it's about $2.00 where we live) -- after waiting (seated) no longer than at McDonald's and the food is much better. I just don't get it.

My only guess is that heavy TV advertising entices the kids and they nag their parents to take them to McDonalds.

Oh, yeah. As to the primaries, I am anxiously awaiting the results and what the pols and the polls have to offer.

Dan

B-Tone,

I don't get what being white or black has to do with anything. I don't care if 10 or even 1% of the nations in this world are led by whites or blacks. This is a presidential election for the USA, not an interior design session for some global living room. Color matching is irrelevant.

More importantly, why compare us to the rest of the world? We don't compare to the average nation in the world on any metric, from gdp, to personal income, to racial breakdown. To suggest that we should be picking an African American as president because white men don't lead in 90% of the other countries in the world is worse than irrelevant, it's racially dividing.

In terms of Obama's sensibilities and intellect, I just don't see it. His handling of the Wright thing was not sensible. His bitter comments did not bely any real intellect, rather nievete. His opposition to the gas tax holiday is disingenuous (see my next article for more on this). I think his speech on race after the Wright contraversy first broke contained some truths, but also left some glaring concerns (even if the left didn't want to admit it). His absolute lack of action on the foreign relations committee was disgraceful (especially given his claims to fix our foreign policy). His performance in the Penn Debates was terrible.

I have watched his speeches, I've read his website. I've taken him seriously. I'm sure some will disparage me as there is no other real defense to what I've charged Obama with. But attacking me doesn't change the truths in this post.

Peel away the hype, and he just isn't all that he is cracked up to be.

Dan,

I think your comments about McDonalds could also apply directly to Obama. I've taken the liberty of removing the word mcdonalds with Obama in two of the sentences in your post to demonstrate what I am talking about:

"We have [Obama] here in Panama, and I simply cannot understand why [Obama is] so popular. "

"My only guess is that heavy TV advertising entices the kids and they nag their parents to take them to [voting booths to vote for Obama]."

:>

All you need to put you off McDonalds is receiving "Fast Food Nation" for X-Mas as I did last year. You will be stunned at the detailed examination of how this corp has affected the USA, and the world. You will NEVER eat at Macs again.

None of it made it into the movie. I suspect the movie was underwritten by Chez Mac with absolute control over the script and content.

Sorry to have followed the digression off topic, this was a well written piece B-Tone.

Baritone - I believe it was Obnox who said that there is no "there" there.

Baronius,

You're right, of course. It was OA. Sorry for the erroneous attribute.

OA,

Symbolically, having a black in the WH may have a great deal of importance. If you don't count symbolism as significant, then you are a capitalist who doesn't believe in the effectiveness of American advertising which is all about image and symbolism.

Having a person of color and/or a woman at the helm of this country could say a lot to the rest of the world - particularly that perhaps, just perhaps, we are once again becoming a forward thinking nation, climbing out of the miasma of 19th century fundamentalist thought.

To paint Obama as the racist is disingenuous. Your characterization of him is, IMO, far off the mark. While you may believe that I am looking at him through rose colored glasses, I feel you are not seeing things at all. Your predisposition against anything or anyone of a - dare I say it - liberal bent distorts everything.

It seems the only response that Obama could have made to Rev. Wright's rantings to everyone's satisfaction is if he had taken a gun and shot him. Obama was raised essentially without a father. Wright was initially a mentor, and yes, likely a father figure for Obama. It would have been disingenuous for Obama to immediately divorce himself from Wright. On a personal level, it was important for Obama to give Wright some room to perhaps take a step or two back and restate his positions. Wright chose not to do so. In that event Barack did in fact disown any alignment between his and Wright's positions. That he didn't do so fast enough for your taste is irrelevant.

I have more, but I gotta earn a living for a while.

B-tone

As to McCain, certainly, he was tested in Vietnam. He is a survivor. But that is hardly a predictor of his fitness to be president.

oops!

Baritone, on this subject, OA and I could probably speak for each other. For my part, I'd much rather have a white male with a few minutes of experience than this particular black male who's never run a business, served in the military, governed a state, served as Secretary of an executive Department, sat as a member of the judiciary, or written a significant piece of legislation.

"To paint Obama as the racist is disingenuous. Your characterization of him is, IMO, far off the mark. "

To be fair, I really don't think Obama is any more racist than anyone else. But "typical white person," the white grandmother comment, and the bitter comments all point to a person who may not be overtly racist, but does believe in classic stereotypes. If a white person was guilty of this, they'd be labled a racist in a New York minute (unless they were talking about Jews of course :>)

"It seems the only response that Obama could have made to Rev. Wright's rantings to everyone's satisfaction is if he had taken a gun and shot him."

No, for me what would have been acceptable was for Obama to have left the church back in 2001. Yes, I don't buy the claim that Obama never "heard" it. Failing that, he simply could have excluded Wright from his campaign.

But no, he continued going to the church, continued to involve Wright in his campaign, and even defended the man in the Penn speech. So at this point you are right there isn't much he can do for me on that point.

"Obama was raised essentially without a father. Wright was initially a mentor, and yes, likely a father figure for Obama."

Which is why the Wright contraversy is a contraversy. This is exactly why Wright matters, despite the impassioned claims of Obama and followers to the contrary.

"It would have been disingenuous for Obama to immediately divorce himself from Wright. On a personal level, it was important for Obama to give Wright some room to perhaps take a step or two back and restate his positions. Wright chose not to do so. In that event Barack did in fact disown any alignment between his and Wright's positions. That he didn't do so fast enough for your taste is irrelevant."

Wow, it all fits into a nice logical scheme. Unfortunately for Obama supporters, here is how most Americans view the way Obama handled Wright:

1) Tried to get away without disowning Wright,
2) Wright went out and did further damage to Obama's candidacy,
3) Obama did what was politically expedient.

You can claim that it's my problem that I see it this way, but Obama isn't my candidate. See you in November.

Obama will ultimately weather the Wright deal.

"Unfortunately for Obama supporters, here is how most Americans view the way Obama handled Wright"

That's an assumption that you are making before the fact. The fact is that he is carrying NC by a larger margin than expected. As I write it remains too close to call here in Indiana. Hillary should be doing better here. Obama may not actually win here, but considering that Indiana is a conservative bastian with a strong history of virulent racism, his showing is fairly impressive.

I don't expect Obama - if he becomes the nominee - to carry Indiana in a general election. But, your reservations notwithstanding, he will undoubtedly be a formidible opponent for McCain.
McCain may be a great guy and all, but he will still be dragging the anchor of the failure of the Bush administration. McCain's hawkish position on Iraq will not play well with most voters - including many Reps and independents.

The economy is a shambles if you've noticed. How far do you suppose McCain can distance himself from Bush?

Even if Clinton somehow gets the Dem nod, she beats McCain in November as well. In any case, it will probably be close, but, of course, I would love to see a route. But I'll take a one electoral vote win with a grin as well.

B-tone

I find the comments relative to Obama's reaction to Rev Wright such BS. Hiliary is still married to Bill after all his transgression to her and to the American people. Which is a stronger show of commitment? Staying married or sitting in a pew? The hypocrisy is so ominious!

After all perhaps this is what makes your democracy more about powerful lobby...

B-tone,

Having a person of color and/or a woman at the helm of this country could say a lot to the rest of the world - particularly that perhaps, just perhaps, we are once again becoming a forward thinking nation, climbing out of the miasma of 19th century fundamentalist thought.

I don't think very much of the world really looks to the USA for either inspiration or or role modeling anymore. Having Obama as president will make little, if any, impression on other nations; for the most part, they no longer consider us relevant to their own experience.

Clav,

When traveling in Germany recently, we found an avid interest in our presidential race. We were repeatedly asked: Clinton or Obama? McCain's name never came up. While on the whole we are not very well liked abroad, many people still acknowledge that what happens here, may well have an effect upon their lives for good or ill - if for no other reason than we still have the big guns and some people with itchy trigger fingers.

Of course, we remain a significant economic force in the world. Not so much perhaps as say 25 or 30 years ago, but we are still huge consumers and have large economic interests abroad.

In Obama we may have a president who is culturally astute with experience living in a variety of cultures including an Islamic country. He may well be able to bring to the table an insight about the world at large that few American presidents have had.

McCain has the potential of bringing more of the same xenophobic qualities and jingoistic proclivities that Mr. Bush has consistently displayed throughout his tenure. I believe the wider world - at least those in it who give a rat's ass - will be very disheartened by a McCain victory in November.

B-tone

B-Tone,

I'm sure the kind of people someone like you and your family are likely to meet in your travels would have an interest, particularly in Europe. But all of Europe is a relatively small portion of the total world population, and Europe's (possibly excepting Russia), like America's, influence in the world is rapidly eroding.

I was referring more to the great masses of people in places like China, India, Africa, where merely surviving leaves little time for reflection, particularly on events in distant lands, but whose sheer numbers make it almost a certainty that those countries will dominate economically (if not politically) in the future.

And, though I started this political season impressed by Obama, alas, he turns out to have feet of clay like everyone else.

I don't think we have a good candidate this time...

McCain has the potential of bringing more of the same xenophobic qualities and jingoistic proclivities that Mr. Bush has consistently displayed throughout his tenure.

I think even you would have to admit that McCain has substantial experience of the world. Certainly he spent plenty of time in Southeast Asia, though perhaps in a more intimate setting than most of us would enjoy. And as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee he's certainly travelled everywhere and engaged in a lot of foreign policy briefings.

Dave

Dave,

I would hardly suggest that McCain's SE Asia experience has lent itself to greater understanding of world affairs. During most of his tenure there he could just as well have been incarcerated in Louisiana or Hawaii.

I do find it a bit humurous how so many of you who were lambasting McCain a few weeks ago that he was not a "true" Republican, that he was too liberal about this, too conservative about that. Now, he has become your boy. Now you will follow him ignoring the liklihood that he will maintain the Bush strategy in Iraq because you believe that he will do less damage to your bank accounts than Hillary or Barack.

Sadly, I will note that not a lot was settled by yesterday's vote. Certainly, Obama garnered a definitive win in NC, but the Indiana results were not so defining. That Clinton won by a slim margin in a traditionally racist state is, I suppose, testament to Obama's appeal.

Obviously, I don't agree with any of you Obama naysayers. That he may have been guilty of a few misjudgments throughout his primary campaign is not, in my opinion particularly bothersome. McCain spent much of last summer stepping in his own shit, but that doesn't seem to bother any of you now. It's ancient history. Few of us have witnessed the likes of this particular campaign. Both Barack and Hillary have been down in the trenches going at each other longer than any other political race in recent memory, and it may be far from over.

If say, McCain and Romney were still vying for the Rep nomination, how down and dirty, and how many missteps and gaffs might either or both of them have committed by now? Or do you imagine that being Reps they possess a purity of heart that no Dem could aspire to?

I'm not excusing Obama. I don't feel that he has said or done anything that needs excusing. Both the Wright affair and Barack's "bitter" comment were blown way out of proportion. I frankly don't know how all of you imagine Wright's crazed comments reflect on Obama. Do you imagine that if he gets to the WH that he will re-ignite "Black Power," and start a campaign to rid the country of all the "bitter," gun toting rednecks?

I started on this journey more or less in Hillary's camp. I will still support her should she somehow gain the nomination. But, I have watched and listened to Obama, and read a great deal by and about him and his positions. His supposed deficiencies in experience are far outweighed by his intelligence and his communicative skills. The success (or failure) of an Obama administration will depend largely on how well he communicates and the quality of the people he brings to his cabinet and his staff. Obama will, IMO, maintain a much higher level of openness and communication with his administration and with the country at large than GW ever hoped to achieve. When tested, McCain may well blow up and alienate all around him which certainly would prove to be counter productive.

On a side note, I wonder why it is that the thought of spending a few billion dollars tax money for universal health care galls your conservative asses, but you don't seem to mind a bit that we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars (nearly 520 billion at the latest count) in Iraq? More money has gone missing in Iraq than what national health care would likely cost us. Maybe it's that "bitter, gun toting" mentality?

B-tone

I would suggest that McCains SE Asia experience has lent itself to at least one greater understanding than anyone in the current administration...Senator McCain seems to understand the value of torture more than any of the maroons in the WH right now...as I recall, his was one of the louder voices in DC against the current torture policy...


just a thought...

Sadly, I will note that not a lot was settled by yesterday's vote.

John Zogby begs to differ with you, B-Tone. In a column for the BBC News website this morning, he argues that Hillary is finished, purely in terms of hard math.

Clinton just barely won Indiana, a state where she once had a substantial lead. Thus, Obama improved his position. It's hard to see any way that Clinton can get the nomination at this point without a coup in the DNC, which they have no interest in. Howard Dean will insure that there is no such insurrection.

Thus, it will come down to Obama vs. McCain in the final, and the question arises of the party loyalty of the Clinton faction. If the Clintonians are less than enthusiastically supportive of Obama it will be the end of Clintons in national politics.

IMO Obama can win without Clintons aid because he's done so well organizing against her, and because McCain hasn't really been tested yet and he will probably look pretty bad in the heat of a full-on national partisan campaign.

Not having a deep understanding of the US political process, given that they have both performed pretty strongly in the pre-election, is there any good reason why Obama and Clinton shouldn't team up and run as a team with him as Pres and her as VP?

A black President and female Vice President would certainly send a strong message to the world about a new America...

is there any good reason why Obama and Clinton shouldn't team up and run as a team with him as Pres and her as VP?

Chris, I can only think of one that Obama reason might come up with. The idea of being only one heartbeat away from the presidency might be too much of a temptation for Mrs. Clinton to resist.

Christopher Rose

As to Senator Obama having Senator Clinton as his VP it would, I think, be a death sentence to his chances of winning the general election. Senator Clinton and her husband both generate extreme hatred toward themselves and they both are viewed as ready, willing and able to lie, cheat and steal whenever it suits their short term purposes. The thought of having either, or even worse both, of them back in the White House is anathema to very many people, me included.

I think that Senator Clinton's "Bosnia moment" will be looked back upon as a major turning point in the way that people view her. It is not so much that she spoke an untruth, she knew that she was lying, and clearly should have known that what actually happened would come out, and fast. It was unadulterated stupidity, and an attempt to generate short term support -- a very poor attempt even had the facts been as she claimed that they had been.

Having a VP such as Senator Clinton, who apparently thinks with a short term perspective and who is viewed with such distaste by so many people, would be a very bad thing for Senator Obama to do voluntarily or under pressure from the party mucky-mucks.

Dan

The President/VP relationship isn't a coalition. The presidential candidate is on the top of the ticket. No one really votes for the vice-president, although people do judge the presidential candidate by the quality of the choice of running mates.

The running mate has two roles: getting you elected and serving as your VP. Clinton doesn't bring any benefit to Obama's ticket. As Dan points out, she brings a lot of negatives. And I can't imagine having her as a vice-president, where loyalty counts for a lot.

Who should Obama's running mate be? Usually you want someone who shores up your weaknesses, but Obama has no strengths at all. He'll need someone with Washington experience other than the Senate, with some experience as a governor or leader. I think Richardson is a good choice.

Oops - I forgot to make my main point. Obama needs to get the primary fight behind him. He's got to make Hillary as much of a non-issue as Guiliani will be on the Republican side. Having Clinton onstage with him will only weaken his position. He's got to be prominent.

I think the people in N.C. were smart by picking the person who should be our next president. He has shown integrity and pose through all this b.s. that the media the the GOP,Hillary and the republicans have thrown at him they never brought up Hillary's flip flops lies,and ect. As much as Hillary and the rest of them tried to destroy him God knows the good people and he is one of them in Washginton.

Doc,


On the analogy, it was ridiculously long and unnecessary, in a good and funny way.

However, I would venture to say that Obama has substance. While some people may be attracted to the fanfare I am relieved to hear and read substance. Example... I am glad that he went against the 18 cent gas holiday which would have amounted to $2.16 savings on a normal 12gal tank (that is a 4hr trip). Hillary and McCain banked on that Americans don't think and they would see a price break and think that something was being done to help them (politics as usual... a lot of hoopla over nothing... hmmm maybe like Mickey Ds?).

Baronius,

Again, I wholly disagree with your assessment of Obama, but I do agree with you about Richardson. He's smart and has a good sense of humor. He would do nothing to embarass Obama and perhaps would bolster the Dem's position in the southwest.

Christopher,

I also agree that an Obama/Clinton ticket would not work. Far too much vitriole has gone under the bridge between them. Clinton has too strong an ego to take a back seat to Obama. As Baronius suggested, Richardson would be a good choice for Obama's running mate. There are others to consider as well, but that's still a few weeks down the road.

B-tone

Baritone - Your comment got me thinking. Should Obama wait a few weeks to start choosing the VP nominee? I think it'd be brilliant if he set up the vetting committee now, maybe started meeting with a few potentials. Make it clear that he considers the primaries over.

He's still getting great receptions on the road, so he should definitely keep visiting primary states. But he could leave Clinton in the dust if he simply proceeded to his campaign for the general election.

Baronius,

What am I gonna do? Here I am agreeing with you again. I thought of the same thing last nite. Some may think to do such a thing would be brazen or even tasteless. It could be dangerous as well.

Like em or hate em, the Clintons are a powerful force in the party. To diss Hillary in that way could lead to problems down the road. Obama may well need at least token support from the Clinton camp as the general election campaign proceeds. Open rebellion by the Clintons, the possibility of which I hardly discount, could be disastrous.

But, if Barrack did this, perhaps quietly at first (who knows, he actually may be doing so,) and then by say the June 3rd primaries, assuming he continues to roll, he could at least reveal a short list. As I said, it could be risky, but, what the hell.

B-tone

Baritone - When I'm partisan, I'm partisan. When I'm analyzing, I try to be as neutral as possible. If I wanted analysis distorted by ideology, I'd watch cable news.

Let's face it: neither Clinton is going to be an ally to Obama. Obama's the de facto head of the party and he should act the part. He should pay as much attention to Hillary as McCain does Ron Paul.

Well, now I'm back to disagreeing with you.

Obama hasn't been given the reigns just yet. Not to mention that the fight isn't, at least technically, over. If Obama bitch slaps the Clintons, they could make the days ahead difficult for him.

I suppose it would serve the Reps cause for him to do so, by further fracturing the Dems, just as Limbaugh claims that he's doing by directing Rep voters to instead cross over and vote for Hillary. I hear that now he is instructing voters to vote for Obama, just for giggles, I guess.

Limbaugh is such an arrogant asshole. He claims to be this great American, the stalwart vanguard of the conservative cause, but obviously has no respect for its most valued institution. It's all just a big ego trip for his fat head which looms large in grotesque radiance over his fat ass. For Limbaugh to make this effort, he must recognize that McCain is in serious trouble, as well he should be. Perhaps you have come to realize the same.

B-tone

Obama seems to have funneled all the campaign power and money inward to himself and those close to him. His contributors have been instructed to divert money toward the center. When he takes the nomination his campaign system will replace most of the DNC structure. Obama has already instituted leadership training and channels for his extensive supply of educated and motivated volunteers.

The Clintonistas have so demonized Obama internally in their Rule-or-Ruin campaign that they will never be able to pull back. The Clintons are finished. You won't have Hill and Bill to kick around anymore. Unless, of course, they manage to arise from their political coffins and flutter back into our lives on bat-like wings in some future election.

blif,

You may be correct, but I doubt that Obama will trash them. Again, like it or not, the Clintons remain popular among a large number of Dems. While she has little hope of wresting the nomination from Barack, she is not exactly tanking in these primaries. Even Obama expects to do no better than split these last 6 upcoming primary elections. Even if he wouldn't mind kissing Bill and Hill off, he must be mindful of the numbers she is still pulling in. If he alienates a large number of Clinton's backers now, he may well have to kiss the general election good bye.

Additionally, and unlike the Clintons, Obama has more class than that. If he is as politically savvy as I believe him to be, he will play his cards carefully with respect to the Clintons. Even if Hillary finally pulls out of this race, she may well consider that she could come back for another run down the road. Personally, I think this was her one shot, and it fell short. She'll never get this close again. But will she accept that prognosis? Doubtful.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out in the coming weeks. If Obama has the political skill that I suspect, everybody, including the Clintons will - publically at least - play nice for the good of the party. Hillary is driven, but she's not stupid.

B-tone

"I suppose it would serve the Reps cause for him to do so [Barack undercutting Clinton], by further fracturing the Dems"

Again, Baritone, you're looking for ulterior motives for my comments. I'm just giving my analysis. It's not like I'm going to persuade either party. I mean, at least you write articles on one of ten thousand political websites. Me, I comment on articles on one of ten thousand political websites.

I think Obama needs to start acting like the primaries are over. He should have been doing this since Super Tuesday, when it became clear that neither nominee would have enough delegates to guarantee a win, but that he'd be in the lead. It won't hurt party unity; it'd help it. Parties coalesce after the primaries. Obama needs that unity as soon as possible, because of the wounds that the Dems have inflicted on each other.

Also, it'd make Hillary's smears and cheap shots look like sour grapes. Obama could have avoided a lot of grief if he'd just ignored her.

Will Hillary be able to come back? Only if Obama loses by a huge margin. She'll present herself as the insider candidate, a return to the Clinton dynasty (which won't seem so bad to the average Democrat after Bush/Bush/McCain). She'll have to make herself into a visionary who knew that Obama couldn't win, and tried to save the party from itself. That would be a tough sell for a gracious person, but for her it should come naturally.

Baronius,

"Again, Baritone, you're looking for ulterior motives for my comments."

I wasn't directing that particularly at you. I was just commenting on what I feel would be the ramifications if he did as you suggest.

Your analysis may be correct, but Super Tuesday was ages ago. I still believe that Obama should not throw Hillary aside. Obama isn't the typical junk yard dog politico. To appear ingracious would not fit his persona.

I don't know how down and dirty the campaign between McCain and Obama may become (making assumptions here,) but my guess is that it will be less acrimonious than that between Obama and Clinton. Mainly, because they will be better able to focus on the issues in which there exists a much wider gap than there was (is) between Obama and Clinton.

No doubt there will be the occasional jab; there'll be some sparring between the two of them. More likely, though, people other than the candidates but connected to the campaigns will probably make some personal punches either as unintended gaffs or as a orchestrated hits, to which the candidates will be forced to respond.

The point of my original post here is that Obama has achieved, at least to some degree "rock star" status which in the presidential arena hasn't happened, maybe ever - the only other candidate I can come up with who did or at least was on his way to achieving it was Bobby K. What that will mean come November is anybody's guess.

Barack has style. He exudes class. He looks good in his suit. But, at the same time, he is far from effete or vain. He can hit the three and go to his left (which is appropriate!) As long as he stays away from the bowling alley, he'll do fine.

B-tone

Barack will not get rid of Hill out of spite, but merely necessity. He is taking over the whole dem apparatus, and all Hill can do is try to block his changes and keep her allies in place, but when push comes to shove it is Obama who has raised the campaign funds and trained the next generation of dem politicians and party operatives.

Hills departure will be simply a consequence of Obamas dem takeover. He will replace her people with his. The best she can do is to agree to submit and get out of the way. Her power is gone along with her financial support. She had to throw in another $6million of her own money.

BTW, Obamas bowling followthrough looked pretty good, to me (I only saw one picture). He finishes straight with his hand on line and high. Even if all he ever throws is a straight ball he can pick up plenty of spares. All he needs is a little practice and he'll be bowling 170-180.

I agree that eventually Obama will assert himself as the unquestioned leader of the party. I'm just suggesting that he shouldn't burn too many bridges in the process. After all while Hillary and Bill may be deposed, they aren't going to fall off the edge of the earth. They'll still be lurking around out there on the fringes, perhaps waiting to spring back into the spotlight if given the opportunity. Obama must be vigilent, but not dismissive.

As to Obama's bowling ability, the jury will likely remain out on that one.

B-tone