A risk that could be COMPLETELY negated by Mac choosing Condi as his running mate...

Too bad she has all but Sherman'ed the possibility... THAT would make the General Election a once in a lifetime experience... :D

Michale.....

We're all worried about the prospect of either one of them being too bloodied by the coming weeks. The examples I've heard being used as comparison are the Ford/Reagan battle in 76 and the Kennedy/Carter battle in 80. Both Ford and Carter lost in November.

Knock wood...

-CW

That is a good and valid point -- both are making history, and doing so NOT by being portrayed as a stereotype. I was actually blown away at what happened just before NH. Hillary is reported by the media to have "cried." She didn't really, she didn't even come close, she didn't even really "choke up" as they reported later, she just let one tiny iota of emotion creep into her voice. But that was enough for the MSM to make into a mountain (remember Howard Dean was felled by just such a non-event). I truly thought she was a goner at that point, because for a male candidate to make headlines "crying" (whether he did or not, it's the perception that matters here) -- it'd be the end of his campaign (see: Ed Muskie, who was interviewed when it was snowing, and when he had melted snowflakes on his face, the media said he was crying).

But Hillary actually got more votes because of it. That was astonishing point number one. Astonishing point number two was that this was just about the only time gender has even entered the conversation during the campaign. I had always assumed that for a woman politician to "cry" would be twice as bad for her, but it didn't turn out that way. And although she positioned herself pre-campaign to project a Maggie Thatcher "Iron Lady" type of personality, until the 3 AM ad, she hadn't gone there.

Barack has also eluded and evaded every attempt by the Clinton team (and the MSM) to paint him into the "minority candidate" box, with seeming ease for the most part. He is not the "black candidate" which I'd have to chalk up as astonishing point number three.

I'm thinking of writing a column on how many things "conventional wisdom" has gotten wrong during this campaign, and this would be one of them. You are right -- they are both being judged as "people" and not the "woman" or "black" candidate. And that's truly astonishing.

Of course, there's always the general election. We'll see what the GOP throws at them, but they must know there's a HUGE risk of it backfiring this time around...

-CW

Despite her claims of "experience", she really has ZERO leadership experience on a national level. Her only experience that comes close is being head of a national presidential campaign. And look what a mess THAT is...

Is there any reason to expect that President Hillary would run her administration any better than Candidate Hillary has run her presidential campaign?? I see no evidence of that..

Michale.....

One scenario that I have seen floated (which is very possible) is that Clinton will bloody Obama so bad that he simply cannot beat McCain.. That way, Clinton can try again in 2012..

I don't know if that is Clinton's thinking but, if it is, I don't think it's going to work for 2 reasons.

1. Dems in 2012 will remember who utterly obliterated the Democratic Party's best last chance for real change in DC...

2. Like I said before, we have seen what happens to Dems who run a piss-poor campaign and then try to come back for a second try. And Clinton's campaign was about as piss-poor as any campaign has ever been. Compared to Clinton's campaign, the Goracle's campaign was downright brilliant...

It's going to be a REAL interested summer, I can predict that...

Michale.....

I applaude your foresight, though I must say that your eqivocating call on Texas -- that it would be "close" -- undercuts your prescience.

You bring up two interesting points -- mysogony and racism -- and it is truly incredible that a woman and a black man are vying for the Democratic nomination, and one of them will get it. (And if the election were held tomorrow, that nominee would most likely win!)

They (Clinton and Obama) also had a tough opponent in John Edwars. He had been professionally running for President since late 04, and he had a real platform, created by him (why, btw -- do most people who hate Edwards say he is "fake" or a "snake oil salesman"?). Clinton and Obama still beat him handily (but Edward's message is still relevant, and will have an impact -- though the longer he waits to endorse, the less potent it becomes. You MUST take a risk to a degree. A gamble. Clinton's campaign surrogates -- best in the business by the way -- thought that they would be paid handsomely for something that was inevitable -- Hilary getting the nomination. Now they are earning their money. Wolfson, Penn, et al.

We shall see.

And neither of them is primarily identified with their race or gender. This is amazing.

Hillary is no ordinary woman, and most of us don't think of her as a woman when we either first see her on the news, or first see her in person. She is a tough pragmatist who, as senator in NY, builds consensus and gets stuff done.

As for Barack Obama -- he has been able to transcend race by mostly ignoring it. Obama's ideas and policies are not race-centric. Neither is his message. The point being, Obama's skin color has nothing to do with his message of changing washington. He will be given the chance to do it, or he will be defeated.
Maureen Dowd asks which sin we will absolve first. Mysogony or racism. That's not the relevant question -- because neither candidate is running to achieve goals for their demographic group (though they each hope that group turns out for them).

The relevant question is culled from the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign: when it comes to judgment (as informed by experience) -- will you do what feel in your heart is the right thing? Or will you come down time and time again for a label (in this case Democrat.)