She can't do it

As a Democrat who remains undecided but will not vote for Clinton (or Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd), I think Obama is making a respectful enough statement; but I think he's wrong.

It's a plausible argument. But if Clinton does become the nominee, I think she will get a second chance from a fair number of voters at that time who haven't thought of her since 2000. She has demonstrated that she can get Republicans and independents in New York. Get her through the primary, and I think we'll see the same.

I sincerely hope she does NOT get the nomination. But it's because I think they would be better in the White House and are just as good of candidates as she is. Sure, she is divisive, but has shown she can overcome it. Part of it is because she is a supreme waffler and almost as slick as her husband, excepting a few notable, rare stumbles this last month.

Of the plausible Democrat nominees, my guess is that Edwards would be the most divisive with his backwards-looking, class-warfare rhetoric.

Bush the first was CIA director, then VP from '81-89, Pres from 89-93. The Clintons ran the show from '93-'01. Bush the secons from '01-'09. If it is Hill/Bill again, that makes 36 straight years of Bush-Clinton. Hillary talks about change, yet runs a mean, lobbyist-intensive campaign straight out of the '90's. That's the main reason for her high negatives--people don't trust her, and people don't want the same old &%@$ in Washington. Whether Obama is the right change--who knows--but he is correct that Clinton will just bring more of the same old divide.

Obviously Obamasama hasn't traveled to the south lately....EVERYONE who's not black hates him there.

Clinton is the only logical choice for America....
except for Ron Paul or Joe Biden

My fear with Hillary is is she able to convince anyone new to vote for her? Even during a year long campaign what can she say to change anyones idea about who she is? And if its going to be an election about change, is she going to be able to show why she is the candidate of change. To be honest, I agree with Obama that a Hillary Clinton as Democratic Party nomination will lead to another 50-50 election. Barack Obama may not be perfect as a candidate, but on the other hand, he can bring new people into his campaign.

DKNY, I wish we could go back to pre-9/11. In fact, I wish President Clinton had taken the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, on our forces in Somalia, on the U. S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and on the USS Cole more seriously. But I also wish President Reagan had not pulled our troops out of Lebanon following the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks; and instead ordered a full-scale assault on Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. BUT we can't go back. We must go forward.

And speaking of going forward, while extremely fragile and tentative, things are looking more positive in the Middle East: Violence has dropped significantly in Iraq; al Qaeda in Iraq is definitely on the run; Iraqis are beginning to resume their lives (kids playing soccer in the parks); and evacuees are slowly beginning to return to Iraq. And Israel and the Palestinians are finally beginning their talks on forming a permanent state of Palestine.

And when Clinton wins the nomination, it will be Obama saying the exact opposite, that the party will unite behind the nominee, that Hillary will exact change.

I think Clinton is more about politics and less about leadership. Seriously, how can you expect to have respect for a candidate that trots out a rivals elementary school writings as proof of a long term conspiracy to run for President? She bobs and weaves on issues better than Ali, she is trying to get elected and all bets are off on how she does it. I can respect Obama, because even though I don't agree with everythign he says, I don't get the sense he is only telling me what I want to hear.

James Danley, the references to Slick Willie bring me back to a simpler, happier time, when our President was "slick." It almost sounds quaint now. What I wouldn't do to return to that time before "yellow cake," "WMD," "Curveball," "waterboarding," and "Mission Accomplished." That would be nice.

It makes no difference if Sen. Hillary Clinton is a divider. They didn't call her husband "Slick Willie" for nothing. And he didn't earn that moniker by himself. Hillary was at his side the entire way. We will know soon whether we now have a "Slick Hilly" as well.

Obama is correct. I am a republican who might vote for Obama in the national election if he wins the democratic nomination. This is coming from someone who has never voted democrat in a presidential race. Like many other republicans, I can not foresee voting or supporting her in anyway. She is the last person that this country needs in the oval office.

He's a tool. Clinton will win Iowa and the presidency of the United States. Obama is blowing smoke, because he is scared.

I tend to agree with Sen. Obama and with most political pundits in assessing Sen. Clinton's "high negatives." She's such a polarizing figure that there seems to be no middle-of-the-road for her popularity: you either like her a lot or detest her enormously.

I think Obabma is incorrect. While they might attract different new voters and in different numbers, there is no doubt that Clinton will be able to attract certain new voters. I personally know of a few people who are active in this campaign (never having been active in a Presidential campaign before) solely to support Clinton.