Those were good questions you pose but OT to the subject of this thread and my posts. The question was what legislative accomplishments does Barack Obama have? The perception was that he had done nothing of note; very far from the truth indeed.

*sigh* A non-reader as well? Please read through the posts with Senate bills and links included. Again, pages 3 and 4 of this list. Educate yourself since you clearly don't know the facts.

I think you are confusing votes with his own bills. I assumed that Matthews was questioning if the Obama supporter knew of his legislative bills. Obviously Obama has voted on many issues in the Senate. What I listed were bills he wrote or co-sponsored with other legislators.

I agree with you that Obama has not been daring in his voting record, instead focusing on bills where he can find either consensus or he deems a big priority like the children's healthcare plan. I have every confidence that Obama will provide the leadership as president to enact changes such as the ones he is proposing now in energy, healthcare, ending the Iraq debacle. Unfortunately, the reality of our existing White House is that little of true importance to regular people gets done because it's not a priority. I see an opening for change with Obama that doesn't come along with the high negatives of Clinton.

ITA. Good post.

One question that I'd really like you to answer:

Exactly WHAT leads you to conclude that the "experience" McCain touts will be successful as a campaign strategy?

All of the data flowing in from the electoral contests show that:

1) Americans are extremely anxious about the economy

2) they are anxious for a change

3) When given the opportunity for open electoral voting, Obama garners far larger numbers from independents and some Repubs than McCain gathers from Dems or independents.

So, please give me your rationale for still asserting that McCain has some kind of ace up his sleeve in terms of the experience card.

You wrote:

"Everyone should read the new John Grisham book to see what has been done to push a candidate who lacks experience.

We need to get serious and vote for Senator Clinton, otherwise we are going to end up with the same government we have today."

_________________________________________________________

Sorry, you're too late. More than half of the states have voted and it looks like Obama is the one we're picking.

FYI, we don't need to read a John Grisham book to see what happens when a candidate with no experience (no intelligence?)gets into office. Just reflect on the last 7 1/2 years. Barack Obama can do far better walking in his sleep. Probably better even if he was 3 days dead.

Did anyone else hear what he had to say? It sounded absolutely like class-warfare. I guess Hillary has realized that race-baiting won't work. Now they've moved on to insulting "latte" drinkers. Is this a smart move given that coffee shops are popping up everwhere?

This guy also sneered at Obama's stint as editor of Harvard Law review. Hmmm, didn't both Hill and Bill attend Ivy Leagues? Yale I think. Or is it that Harvard is particularly onerous.

What in the world is the Clinton campaign thinking?

You replied:

"I find this sort of statement odd given that Bush had more executive experience than either Clinton or Obama. He was the Governor of Texas for 6 years. Neither Obama or Clinton have any elected executive experience."

_________________________________________________________

What experience are you referring to? Certainly Bush had NO experience in foreign affairs or in the military. Can one say that he has greater experience on economic issues than 2 US Senators? More importantly, that whole line of argument about "executive experience" only works if it's the right kind. In Texas, the role of governor is actually quite weak compared to other states.

Read here about the role of Gov in Texas:

"Partly because of many elected officials, the governor's powers are quite limited in comparison to other state governors or the U.S. President."

" In popular lore and belief the lieutenant governor, who heads the Senate and appoints its committees, has more power than the governor. The governor commands the state militia and can veto bills passed by the Legislature and call special sessions of the Legislature (this power is exclusive to the governor and can be exercised as often as desired). The governor also appoints members of various executive boards and fills judicial vacancies between elections."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Texas

But when is a good time to level these types of accusations, which appear to run from infidelity to corruption of some kind.

What a mess for McCain and the GOP.

I agree with many of your points. I also have a somewhat different perspective. My sister married a Swede and lived there for more than a decade. This is the type of "idealized" situation in healthcare people talk about when they speak to nationalized healthcare. First point, an important one, is that it is extremely expensive as I'm sure you know.

Secondly, as I've gotten older, I've questioned how committed Americans really are to certain ideals, for example, universal healthcare. We constantly b%#&* and moan about taxes and we fork over huge amounts to the military. Swedes certainly complain about taxes but they clearly do NOT support enormous military expenditures. Priorities are different.

Lastly, If we examine our own nation, we see a lot of regular people who have some illness or another. We are obese and sedentary. If you ever visit Sweden, you will see a remarkably fit and yes, goodlooking group of people. They are simply healthier than we are. That's a critical point that I think needs to be addressed if we are to expect the whole nation to foot the bill. As a 40 yr old non-smoker with cholesterol of 52/59, no diabetes, and regular exercise habits, I frankly don't care to pay for the smokers and fast food junkies. I'd like to see caps on illnesses that are more lifestyle related. JMO.