You are right on the money, Ms. Walsh.

Point one: To all the letter-writers posting "omg a vote for Clinton is a vote for McCain" and similar tired cliches, shut up. No one is listening to you and no one thinks that you are any better at predicting the truth than the douchebags who claimed Obama was going to sweep the primaries after Iowa.

But moving on to the real business at hand, I really find it incredible that people still cling to Obama for his message of hope. To me, his Reagan comments made one thing clear: Not that he supported Reagan's policies, per se, but that he supports, and sees himself in, Reagan's method of so-called "dynamism." What Obama is saying is what his opponents have been saying all along: The man is all style and no substance. Obama doesn't support Reagan's ideology because he doesn't care about ideology, platform, or issues. He's all about the packaging, and that's all that he's ever been about from the beginning.

Obama likes to sell himself as the candidate of hope and unity, but it has been pointed out ad nauseum that hope is the only thing we can have regarding "unity" because Democrats have been compromising their values and their pet issues to jackass Republicans since the late 90s. Do you really think Obama's vision of unity is going to end up looking like anything other than more spineless Democrats appeasing the Republican machine? Even now when the Republicans are at their absolute weakest, Obama does not advocate going in and taking them by the throat and getting Democratic goals accomplished. He advocates "unity." Right.

There is absolutely no reason to vote for Obama. He is admittedly clueless and out of touch with the issues of feminism, civil rights, gay activism, and so on, which are still fighting today. His knowledge about people like MLK is just textbook reverence learned in a classroom, not first-hand experience to the kind of shit that people back then went through and people now are still going through. He is not progressive: Check out his voting record on issues of environmentalism and you will see that he sides with major industry 9 times out of 10. Clinton may take money from lobbyists but at least she doesn't put legislation in the pockets of the coal industry. Obama has no plan for the economy, none whatsoever. Obama has no plan for anything. He's just got a big heart full of "hope" and "unity" that will see any opportunity for strong Democratic leadership left at the mercy of the people we're supposed to be uniting with, the Dick Cheneys and John McCains of the world.

It's not that I think Clinton is a political messiah. It's just that anyone with a clear, cool head can rationally see that Obama is not actually bringing anything to the table. He will not last ten minutes in a general election. He will not deliver any of his fabled "change" to America because he has no idea what such change might actually look like (and if he does, he has certainly never made any of us privy to it).

That's why I'm voting for Clinton, and hoping against hope that she is the one who captures the Democratic nomination. Obama is good at making pretty speeches, but he doesn't seem to have any of those "ideas" he is so fond of referring to.

Nobody panic: It is perfectly normal for Brightstar to completely and intentionally miss the obvious.

Go back to your business: Nothing to see here.

If you Obama supporters, or even Obama himself, can actually define what this alleged "change" might look like and what form it might take, feel free to enlighten the rest of us. Because the rest of us are getting sick of hearing that line repeated ad nauseum from another ambitious Ivy-leaguer with no real policy platforms or actual plans for change.

If you think the culture wars are over, it's because you've been raised in privilege and don't know any better.

I'm 21 and I've seen the damage they do first hand. I'm surprised you haven't. I'm not crazy about the Baby Boomers, but they're right about some things. Their battles aren't finished because we, their children, have been too sheltered and frightened to acknowledge that they still exist.

Our generation is great. Our epic youtubing got us appointed Time's Person of the Year. We are HEROES. Of Guitar.

I don't know what you're talking about, sheesh. I need to get back to facebook.

You are right, words about Republican fury in '08 are bullshit from people trying to use scare tactics to get others to vote for their candidate.

Why, then, is that tactic most often used by people who claim that nominating Hillary will hand us President McCain?

There are some dishonest people trying to sell us a line using fear. But even looking at these letters, you'll see that line isn't coming from Clinton supporters.

"We sold our constituents and our allies, hook line and sinker, on this complete bullshit that we knew was bullshit. And they totally bought it, at least until they found out it was bullshit, so it must not have been that big of a lie after all..."

Obama's supporters are the ones who are using fear of a Republican surge to keep people from voting for "divisive" Hillary.

As to the person (sorry forgot your SN) who said they were legitimately asking the question, no, no one can say for certain whether Obama or Clinton will stand a better chance against any given Republican. But I would remind you what happened to us the last time we sacrificed our principles by choosing the immanently electable and inoffensive Kerry over the fiery, divisive Howard Dean. I don't know if Howard Dean would have snagged the presidency had he been nominated, but it's food for thought. We should vote our principles this time around (no matter which candidate you finally choose), instead of fretting over who's more electable.