Obama speech was intended to reach out to potential independents in New Hampshire who might tip him into victory column on Tuesday. That was what he was aiming for, not winning you over, at least not yet. Speech on "policy details" won't come until he accepts nomination, other than reaffirming that he will get US troops out of Iraq, unhook US from oil dependence, and work with Republicans and independents. Speech to which you linked was very effective for its purpose. He was "presidential" and inspirational. Compared to Clinton's speech or Huckabee's speech, his was terrific. If he wins on Tuesday, he will have gotten what he was aiming for.

If she doesn't win this nomination, I expect to see her take her position in US Senate much more seriously. If she has been slacking off lately, it reflects her obsession with winning Democratic nomination, not her boredom with politics. I expect to see her in Senate until she looks very much older than she does now.

"Effective resistance to Bush 43's shenanigans since the last election"? I know I have problems with nuance and sarcasm, but you mean this as joke, right?

If she doesn't win this nomination, I expect to see her take her position in US Senate much more seriously. If she has been slacking off lately, it reflects her obsession with winning Democratic nomination, not her boredom with politics. I expect to see her in Senate until she looks very much older than she does now.

No matter what happens as you point out it will be interesting to see how she represents New York in the future if her gambit fails. From the start in '01 it was clear to many residents that she was just using the job as a stepping stone. I honestly hope she takes it more seriously in the future, but I will not hold my breath  But, since she is not due for re-election until 2013 and the people have a short memory she could conceivably slack off more for the next year and recover in '09 and nobody would care.

"Effective resistance to Bush 43's shenanigans since the last election"? I know I have problems with nuance and sarcasm, but you mean this as joke, right?

Yeah, that was a joke. Sorry. Believe me, you are not the only who finds it difficult to present sarcasm well in a textual format.

I don't think she wins nomination, I think she loses. I wonder if she would be interested in vice presidency on Obama ticket though. Maybe she would be willing to play for long run, especially with Spitzer in position to appoint her replacement to Senate.

If not, she has plenty of time to recover, and I have little doubt she will. Lots of highly respected Senators have never done that well in Presidential races; she wouldn't be anything new.

Maybe Democrats haven't been very effective in standing up to Bush since 2006 elections, but that was one year. When party has effective leader, his policy priorities become their priorities, and his decisions tend to become their decisions. Barack Obama really will get US out of Iraq. Once everyone in Democratic Party realises that their party has commitment to that policy, votes in Congress on that issue will reflect Obama's political calculations and his commitment. That will change things substantially. Bush will either negotiate with Obama or he will begin to look irrelevant as election draws ever closer and his policies become ever more irrelevant and discredited. Will Republicans hold together to bring Bush victories in Congress if their prospective candidate trails Obama by 10 or 15 points? Maybe not, lest they lose any chance of holding seats in Senate and House.

I wonder if she would be interested in vice presidency on Obama ticket though.

I sure she would...but would Obama be as dumb as Shrub to pick a power mad politician for a veep?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Vice presidents have as much power as presidents give them and no more. Cheney was given enormous power by Bush because Bush was vacant. Obama will not be vacant.

Obama would gain certain advantages from taking Hillary Clinton as vice presidential nominee. Traditionally, presidential candidates like to choose attack dogs for VP position so that when opponents pull nasty tricks someone other than presidential candidate can bite them. Hillary Clinton can bite. Also, Hillary Clinton would bring substantial (eight-figure) dowry to race. Big money may not buy elections, as Mike Huckabee showed in Iowa, but it never hurts either. Additionally, Obama has already latched on to number of former Clinton economic advisers, and if domestic economy becomes critical issue in November, having Clintons on board (but not in charge) may actually help him. Finally, Clinton may bring substantial number of female voters with her who don't otherwise care about politics but feel empowered by her ascendancy.

No other potential VP brings as much as Hillary Clinton, and her negatives won't matter as much in VP position as they would in presidential position. Plus, offer of VP position to Hillary Clinton (say, right after winning in New Hampshire) might seal deal, setting up Democrat ticket 10 months in advance of election. Usually, party that nominates its candidate earliest wins. This time, Democrats could be months ahead of Republicans.

Obama would gain certain advantages from taking Hillary Clinton as vice presidential nominee.

Unfortunately, the fact that she is the Wife of Clenis would probably doom Obama's candidacy if he picked her as his running mate.

Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.

Vice presidential candidates either help or they don't. No one has ever lost election because of terrible vice president (Dan Quayle? Dick Cheney in 2004?). Wife of Satan wouldn't lose Obama this election unless he screwed it up himself.

...as dumb as Shrub to pick a power mad politician for a veep?

Ah, so soon that we forget history. Bush didn't pick Cheney to be vice president, he merely picked Cheney to head up a search for a good vice presidential candidate. Cheney failed to find one, so Bush told him he'd have to do it himself.

Oh yeah...no coincidence there.  No sir.  Yep, and I understand that OJ is still hot on the case of Nicole's killer.  He just hasn't found him yet.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That will change things substantially. Bush will either negotiate with Obama or he will begin to look irrelevant as election draws ever closer and his policies become ever more irrelevant and discredited.

Why should Bush negotiate with Obama? Iraq is his "legacy." Pulling the troops out under his watch at the end would be an admission that the biggest decision of his presidency was an error, something he is not willing to do. If he simply leaves everything as is until 1/20/09 the next administration can inherit the mess and the GOP could then claim things were looking up in Iraq until Obama "Cut and Ran."

As for looking even more irrelevant and discredited, well, is such a thing even possible right now?

So long as Republicans in Congress continue to support Bush in maintaining his "legacy", then Bush will be able to maintain troops in Iraq until he leaves office in January 2009. I have no doubt that he will want to do this. However, his ability to rally Republicans around him will depend on developments in presidential race. Consider following scenarios. Fundamentalist Christians effectively choose Huckabee as Republican presidential nominee, and he indicates that he will abandon Bush foreign policy with respect to Iraq if elected. Or Obama wins Democratic nomination very early and maintains ten or fifteen point lead over all potential Republican candidates, pulling up Democratic Senate candidates in polls and pulling up Democratic prospects in House, threatening to install filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Senate. In either case, would Republican Senate and House members sacrifice themselves and their careers to stand up for Bush's "legacy"?

"Discredited" means one thing when you still have chits to call in, another when your closest allies start to wonder if they will still be employed in January 2009.

So long as Republicans in Congress continue to support Bush in maintaining his "legacy", then Bush will be able to maintain troops in Iraq until he leaves office in January 2009.

So long as Democrats in Congress continue to be spineless, refuse to stand up for what the majority of the country wants and end the war in Iraq by cutting funds, then Bush will be able to maintain troops in Iraq until he leaves office in January 2009.

Democrats wouldn't even control US Senate but for vote of Joe Lieberman, one of Senate's best-known neo-con hawks. If Republican Senators stand together, they have pro-war majority in Senate. Democratic spinelessness mostly illusory, mostly just expressive of disappointment of anti-war elements that they really didn't win 2006 elections, even though they came close.

From the start in '01 it was clear to many residents that she was just using the job as a stepping stone

Yeah.  He thought a "power I" meant the coach was in favour of immigration, but he really lost it when an offence ran a "slant left."

deposit a humongous turd

What some would call a humongous turd others would call a Limbaugh clone.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine