It pains me to see how taken in we are by the superficiality of the coverage of this campaign. The media has given us Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama, Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama from the beginning. One is change, the other is experience. It is not that simple, but we have become the land of the simple-minded. In my opinion, Barack Obama has no depth and I detect no special quality of "sincerity" that his supporters talk about. In fact, I think he is merely slick. He will not fight for universal health care, he walks with Bush regarding social security, and he thinks the oil companies, and drug companies will just give people what we need. He is naive and will be, at best, another Jimmy Carter - a good man and a good president, but not someone to establish sustainable leadership. Jimmy Carter was the bridge from Nixon to Reagan. Who will Obama carry over that bridge from (the worst) Bush to another Bad Republican? All Democrats will affect a poistive change from George W. The Democrats have an opportunity to take this country in a new bold direction. I am afraid that Barack Obama is not up to the job.

While I understand Frances Kissling's dissatisfaction with Senator Clinton, and FK's support of John Edwards, I still do not understand her (and other's) blind faith in Senator Obama. His flowery oratory of hope is way too vague, and backed up by so little substance that I cringe when he speaks. If any candidate in the Democratic field represents a willingness to side with the Republicans it is Obama.

Does it bother Ms. Kissling that he is the only candidate of the top three vote-getters (money raisers) whose health care plan does not cover all Americans? Does it bother her that Mr. Obama uses the same rhetoric as the Republicans when he talks about Social Security? Does it Bother Ms. Kissling when Mr. Obama complains that more experienced politicians fight hard for principled positions, when he would rather play nice to get along? Is it any wonder that he is more attractive to Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents than other Democrats?

Unfortunately the media has given Democrats the choice of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I trust Hillary Clinton to be more successful than Barack Obama in setting a liberal agenda, even if she is married to Bill, and even if she is overly militaristic. Give me John Edwards, give me the principles of Christopher Dodd, give me Dennis Kucinich; but at some point we have to be practical and I trust Hillary over Barack.

Barack Obama's empty rhetoric is not comparable to Bill Clinton's in at least one important aspect. Bill Clinton is one of the most thoughtful, wonkish, intelligent leaders that we have seen who understands policy options and their potential impact better than any other president in the last 30 years. In one word, he has depth. he connects on both an intellectual and an emotional level. Barack Obama by comparison is a light weight. The good part is that Hillary Clinton shares some of Bill's depth of understanding, and is quite good at expressing it on an intellectual level. Admittedly she is not a superstar at stirring the emotions, but I believe that she can be convincing.

I agree that both Bill & Hillary are a bit too politically calculating at times, but that is part of what makes them effective. My fear is that even if Barack Obama is truly more liberal and I have found little evidence to support that. By the way, Mr. Obama is not beyond political calculations himself (See his penchant for voting "present," or just being out-of-town.) he's just not as good at it.

I too would prefer someone more consistently and demonstrably liberal than the Clinton's, but Barack Obama has not shown that he is. Furthermore, I doubt his ability and strength in being effective. If there is someone who is demonstrably more liberal and demonstrably more effective than Hillary Clinton, who also has a chance at the Democratic presidential nomination show him or her to me. It is not Barack Obama on either count.

I just poured my heart out and the computer erased it.

So, I will try the short version.

1. Clinton negatives are so high because the Republicans own the media and they are afraid of the Clinton's strength. It is a bad and clueless joke to say that any Clinton has ever received unwarranted high praise in the media. Maybe except Bill in the early days.

2. Republicans do IT (certain tactics) when they have the power. When they do not have the power, the same tactics are evil - see Impeachment, filibusters, partisanship, two Presidents from the same family, inependent prosecutors, etc.

3. Voting on electability is a mirage, much promoted in the right wing (read mainstream) media. Everyone's negatives will rise. Everyone can be swift-boated.

4. My biggest complaint with the Clintons is that they did not pave the way for more liberal leaders.

Conclusions:

The media gave us Clinton v Obama - now we are stuck with it.

While we do have to work together to get things done, bipartisanship can be a hollow attraction, if it leads to protecting or extolling Republican policies until they can regain strength.

Please vote on who you think will be the best president - bottom line.

A shout out to Chris Dodd who I believe had the highest level of leadership and the highest level of integrity in this campaign. Too bad he is gone from the race. Maybe he will be the next majority leader, or a supreme court justice.