In the hype leading up to this general election Barack Obama has been compared to everyone from Jesus of Nazareth to John F. Kennedy, with every RFK and inspiring leader in between thrown in for good measure. Of all those comparisons Obama's greatest historical parallel is Abraham Lincoln, his fellow Illinois mate. It isn't because of their state sharing or their emphasis on intellectual eloquence. It also isn't because both came to their presidential campaigns with little elected experience and took their party's nomination from a party stalwart from New York with dedicated partisans (for Abe it was Seward and we all know who it was for Obama). It isn't even because he faced an opposing party in the general that was shattered and splintered into tiny pieces and had been in power for too long. All of those parallels are there in the history books, but it isn't why I think Obama is a Lincoln rather than a Kennedy.

History doesn't lie, except when it does. But it seems to me that it is hard to deny the appeal to history presented by two of our best presidents, Lincoln and JFK. In Lincoln we see the greatest US president assembling his top rivals to assist in his cabinet. Some of them were staunch violent political opponents. Much more so than Hillary is to Obama. In JFK we see the selection of LBJ and the last time a VP actually made a difference in the electoral outcome. It seems that Hillary, like LBJ, has the political clout along with her husband to swing a few electoral votes. Especially in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Isn't that the key point many in the media and the HRC campaign are forgetting? Obviously Obama has a problem among union working class democrats against Hillary Clinton, but what isn't altogether clear to me is how that translates into a problem with winning loyal Democrats against John McCain. I don't think we've seen any positive indication that Obama is losing to McCain among any demographic by virtue of his problems against Hillary.

It is essential to remember that each race presents different dynamics. Hillary ran to the left of Obama in populist rhetoric to win votes. McCain can't and won't do that. So how will he lure voters that support Hillary because of her big government solutions? McCain presents the exact opposite platform. Unless we argue that the whole of Hillary's support is racist, then this fear that McCain will poach from Hillary's base is nonsene.

I used to think that this race was destructive to Obama and the party come November. I thought McCain was most helped by Hillary's kitchen sink scorched earth strategy. Then the media started saying it and that is always my cause for pause. I thought about it. Is McCain really the winner here? Sure some of his gaffes are ignored in the scrape, but this is a long way from November. It reminds me of the media saying Hillary was cruising in June of last year. How did that turn out? Or when they said McCain was dead. Remember that? So I thought some more and I gotta say. Obama is better off today than he was before Texas and Ohio.

This ABC debate reminds me of a discussion I had at a forum of journalists at Georgetown University last summer. This panel of journalists were discussing reporting on religion and I asked what their priority was on their beat. I was concerned (and still am) about coverage of Intelligent Design and Evolution being muddied by ignoring scientific facts for the sake of stirring up a debate. I asked them if they thought they should report the facts or report the controversy that only exists absent the relevant facts. I was told by one that worked for USA Today that her job was to be a "mirror" for the public. I said she wasn't a mirror to the people, but a reporter of the facts. They all laughed me off as obviously being wrong and that is the problem. This the fundamental problem that allows "Bittergate" and the like to carry on. The media doesn't even know what their job is supposed to be. Just the facts, mam. Just the facts.

When people in the media and people in the Clinton campaign suggested that Latinos and Blacks wouldn't vote for one another it was considered cynical and racist. Now people are suggesting freely that white ethnic blue-collar workers are simpleton racist pigs who can never be expected to vote for a black man. But apparently these same supposed racists will vote for Hillary because they are sooooo enlightened about gender roles, yeah? Does anyone else think this line of thinking is FUBAR?

Let's say Hillary wins Pennsylvania and ends up losing the pledged delegate count (the one that matters). Let's say Hillary wins the popular vote even with Obama winning more states. Remember that a couple of caucus states including Iowa don't count popular vote so several states Obama won won't be included in that popular vote total. Also remember that the popular vote isn't how we get a nominee. What should Obama and his supporters do if HRC goes over the head of the process to win the nomination? Simple. Start a new process. I mean...if there is no respect for the process and the party amongst HRC supporters why should we play our instruments as the Titantic sinks?

Make no mistake about it. The GOP has won the night. I'm an Obama supporter through and through, but Hillary Clinton is the winner of the night and has a justification to continue forward. If I happened to be a Hillary supporter I would want her to keep going. The problem is that for her to keep going and gain traction she has to assault Obama which begins the downward spiral of retaliation and we get two great candidates throwing millions to tear each other down. Meanwhile, supporters on both sides harden their hearts at the other side due to the atrition. John McCain is winning big because of tonight.

I'm a politics junkie and I love reading about the losers of presidential campaigns. These primary challengers just couldn't bust through, but it was fun while it lasted. These are campaigns I think were honorable and worth cheering for even if you already know they lost.

This is in part inspired by the delicious diary currently residing on the recommended list Jimmy Crackcorn

I got to thinking. Man, Hillary's biggest opponent today is Hillary from yesterday. If she could only get that Hillary to be quiet.

Did Jesse Jackson win North Dakota? Did Jesse Jackson win Alabama? How about Colorado and Missouri? What were Jesse Jackson's numbers in Connecticut and Delaware, Mr. President? Tell us how Jesse Jackson did in Minnesota?

Oh...it is getting pretty deep now, Mr. President. I think you are wading in it.

One great thing about being a nobody here is that I don't have to eat crow or worry about swiftly removing my foot from my mouth. For those of you who don't know my position up to this point on the primary (aka all of you), I support Obama and have said I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Well...just like the Clinton campaign tactics, I was wrong.

I am still a staunch Obama supporter and I firmly believe he is the best chance to move this country forward. I think he is the most electable and has the ability to be one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. But if he doesn't capture the nomination I will devote time, money, and my vote to Hillary Clinton. We have to stop those insane fucking Republicans no matter what.

I see a lot of saddened folks around here. That is to be understood. It seems as if we have taken one more step to the same old shit in the Democratic Party. It looks like the party is deciding to shoot itself in the foot again with an establishment candidate arguing for a return to the past. But folks, Barack Obama is facing a party establishment that has been entrenched in power for three decades. The Clintons have ruled this party with an iron fist for 20 years. Did you think it was going to be easy? Did you think taking on that power structure would be a walkin the park? JFK won the presidency by a razor thin margin. RFK was in a hard fought battle. Abe Lincoln was third on the first ballot of his party's convention.

Change is never easy. Transformation always has resistance as well it should. You must be shaped by the fire to ever be ready to lead.

This is the tale of two candidates. Here is a candidate with a famous family member that was president, tons of establishment support, millions to spare....and not much else to speak of for a rationale for being commander in chief. At the start the candidate talks of unity because everyone in the party is uniting behind the campaign. They shy away from attacking rivals and stress how all candidates in the primary are great. Then something happens...candidate loses to a grassroots effort. In fact the candidate loses big. So with no real rationale for a candidacy other than electability, inevitability, and cash, said candidate decides to smear the hell out of the competition and bully everyone into the booth.

Is the above a description of George Bush in 2000 leading up to his smearing of John McCain or is it about Hillary Clinton now? The answer is obviously, all of the above. That should be the clearest warning sign.

I don't know which party is in worse shape coming into the South Carolina primary. The Republicans will have two or three candidates scrapping and clawing at each other and alienating various parts of the colation with Rudy-G waiting in the wings to do even more alienating later. The Democrats have only two viable candidates, but that could mean more alienated at the loss of their choice.

If...well when Fred Thompson loses his supporters probably don't have much invested (based on his fundraising and support numbers) to care enough to sit out the general. In fact if Rudy or Huckabee aren't the nominee it is likely that most of the party will only mildly dislike their nominee. Meanwhile with the Democrats, we have two candidates. It is a much starker contrast that allows for much more animosity and alienation in defeat.

I for one can say with all honesty that I can't vote for Hillary Clinton. She is too establishment and status quo to be our nominee after eight years of Bush. We need a drastic change in tone, direction, and ultimately a unification to gain solutions to the gigantic problems facing our nation. Hillary can't unify this country only be an agent to further division. This might get ugly.

It seems Bill Clinton is pitching a public temper tantrum at the world because of Hillary's downfall. What in the world is he talking about? He's attacking people for taking nuanced positions? He's attacking Barack Obama about the Iraq War and his stance on it after Bill himself made the laughable claim that he had opposed the war from the beginning. He's blaming the media? The media? All we heard for months was that Hillary was unbeatable. All the speculation was on who Hillary would pick for her adminstration posts. We certainly didn't hear Bill and Hillary attacking the media for bad coverage at the time nor was anything mentioned about Barack getting a free pass.

Bill Clinton...you are nothing but a fossil now, an irrelevant relic to a long gone past who has turned into a bitter ranting codger telling us how stupid we are for taking the future into our own hands.

NO CRYING!

Many are offering the requiem of the Iowa caucus. No matter what you think of the system that makes the quirky corn state and it's odd selection process first, it can teach us a lot if we pay attention.