MyDD ate my first post.

You are right about accountability.  She is far too cautious and hedging about stuff like this.  A straighforward statement would have been better.  In other arenas, caution is more appropriate.  It drives me nuts.

But I do have to say that when she does do something forceful, I don't think she get credit or support...sometimes to the detriment of the issues we care about.  

She challenged George Bush to sign the supplemental because Congress passed it because it represented the will of the American people.  The Cable nets were all over this stance by her and characterized it as a strong challenge to George Bush.  I think we might have missed an oppurtunity to move our agenda forward with someone who has a lot of traction.  (I know she also doesn't give up as I was involved when she held up the FDA appointment because of the political delays on EC -emergency contraception)  

Indeed I think she was in a better position than many to have an impact on a Senator like Carl Levin. (And you analysis of why he said what he said is absolutely right...he remembers a different kind of Senate, when aggressiveness was counterproductive.  Also because he's a safe seat with a good voting record, I doubt he's had much interaction with those of us on the net). She might have been able to have helped create a climate as well as a utilized a personal relationship where Levin could have felt that he didn't have to be "statemanlike"

But to get back to Obama.  Who is going to hold him accountable?  His supporters seem to have blinkers on.  Between his give away the candy store stance on the Iraq supplemental, his lack of urgency on serious healthcare change and his utopian post partisan attitudiizing, he pales in conviction to John Edwards and in tough firmness next to Hillary.

When his supporters talk about him I feel like I'm back in the days of EST (it's worth a little researching...a feel good new agey, new consciousness kind of "therapy")  

Oh, I thought he'd given John $25 just like Barack.  Thanks.

Sorry to offend. Frankly, I will support Clinton 100% if she gets the nomination but many of us want to see some risk taking and leadership from the candidates. I haven't seen it from Hillary yet. I dread another candidate like Kerry who seemed to have pathetic political timing--always appearing to show up after the fact. By the way, Rove saw that too and used it to take him down.

What's good timing? Edwards responded very quickly to the two Fox debates and shut them down setting a new precedent--Democrats won't grovel to lying bullies just to get airtime. Obama's immediate smack-down of Australian Prime Minister John Howard is another good example.

That's what it takes to win (and lead). I just don't think Hillary has it. Speaker Pelosi does.

Chelsea, is that you?

Then please, GO AWAY!  

And she did follow Obama, who followed Edwards.  It's fact in this case.  TO some it makes a difference, to you it doesn't.  I give Edwards full props for being the first and making it sick... I give Obama props for being #2 and pretty much putting it on life support and I give hillary credit for killing the debate for all practical purposes by completing the trio of Big 3 to drop.  If Richardson drops, then any potential dark horse with a chance (currently in the race) is gone too (given he dropped in Nevada, I would assume he will in this too) but this debate is over.