We need to be having a serious dialogue about which candidate

[Raven]

can beat John McCain in November. The Democratic Party, and the candidates, need to put their personal ambitions aside (if that is even possible) and take a long cold look at what will happen if John McCain wins. I have been voting for 45 years and I have never seen the stakes so high and I have never been as afraid for the future as I am today.

I don't want to have to explain to my female grandchildren why they don't have control over their own bodies.

I don't want to have to explain to my grandchildren why we are in perpetual war.

This is only a small sample of what John McCain will bring us and, at all costs, we have to prevent it.

The dialogue here and within the Democratic Party has to be about who can win, not about why my candidate is better than your candidate.

It's time to think long and hard and impartially about who can win or we will lose in November. To me, it's as simple as that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. That's Why I'm On The Side Of Hillary.

As it relates to being able to handle his spin and attack, and think she by far can thwart him more effectively than Obama would be able to. To me, that's all it comes down to.

[Raven]

4. Good start. Maybe we need to do a "pro" and "con" list. I have

heard a lot of people say that HC could take the bruising better that BO. I've also heard folks observe that there is more to attack with HC that there would be with BO.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. I'm Using History As My Guide In That Sort Of Debate.

Though on the surface, I can understand why some would consider the opposite scenarios to be equivalent as it relates to pro/con, if history is our judge I think it is found that one is far more important than the other.

What I mean is, I agree that Hillary would probably have far more things they could attack. But I don't think that carries nearly as much weight as to who could better defend against such attacks, even if they'd be facing far fewer of them.

With each attack thrown, there is an opportunity to turn it around and throw it back or simply deflect it. Each one can either not touch the candidate at all (if defended correctly) or even be used as a counter weapon, if the return argument is strong enough. That means the more potential for warfare their is, the more potential that a strong enough candidate can use it to show how strong and ready to lead they actually are.

But what's most important, is not how many potentials for attack there can be, but the potential for a crushing blow. It only takes ONE or TWO well waged attacks that a candidate falters with, to completely derail their whole campaign. Look at Dean. Look at Kerry. Look at history.

Think about it: No candidate throughout history has probably had more that could be used against him than Bush did in 2004. Yet amazingly (and mind bogglingly) enough, he still won. Why? Because even though the attacks that could be waged against him vs Kerry were probably 100 to 1 in ratio, he deflected almost all of them and countered some with strength. But all it took was 1 or 2 well waged attacks on Kerry, in which he didn't show enough strength in defending himself from, to completely derail his campaign and electability.

That's what I mean by using history as my guide. All it takes is one attack, maybe two, to do irreparable damage. The risk of that happening far outweighs how many potential attacks one side will have in attacking the other. And I think Obama is far more likely to falter with a biggie than Hillary. I think Hillary can almost be like bush, where there could be a million points of criticism, but none that will really touch her or that she won't handily turn back around onto her enemy. But I think Obama will be blindsided with something at some point, and his inexperience will cause him to falter; possibly to irreparable degrees.

[Elspeth]

2. A lot depends on how independents go: one indy female I know will vote Clinton 1st, McCain, 2nd!

She won't vote for Obama.

I don't get it either, except she's older and values experience.

(I am trying to convince her to vote Dem regardless.)

[Captain Hilts]

3. They both can. Next to either on a debate forum he'll look old, tired and stupid. nt

[Elspeth]

5. We just gotta keep putting out that photo--the big hug w/Shrub and McCain

I don't have it, but I see it all the time here.

[Apollo11]

6. Hillary is very smart and a strong debater.

But she has a couple of problems as a Presidential candidate.

One is that she not only voted to authorize the attack against Iraq, she also went along with the invasion and supported the US occupation of Iraq right up until 2006 (after Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic Primary). John McCain will find it very easy to debate with Hillary on Iraq, by bringing up her previous votes and statements.

Also, even if it is not Hillary's fault, a lot of people don't like the idea of Bill Clinton hanging around the Whitehouse for the next 8 years.