"People say to me that Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq War and Senator Obama voted against it. They don't believe me when I tell them that Obama was not even elected to the U.S. Senate when the vote was taken.

The media has been relentless in reporting that Clinton was for the war when she voted for the war resolution. Obama uses the media's characterization of Clinton's vote as a simple vote for war as opposed to his own opposition."

But how do you defend Clinton for not reading the intelligence reports before she voted to issue authority to Bush (which he later used to go to war)? If Clinton could at least say that she was sorry for not reading the intelligence reports first--that in retrospect, she realized that at least was a mistake, I would have more respect for her.

Joan, please talk about two important questions for feminists and people still making up their mind on the candidates:

1. Does Clinton's claim that Obama's record on abortion is less than hers hold water? There's a lot at stake in that question for feminists and for liberals.

2. Do you think Obama's "not present" voting method will cost him voters in the primaries or the general election? What is the deal? I wish Salon would run an article especially concerning how this affects his Senate record. If voters don't understand this issue now--(and I admit that I'm not sure I fully understand it) it will definitely be brought up by the G.O.P. machine should he win the Democratic nomination!

I don't mean to pester you since I did ask these questions earlier today, but I didn't want them to be buried either. Thank-you for your up-to-the moment coverage so far. It sounds like the campaign trail to end campaign trails....with more twists and turns to come, no doubt.

thank-you!

Something to think about:

I haven't read Krugman's book although I've been on the library waiting list for two months for it--I think he's wrong. Or to put it this way, Obama is more cautious but he is definitely not more conservative.

If you match up his voting record with Clinton's he is not to the right of her. If you are arguing about something it is the approach. Obama believe in a "big tent" plan where you pull all the people you can in--his health plan offers health coverage to everyone and 3% of the voters even in Edwards or Clinton's plan would/could opt out.

You might not like his approach (cautious) but calling him a "conservative" for being "cautious" is a sorry conflation of terms, and I don't care how many degrees Krugman has after his name. A person's health care proposal is only as good as their political leverage to get it passed. Those who find Obama more convincing will vote for him, but it isn't because he's a closet Republican.

Remember when Clinton accused Obama of being a waffler for believing in a single payer systems and yet promoting something different? Obama replied that he still believes in a single payer sytem (Krugman, are you listening?) but he's trying to get it done without creating a conservative backlash. Disagree with his methods, but consider all angles before passing that silly line about him being more conservative that the others. (I believe obama's record holds up to both candidate in "liberal" credentials--he proposes bills and votes in a liberal way ie. His Iraq De-Escalation bill in 2007--which would have had US combat troops out of Iraq by April 2008, a bill to reduce Greenhouse Emission in half by 2050)...Or better, if you don't believe me, try this. Google Obama on conservative websites and they will spell out for you his liberal voting record. The funny thing is that despite his position on the left (I mean, no anti-flag burning amendments etc.) the people on the right dislike his politics but like him.

Something to think about when you're considering political capital to accomplish what you say you're going to accomplish. Sometimes it does take a president to get the job done.