I do appreciate your writing your thoughts on this contest. Still, I'd like to hear what you think about some of Obama's points?

#1 What possible good would bringing insurance companies to the table be? I can't think of anything they'd do that actually be a good solution, but I'd be open to hearing of one.

#2 What is the real benefit of crossing the aisle to work with republicans these days? They are not offering sensible solutions, but are in fact working to make things far worse. Until they come to their senses, compromising with them only leads to bad, or at best, mixed solutions, solutions that would be better without the republicans.

#3 Obama criticizes Clinton and Edwards about their proposed mandates for health insurance. I have mixed feelings about that myself, but I think Paul Krugman is right that there is no other way, not having everyone covered makes coverage more expensive for everyone.

#4 Obama has a tendency to repeat certain very damaging republican talking points. For instance on Social Security (I've heard, but not seen definite confirmation that he no longer thinks this), if he's going to speak up about something, it'd sure be good if he had is information straight BEFORE doing the Lieberman wing of the Neocon party any favors by echoing their crap. Making it worse, his book, "The Audacity of Hope" clearly seems to show that he knew before making these comments that Social Security is not in crisis, rather it's Medicare and Medicaid, yet he still attacks other democrats with republican talking points to make himself seem more bipartisan (that's the only reason I can think of for him to basically state what he knows to be a lie). I also think his snarky comment about trial lawyers towards Edwards is also more Republican talking points. Edwards took on corporate American on some pretty crappy things and won, I think that speaks well for Mr. Edwards. It's certainly not something another democrat should be using as a smear! There are other examples of this by Mr. Obama, but these are a couple I especially find troubling, and in my mind put the lie to him being some sort of new politician.

I wish all the democrats would remember who the real enemy is, it's not each other, it's the republicans and their MSM enablers. Some of what democrats are doing IS crappy, but I don't think any of them would ever INITIATE these things, they're forced by a dishonest media and even more dishonest republican establishment into making bad votes (it still doesn't let them off the hook, but I feel comfortable that they'd not do these things left to their own devices, as they would be with a democrat for president and strongly democratic congress).

I realize, Delores, that you aren't obligated to answer my comments, but you seem to be taking a strong position for Obama, and I was wondering if you had any answers about the above. That's the thing I'm not seeing from the Obama fans, head-on responses to these things.

And please don't think I'm being a big cheerleader for Edwards or Clinton because I have these questions, but i do think there has been a more substantive response (if only slightly) from their partisans than I'm seeing from the Obama camp. Since it's very likely that one of these 3 will get the democratic nod, it's worth it to me to get these answers.

Sorry this is getting long, but one other thing I'd like to say generally about Salon, I wish they'd give more time to Chris Dodd, because I appreciate his efforts to stop the Telecom immunity juggernaut. I'm leaning toward voting for him for that reason alone. Call it a protest vote in the primary, assuming he's still in the running by the time California's primary comes around.

--Ron Robertson

How's that for mixing two languages? Anyway, in case some are confused by Shapiro's French, Nouvelle Vague means "new wave" not "new vagueness" as some seem to be thinking. Possibly Shapiro intended it as a "double entendre" (yet more French).

Here's the thing about Obama from my point of view. I started off being very interested in him because of his hopeful rhetoric. Since then I've lost interest because his actual actions and policy ideas are often less well thought out. He does not seem to grasp what the real problems with health care are if he intends to sit down with insurance companies to solve the problem. The insurance companies ARE the problem. Sit down with doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc., and work out the problems with people directly involved, not insurance companies that are ONLY profiting on the problems, not solving them.

How is he going to work with republicans? Why should he is my point. They don't deserve being worked with, only defeated. They are not promoting in valid policy whatsoever, and thus have taken themselves off the table. Bringing them to the table is like adding rotten food to one's dinner, it won't make the meal more nutritious.

And adding that homophobic hate-monger ex-gay preacher (or whatever he is now) is yet another example of poor thinking. That'd be as stupid as bringing in David Duke!

Sorry folks, but Mr. Hope is not inspiring any in me, and his actions seem such a contrast to his rhetoric that I find myself hoping he loses badly, because I just don't trust him or his viewpoint. I wish I could, or at least I wish I could trust that it's just naivete on his part, and that he's learning to do better, but I'm not seeing that either. With all that, if he does manage to get the nomination, I'll still vote for him, and then I'll be the one with hope, hope that he's not actually going to be like he campaigns, which I'm afraid will be just wishful thinking.

--Ron Robertson