I'm not saying whether I favor either candidate. I do think Clinton's ad was a better ad.

Great news on Blumenauer! I think he senses where his constituents are on this. Obama will win Oregon handily. And I'm thinking our vote will still matter by then.

Wow! Who wrote that Times endorsement? Judith Miller?

Columnist Nicholas Kristof, from Yamhill, Ore, opined on the Times op-ed page about the Presidential race and the "Dynastic Question" raised by the prospect of a successful Billary campaign for the White House.

The endorsements for Obama have been rolling in all week, and now the LA Times, Moveon.org, Seattle's Mayor and many others are piling in. The latest Gallup poll shows Obama within the margin of error nationally against Hillary. There is a lot of momentum here that has been increasing since the big win in South Carolina.

I think Obama's ad is much better. It evokes an almost mythological time in the US for Democrats and links Obama to it...equating Obama with JFK. The images are emotionally evocative as is the music.

On the other hand, Clinton's ad first and I think mistakenly cites the NYT's endorsement - which I think will either mean nothing to voters or turn them off. Then she goes on to make a rational case for candidacy. She does nothing to reach out emotionally to the voters...its almost the polar opposite of Obama's ad. Maybe Clinton has some ads out there that connect emotionally and its not fair to compare the two at that level but if she gets the nomination and this ad is typical of her, she will have a tough time winning.

Here is an extremely popular and equally stirring political music video that all generations, especially younger voters getting involved in politics for the first time, are enjoying right now. If you can recognize some of the artists in it, you'll see it is also an "endorsement" piece.

YES WE CAN!