Gotta disagree with a lot of your comments here.

"as a politician voting "present" 129 times"

The present issue has been explained many times over, but the upshot is this. In the Illinois legislature, you can vote yes, no, and present, and many times there are good reasons to vote "present" for a bill, be it because you like most of the bill and think something should be changed, because you don't want the bill to achieve quorum, or some other reason. On the pro-choice issue, Obama crafted a strategy with Planned Parenthood to protect the seats of pro-choice representatives by killing dumb pro-life bills (which proliferate in state senates like weeds) through sheer lack of quorum. For more information, see:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

On abortion: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html

"and having never sponsored a major bill in the U.S. Senate"

Do you mean other than Obama-Lugar (the sequel to the very successful Nunn-Lugar nuclear nonproliferation bill, applied to conventional weapons) and Obama-Coburn (an ethics bill devoted to creating transparency in Congress.) Those are both pretty big, although admittedly not at the level of McCain-Feingold or Kennedy-Kassebaum. But can you point to any major legislation put forth by Sen. Clinton in her seven years as *my* Senator?

"His Karl-Rove-esq attack campaign AGAINST universal health care;"

Sen. Obama is for universal health care. He's said this many times over. He does not agree with Sen. Clinton's view on a mandate, as that basically means universal health insurance (at rates that might be prohibitive for people who can't afford it.) I presume you're referring to the "Harry and Louise"-ish mailer. Tough, perhaps, but not altogether unfair. But, speaking of Rovian tactics, perhaps you should take a look at these:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_democrat

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/01/bill-clintons-old-politics.html

"his $1 Trillion social security tax hike (OK, so he just didn't know what he is saying and doesn't truly want to increase taxes by $1,000,000,000,000 a year (did I get all 12 zeros in?) but isn't that the point?)."

No, that's not the point. With all due respect, you've bought into Clinton's absurd Nevada mailer without looking into it. What Sen. Obama advocated is raising the social security cap on payroll taxes. People who make under $97,000 a year are already paying payroll taxes, and Sen. Obama has even suggested making allowances for people who make less than $200,000. So this trillion dollar tax hike you speak of definitely wouldn't affect people making under $97,000 and probably wouldn't affect people making under $200,000. Hard to see this as some huge blow to the middle class. To hear him explain it, see:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_social_security_and_taxes.php

So, I doubt this info will change your mind, but, trust me, there's more to these stories than what you're saying.

That's what I said. Note de jure and de facto. The fact remains, after 1920 women's right to vote was not at all in question. For the next 40-50 years, men and women suffered and even died to ensure the right to vote for African-Americans. So, it kinda puts the lie to that goofy line of argument.

Either way, the "women have it worse than black men" line of argument is tremendously reductive, and is hard to justify in any case. See also Tim Noah's piece on Gloria Steinem's first use of this calculus of despair.

http://www.slate.com/id/2181646

"Excuse me Kate, but I did not see your reasoning for why you would vote for Obama. What policies of his do you agree with?"

Kate Michelman's original letter endorsing Sen. Obama (after Sen. Edwards left the race) is here:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/with_jre_out_mi.html

Wow. Who's sexist now? Some of y'all should really read over what you've written before you press publish. It's really not beooming.

At any rate, skylark:

"We had to wait until 50 years after African-American men got the vote until women finally got the vote."

De jure, maybe. De factor, this is not at all correct. It's also been explained several times around here already, so forgive me if I reprint from a comment I made earlier:

"Since this seems to be a common misconception held by Steinem, Jong, Pappas, and other feminist leaders of the Second Wave: (white) women were voting in this country well before black men. Yes, the fifteenth amendment (1865) passed before the nineteenth amendment (1920). But Jim Crow ensured that the vast majority of african-americans couldn't vote in this country until very, very recently (1965).

Ever heard of Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman? They were killed in Mississippi in 1964 for daring to believe that african-americans should be able to vote. Forty-four years earlier, white women were happily casting votes for Warren Harding and James Cox, and there was no backlash whatsoever.

Of course, this sort of argument ignores the awful double-bind in which women of color were trapped. But that's why this sort of calculus of despair (who has it worse) is such an unproductive road. It draws divisions between people who should be natural allies."''