But this still doesn't make sense to me. You were burned once by Bill Clinton but you'll take the person claiming that legacy as her own, who will return him to the White House in at least a significant advisory role, and who was actually part of what you feel burned by over the one who, as you says, represents what you found so exciting the last time.

It looks to me like you're saying that you'll take the one you know will be disappointing since by knowing that it will make the disappointment less over the one that will have the most room to disappoint for having raised expectations in the first place. Essentially that you're saying "I'd rather have this really dry bland piece of cake simply because I know it is dry an bland instead of that other really delicious looking piece of cake because it might turn out to be dry and bland.

In terms of what either can accomplish I don't really see why there is any great expectation for either of them. Either the victory of a Democrat will sweep in a sufficient majority in Congress to overcome filibuster, in which case either of them should be able to do whatever they want, especially in the exuberant first 18 months, or it won't in which case neither of them will be able to do anything in particular unless the president has the ability to impassion the middle to their cause.

I must say that as someone on the outside of the Democratic party I really don't see the calculus where Obama isn't preferable in almost every way since it seems to me that at worst Obama ends up being what we pretty much know Clinton will be.

Wow, I guess I'm just not all that pumped about this election.

You know, with the direction the economy is going and the state of the nation in general, I must say I wouldn't be heartbroken if the Repub's took it. I mean, at some point they've got to lay off the Clinton's Fault maneuver and accept that they've really ****ed things up. I really don't know if anyone can clean this mess up anytime soon, and whoever takes over is going to look like crap by the end of the first year. Might as well remain the Repub's in that case.

I completely understand where you are coming from and in some cases, agree. But McCain has clearly stated more than once that "there will be more wars" and that 100-year occupation is just fine with him. As much as I would like to see the pubs have to face up to their own mess, the possibility exists that they could also make things a whole lot worse, and I can't take that gamble.

So the Repubs can't blame Clinton for his mistakes, but dems can blame Bush for his mistakes? You said the Repubs messed things up and whomever is elected will look bad. Won't you be crying "it's Bush's fault" the same as I did about the things that I thought were Clinton's fault?

Of course you will.

Have you stopped beating your wife? In other words, I disagree with the premise of your argument. YOu seem to think that Obama is the only person - despite his IMMENSE lack of experience - that can accomplish goals and they must be done his way, and anyone who doesn't agree with how he wishes to do them must be against the ideas themselves.

I'd love for us to be out of Iraq, but think he will cause harm in how he does it. Of course I don't want dumb kids, but I don't think money will fix it (nor most of his suggestions). His idea of border control is vague at best and I don't trust him on it. And I'm not educated enough on his internet ideas, to be frank, to make a judgement.

Obama makes me fear for the future. Yes, indeed.

Wait, now we want an experienced Washington insider as president? How come I didn't get the memo?

You can be an outsider and get my vote. I voted Forbes in 2000.

The idea that people count time spent as First Lady as experience baffles me. It also pisses me off. No one elected her to anything then. If Bill had appointed her to his cabinet or something, fine. Other than that, I think the whole First Lady/First Gentleman thing should be external and decorative and nothing more. Perhaps if the bumper stickers had read "Bill, Hillary and Al '92" it would have been more honest.

Hillary was no ordinary first lady. She mastered quite an efficient organization. In fact, her experience in the White House leads me to expect that her first 180 days wouldn't be the fratboy disaster that Bill's was - of incompetently trying to set up a slate-clean presidential administration.

I think Hillary's experience as an extraordinary first lady with a shadow administration, plus the lessons learned from experiencing first-hand her husband's failures ... would lead to a crackerjack operation from the get-go that would hit the ground running.

Of course, I'm greatly troubled by her floundering campaign organization, where she seems to have the Dubya modus operandi of rewarding loyalty over competence. In that sense, I think she is disqualifying herself from running a presidential adminstration with each passing news day.


But Obama's going to have to start from scratch. And though I admire his positions, I think his adminisration might be a bumbling one.

On the other hand, he's managing his political campaign with admirable saavy.