TACTICS:

Who cares whether tactics are Rovian or not? A lot of us do. Go read Glenn Greenwald's column of yesterday. Or was Willie Horton, Whitewater, and Swift-Boating just all in a good day's work? There are lines that should not be crossed, particularly by we Democrats.

EXPERIENCE:

The argument that Clinton is the candidate of experience over Obama doesn't hold up to the barest of scrutiny. See Nicholas Kristof (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20kristof.html) or Tim Noah (http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/), or this story about her White House years (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html)

For one, Clinton's remarks about "35 years of change" are meaningless. 35 years ago, she was in law school. She spent 12 of the ensuing years as a corporate lawyer for what's been billed the establishment law firm in Arkansas. People -- including Senator Clinton -- bring up her work with Marian Wright Edelman and the Children's Defense Fund, and that's good, decent work. But it's comparable to Sen. Obama's record as a community organizer (and, off-topic, she neglects to mention that Edelman won't speak with the Clintons anymore after the 1996 welfare reform act.)

By the way, if "experience" was really the reason to vote a candidate, I presume y'all were behind Biden and Dodd in the primary, plan to vote McCain in the general, and think highly of Cheney and Rumsfeld's exceedingly experienced record in governmental matters.

GENERATIONS

Leaving aside that the generation that flocked behind Dr. King and both Kennedys and coined the term "don't trust anyone over 30" now can't help but look dismissively as Obama's rhetoric of hope and youth appeal, there are more reasons to support Obama than just his (important) ability to bring people back to the process.

The reason I decided to vote for Obama many months ago -- despite having worked for the Clinton rapid response team for several years -- was this: Campaign Finance and Ethics Reform. I believe most other problems in DC are insoluble until you get at least some of the money out of politics. Sen. Obama passed the first comprehensive campaign finance law in Illinois in 25 years. In the US Senate, he's worked with Sen. Feingold to craft the new, post-Abramoff ethics package. Meanwhile, even notwithstanding all the campaign finance "confusion" of the Clinton years, Sen. Clinton has been openly on record speaking against McCain-Feingold ("You're not living in the real world, Russ") and voted to weaken the provisions of the Obama-Feingold ethics reform package, which she now deems too weak. (She voted against an Office of Public Integrity.)

Edwards, of course, has also been very good about speaking of the problem of money in politics, and he's my strong second choice. The reason I originally chose Obama over Edwards was for the reasons Feingold recently mentioned -- Edwards' voting record almost exactly contradicts his current stances. Nevertheless, I do like Edwards and I'm glad he's run.

At any rate, I'm 33 years old. (I guess that means I've been working for change for 33 years.) I've examined the records of all the Democratic candidates and -- based on the issues that I believe most important -- chosen the one I feel would make the best president, both due to his commitment to campaign finance/ethics reform, his strong progressive credentials in other matters, and his proven ability to bring young people and independents into the process. So, please stop arguing that non-Boomers are flocking to Obama because we're easy dupes. It's extremely unbecoming, particularly of a generation who shrugged off the Old Left of the 1940s' in their time.

ELECTABILITY:

This argument that McCain would wipe the floor with Obama while Clinton could beat him also doesn't hold up to the barest of scrutiny. Clinton has strong negatives that hover around 48-50%. Put another way, half the country already doesn't like her. She has no ability to pull people from the other side of the aisle and, indeed, is the only human being on Earth (her husband excepted) who could unite the fractured GOP. Obama, meanwhile, has shown an ability to garner crossover appeal and, perhaps more importantly, an ability to bring new people into the process.

If nothing else, look at the polls (http://www.pollster.com/08presidentialprimary.php) which show both Dems beating McCain, but Clinton only by an average of 2, while Obama enjoys an average of 7.

"Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko or anyone else."

Nice smear, tho'. Shall we go dig out all the cretins from Whitewater? There ended up being nothing to that either, but a smear is a smear, right? Why let the facts get in the way?

Permit me to repost an earlier comment I made:

"What do you think, at this point, differentiates Senator Clinton's campaign from the Rove playbook? Repeating distortions over and over again until people think they're true? Check. Trying to swiftboat Obama at his point of greatest strength (opposition to the Iraq war)? Check. Sending out brazenly false mailers on abortion and taxes? Check. Painting the candidate as a flip-flopper based on out-of-context Senate votes? Check. Indulging in union-busting rhetoric when useful? Check. Wallowing in the politics of fear? Check. Encouraging wedge divisiveness by rather blatantly playing the race card? Check. Voter suppression? Check. Chain e-mail smears and robocalls? Check."

If anyone's gone Rove in this primary election, it's the Clintons. Hence, the well-documented disgust among former Clinton supporters (including me, who worked for them for four years.)

1) When did Barack Obama attack Hillary Clinton with "the gender card"?

2) Could you please post a link to this supposed Rove editorial, from months and months ago?

Please, stop making up stuff as you go along.

What weird delusional talking point is this?

By the time Rove weighed in -- after New Hampshire -- the race card argument was already in full flower.

Man, some people are strange.