I know that anecdotal evidence is not "empirically valid." Nevertheless, I do indeed know at least a few people in their 20's, who have never voted, who registered this year solely so they could vote for Obama. These are voters who have never in their lives seen anyone in the White House besides a Bush or Clinton, and they don't like it. They're not stupid. They understand the concept of creeping oligarchy, as well as the threat of hereditary elitism to true democracy.

To say that there is no difference between Obama and Hillary is wrong. Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Obama was not in the Senate when the vote occurred, but he openly and vocally opposed Hillary's position, and, at the time, people said it would damage his career. He took a great political risk to be on the right side of an important issue. That's experience and judgment that matters, especially to young voters who are disillusioned with the way that personal political careers and party loyalty have become more important to our leaders than doing the right thing.

On one of the most important issues of the day, Hillary is closer to John McCain than Obama. She did not vote her conscience. She hedged her bet, at the expense of lives and money, because she thought it would help her presidential run. So why would I vote for her over McCain?

Also, Hillary's health care plan, while being touted as "more complete," is only so because she would mandate individuals to buy health insurance, as we now legally have to buy car insurance from private corporations.

I am all for health care reform, and it is an urgent priority. But forcing me to buy it from a private company--and garnishing my wages if I do not--was not exactly the solution I had in mind. Indeed, such a "solution" is outrageous, in my opinion.

I'll admit that I have not had time to thoroughly scrutinize each candidate's official position on every single issue, from farm subsidies to the Tamil Tigers. I think that most working Americans, if they're being honest, would admit the same partial ignorance.

However, on two issues that I easily consider to be among the most crucial--Iraq and health care--there are substantive differences that will affect me as a working American in the lowest tax bracket.

Obama would get my vote; Hillary would not.

"the maturity level of the vaunted "youth vote" that Obama has cursed us with."

It really is sad how the apparent passion of young voters--many of whom have been motivated by Obama's candidacy to vote for their first time--is being diminished if not outright dismissed by certain Democratic Party "loyalists," seemingly for no reason other than obeisance to the Clinton name.

Young people are becoming excited about their potential to affect political change. That's good. Maybe they're not displaying the same capacity for cold political calculation that the boomer set possesses (although that seems pretty arguable too, considering the simple proof of political skill shown by Obama's unexpected electoral success), but so what?

It seems to me that the Democratic "party elders" of Clinton's generation have little room to chastise. At least today's political youth movement is not rioting in the streets of Chicago, or conflating their desire for change with some kind of LSD-fueled dream of social "revolution." They're simply going out and voting.

"Ellis Diablo, you point out Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war at the beginning and Hillary Clinton did not. Hillary Clinton was Senator from New York, where 911 occurred and almost 3000 of Hillary's constituents were killed. Along with almost every other member of the Senate, she voted to give the Iraq war authorization."

The Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11, and don't insult the voting public of New York by claiming that they aren't smart enough to have known that.

Tell it to the thousands of dead soldiers who come from EVERY state in the union, or to the dead Iraqi civilians.

Tell it to the current children of America who will still be paying for Bush and Hillary's fiasco decades from now, when they are in their forties.

"Had Barack Obama been Senator from almost anywhere, but certainly from New York in 2002, I am sure he would have voted for the war authorization."

In other words, if Obama was Hillary Clinton, he would have based his vote on the same sense of political expediency that she did. I guess you're right. And if the Iraq war was a fifth, we'd all be drunk.

The bottom line is that she voted for the war, he did not. He was an elected official, even if not in the US Senate, who openly opposed her vote.

"As evidence of that, since he has been in the U.S. Senate, Obama has voted with Hillary Clinton to continue funding the Iraq War. Whether he was for the war then, he has voted to fund it since."

That's a valid point. I wish he had not voted to continue funding the war. I guess that's where their differences end. However, a crucial difference does remain, that being the decision to go to war in the first place.

Contrast that with John McCain, whose positions mirrors Hillary Clinton's in every aspect.

"As for health care, I personally want to choose my doctor and my health care plan, so I doubt I would support anything like the Canadian or English plans I am under the impression Obama supports."

Then you're confused, because Obama's plan is clearly less statist than Hillary's. Re-read my letter, where I clearly explained why, and if you need me to re-explain it, I will.