Having listened closely to all the Democratic candidates over the last year, I found most of them to have good ideas for the future. We have an embarassment of riches when it comes to Presidential candidates.

So, it is with some annoyance that I find Barack Obama to be the politican equivalent of ice cream: sweet, tempting and nice, but, not something you want every meal. You eventually get tired of empty calories, as it were.

Nearly every quote I see from people who have seen and heard Barack at one of his campaign events involves the same wording: inspirational, passionate and uplifting. The words I do NOT hear very often about him, if at all, are: specifics, experience and brilliance. I DO hear those words spoken about Hillary Clinton, though.

While Barack Obama may, might or could make a great President, 2008 is not that time; he needs eight years as Hillary's VP to mature, secure gravitas and gather the needed experience with which to operate Presidentially.

Being POTUS is not a place for on-the-job training; we need a President who can function well from day one. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton has the requisite abilities and experience for the job...from day one. In 2016, Vice-President Obama will make a superb Presidential candidate.

We got a President in 2000 who wasn't prepared for the job; how'd that work out for the US? I rest my case.

As Bill Clinton said weeks ago: "Give me a break!" Anyone who questions any aspect...ANY aspect...of the Barack Obama campaign is labeled as "racist", "out-of-touch", "distortionist" or worse. I, frankly, am sick of it.

Barack Obama is a likeable enough candidate (as he opined about Hillary), but, he lacks the experience, gravitas and life-experience to be an effective President from day one. I believe he will achieve that status...in about eight years. That would roughly correspond with the end of his two terms as Hillary's VP. He needs that eight year seasoning to be the kind of President that his supporters want. He isn't there yet.

Plus, all I hear from Senator Obama are platitudes, generalities, over-blown fluffy rhetoric and switcheroo cadences ranging from Black-preacher pulpitizing to yuppifying yammering. Specificity isn't his strong-suit.

"Give me a break."

You wrote: "Respectfully, it'd be more convincing if you said why you thought Clinton would be better than Obama, rather than repeating Clinton's talking points: 1) brilliance, 2) experience, and 3) day one."

Perhaps it's that her so-called "talking points" ARE why I believe she is a better candidate than Barack Obama. Barack Obama is superficial where she is substantial...in my opinion.

You wrote: "Obama has plenty of gravitas and he has plenty of something Clinton's sorely lacking: charisma. You know what lets someone "operate Presidentially?" Charisma. You can't win the White House without charisma."

George W. Bush was widely considered to be the guy you'd like to have a beer with." Unfortunately, he has been a dud as a President. So much for "charisma" as a criterion.

You wrote: "And how one conducts their campaign is part of a reflection of them as a candidate, how they'd handle things as President. And Obama's roundly bested Clinton in the campaign to date -- even when he's lost contests, he's managed to gain ground, managed to keep the hope alive, draw in more people -- while the Clintons alienate swathes of voters with their tactics. She was expecting a cakewalk to the White House, and was caught completely off-guard by Obama's strength as a candidate, and when that happened, she got nasty. That says something about her qualities and judgment as a leader."

Since when has politics been less than a passionate exercise? In Texas, they say that "politics is a contact-sport". Grow up and stop whining when your candidate gets challenged on his statements, positions or lack therof. You characterize the challenges as "nastiness". I'd call it "asking the hard questions". Besides, if you think the Republicans are simply going to fold in November or play patty-cake with the Democratic candidate, you are hopelessly naive. You sound like someone in their early twenties...no disrespect intended.

You wrote: "I know you won't be convinced; few Clintonites can be convinced that Obama's the winning ticket."

I've listened intently to ALL the candidates...Democratic and Republican. I also have the life-experience that you seemingly lack. I have the experience of having voted since 1980, so, I most likely have more depth of experience than you when it comes to candidate's promises versus candidate's deliveries.

After considering all the candidates, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton because she's tough, intelligent, middle-of-the-road and...most of all...competent. Barack Obama is likeable enough; he's just not experienced enough to be President from day one.

Just my opinion...

Thank you for proving my point so quickly and so completely: challenging Barack's supporters on the points and the issues brings out the tired canard of "racism."

You do your candidate no favors by relying on that trite and hackneyed "defense".

Grow up and join the real world.

One thing about Barack Obama bothers me: he's down wid it African-American-style when its to his advantage to be so, such as when he speaks before a Black church congregation. However, he is also half-Caucasian but that only comes up when its to his advantage, as well...such as when he switches to the Harvardian preppy/yuppie patois of the White liberals. In short, the man is playing to both sides of the aisle. That bespeaks a basic dishonesty, imho.

The fact is that he was abandoned by his Black father when he was a small child. He was raised by his White mother and White Grandparents, who, by all accounts, actually molded him into the man he is today. Yet, he identifies himself as an "African-American" in nearly every one of his campaign appearances and his persona. Why would he identify with a father who so completely abandoned him?

You'll excuse me if I find his "race-shifting" for personal gain to be annoying, dishonest and patronizing.