Herein, a sampling of responses to CNN article on Hillary's 'red phone' ad and Obama's response to it.    Follow me below the fold, Hillary supporters, for some hoot-hollering fun reading.  But first, make yourself a cup of coffee, sit down, and get comfortable.  It goes on and on ... and on ... and on.  There were 207 comments in all before they closed comments for the article.  

Three samples to whet your appetite:    

It's 3 AM. The phone rings in the WhiteHouse. An automated tape recorder answers…it's the voice of Barack Obama. He answers, "Present".

Yes they are quick in Obama camp and
that part really scares me.
If and I mean if by some long shot Obama wins…….
Is it possible to install an egg timer on the
launch button to give us time to get into our
"nuclear" shelters?
Go Hillary, we love you in Canada.

Obama hardly even shows up in the senate and has NEVER convened the committee that deals with Afghanistan.  If he's so concerned about al Qaeda in Afghanistan, why not convene the committee? He's too busy running for President to show up or convene committees or vote.  Yeah Hillary answer that phone please.

Interesting piece on NPR this morning, about the candidates' various views on campaign financing.   IMO, these candidates are amassing a truly obscene amount of money all for the purpose of lofting themselves to the most powerful position in the world.   Sure, someone has to do it and I'd rather it be my guy than the other team's guy.  But really, do they have to spend 100s of millions of dollars?  

Am I the only one who sees just a little bit of hypocrisy in the behavior of the DEMOCRATIC candidates?   Sure, we expect the republicans to joke about the "haves and the have mores" but you could feed and clothe a lot of poor children in Appalachia, or rebuild quite a few homes in Katrina-devastated New Orleans, with $100 million.    Or help a lot of Iraq veterans find jobs and health care.  

And isn't that what we as Democrats are supposed to be about?   I'm curious what folks' thoughts are on this one.   Thus, a poll.

This hardly qualifies as a diary, more like a comment.  Just wanted to share a recent experience.    I'll throw in a poll to give it some meat.

While visiting my elderly dad in Tennesseee, I was treated to a treatise by a couple of locals (white males) on Clinton versus Obama.

Had to share this truly freaky video, and include the obligatory poll asking folks to choose between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.   And hey now, don't flame me!  It's lunch hour on a slow day at work.  I've just moved into a new place in a small college town, but sometimes it's fun to visit the old 'hood and mix it up with the boys hanging out on the corner.

Plus there's a juicy conspiracy theory lurking in this diary which, if true, could blow the cover off Fox News for all time.  

Barack Obama's wins in the red states of the West in yesterday's primaries put him in a difficult position.   His campaign may be tempted to trumpet this -- as some supporters here on dkos already have -- as proof that he can take red states in November.  But I see storm clouds for him on that particular horizon.    And those clouds are all about Iraq.

By claiming to have been "right on day 1" about Iraq as failed imperial adventurism, Obama has painted himself into a corner that could prove to be a prison in any general election contest, but particularly in the red state West.  

In this short diary I quote Obama on two key questions and I point you to a piece about him on a conservative web site.   His own words are on the Latino vote and how tough he'll be in the general election.   The conservative article is rather fair and balanced, all things considered.    Happy reading!

Barack Obama launched a new campaign slogan at the January 31, 2008 Democrat primary debate in LA.  He said:  "I plan to be right on day 1."    The slogan is a reference to two things:  

1. Hillary Clinton's claim that she will be "ready to lead on day 1" and

2. the fact that Clinton voted in 2002 to approve Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which allowed Bush to prosecute a disastrous war which is now almost universally opposed among Democratic voters.  

The remark drew a laugh and a large positive response.   Barack may be tempted to continue this line of attack against Clinton, but I'm not sure it is in the long-term best interest of Barack himself, the Democratic party, or the country.  

Below the fold, I ruminate just a bit on the implications of having a president who is "right on day 1."   Is that what we want?  Why or why not?

Curious where people here are from.  Since diaries flow by so fast and late-night is going to grab a different sample than other times of day, I'll post it again tomorrow at various times, to try to get an accurate sample.  

Apologies in advance if I've put your state into a group you'd rather not associate with.  :)  Poll didn't have 50 lines.    I've tried to pay some attention to voting/cultural affinities as well as geography.  

The e-mail came out either late Wednesday or early Thursday, asking the membership to vote over the following 24 hours, with the results to be reported on Friday.

What's wrong with a vote?   Here's what:

Hillary was hot tonight.  They were both good, and they were both nice to each other.

But man, Hillary was stunning.   This old man's heart is racing.     She's got a pretty smile. a most endearing guffaw, a presidental bearing, and (phew!) incredible mind.   Just a little more below the fold:

Folks, I've been a fervent John Edwards supporter.   Why?    

* His anti-corporation stand (never mind that a big corporation pays my bills, they've overstepped their bounds and need reining in). * His focus on poverty and helping the working men and women of the country. * His electability. * His essential goodness.

So, whither now?  

Obama supporters are delirious about yesterday's SC win, and to be honest I share some of their enthusiasm.   If this time next year we are inaugurating President Barack Obama, I will be as deliriously happy as any Obama supporter is today.

But I'm not there yet, and we all need to keep our eyes on the NOVEMBER prize.    Below are several numbers meant to sober you up on the morning after ...

This guy makes the case pretty much the same way I have been, although ... I was called trollish while he gets top billing on Huffington Post.   Oh well, who cares about that.   As John Edwards says, it's not about me; it's about the future of our country.    

My friend sent me this, saying "Edwards is pretty hot" -- and I don't think she meant his polling numbers in South Carolina.  

Right now the front runners are studiously ignoring Edwards, as though he were some mildly annoying younger brother.    But he will probably do well in the upcoming red state and swing state primaries.   So ...

Expect to see those gun turrets swinging slowly around to focus him in their sights.  

Maybe this will give us a chance to see the Obama/Clinton thing with fresh eyes.   Like the Middle East, these two have been fighting so long we've all forgotten who started it.  But with Edwards, we can ask:  

1. Who attacks first?

2. How nasty is the attack?

It will also be interesting to see what his closet skeletons and weak points are.     Should be a wild ride, if events to date are any indication.

Surprising headline, but true!   Here is why:  In November 2008, there will be an election, and it will not be for President of the Democratic Party.   The race in November 2008 will be for "President of the United States."  

So it is of some interest to consider who is most likely to win a race in which everyone in America votes, not just Democrats.  

It turns out that the clear front runner in that race is John Edwards.  

Dems need to set aside their doctrinal and emotional differences, and start thinking about what it takes to get WIN in 2008!!   Compared to the (Republican) alternative(s), the three major Democratic candidates are as alike as peas in a pod on philosophy and policy.    If you like one, you should like them all.

And yet, there are differences in their ability to be elected in a general election.   To win in 2008, Democrats need to carry either:

1. the traditional "swing" states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania)  OR

2. a number of red states in the south, midwest, and rockies that Dems usually give up for lost

This diary is all about:   How are Democrats going to do that in 2008?