Obama's finances:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sector.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Clinton's finances:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/sector.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Obama's Voting Record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Clinton's Voting Record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

It would be helpful if someone at Salon would perform a thorough dispassionate comparison analysis of both candidates finances and voting records. If this has already been done and I've missed it, someone please post a link. Vote-smart, Opensecrets and FactCheck appear to be neutral. Any other neutral sources of information would be appreciated.

@Elephantman's question about bipartisanship still hasn't been substantively answered by the many Obama supporters posting here. If there's not a filibuster-proof lead for the Dems in the Senate, Obama will have to engage in bipartisan compromise with the Repubs to get any change accomplished. Granted, change can still occur within the executive branch through bureaucrat appointments and the tax cuts expire automatically. The sweeping changes that Obama is offering hope for will require the persuasion of the legislative branch. What is his record on this?

Along similar lines, has Obama lead any filibusters (or joined) during his time in the Senate in order stand up against that which he is pledging to change (war, torture, civil liberties, etc)? If he has, this along with the record of laws he's passed would be an example of his ability to persuade fellow Senators.

As an independent, the answers to these questions are important. I remember the optimism and hope that came with the beginning of the Carter presidency. The result of that the disillusionment with that presidency was a conservative backlash for the following 12 years. How is Obama different from Carter?

Is this a trick question or do you yourself have an answer? If so, let's hear it. Besides, I don't see the connection. Obama hasn't even completed the primary run yet. Carter was president a thousand years ago. Why is that relevant to what is happening at the moment? Are you telling us that we should immediately be "wery, wery afraid" like Elmer Fudd even before the primary is over.

This is not a trick or rhetorical question. History tends to repeat, until lessons are learned. I'm not a presidential historian, but my recollection was that Carter came to the presidency after the excesses of the Nixon/Ford presidencies. He campaigned as a Washington outsider and on promises that he was unable to deliver on. The economy ended up a worse mess than when he started. Along came the Iran hostage crisis and with his perceived weak handling of the crisis, he became a one-term president preceeding 3 terms of Repub presidents.

This is relevant to this moment because (while the details are different) the domestic political (high hopes and expectations of change following a presidency of excesses), geopolitical (Middle East tension/conflicts, resurgent Russia) and economic (possible stagflation) situations seem to bear some historical similarities. Any president who tries to effect too much change and consequently accomplishes little will have their party severely punished in the 2010 mid-term and 2012 general elections.

Oh, and what is an "Independent" anyway? Is that kind of like "Undecided"?

Independent means not affiliated with either party. I am undecided and am asking to be persuaded beyond rhetoric about hope.

Armed with the arguments put forth in DeLong's article, will the Obama supporters on this forum contact Obama's campaign and encourage them to hold the revotes in Michigan and Florida? If DeLong's POV is correct, Obama defeating Clinton in both states would be supporting strong evidence. Why not put the electability question in all the swing states to the test now rather than waiting for the general election?

I'm not interested in playing a blame game. The default position of there being no vote in MI and FL favors Obama. IMO, it would be a politically courageous move by Obama for him to risk his advantage by clearly moving to have a revote under each state's existing primary rules. If DeLong's arguments are correct, Obama would win anyways.

I understand that there are many logistical and money issues with having a revote. These are excuses. If BO, HRC and the Democratic party cannot handle the logistical and financial problems of holding a revote in 2 swing states, why should we believe they can effect real change and solve the logistical and financial problems of all 50 states, let alone the numerous global problems we face?