I thought Toni Morrison's piece was interesting for ascribing wisdom to Obama regardless of his (relatively young) age. I thought he illustrated this in the debate last night in several ways. Among them:

1) It was important that he mentioned the displaced people in his comments about Iraq. This hasn't been mentioned a lot in the mainstream (particularly television) media, but something like one in four Iraqui's has been displaced or killed since the Iraq war began. Since this was supposed to be a war of liberation, we have a moral responsibility to not only pull out, but to do so with the most humanitarian action that we can. Obama's observation of the humanitarian crisis reassures me of the kind of leader he will be. He has also been first in Congress to send aid to the Darfur region in sole-sponsored legislation, and he has a humanitarian Samantha Power, Pulitzer prize winning author of "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide" on his staff (a former Clinton administration staff). This reassures me that on foreign policy he understands that the weakest people in Iraq also have his concern, he is not just exiting the country for political points in this election.

2. His comment on illegal immigrants not being scapegoated for the loss of inner-city jobs. That was an important point to make because as a social worker, I have seen minority populations "turned" on one another by desperation, poverty and crime. Right now a genuine enemy is the G.O.P. economic policies (and NAFTA) that have pushed jobs overseas and created more poverty in Mexico, creating the increase in illegal immigration. However, people do need to pull together for change, for the better good in these communities and all of their (our) members.

3. His kind courtesy toward Clinton. Much ado about nothing has been made about his turning away when she was reaching out to Ted Kennedy's hand. I could feel the discomfort of that moment, but it never seemed to me in Obama's character to be turning away to "diss" her. Rather, maybe he didn't want to lord over her the endorsement he had just received from Kennedy, and he was embarassed, humbled by the "triumph" of the endorsement over a person who he has looked to as a mentor and teacher in the Senate. (There is an article in the Atlantic Monthly online that interestingly dissects this relationship called "Teacher and Apprentice" by Marc Ambinder--http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama ). His courtesy made me happy because the Democrats do need to come together in order to win, and I appreciate that he respects Clinton, even though they do have differences in opinion on some issues.

There is one other thing that Obama supporters need to say here, and that is that there will not necessarily be another chance to elect Obama. This isn't just because of Michelle's comments, but because of the way the world happens. Sometimes there is a window and opportunity that you think will come back--but it doesn't always happen that way.

That said, I think that the "older" generation that has been criticising Obama and saying that he's "not ready" needs to consider that some of the younger generation who have been so excited about his run for office--they are also the generation that has been serving or watching their friends serve in the Iraq war. The Atlantic Monthly has also pointed out that the former Clinton advisors who are now on Obama's team are those who believe that America made a mistake to invade Iraq. Those on Clinton's team generally believe that entering into the war was not a mistake.

This is a genuine difference in the "teams" of leadership that will be entering the white house. I know that Obama may seem "naive" to those who are older, yet he speaks the truth to a generation who has been making the sacrifices in America's imperialistic war.

These are things to consider as we go into the big enormous race on Tuesday. Go Democrats. As a friend of mine says, Go Edwama.

Yesterday I was talking with a friend about how if I were in charge of Hillary Clinton's campaign (ha, ha) I would have made it all about health care. In my opinion, she has been stressing her national security cred which, in light of her support of the worst imperialistic tendencies of Bush and the Republican Congress, is not her strong suit. Bill Clinton had some weaknesses too (ignoring the crisis in Rwanda, and bombing Kosovo, helping to coin the term "wag the dog," and not expressing sufficient concern about civilian casualties in any of the above scenerios) so I think national security may convince conservatives to vote for the Clintons (if they will ever vote for the Clintons), but it will not convince many progressives.

On the other hand, health care should be her strong suit. It nearly is--I've downloaded and read Obama and Clintons' plans. Clinton's sounds more detailed and even knowledgeable--but I don't quite understand the mandate issue either. If Americans don't choose any of the three options Clinton gives them, what happens? Is there a financial punishment?

When I lived in Massachusettes two years ago under Romney there was mandated insurance that was not popular with those of us barely able to afford our heating bills in the winter. It was expensive, and if you got sick, it didn't really do that much. You could still get stuck with a terrible bill--or so rumor had it--I was never seriously ill myself although I did get a horrible $3500 dental bill despite carrying employer-based dental insurance.

So for those who have read and understood, what are the differences between Obama and Clinton's plans? Juliebird you had a very good point about if Obama's plan calls for paying back premiums--how is that different that Clinton's "penalties"?

I'm afraid that both plans are too vague for me to completely "get." Anyone else?