I agree with the person who asked where you're getting your information from about Obama's record. According to this site here

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

some of your information is slightly off:

I do want to point out something here about Obama's voting record that I think is fair game: there have been at least two amendments introduced to establish a timeline for troop withdrawal and to urge the president to begin bringing troops home that Sen. Obama voted against, but HRC voted in favor of. That is significant.

It would help if I knew which bill are you specifically talking about?

Obama also voted to reauthorize Patriot Act, which a lot of Obama's supporters seem unwilling to believe. Some of the posts I have seen severely criticize HRC for this, but I don't see the same kind of criticism leveled at Obama for that.

There is some concern that the second version that he signed had more limitations than the original one she signed. However, maybe this is not a big deal/and or people are being unnecessarily harsh with Clinton. I see your point.

There are other voting inconsistencies that I have to wonder about. SCHIP, for example. Sen. Obama hasn't been there to vote on this important legislation, although HRC has.

On 11/01/07 according to Project Vote Smart, Clinton did not vote on SCHIP, and Obama also did not vote.

On 8/02/07 he voted in favor of it. So did Clinton.

Sen. Obama voted YES on the 2005 Energy bill that gave $14 billion in tax 'incentives' to the oil and gas industry. HRC voted against it.

Project vote smart says that on 6/28/2005 Clinton voted Yes on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Obama did too.

Obama's supporters accuse HRC of taking financial contributions from Wall Street firms, hedge funds, telecom, media, insurance industries. But Obama has ALSO taken funds -- in large doses -- from these industries and corporations.

But where are your sources that his doses are larger? I've read an article Obama, Inc in the Harper's, and I read Hillary Clinton, Inc in the Nation.

I think you are a very nice person, and we're from the same state so I appreciate your respectful tone, but some of your sources of information seem less than reliable.

By the way this Project Vote Smart is nonpartisan and non-profit so if you have reason to doubt them as a reliable source, I would be interested to know why.

Peace--and I'm voting for Hillary in the general election if she wins this nomination. I also agree with you--some of the time--that she's not been treated fairly enough by the media in the US.

Okay, I'm sorry I misread "larger" doses when you only wrote "large doses." I think that blindness to one's own candidate's shortcomings seem to go par for the course...but did you look up the information about the Energy Bill and the SCHIP? Do you think I was accurate about the information I posted?

And I'm sorry if I was unkind to you earlier factcheck. You do seem to be nervous about this election, and maybe that's fair. But as far as electoral maps go--I don't know. I just know that I know people who are Republicans who don't want another Republican president. In their own words. So maybe Democrats need to stop being defeatest. I think we're going to pull together and give it a strong shot. You know, I have the feeling that the Wall Street money that ljwalker53 is talking about does not want "hothead" McCain in the white house after all, and they have the power to make sure it doesn't happen. Do you think that there aren't a million ways that McCain can't be vulnerable to criticism--his intention to keep us in Iraq being only one of them?

As long as whoever wins the Democratic nomination wins it fairly, I think the Democratic base plus the more wise amongst the independents are going to rally 'round. And I don't know anymore who I think can beat McCain better. I didn't primarily vote for the person I thought could win. I voted for the person I agreed with most closely on the issues that mattered to me in this election. I'm just watching to see the way the whole thing unfolds. I have no idea what will happen.

Cheers. I have to get some sleep. And thanks for staying civil ljwalker53. I appreciate your enthusiasm for Clinton and its generally for people like you and your reasoned support that I won't allow myself to sit out the election if my first choice doesn't top the ticket.

Peace.

One doesn't need to be a Clinton supporter during this primary season to be offended that MSNBC fails to treat her respectfully. I don't watch t.v. news, but even when my boyfriend was flipping through the channels one night I heard a reporter talk about how "fresh" Obama's campaign (and "invigorating" etc.) is compared to how "grim" Clinton's campaign has been lately. They used the word "grim." Is that news? Is this foxification?

That said, David Shuster shouldn't be scapegoated, and I hope that Clinton is not suggesting that he alone is responsible for the "pattern" in question. It's bigger than him, and I blame it on the fact that news is becoming increasingly pressured to produce huge margins of profit. How can news draw as much profit as entertainment type television? By engaging in the kind of shallow banter that makes demeaning comments about young women and Clinton's campaign, of course. And better yet, later reporting on the controversy that their own reporters have sparked.

It bothers me that the Wall Street Journal was recently pressured to sell to Murdoch primarily for financial considerations--not for the improvement of its journalistic quality. The fourth estate is in a bad place, and consolidations and heavy pressure to produce profits (newspapers too are being sucked dry for profit) helped get us here.