Both had exactly one term in the Illinois State Senate and one term in the U.S. Congress. Precisely.

Ages of U.S. presidents when they first took office:

Theodore Roosevelt: 42 years old

John F. Kennedy: 43 years old

William Jefferson Clinton: 47 years old

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 51 years old

Abraham Lincoln: 51 years old

Age is an excuse (some) of you Clinton supporters are trying to use to vote against him. It is not a valid one. It is a specious arguments.

We can't change his experience or his age anymore than we can his color. NOW if you want us to tell you why he'd make the BEST president fine. But if you want us to just change his race or his age or his so-called "experience" (BTW Clinton supporters continually denigrate even the real experience we try to explain he does have) there's nothing we can do about it.

One would hope mature adults, and especially Democrats would be interested in hearing our REASONS for supporting him rather than blaming him for something historically stupid and irrelevant like his age or what they deem to call experience. Next please.

Several people have asked for reasons why some of us support Obama. Will try to keep it from running too long, can't promise it will be sophisticated.

1.) His stance on the Iraq War. This matters to me as it was taken in October 2002, during the passage of the AUMF but long before the war started. The fact that Obama not only opposed this, but saw the main problems the war would create: 1) not the combat itself but a difficult occupation, 2) regional tension and 3) religious tension tells me this is someone who is able to read a situation, size it up and come to the correct conclusion. (Link for anyone who cares: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech)

2.) His notion of engaging with our enemies. The idea that we could NOT be engaging with Iran, one of the major regional powers and one of the most destructive influences in Iraq, is absurd to me. It's clear to every sane person we need to be engaging not only with Iran, but Syria (which Israel just re-opened top level diplomatic meetings with last week), and North Korea (which we are doing) as well. What's the problem with meeting with Ahmadinejad? It's not like Obama's going to show up on the guy's front door step without serious preparations by the State Dept., a plan and a clear indication he would get something before he agreed to sit down.

3.) Surge in Afghanistan not Iraq. Won't go any further into it. Too long already.

4.) Obama's record (despite naysayers) of working across the aisle: Coburn-Obama Govt. Transparency Act, Obama-Luger Nuclear Nonproliferation Threat Reduction Act (when's the last time someone talked about reducing nukes), Bunning-Obama Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. Like the idea of a new non-partisan approach. To me how you approach something is almost directly indicative of just how much you will achieve. The current gridlock in Washington is deadly, ensures that nothing gets accomplished, and makes 50% of the country hate the other 50% and spend all of their time bickering. You can disagree with their beliefs but that's no way to get things done.

5.) His commitment, proven by the bills he's passed, of actually reforming the government. The Coburn-Obama Act required full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds each year. Every single one. On a publically accessible database. That's huge. There's also the 2007 Senate Ethics Reform bill which Obama had to fight Reid and some of the more entrenched interests of his pown Party to pass. It's the first time we've gotten major ethics reform passed in the Senate in a long time. Don't want to beat on a dead horse but here's the difference between Obama and other candidates on it:

"This was a moment of truth. Who supported Washington's business as usual, and who wanted to change things, fulfill the voters' desire of cleaning up Washington, and was willing to defy the leadership in Washington?

The roll call does not lie:

Among those voting no were Webb, Tester, Feingold, Kerry, and Obama.

Among those who agreed with Reid that most earmarks should be kept secret as to who sponsored them: Clinton, and even Obama's senior colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin. There are even more disappointing names in the roll call which you can find at the link.

Let's be clear here: this was not just about crossing Reid and playing hero for a day. Obama and the other brave Democrats prevented the leadership from making a huge mistake, which would have given the Republicans endless ammunition. The only reason Democrats have bragging rights on the "most sweeping ethics reform in history" is because a few brave Democrats stood up and made it so. The next day, Reid saw the writing on the wall, and accepted the tougher earmark reform"

Link: http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12761

(Had to cut and paste, paraphrase.)

Ok anyway those are only about a quarter of the reasons I support Obama. It's too long of a post already. But if people are genuinely interested in why some of us think he's the best candiate (and are open to not just voting for McCain because they're mad Hillary lost) there's a few reasons. Will try to follow up in a later post.