It is interesting, but it is also true that Obama has tried to show his toughness by saying he would bomb and invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden WITHOUT Pakistan's permission. That is a stance that will not win friends there. I is also true he voted present or didn't vote on a number of crucial issues that did face him, so I wonder if he would have been absent for the Iraq vote. Moreover, his health care plan is inferior because it leaves around 15 million uninsured--despite his recent claims. And I really hate his attacking Hillary from the right, and dishonestly. Still if he wins I would happily work for him.

In the end I think I have to stick will Hillary for my first choice and Edwards for my second choice, despite his vote for the bankruptcy bill. I do worry that vote told us something unpleasant about him, worse even than the Iraq vote. And he has been dishonest about Hillary's position on Iraq. She was not Bush's strongest supporter for the war in Iraq. In fact, she (and Bill) repeatedly urged Bush NOT to invade Iraq. A few examples are:

"Deadline for war - Give the inspectors more time, urges Clinton" The Daily Telegraph March 13, 2003 "Bill Clinton yesterday urged the Bush administration to give Hans Blix as much time as he wants to complete weapons inspections in Iraq. The former president broke ranks with his successor...Mr Clinton said war might yet be avoided if Saddam Hussein were given more time to disarm. "

"Hillary Clinton tells Irish TV she is against war with Iraq," Irish Times, February 8, 2003

"Hillary Clinton prefers 'peaceful solution' in Iraq," Associated Press March 3, 2003

"[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...[I]nspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said."

Still, Edwards is more electable than Obama and tougher, more committed to a progressive agenda as opposed to Obama's Middle Ground and less foolish about the possibility of working with Republicans in Congress--they will do everything to make sure a Democratic president fails. And the Republican electorate too is composed, mostly of right-wing evangelicals and big business interests. The moderates in the public and in the Congress who would work with Democrats have been squeezed out.

But Hillary has always worked for progressive causes: for children and against poverty. And she is tough and clear-eyed about the Republicans but able to work with them on issues they have in common--for example working with Tom Delay to make adoption easier. She is strong, experienced, and idealistic. That's good enough for me.

Linda

“If you rail against the special interests like the oil companies and all the giveaways and the tax breaks they were given, but you voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill, that’s not change,” Clinton said about Mr. Obama. (She did not vote for Cheney's energy bill, Obama did.)

“If you gave a speech, and a very good speech, against the war in Iraq in 2002, and then by 2004 you’re saying you’re not sure how you would have voted, and then by 2005, 6, and 7 you vote for $300 billion for the war you said you were against, that’s not change!”

Obama votes present or not at all on hard issues (some 130+ times). He is a moral coward. To paraphrase, "there is a special place in hell for those in time of great crisis vote present." He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. He campaigns with homophobes; that is ignored by the MSM. He doesn't vote on the Iran statement but trashes Hillary for her vote. John Edwards is playing the populist card, but he voted for the bankruptcy bill that hurt the poor and middle-class. Hillary didn't. And they have the gall to accuse Hillary of supporting the status quo while pretending to be pure and above politics as usual--that stinks and is hypocrisy. They are better than any Republican, but they are not better than Hillary.

Linda

The instances you cite about Obama and Edwards are mild, mild, mild. Chris Matthews trashed Hillary for 2 straight months, telling friends about Hillary, "I hate her, I hate her, I hate her and all she stands for." He is not the only one either. Meanwhile has anyone asked Obama why he voted for Cheney's energy bill; you know the one with the goodies for the oil companies or pushed him on why he voted present over 100 times on tough issues?

Linda

If we don't do something about political reporters we are doomed as a country. We can stand a dozen Duke Cumminghams, but the chattering class and the so-called reporters will destroy us in their effort to decide FOR us who will be president. Please write a column on what we can do to save us all.

Linda

How do we stop them before they kill the country in their corporate, adolescent desire to be the big, cool guys at long last. As long as you and Joan aren't on it, and a few other fair reporters and columnists, I'm tempted to hope the press bus is the next bus accident, no survivors. The idea that the press is liberal is the biggest scam perpetrated by the right-wing. This press isn't even fair. The bow to their corporate bosses and the candidates that suck up to them--which is how we got George Bush, God save us. Progressives have to stop them and that means go after them without mercy--canceling subscriptions, writing endless letters to the editor (hopefully a few will get through), talking to friends and neighbors, whatever else anyone can thinks of.

Linda