Good ad, but at the end it sounded like he said, "We need a new leader to LEFT America." I know he meant "lift," but I swear it sounded like "left."

Indeed, judgement is almost impossibly difficult to discern as a voter or display as a candidate. The problem is that every candidate will claim that their judgement is sound, and will carefully stage-manage their campaigns to make people believe this is the case. It's only when crisis hits and they're the decision-makers that it truly comes out, and then it might be too late.

(Campaign crises don't really count, as candidates aren't necessarily the real decision-makers on a campaign.)

As for Obama's success? He's in the same situation now as he's ever been: he's up against a candidate who polls well with people who are primary voters but not especially active and informed otherwise, and they probably aren't going to be paying much attention to this ad in the first place. He's also up against the slickest electoral machine in the Democratic party.

I'm having trouble seeing how advertisements are going to change that much, no matter how sound they are.

I think Obama needs to find some other issued to push before his thoughts on the war (correct though they may be) become the equivalent of Rudy chanting 9/11 all the time.

OK, we get it, you were right five years ago. But what else can you do?

And I'm a fan and have donated to his campaign.

(Agree with Tom that it sounds like the general is saying "left" instead of "lift.")

Yeah, I spent a minute or two trying to figure out why Obama was running an ad saying we needed a new leader for Left America.

Even if judgment is tough to discern - which it really isn't, Obama did display better judgment in 2002, just as Bush didn't as he accumulated a heck of a lot of experience in the White House- just talking about judgment is victory for Obama; it means that people stop thinking about experience which is also false post for measuring what else? Judgment.

We should all want a president with excellent judgment. But candidates who try to sell us on their judgment by talking about their judgment rather than letting us judge for ourselves from what they say and do more substantively are all too likely to have just settled on a catchy PR campaign rather than judged themselves accurately for all to see. These are the times that try our souls, not the times that cry out for triangulation, self-satisfied bipartisanship, or Olympian detachment. Give me that old time secular religion.

After all, in the same way that everyone thinks they're a better-than-average driver, everyone thinks they're endowed with better-than-average judgment too. That makes it tough to convince people that your judgment is really something so special that they ought to vote you into the Oval Office.

I don't see why people generally tending to see themselves as being above average in the judgement department would make it any harder for a candidate to convince voters that their judgement is better than their rivals. It would, of course, make it hard for a candidate to convince a voter that the candidate's judgement was better than the voters, but that's not the challenge that candidates face.

... judgment and temperament are the most important qualities I look for. ... It's exactly the right theme to have, but it's a helluva tough nut to crack.

—Kevin Drum

Even though it's very early, we're way beyond "qualities" and "themes." Obama has to get very specific and very concrete -- and draw credible distinctions between himself and HRC to survive.

Agree with Ross Best that candidates must let "us judge for ourselves from what they say and do."

O should hammer on 'trust' instead of 'judgment.' A candidate you can trust. But can you trust your candidate, once in office? Proven trust. Etc., etc. A better way of selling 'judgment,' I think.

I believe he is better known as "Tony."

I believe "temperment" can be best described as finding a person who is not going to have "daddy" issues. America has now been led by a man with clear, demonstrable "daddy" issues and I think we need to go in a different direction.

If you want to know what "daddy" issues are, think of a man who cannot possibly live up to the valor and bravery and achievements of his father, a man who never did anything with his life other than lose other people's money, and a man who clearly cannot show the slightest bit of empathy for another human being. Now, think of the fact that half the Republican Party has "daddy" issues and speculate amongst yourselves where that has led this country.

Kevin writes: "After all, in the same way that everyone thinks they're a better-than-average driver, everyone thinks they're endowed with better-than-average judgment too. That makes it tough to convince people that your judgment is really something so special that they ought to vote you into the Oval Office..."

Except that the proof is in the pudding. When it mattered, Obama did show good judgment, as Nick pointed out above. There's a difference between projecting a kind of faux-John Wayne confidence, like Bush is famous for, and actually knowing what you're doing. If people had actually gone back and taken a look at Bush's track record and what his business and governing judgment had really been like back in Texas, things might have turned out differently.

Fine, promote judgement. It's not unimportant, but the decision Democrats are weighing hinges on 3 things; policies, which candidate can be successful implementing those polcies, and which candidate will win the general election.

At this point it almost seems as if any Democrat will defeat any Republican. Polls that say otherwise just don't feel right, but regardless all top Dems look very strong. How different are their policies-- the top 3 plus a couple more? Not much.

The key factor is who can turn the proposals into reality. This equation makes the horse race more important than the actual policy differences, which are so small. Raising money and turning that into poll results shows the ability to get things done. Ironic that the press finally got it right. Blind squirrel.

I haven't decided who is proving best. I hope more than one makes it to the convention strong enough to win. How would/could GOP slime monsters game that?

A leader with good judgment and the courage to stand up for what they believe is right, even in the face of overwhelming opposition, is exactly what this country needs. Nor do I think it's too abstract for the average voter; to the contrary, your average voter probably doesn't pay all that close attention to politics or political platforms. The problem is that thus far Obama appears to to have only one example that demonstrates the claim. It's all well and fine to use that as the cornerstone example, but he needs to expand on that and provide more examples.

Obama also needs to make the case that he has the necessary experience to be president. This is less about whether he has "enough" experience than it is about simply selling the experience he does have. One could easily make the case that Giuliani, a former prosecutor and mayor of one of the world's great cities (with a population of over 8 million) has more applicable experience for being president than William Clinton did (Arkansas' population was about 2.5 million, much of it rural). Aside from her experience as first lady, Hillary Clinton has about the same experience on paper that Barak Obama does. Any perceived shortcomings in that area are probably more attributable to failures of the Obama campaign to sell his experience. And let's be frank, simply repeating the claim that your candidate has "experience", "leadership" and "judgment" is often enough to convince people without much additional substance.

To me, Obama appears to be the most trustworthy and earnest candidate in the field. He reminds me a bit of Bobby Kennedy - young, genuine, charismatic, a bit patrician and something of an idealist. Obama appears to speak from the heart much more than any of the other candidates. Perhaps because of this, he's also the candidates who can best get away with unpopular answers to tough questions. You don't feel like you're being sold an answer that was focus-group tested to sound good without actually saying much if anything of substance.

But Americans on balance prefer the superficial to substance, prefer bogus moral clarity and applause lines to reasoned and nuanced answers, love to shoot the messengers of bad news, and above all else will take the path of least resistance and the least personal responsibility. For example, everybody knows that the way to a healthy body is eating right and exercising, but the majority simply can't be bothered (and how dare you call me fat - it's not my fault!). But they will be happy to throw cash at our new-fangled snake oil salesmen who tell them there's a pill they can take which will magically counteract their unhealthy, gluttonous and slothful ways!

Nobody likes Hillary, not really, but plenty of people support her because they think she has the best chances of winning due to her husband's connections. Who can blame them. The Bush-controlled Republican political machine was able to elect an inexperienced, inarticulate, petty, draft-dodging, coke-snorting, imbecile. And somehow Senator Kerry couldn't find the wherewithal to defend himself against the manufactured slanders of the Swift Boat Veterans, yet alone actually go on the offensive against the most corrupt and incompetent administration in our nation's history.

My main fear with Obama is that he would end up like Jimmy Carter - too earnest, honest and decent to be truly effective in a political atmosphere that requires cajoling, back-scratching, arm-twisting, bullying, and - well, let's be frank - viciousness and moral flexibility.
Just think of how laughably naive it would be to try and appeal to the honesty, integrity, and decency (not to mention the greater good of the nation) to someone like Tom Delay, Trent Lott, or Boehner. These people harbored a known pedophile out of political expedience (and somehow Democrats weren't willing or able to make much lasting political hay out of that either).

Hillary on the other hand seems like she is perfectly capable of smiling to the face of someone she is stabbing in the back. Thanks to Dick Cheney, a president Hillary Clinton might end up having the greatest unchecked power of any president to date. Hell hath no fury... and that's exactly what the Republicans deserve.

Gussie, you nailed it. "Trust" is going to be more of an issue than "judgement." Judgement is determined after the fact. Trust is something that much be determined before-hand. Pundits value judgment. Voters value trust.

And, Kevin, where are the kitties? You're slipping...

Oooo, sorry. I guess I just didn't scroll back far enough. Cat-blogging is becoming the first order of Friday business, it seems.

One could easily make the case that Giuliani, a former prosecutor and mayor of one of the world's great cities (with a population of over 8 million) has more applicable experience for being president than William Clinton did (Arkansas' population was about 2.5 million, much of it rural). Aside from her experience as first lady, Hillary Clinton has about the same experience on paper that Barak Obama does.

Some of these points are wrong.

First of all, being mayor of New York City is a largely ceremonial position, what with multiple layers of government that actually runs things. There is a city council, a port authority, there are the boroughs. Guiliani's running of the city reduced crime but inflamed race relations. His decision to put his emergency command center in one of the World Trade Centers shows horrible judgement.

Second, being the mayor of the biggest city in America does not compare to being one of the fifty governors. A governor is a chief executive and has to work with a legislature and a judiciary. A governor is a kind of Commander in Chief, having military forces under his command. He delegates responsibilities and participates in the budgetary process in a way that a mayor does not. Yeah--Arkansas is a small state. But you could argue that the Governor of Arkansas has more power than the Governor of Texas.

Third, Obama has very limited experience, and that's why he keeps saying that he is a Washington outsider who doesn't have "the wrong" kind of experience. A few years in a state legislature and a few years as a US Senator doesn't cut it, and that also hurts Edwards.

Fourth, Clinton has been on the world stage since 1991, going back to the campaign for President, 8 years of scrutiny, and seven years as a US Senator. There isn't anything they can throw at her that wasn't already thrown at her three or four times previously.

Well my 4th grader wants Obama to win, but that's mainly because she wants to be the first woman president.

It's especially hard for those of us who are better than average drivers.

It seems to me that the issue is just not showing you have good judgment, but pointing out the bad judgment of the other candidates. I don't know if Obama is willing to do so, but Edwards is a phony trial lawyer with (from the liberal perspective) terrible judgment, e.g., Iraq War, works for hedge fund, $400 haircuts, palatial home, etc.

Clinton is not so obvious, but she blew health care, voted for war in Iraq, fought stupid fights with political opponents and prosecutors, and stayed with her husband for political advantage (which, considering how she is the frontrunner for president as the "experienced" candidate with no discernible experience, might be good political judgment and merely horrible personal judgment).

In any event, comparing the good and bad judgment of each candidate makes Obama look pretty good.

and stayed with her husband for political advantage

What? Jealous of her family values, there, brian?

How many wives have you abandoned? How many wives have you walked out on? How many times have you been dragged into court to pay child support?

I love it when a Republican talks about family values. Break out the list of Republicans who can't fucking take care of any of the families they started.

"Edwards is a phony trial lawyer with (from the liberal perspective) terrible judgment"

Though from the liberal perspective Edwards is the most liberal of the three. That's what I like about his judgment.

Senator LARRY CRAIG: The Senate certainly can bring about a censure resolution, and it‘s a slap on the wrist. It‘s a, Bad boy, Bill Clinton, you‘re a naughty boy.
The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy. I‘m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty bad naughty boy.

Come on, brian. Lecture us about "family values" and tell us the Republican Party has that issue locked up.

Tell us all about Ted Haggard, David Vitter and Newt and Rudy and how they all have such wonderful "judgement."

You know, we simply cannot risk going back to the days of peace, prosperity and responsible fiscal policy, can we, brian? Oh, no. We don't want to go back to those days, do we? Not when we can elect a cross-dressing fascist or a flip flopping small state governor or a past-his-prime Senator who is paying the price for carrying water for this administration.

I'll take the "judgement" of any Democrat over any clown you can find to run as a Republican.

brian: In any event, comparing the good and bad judgment of each candidate makes Obama look pretty good.

Then you are supporting Obama for '08? If you are, I think he'd suggest you STFU, or find more constructive arguments.

Oh, and...brian? brian? Are you there?

More than a few people in this country now refuse to let a self-described "values Republican" anywhere near their children. More than a few Americans now realize that when someone talks about their opposition to gay marriage, gay rights, family values, how this is a Christian nation, how liberals are destroying our society, how we need to have prayer in school--well, more than a few Americans are taking a step BACK from these people and they're keeping the kids away from these people.

Wonder why that is...

Obama truly shows judgment in all his actions, and makes sure to investigate who organized the things he supports (and what foreign country they're linked to).

[Note: WM edits or deletes comments without notice.]

Whenever I see the Lone Wackjob posting his bizaare bullshit about illegal immigration, I smile and look for a story about Americans helping illegal immigrants.

How's that blog working out for you? Are you making enough money to build yourself a moat around that shack of a house you live in? Got enough ammo for the apocalypse?

In small towns like Douglas, Bisbee or Naco, the fact that people know each other has its advantages as well as disadvantages for people organizing to help immigrants. One activist told the RW, "It's so loosely knit. It's like somebody says something to somebody, and then somebody says something to somebody else and you get the idea that these are friendly people and they would be helpful." But at the same time, he added, people have to think, "'Who can I trust? Who do I need to be sure I don't slip and say the wrong thing to that would jeopardize other people?'"

In the 1980s, during the U.S. war in El Salvador, religious activists and others in this same area started the Sanctuary Movement. There were churches in every part of the U.S. where people openly gave shelter to undocumented refugees. There were also activists on the border who helped refugees from Central America to get into the U.S. The government clamped down hard on the movement, but the activists remained defiant.

Now U.S. authorities are trying to threaten and intimidate the emerging movement helping immigrants on the border. The Border Patrol threatens people, telling them that giving food or water to migrants is a criminal offense. The INS regularly impounds cars-they have huge lots in the desert with hundreds of vehicles. A Bisbee activist told the RW, "Some woman picked up a woman and her daughter who were really dehydrated. She called the Border Patrol and said, 'I'm bringing some people to you who are in danger of dying.' They came and they took her and the people who were in her car and they stole her car from her. She had to pay $800 to get her car back." Another activist in the small town of Naco was recently attacked and beaten by vigilantes. Other activists there have noticed an increase in undercover cops.

Bisbee, Arizona is a fine, fine community. I loved going there when I was stationed at Fort Huachuca. When are we going to open up the churches in this country to shelter Iraqis from their civil war?

And why do you wingnuts forget about your little adventure down in Central America, and your fine, fine brothers the contras? Don't you have any nostalgia for the days of Reagan and getting suckered by Iranians, terrorists, and thugs? They sure played ya'll like bitches, didn't they?

I don't know about you, but if that's the kind of judgement that someone has, I'd rather vote for a Democrat.

OT-

Check this out. Wouldn't this be great if our people prayed like this? This is Nelson's prayer before his last battle:

May the Great God, whom I worship, grant to my Country, and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious Victory; and may no misconduct in any one tarnish it; and may humanity after Victory be the predominant feature in the British Fleet. For myself, individually, I commit my life to Him who made me, and may his blessing light upon my endeavours for serving my Country faithfully. To Him I resign myself and the just cause which is entrusted to me to defend. Amen. Amen. Amen.

His last battle? Guess that didn't work out so well for him...

Guys, I did not say anything about Republican or family values. I was just joining in the assessment of the judgment of the democratic candidates.

For those enamored with Edwards "judgment" in taking all these liberal positions, think of the phony back when he ran for the senate as a conservative democrat and then ran for president and vice president as a supporter of the Iraq War.

Judgment? The guy showed poor judgment in not brushing off the flag lapel pin question.

Well, here's some "judgment" for ya. Obviously, one can't tell the NeoConNazis from the "Democratic" Fascists (and Zionist toadies) without a scorecard:

Who Wants To Bomb Iran? Democrats, Not Republicans, Says Seymour Hersh

When George Bush and Dick Cheney talk about their plans to bomb Iran, they are told "You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated"--that's what a Republican former intelligence official told legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "But," the former official went on, "Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President."

I recently spoke with Hersh, whose new piece, "Target Iran," is featured in The New Yorker this week.

When I asked Hersh who wants to bomb Iran, he said, "Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it - Israeli and Jewish input." He added the obvious: "a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns" from Jewish contributors. ...

'Nuff said, Kevin? Time to wake up and smell the ... BS!

...

I think the money shot there is the
shot of obama in front of the white house
deep in thought.

They should use that image a lot more.

...

Sorry, I like Obama, but he is just too green-I cannot support him. I want someone in the WH who can think fast(and yes, ask her husband for his advice if necessary-why not?) and react in a smart way. Obama at this point in his life strikes me as too tentative-not yet sure of himself. I want Hillary to win. I think that she'll be good.

Is she slick? Sure. Does she pander? Of course-they all do. I'm not naive enough to think that we're going to have a real-life Jimmy Stewart as President. That's impossible in this day and age, unfortunately.

More importantly, I think that she can beat Rudy-and I would vote for Satan to prevent him from becoming President.

Obama wasn't in the US Senate when the Iraq war vote was taken. He hasn't taken the lead on defunding the war while he has been in the Senate, so I'm not convinced that his judgment is any better than the other candidates.

I'm still concerned with the electability of Clinton and Obama.

Guys, I did not say anything about Republican or family values. I was just joining in the assessment of the judgment of the democratic candidates.

Liar.

and stayed with her husband for political advantage

So if claiming someone only stayed married in order to further their political career is NOT an attack on the family values of the person, what do you have to say about Guiliani's wife? What about Fred Thompson's trophy wife?

At least be consistent when you're being an insanely ridiculous hypocrite.

Do you mean, a Frank Capraesque James Stewart, or a real life Republican James Stewart?

Just loved seeing the Idlemind Statute in Trafalgar Square. Pigeons like it, too.

Claiming superior judgment would seem a pretty shaky strategy. Obama's judgment led him to miss 23.7% of his votes, led him to be the only Dem candidate to vote with the Republicans on Terri Schiavo, to vote against a cap of 30% interest credit cards.

As for Brian's rap about hedge funds - he might be surprised to find who else the hedge funders are funding. It would also be interesting to find out how many of the very rich punditry class that attacks Edwards have hedge funds in their fat portfolios. As to the rap on trial lawyers: Brian, if you or a family member is ever hit by a major storm and the insurance won't pay up, ever has catastrophic bills they won't pay when you're injured, ever has a loved one injured by crappy tires or cars etc.; just try calling a Republican corporate lawyer. You might find a different attitude about trial lawyers.

Good judgment is like sex appeal - if you have to tell people you have it, you don't

And when a trial lawyer prevails for Brian, defeating the heavily insurance industry paid corporate lawyer, I'm sure that both Brian and his lawyer will go back to their sack cloth and spew a ton of ashes over their shoulders.

Rudy is heavily funded by a hedge funds CEO. Of course, Judy saves him $400 everytime she snips as she snipes.

Actually, the ad kind of made me want to vote for General McPeak. One proves good judgment by having exercised good judgment. Voting against the Iraq war isn't enough, particularly without knowing why Obama voted the way he did.

I like and admire Barack Obama, but his career hasn't provided him with many opportunities to display his judgment -- certainly not the kind of judgments a President has to make. Unfortunately, that's the case for most of the other candidates in both parties. We voters seem to be forced again and again to choose a pig in a poke.

I agree with the first commenter, the choice of language is poor. "Lead" should have been the word rather than "lift".

Obama has decided to open, wider, the front on Clinton's support for the invasion of Iraq, one he has been reluctant to exploit to date. It will be interesting to see if he has the balls to follow through on it aggressively.

Returning integrity to the White House was W. Bush's campaign theme in 2000. That did not work out too well. Sound judgment might be a good trait for a president to have, but how is the voter to determine whether or not a candidate has it? Judging judgment is as difficult as integrating integrity as a value for the voter.

"... I don't know if Obama is willing to do so, but Edwards is a phony trial lawyer"

Evidence?

" with (from the liberal perspective) terrible judgment, e.g.,

Iraq War,"

He was under the influence of Bob Shrum (DLC) back then. Now he's making more decisions on his own and doing much better, thank you.

"works for hedge fund,"

[ Note: worked for...past tense. Now he's running for president. ]

Was that illegal?

"$400 haircuts,"

Again, what's wrong with looking good when you're running for president? Ask Hillary how much she pays. They probably go to the same stylist. If all you've got against Edwards is his hair then you really must think everything he says and has proposed is pretty good. Woo hoo!

"palatial home, etc."

All these people live in nice homes. Don't kid yourself. Edwards made his money coming up from dirt. He's the real deal!

"... In any event, comparing the good and bad judgment of each candidate makes Obama look pretty good."
Posted by: brian on October 5, 2007

Obama: I'll nuke northern Pakistan if I get a chance.

Hmmm, not quite ready for prime time.

-------

My take is that they are all intelligent, photogenic, decent speakers and pretty well advised. But, come general election time some issues might come up that we're not really delving into much in the primaries. You know how the Repubs love their sleaze.

Obama: BLACK, Osama, nuke Pakistan, inexperienced

Clinton: CLINTON, WOMAN, illegal campaign contributions, Whitewater, illegal commodities trading, CLINTON, Massachussetts Liberal, tax and spender

Edwards: good hair

I'll take Edwards if electability is the issue. Polls show he beats any of the Repubs more consistently well than any other Dem would.

John Edwards -- Electable Leadership for America!

Edwards is an interesting and perhaps underrated candidate in terms of his prospect for being elected president. I think the media people who have seen enough of him up close have concluded he is a phony who should not be elected president. But I also assume the members of the bar he practiced against also knew he was a phony -- that did not keep him from great success as a lawyer.

So, if the political climate remains generally favorable for democrats in 08 and he manages to win in Iowa, he could be elected president. I think his insincerity probably would show up over a long campaign and cause hi to lose in the general election, but he might be able to pull it off -- it obviously depends on the republican candidate.

Brian, the insicerity and phoniness might just be your own. The media people who are after him have concluded he is the biggest threat to corporate corruption and control of the government and the conservative status quo in DC. Edwards is beating the tar out of Republicans in a state like Oklahoma. That's right Oklahoma - land of Oral Roberts University and fundie mecca. Once thought out of reach of Democrats.

Chrissy,

Okay, you think the media is in favor of corporate corruption and control of the government and that Oklahoma would vote for the most liberal major democrat candidate. Flying saucers too?

brian: Maybe on your planet there is a media that has bravely gone after the Bush admin corruption, where the 9 billion taxpayer dollars went in Iraq, how the wmd lie got over, investigated how much money the lobbyists and corporate powers have given and to whom and how that money translated into votes, investigated the no bid contracts. Maybe on your planet the media that takes most of its money from industries like coal, weapons, oil and gas, agribusiness does stories on pollution and the influence of these businesses on government. Maybe you've never lived in DC and don't know how it works. I have and I do.

As for Oklahoma check out survey usa data regarding state by state break downs. Edwards beats all Republicans by WIDE margins.

thethirdpaul asked:

Do you mean, a Frank Capraesque James Stewart, or a real life Republican James Stewart?

The former, naturally. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. : D

The election that counts is between now and Feb 5, because any of the top the dems will win the general. Obama is my pick because of his inspirational leadership. I believe he has the judgement, strength, political skills to stand up the smear machine (although that is not as well proven as with Hillary.) His wife, Michele, also rocks. They showed clip of her speaking at a grass roots organizing event in St. Paul this morning, which was attended by 300-400 people. I went just to check it out and left believing an Obama victory over Hillary is still possible and worth dedicating some time to. (although I also like Hillary will fully support her if she is the nominee.)

If they're ideologically in tune with you, and they're reasonably intelligent --- with the leaders are --- why should you imagine that any of them is lacking in judgment?

I find I'm leaning toward Hillary now, because I have more confidence in her ability to hit the presidency running --- getting things accomplished and not getting bogged down by the tactics of the other side.

Obama is my pick because of his inspirational leadership. ... His wife, Michele, also rocks.

Posted by: noexpert

Agree that Obama can be inspirational. But she is absolutely awful. She is a jealous, self-important loudmouth who criticizes her husband -- supposedly to keep us from treating him as a god.

He has $75 million in the bank and she says if "they" lose Iowa, the dream is over???

I mean, STFU!!!

about Michelle-

As a strong, well spoken woman, who is very clear in that her number one priority is her kids, she is a tremendous asset to Barak. Also she is only sharing the truth when she tells voters in Iowa the importance of the state to his grassroots campaign.
I think some of her other comments that have made the news were in the spirit of keeping him real. She could try to learn to be more careful or nuanced, given the media bias in creating fake controversies, but she would risk losing some of what makes her a great speaker.

Obama appeals to me, but we really need to ask and think hard: Does he really have what it takes, the executive grasp? He needs that, however much cool conciliation and inspiration etc. he would bring (or maybe, he can be Hillary's Veep if need be ... Wow, white woman and black man in the White House! The rednecklicans would never live it down ...