I agree with Mr. Nicholson and for a 60 year old woman there is ideed something sexy about Ms. Clinton (remember the cleavage flap?), and an intelligent 60 year old woman to boot.
She's passionate, intelligent, sexy and mothering.
We've had male leadership for over 200 years and it's long past time we've had female leadership.
That is actually a much more profund "change" than having yet another male leader whose skin is a "tad" more brown.

Obama struck the first aggressive blow in this race with the manipulative, scare tactic commercial depicting Hillary as a Orweillian dictator or have we forgotten that?
That commercial, which Obama endorsed was right up there with the reprehensible type of filmed political propaganda from the 40s (both sides).

Is Obama a true leader?

Well, let's see; He belongs to a church whose minister, Rev Jeremiah Wright, who has allied himself with the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan and himself has said the 911 attacks were justified.

Obama did not denounce those statements, like a true leader would, and has continued in his friendship with Wright and membership in that church.

Obama's campaign subtly (and not so subtly) compares him to Kennedy and MLK, yet Kennedy was a war hero and both leaders actually listened to those whose views differ, something Obama has not been prone to do.

The Clintons both have a good record of listening to those who opinions differ (Bill did so famously with Dole and Hillary has rightly praised LBJ's knack for listening to the opposition, which is one of the very few things LBJ deserves credit for).

Obama keeps spewing there needs to be a change in the way we do politics, yet his own campaign is perfectly aligned with old world dirty politics of
attacking and demonizing his opponents and he needs to be called out for it in a debate.

He consistently refers to the Clintons as old world politics and cries we need change.

Yet, the economy was good when the Clintons left office and the progressive changes they were seeking to put into place were first sidetracked by the conservative faction, then regressed during the Bush years.

Hillary seeks to pick up where we left off in 99 and continue the push forward and, instead of reiterating all the years of experience (no one calls McCain old world because he doesn't focus on the number of years)
what needs to be forcefully reminded is Hillary's unbroken record of being a fighter for change.

This needs to be said loud and clear.

RE; The War.

Who, in their right mind actually believes the tyranny of Saddam Hussein needed to be ignored?

What was wrong was the 'continued occupation' of Iraq (which was all too predictable, even from day one).

Obama claims to have been against the war for the start, yet he was not even in office when the vote was cast in 2002 and in 2004 he said his view on the war was no different than Bush's.

Why hasn't Obama been called out for this hypocrisy loud and clear, especially in a debate?

Why is he allowed to keep painting some sort of misleading, fictional halo around himself?

He needs to be called out and it needs to be said 'Well, you keep saying that, but here's the black and white truth of the matter'.

Too, Hillary shows the wisdom of moderation.

Obama, like Bush, is an extremist, in his own way.

When Hillary was leading, Obama and Edwards launched their attacks, yet Hillary stated 'They are not attacking me because I am a woman, but because I am ahead". Yet when Bill Clinton stated the indisputable facts regarding Obama's war voting records, Obama's camp cried "racist".

No, Bill's point was made because Obama drew first blood and because he is a political opponent, that's all. Do we really need this kind of manipulative defense mode in the White House?
It's certainly not a progressive step forward for any of who are of mixed race.

It's time for an aggressive calling out of a manipulative campaign of Hollywood style over substance.

We don't need to trade one brand of extremism for another.

I agree with Hillary Clinton that what happened in 2000 was a tragedy of epic proportions because the intelligence of Al Gore probably would have made for the greatest presidential term of all, probably even surpassing F.D.R.

Gore absorbed Bill Clinton's moderate policies.

Obama could eventually go down as a president of wisdom and moderation, in another 8 years and I'd love to see him absorb what he needs to in those years as a v.p in the White House.

Fantasy because it's not gong to happen.

No, the American public has always been pretty superficial and right now we are dazzled by Obama's all star line up.

He WILL win the democratic nomination and he will either lose to McCain in 08 or will win the White House, only to lose it in his 2012 rebid.

It's as predictable as has been the Iraq war and i'm with the extreme few who felt so even then in 2002, when it was absolutely not popular to say so (proving what is often popular is usually dead wrong).

I will hate saying I told you so in a few years, not that it would do any good.

After all, has anyone ever officially told the Dixie Chicks they were right after all?