He killed it, he owns it. Awesome.

With all the video available of the Britney Spears Standoff, you choose to waste our time with this?

Apparently you don't have the news judgment it takes to work in the mainstream media, Charlie. :)

Tears of joy for me.

This feeling is so awesome.

Obama is the man. With him at the helm, our nation might actually (a) get beyond its polarized state and (b) implement some major progressive initiatives.

Reagan was able to persuade Independents and many Dems to support his conservative agenda. Obama could do the same for his progressive agenda.

We really need to seize this opportunity. We could nominate Edwards or Clinton but, once elected, they'll preside over the same polarized government that Pelosi and Reid currently face. Only a charismatic leader with cross-cutting appeal -- i.e., Obama -- can accomplish more than tinkering around the margins.

At this point, I think the question of 'electability' is almost moot for Democrats. No matter who we nominate, the White House is ours in November. (Knock on wood.) Clinton, Obama, or Edwards (longshot that he is) will handily beat any one of those idiots the Republicans throw out in November. If Huckabee actually manages to pull it off, it will be a total cakewalk.

Having said that, I really hope that New Hampshire primary voters will remain true to their spirit of not blindly following the Iowa caucuses, and will nominate the Democrat who is best able to lead this country after the Bush/Cheney nightmare, and that is Hillary Clinton.

Don't get me wrong. I like Obama. I like him a lot, as sore as I am right now about my girl's loss in Iowa. (Believe me guys, don't put the headstone on Hillary's grave just yet.) But I don't think Obama's brand of touchy-feely politics is what this country needs. We are indeed a very polarized society, and as such, we need a leader who will not shy away from the progressive polarity to which many indicators show our nation responding. What kind of 'bi-partisanship' are we going to get from the people in Kansas who have been forcing creationism into their schools' curriculum for the last decade? From the people who have managed to throw a monkey-wrench into Oregon's civil union legislation? From the 50% of Americans who disbelieve in evolution and think man was created in his current form 6000 years ago? How does anyone think that reaching across the aisle to the hate-spewing wingnuts currently running the Republican party will do America any good?

I embrace the polarization of America, because I stand at such polar opposites with those who have led this nation to it's current dilemma. Frankly, I ain't in the mood to hold hands with the Tom DeLay crowd and start singing Kumbayas (sp?) just yet. And you know what? They still hate my guts as much as ever. Someday bipartisanship may be the answer. Right now, I say we need a lion of the left, not someone who thinks that 'hope' is what the country needs most. What I hope for and what the right hopes for are two very different things.

No, what the country needs most is real leadership, and Hillary Clinton has the strength of character and breadth of experience to provide it for us. Let the right hate her all they want; there is no mendacity they can concoct, no lie they can spread, no filthy character assasination they can invent that they haven't done already. There are no surprises left, no skeletons waiting to come out of the closet between now and November. You think Republicans will love Obama any more when all's said and done?

Obama's in way over his head, and if he is our next president, I fear for our chances of holding the White House in '12, I fear what his lack of experience and quite frankly, lack of toughness will bode for this country in international affairs. What we need now is a liberal housecleaner who is unafraid pull out that broom and dustpan, and at the same time project a very different image of America's strength abroad. I don't think Obama is that person.

It's not time to 'heal' our country. It's time to aggressively yank it back in the right direction while there's still time, and then worry about people's hurt feelings later on. Don't be fooled; it's great to have hope. But you know the old saw: hope in one hand and s**t in the other and see which one fills up first. It seems like every one here is enamored of Obama. Sure, he makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside in a way that Hillary doesn't quite do. But look past the pretty wrapping. Do you really think he's got what it takes to be president, or does it just feel nice to want him because he's the guy you'd like to have over for dinner and drinks, the guy you'd want coaching your kids' little league team?

I'm not trying to be combative. I'd really like someone to sell me on Obama, (or try ;0) but no one's done it yet. Vote Hillary. It's what's best for our country.

Here's a transcript for those of us without video support.

I like and have donated to Obama and this is a great speech, but this really put me off:

I'll be a President who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.

Progress has been slow on alternative energy because it is a difficult problem; there are very fundamental constraints. Technological innovation has progressed steadily for decades. It's absurd to pretend that all the world needs is a brave politician with the willingness to lead and we'll suddenly be free of oil.

Very well said, Chris. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone claiming to vote for the best candidate can vote for someone who disregarded her oath and responsibilities to the Constitution to give Bush authorization to go to war or Iraq by casting her vote for her political benefit while being indifferent to the barbaric and inhumane consequences. This war has already cost this nation thousands of dead military personnel from combat, injuries and psychological trauma suffered in Iraq. It has meant thousands of young men and women have been maimed. All have been sacrificed on an altar built upon lives. Eventual estimated costs for this war are being quoted to become as much as two trillion dollars. Then there are also the hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis and millions of other Iraqis who have been driven from their homes. And if that isn't enough, she was prepared to go to another war, this time on Iran, when the Bush Administration fed a gullible American public more warmongering drivel and got a majority in the polls in favor of attack. Not only should Bush and Cheney be impeached for getting the U.S. into this crime against humanity. So, too, should the politicians in Congress who voted in favor of it. Clinton supporters are in the same moral, ethical and intelligence sewer as Bush's 30-percenters.

One of his best speeches!

We had the pleasure of watching it at the Reno Obama HQ here in Nevada. The place went nuts with cheers and tears.

Everyone is fired up here and working hard towards the caucus on January 19th.

Iowa was great, but this is just the beginning!

It was a great speech. The man can speak like JFK. I believe he can inspire the nation.

As far as Hillary goes, there's a reason why all the big corporations and Rupert Murdoch are bankrolling her. Now that the repubs look so weak, she's their girl.

Sobering thoughts from an Obama supporter.

yeeha! here we go again! the slightest voice of dissent seen by you flag-waving Obama-ites and its 'let's circle the wagons.'

"the claim that Obama isn't tough enough is ludicrous. You'd have to be completely clueless or operating strictly as a campaign shill not to recognize and acknowledge that he's had to be plenty tough to get where he is and do what he's done to date." Can I have one single example of his 'toughness?' Please? Anyone? Believe it or not, I am not completely clueless, nor am I a 'campaign shill.' I'm someone who wants the best, strongest leader for this country, and Obama isn't it!

And Bill Bodden? I don't need a lecture on the Iraq war from you or anyone. So you're saying that because I'm for Clinton, that I'm pro-war, that Clinton (and therefore by extension I) are indifferent to the 'barbaric and inhumane consequences of the war.' So the first thing you do is accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you with being a bloodthirsty warmonger. Nice strategy, but it won't wash. Way to use the Republican strategy of demonizing and dehumanizing everyone who disagrees with you.

I'm so sick of everyone beating that tired old horse. I'd like for you to give me one example of how she disregarded her oath or her duty to the constitution. In case you don't remember, almost everyone voted to authorize force in Iraq. Since you seem to have a highly selective memory, let me refresh it. The best intelligence available at the time (long-since proven to be Bush/Cheney hogwash) was that Iraq was actively pursuing WMDs. Hindsight is 20/20, yet you seem to want everyone to have foresight equally as accurate. Well, too bad we're not all as clairvoyant as you. Your little wet-dream of impeaching President Bush (and for the record, I think he deserves it too) is the surest way to put another R in the White House next November. But then, maybe you'd rather make a point than elect a Democrat for President. Not me. Wake up and join the real world. Sometimes political expedience must necessarily trump starry-eyed idealism. If you fail to realize that, then I don't know what planet you've been living on. I ask for a reasoned argument and I get accused of being a Bush-ite.

As for insulting my intelligence because I'm a Clinton supporter? People like you represent the very worst of the left in this country. If you read the last sentence in your post, you sound a lot more like Ann Coulter than Barak Obama.

So far, everything I've read that was posted afte me has only reinforced my decision to support Hillary Clinton. Bodden, I've heard your type of sad, tired drivel so much it makes me want to puke. From the sound of it, I suppose you'll be voting for Huckabee if Hillary wins the nomination.

I'd like for you to give me one example of how she disregarded her oath or her duty to the constitution. In case you don't remember, almost everyone voted to authorize force in Iraq. Since you seem to have a highly selective memory, let me refresh it. The best intelligence available at the time (long-since proven to be Bush/Cheney hogwash) was that Iraq was actively pursuing WMDs.

Let's take these one at a time:

I'd like for you to give me one example of how she disregarded her oath or her duty to the constitution.

I'll let Senator Robert Byrd explain senatorial Constitutional responsibilities as he explained them in the Senate before the October 2002 vote.

In case you don't remember, almost everyone voted to authorize force in Iraq.

Not so. There were <href=http: usliberals.about.com="" od="" liberalleadership="" a="" iraqnayvote.htm="">23 votes in the Senate and 133 votes in the House against the authorization to go to war. The polls around that time showed around 75% of the people supported the war. That left 25% against.

Since you seem to have a highly selective memory, let me refresh it. The best intelligence available at the time (long-since proven to be Bush/Cheney hogwash) was that Iraq was actively pursuing WMDs.

More hogwash. Many commentators discredited the hype put out by the Bush Administration. Anyone paying attention to what was going on at that time could tell from comments made by Hans Blix and Scott Ritter of the UNMOVIC team in Iraq that the more they inspected sites in Iraq the more likely the evidence would be that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That's why Bush exerted pressure to get the shock and awe going before the UNMOVIC proof was conclusive. Democratic Senators Bob Graham and Dick Durbin were on the Senate Intelligence Committee and they voted against this authorization because they knew the real intelligence differed from the propaganda. Millions of people in the United States and around the world didn't buy the propaganda put out by the Bush Administration and their lackeys. Bottom line. If Hillary believed the propaganda then she was incompetent and as gullible as the 75% of Americans who went along with the propaganda. If she was that incompetent and gullible, then she certainly isn't qualified to be president.

Bill, I am old enough to remember when Tom Hayden was one of the Chicago 7 coming up on 40 years ago. The comment about "Tom Hayden Democrats" vs "Scoop Jackson Democrats" just makes Obama's point. How many people who are Barack and Michelle Obama's age or younger have even heard of Scoop Jackson?

That is what he means about going past the arguments started in the 1960s.

For those who buy into Hayden's remark, what would Scoop Jackson have thought of Brent Scowcroft, Larry Lindsay, Gen. Shinseki and others and their concerns before the Iraq war began? How would Scoop Jackson have responded to the death of Benezir Bhuto? I think that comment is a distraction from the 2008 campaign.

The comment about "Tom Hayden Democrats" vs "Scoop Jackson Democrats" just makes Obama's point.

Well, Obama is the person who said it. So credit him for making his own point. Hayden was simply responding to the Obama's remark. There seems to be some confusion here.

Please excuse my confusion. I wasn't responding to this Obama quote, “The Democrats have been stuck in the arguments of Vietnam, which means that either you’re a Scoop Jackson Democrat or you’re a Tom Hayden Democrat and you’re suspicious of any military action. And that’s just not my framework.” – Sen. Barack Obama [1]

but to Tom Hayden's response--the "Obama Supporter" link Bill provided was this:

An Appeal to Barack Obama by Tom Hayden
January 05, 2008

---including this paragraph---- Politically, it is a mistake because there last time I looked there were a whole lot more “Tom Hayden Democrats” voting in the California primary and, I suspect, around the country, than “‘Scoop’ Jackson Democrats.” In fact, they are your greatest potential base, aside from African-American voters, in a multi-candidate primary.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My guess is that most Obama supporters from his generation or younger have no clue who Scoop Jackson was. That was my point.

I like either Edwards or Obama, am old enough to remember when Tom Hayden was one of the Chicago 7, and rarely have agreed with him. Also I was never a Scoop Jackson Democrat. In the Democratic Party we are allowed to think for ourselves and not required to take sides like that.

Apparently I shouldn't have been so laconic when I posted the link to Tom Hayden's article. He made some valid points that Obama and his supporters would do well to consider instead of focusing on other points that they may take exception to. Overall, I felt that Hayden was more positive than negative regarding Obama. After the exuberance following Obama's victory in Iowa and his speech that was approaching the irrational it seemed like a good idea to have a little coolness injected into the debate. Last time I checked, Obama strikes me as human thus like the rest of us less than perfect.

Pat: Thanks for your rap sheet on Hillary. There were a couple of charges in there that I had forgotten. One of the most ominous points is her link to Rupert Murdoch which would guarantee further consolidation of media begun during Slick Willie's regime.

(regrettably, John Edwards was there and voted for it).

To mitigate John Edwards' culpability without absolving him completely, Edwards was originally opposed to voting for the war, but according to what Democratic consultant Bob Shrum said in his book, Shrum worked on Edwards to change his mind against his better judgment and his wife's opinion. At least Edwards had the decency to make a clear-cut statement about being wrong, something Hillary and other presidential candidates were unable to rise to.

Re: Bill Bodden and pdxatheist:

The WMD argument is a red herring on both sides. It doesn't matter whether or not Iraq had chemical or biological weapons, or even if they had a nuclear program. The issue is and was whether or not they were an imminent threat to us, the only situation that would have justified an invasion and occupation under both international and U.S. (e.g., the 1996 War Crimes Act)law.

The fact is that, even if H. Clinton had been correct about Iraq-related "intelligence", her war-mongering would have been immoral in context. To argue that we are justified in attacking anyone with WMD who we see as a possible threat suggests that 911 was equally justified, and that anyone in the world who sees us as a possible threat is justified in attacking us.

Almost every Republican voted to authorize force in Iraq in October 2002.

On this vote Republicans Lincoln Chafee in the senate and Ron Paul in the house had the insight to oppose the war and the moral courage and integrity to vote against it. How many Republicans believed it was wrong to vote for the war but lacked the courage to buck their party's leadership? What was Gordon Smith's position on this vote? Was he, too, incompetent and gullible in the presence of the warmongers, or did he believe this war that has proved to be so disastrous was the right thing to do? Or did he really not believe in the war but for some reason or other couldn't bring himself to vote against it? What reason(s) would there be for such a decision?

The WMD argument is a red herring on both sides. It doesn't matter whether or not Iraq had chemical or biological weapons, or even if they had a nuclear program. The issue is and was whether or not they were an imminent threat to us, the only situation that would have justified an invasion and occupation under both international and U.S. (e.g., the 1996 War Crimes Act)law.

Thanks, Harry, for bringing up the issue of the war's illegality. It is a point I have made on this site several times. I focused above on putting down the canard that people still insist of raising about the "intelligence." Most likely, like Saddam Hussein's alleged involvement in 9/11 and the tooth fairy the "faulty intelligence" argument will never die. And, apparently, there will be no lack of credulous people willing to believe these myths and lies.