I think she deserves it. She's worked hard for important causes like health care most of her life, she's done an effective job in the Senate, she's fought the glass ceiling, and while she has calculated and planned for a long time, I do believe it's ultimately always been because she believes in these causes, not because she craves power.

The question isn't does Hillary deserve the presidency, the question is does the presidency deserve Hillary? And that, I believe, is a very different thing indeed.

To quote the great Toby Ziegler on getting your party's presidential nomination: There are no turns.

I don't find "she deserves it" persuasive, but that particular voter did, and perhaps others do.

I guess I'd make a lousy royalist. I think candidates should earn the presidency. I don't award any bonus points for family connections or time waiting in the political queue. That's how you get nominees like Bob Dole, to pick a classic example.

I'm glad the Democratic Party has a deep and rich talent bench, and I'm glad it seems to be open to new people. Those are signs of a healthy, dynamic party. Whichever candidate wins, he or she will be stronger for it. If Clinton has to come up with a better reason for people to vote for her than "it's my time," that's terrific. If Obama has to do better to convince people he has specific goals and can accomplish them, that's good, too.

Because he will usher in a new era of togetherness and unity. He will be the new Dalai Lama that will make love and peace prosper across the land. He will make meat eaters become vegans overnight, and he will cure cancer patients with the touch of his hand and sound of his soothing voice. That's why He deserves it.

ahem.

Obama would never say he deserves it.  And his supporters wouldn't say it as well.  We would say we deserve it, we deserve to take our Government back from the special interests, we deserve an open and transparent government, we deserve to know what earmarks our representatives are asking for, who they're carrying water for, and how they have amassed their fortunes.  

He's EARNING it during this campaign.

That's the fundamental difference between the two campaigns.

No one deserves it. There are no kings or queens. There are no turns.

It's the timing of the talk that's matter.  

Sen. Clinton said she won't talk to Iran until he stop barking like mad dog and agree with some concrete solution.  The position of US President holds a prestige value.  And she said "I don't think we should give them the honor to meet the president until there are some progresses in the negotiation team" (paraphrase).  This remark shows the depth of her foreign policy.   Of cause there will be a negotiation by the middle and top negotiation team.

This point again has been twisted in the media.  Obama said yes I'll talk with Iran.  Clinton said no I won't  (until they behave better.) - this last bit has been left out in MSM and people don't have a chance to consider the whole statement.   She has a good reason for it.  And It shows a stark different between Obama and Clinton sophisticated understanding in this area.  Foreign policy is not a yes/no issue.   That kind of mentality has got us into this mess.

Y'all keep missing the point here - at some point or other one of the two of them will absorb enough of the other's message to matter.  Hillary will get more inspiring, or Obama will get more detailed and concrete.  And either way it happens will be the best thing for the country.

I'm a Hillary supporter mainly because I like watching real professionals work, and because of how hard-bitten she is.  Her team learns from its mistakes, although the lesson often comes too late to overcome some of their early decisions.  Waiting until this late in the game to hit up her base for money was one of those early decisions; not organizing well in the caucus states is another.

I like Obama for the things he would like to do, but I'm not sure he hasn't bit off way more than he can chew here.  I trust him when he says he wants a post-partisan politics, but I don't think he's being realistic at all.  I've watched him during debates, and I've gotten the feeling that he has more than once tried to "wing it" on some very serious questions.  I could see he knew he was winging it, too, from the look on his face, and wondered if anyone else could see it too.

I'm not one of those who worries that the world will end if my candidate isn't chosen; we have really good candidates on both sides.  Either one would be a game-changer, and either one would cream McCain/Huckabee in the general election (if for no other reason than that "movement conservatism" has been exhausted for a decade or more as a governing philosophy and there's really nothing for Republicans to point to as a way forward except more of the same).

Great point, it's her hard work that has earned the respect of so many, including the countless staunch Republicans in upstate NY who never voted for a Democrat before voting for her. She will never give up trying to help people.

I think the phrase is "an embarrassment of riches".

Al Gore because, after all, he won.

I haven't heard anyone say "it's her turn", but how would that be different from the Obama theme "it's our time"?

My main issue with Obama is the same issue I had with Hillary 4 years ago when people were dropping her name for president - not enough years in the senate. Although you can't compare Hillary or Obama's national experience to Biden or Dodd's, we are left to decide between the 2 - and I choose the one with more national experience. She is the only full term Senator (post-Edwards), and as much as people might discount her experience as First Lady, I think it does give her a diplomatic edge.  And I'm not sure what you mean by JFK's experience - he spent many years in congress before becoming president - I think about 14 years.

Jesus. Not EVERYTHING is about race. I'm brown. I like Hillary.  It has NOTHING to do with race. Only Obama supporters and David Axelrod make it into a race issue that it never was.