Today’s endorsement of Obama by former candidate, Senator Chris Dodd, is important because it lends Dodd’s experienced voice to the concept that Obama is "ready on Day One" and that he will have "the right judgment on Day One." However, even more important than today’s coveted endorsement are Senator Dodd’s comments in the October 30 Drexel Debate that created the first cracks in the concept of Senator Clinton's inevitability.

Yeah, yeah, I know; you're saying "Pat Buchanan???"  You don't have to agree with his politics to cede that he UNDERSTANDS politics.  And this is the whole reason I'm not buying into this "Transformative" stuff or "Unifying" theme of Barack Obama.

It's simply naive, and it won't work in a general election.  The GOP is not going to roll over for Barack Obama. Not now, not ever.  For all of this nonsense about Hillary Clinton being divisive, I ask: why do you suppose that is?  Who has defined her that way, primarily?  Answer:  The GOP.

In last night's debate, one exchange nicely captured the strain of stepping back from the brink of mortal combat, the balancing act of fighting a two-front war for the nomination and the general election. It was over a question on which both Obama and Clinton have shown weakness--and both hedged the conflict with multiple acknowledgments of basic unity of approach and of the difficulty of formulating an opinion:

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

As the Democratic Presidential race moves to California on February 5th, Senator Hillary Clinton holds the advantage in part because she leads Barack Obama among two crucial demographics: gays and Latinos.  But if these groups were more “results-oriented” about which candidate would bring about substantive change for their community, Obama could have an edge.  Clinton’s husband signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act when he was President, and she has only promised to scrap part 3 of DOMA – whereas Obama would repeal it entirely.  While both have waffled on giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants, when pressed to take a position Clinton said “no” and Obama said “yes.”  Gays and Latinos either don’t know such policy differences -– or else have put them aside in favor of symbolic gestures, high name recognition or top-down endorsements.  Before it’s too late, LGBT and Latino voters must look at the issues, and decide which candidate would better pursue their interests.

Four hours ago at the funeral home, I looked down at a dead 14-year-old. This should never happen, but it will continue to happen no matter what we do or don't do. Why aren't we at least making the effort to prevent tragedies? Issue drivers licenses to registered drivers, whether legal or not.

Well, there does seem to be a LOT of heat out there, and not so much light, about whether or not to give drivers licenses to "illegal" immigrants. It’s shaping up to be another one of those emotional hot button issues that regularly distort our elections.  With the debate coming up tonight on CNN (which, dammit, I won’t be able to watch live), I want to get a progressive analysis of the issue out there. I’m tired of seeing Democrats with that deer-in-the-headlights look on their faces, as they get hit with questions to which they have not thought through a good, progressive answer.

This is a framing problem. Thanks to the efforts of George Lakoff, Drew Westen, our own Jeffrey Feldman, and a thousand others, we are (hopefully) coming to understand that the frame within which we discuss an issue has a powerful influence on the outcome of the discussion. We need to get control of the frame within which the discussion of drivers licenses for "illegal" immigrants takes place.

For about a year now I've been leaning towards Hillary as my "If the election were today, who would you vote for?" candidate. And lately I was feeling that Hillary was being attacked too much here. A little while ago I was at another diary defending Hillary as having the most liberal congressional voting record. Another comment pointed out that the National Journal has Hillary as not being most liberal (in 2006).

I'm not withdrawing my support because she is less liberal in the National Journal in 2006. I was looking for her voting record with other liberal organizations. I know she had a 95% rating with ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) in 2006.

But then I came across this "Hillary's Now against Licenses for Illegal Immigrants." If she had said it was for the states to decide and Spitzer backed down and she supports Spitzer's decision, I would understand.

CNN is running a poll asking if illegal immigrants should be given driver's licences here. Currently the nos stand at 90%.

All night long, on the debate and on this site, everyone focused on whether or not HRC or Obama or Edwards or anyone else, "won" by giving unequivocal, absolute "yes or no" responses.  These responses supposedly become stances, solid positions to define a candidate's policies and differentiation.  And yet, isnt it sheer folly, in a complex society as ours, with its multi-dimensional issues,