I recently received the following article from a listserve. I'm still chewing on the content of the article, including the underlying tone. Without fully coming to my own conclusions, I thought I'd offer this article to our shared space and gauge some healthy and safe discussion on peoples' thoughts.

Why Hillary Shouldn't Be Obama's VP

Of Whiners and Poor Losers

By DAVE LINDORFF

Like millions of Americans across the country, I too, was glued to my gym's television as I witnessed Senator Clinton suspend her campaign and officially endorse Senator Obama for president. As mentioned in a previous blog, I am thankful to have witnessed having both a person of biracial descent, and a woman, running as viable presidential nominees for a major party. However, I admit being disappointed at the negativity and divides that have risen during the primaries. I am troubled at the focus on Obama's African/Kenyan heritage, an attempt to or unintentional failure to acknowledge his biracial background. I question the use of fear and myths during the primaries as means of getting out the vote for one candidate over the other.

On Monday, the New York Times featured a powerful, sobering essay by Waldo L. Fielding, M.D., a retired OBGYN in his mid-eighties. In it, he recounts the desperation of young pregnant women in the days before Roe v. Wade, when there were no safe, legal options available to them.

After coming home late with my mom from the a San Francisco precinct, I immediately went online to see the results of the last of the Democratic primaries. Yes, I will confess to breaking out in a happy dance with my mom as we witnessed history in the making. Not solely because the first African-American was selected as the presidential nominee for a major party in our lifetime (though it should be acknowledged that Obama is half Kenyan, half Caucasian); but, what he said, and what he has said throughout his campaign, as well as the public's response to his words.

Driving political wedges between different minority populations - who often share similar political interests - is hopefully something that will become harder and harder to do, and something that just won't fly at all with the younger generation. But that probably won't stop some from trying it.

Now, in case you haven’t noticed, I don’t believe in underplaying the historical significance of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president, but I do have little tolerance for self-proclaimed feminists who are dismissive of other people’s ability to independently choose the candidate that he or she feels best represents his or her own values, regardless of gender.

By Laura Hadden

I spent last Thursday evening with one of my best friend talking the manager of my hometown's local sports bar into tuning one of the bar's many televisions to CNN's coverage of the Iowa caucus (who, after all, cares about whose going to be the next president of the United States when you've got men in short shorts running around?).

After grabbing our drinks and settling in, we were joined by my friend's college buddy who I will call "Dave".  Dave was a pleasant enough fellow - articulate, educated, solidly progressive and well-informed - and we quickly began analyzing the developing caucus results as well as the Democratic candidates at hand.  When I expressed my sincere ambivalence between the candidates (something that has been plaguing me for months), particularly between Obama and Clinton, the conversation immediately turned cold.  Long underwear-donning, snot-freezing cold.

"I would rather vote for any Republican than vote for Hillary."

This, my friends, is how I began spending my evening defending a candidate who I hadn't committed to voting for in the first place.  

This morning when I read the excellent article "Hillary in the Pillory", by Courtney Martin in the Christian Science Monitor,  http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0809/p09s02-coop.html, I reflected on how young women today still have to contend with many of the personal appearance issues that I did. Especially, it seems, those women who are pressing for social change in politics or advocacy.

The flap about Hillary's purported showing of cleavage started when Washington Post fashion columnist Robin Givhan posted the snarky "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html?sub=AR

 It does not escape me that Givhan is a young-ish woman who

What would you do if you had $2.4 million dollars? Well, if nothing else you would have more cash on hand than the entire presidential campaign of Senator John McCain.

Apparently Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas running a long-shot campaign for the nomination actually has more cash on hand than the Arizona Senator. And he isn't the only one: Rudy Guiliani raised some $17 million for the quarter, and Mitt Romney about $20 million (though to be fair, $6 million of that he gave himself).

But all that pales in comparison to thee leading Democrats. Although John Edwards struggled along with $9 million, Hillary Clinton rode along with $27 million and Barack Obama soared over the rest with a whopping $32.5 million.

Pundits are quick to point out that money does not equate with votes. But campaign donors are not saints, they're gamblers, and apparently no one is gambling on John McCain.

Well, I'm not quite sure whether this debate had any moments or exchanges that will substantively shift momentum for any candidate--either in New Hampshire or nationally.

And to that extent, there probably is not too much more you can analyze. At this stage--still over six months out before the initial primaries--most potential voters are either getting to know the field or cheerleading for their candidate of choice.

As Bill Clinton once quipped:

In every Presidential election, Democrats want to fall in love. Republicans just fall in line.