I agree.
There's this thinking out there that Barack Obama somehow spoiled Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency, but when I actually poll (informally of course) registered Democrats why they voted for one or the other, there are two quite distinctive schools of thought--it's not down to a coin toss between two worthy candidates as the media supposes. It wasn't Obama that presented Sen. Clinton's biggest obstacle, it was the unlikely emergence of Sen. McCain as the Republican contender--who would have thought it?
Obama appeals to the idealists, Clinton appeals to the pragamatists. Clinton did so well among older women not because they're women but because they're older, and therefore remember other "breaths of fresh air," McGovern, Carter, Gary Hart, Ross Perot, and yes, the current president. Obama supporters have further alienated these independent-to-center-leaning voters by implying that racism must of course be at the heart of their reasoning, when in actuality, the attitude could be summed up as their impression of Sen. Obama was that he was only 46 years old, a junior senator, and simply not ready for prime time.
I've been to an Obama rally and I've been to a charsimatic revival, and found the atmosphere in both places similar. Someone here keeps comparing it to "drinking the Koolaid."
Well, not everyone has drunk of the Koolaid. Come November, when it's time to mop up the mess left over from the outgoing administration, I think most voters will decide to hand over the job to a seasoned veteran rather than an untested rookie. It's the same type of thinking that informed the choice of Clinton over Obama--assuming he ends up the Democratic nominee, Clinton voters will shift their support to the other seasoned veteran. It really is as simple as that.