Thank you for your kind words. It's hard sometimes to maintain a civilized conversation when you have a flamethrower like lie_machine trying to goad fights. I'm ignoring his posts now because they add nothing to the discussion and are designed just to make people upset. You cannot argue with someone like that in a rational way so let him have the last word and be happy. It's the one jolly he'll get in his sad little life.

As for Obama, I understand where you are coming from. Obama was not my first choice, or my second. Or even my third. I think that there were several other candidates running that had much more experience than Obama and had more carefully reasoned policy ideas. But I am a realist and Obama is the presumtive candidate so I have to deal with what options I have.

There is always a risk when you get a relatively untried candidate nominated for president. I agree that Clinton's policy ideas seemed more carefully thought out and more practical and some of Obama's early supporters have reminded me that there have been many other presidents who came into office with little or no national experience. Sometimes you luck out and get an Abraham Lincoln. Other times you get a GW Bush. I appreciate Obama's natural leadership qualities and charisma and I can understand why so many people find him appealing. I just don't think that the presidency of the US is the ideal place for some high-level on the job training. Given all the damage that Bush has managed to do, I would be a lot happier with someone in office who had more experience at the Federal level.

I'm not as bothered by some of Obama's less savory connections than most and am well aware that some of the people linked to the Clintons aren't so wonderful either. But that's politics. I doubt that you'll find a single office holder who doesn't know someone who should be doing a perp walk. I was more bothered by the ridicule displayed towards Sen. Clinton and Pres. Clinton by some of Obama's supporters like Rev. Wright and Obama's slow response. I agreed that Ferraro went too far in her criticism of Obama and was rightly asked to disassociate herself from Clinton's campaign, but it took Obama a very long time to disassociate himself from Wright. These kind of childish and petty sniping have no place in a political debate when the stakes are this high.

Whatever my misgivings about Obama might be, I know for certain that at worst, he'll be infinately better than John McCain and for that reason alone I will vote for him. I really don't know if any Clinton supporters who are realistically thinking about voting for McCain and I've talked several out of submitting a write-in vote for Clinton or staying home on Nov 6. I am, at my heart when it comes to politics, a pragmatist. I think about the things that are important to me politically (a rational foreign policy, the environment, civil rights, etc) and I know that these causes will be far better served under a Democratic administration.

I've said several times previously that some of Obama's more radical supporters need to tone down the rancor and this irrational hatred some of them seem to have for Clinton and those who voted for her. We need a chance to catch our breaths and remember that we are one political party. We can disagree on specifics and even candidates, but when it comes to the big battles we have to come together. We need to stop beating each other up and focus on where the real fight is. Because you know as well as I do that as nasty as things sometimes got during the primaries, that is nothing compared to what the Republicans are going to throw at in in the coming months.

Unfortunately the position of wife to a presidential candiate is extremely poorly suited to strong-willed, independant, assertive women. We're still a country that likes their political wives to be attractive, quiet, sacrificing of their own professional ambitions for her husband and family, and have no opinions save for the "message". Above all else, they should never be asked to explain policy or anything other than why she picked out that particular tie for her husband to wear at the national debates.

Fair or not, Michelle Obama is going to face the same idiocy that Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore and Teresa Heinz Kerry faced when their husbands ran for president. I still cringe when Hillary had to explain away her "stand by your man" concept and give a cookie recipe to show that she was domestically inclined and how Teresa Kerry was raked over the coals when she told a reporter to "shove it". Hell, we can go all the way back to the way Mary Todd Lincoln was demonized in the press for her spending habits. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we'll find some unpleasant things printed out Martha Washington ("What, she has no children? What kind of a woman is she?")

It's all part of the game and one that the Obamas elected to play. Given the stakes and that we know the Republicans will play every dirty trick they can, Michelle is unlikely ever to see as an asset to her husband's campaign (very few wives have managed that trick), but she must not be a detriment.