If, Hillary Clinton is elected as the Democratic nominee, three individuals in my home will vote for whatever nominee wins in the Republican party. We will give America just what they deserve. It is as simple as that, no more Clintons!!!

I appreciate your taking the time. But I want to respond in kind, and if we disagree so be it. But for the record I dislike and do not concur with being called a "groupie." I also don't accept snide references to my age or lack of experience. I'm older than my twenties, have worked in more than one professional industry, and carry two bachelors degrees and one post-graduate degree. But I'm not saying that this is what makes me qualified to respond. I believe that logic is a leveler among people of intelligence in any argument. So considering your points:

1. Obama said the ideas of Reagan were "played out." How does that not answer your question sufficiently? Whatever good people saw in these ideas, they don't see now. We need to depart from Reagan that point of history. Obama's remarks were in sharp contrast to the Republican debaters who insist, categorically, that Reagan be re-referenced and adored at each opportunity. He is a stronger evocation than Bush, but Obama was right to target Reagan instead of Bush (Bush consciously modeling himself on Reagan)

as the originator off these ideas. This historical trajectory.

I'm sure you are familiar with the logical fallacy, guilt by association. This appears to be what you are doing by saying that by mentioning anything of Reagan, even ideas that have "played out" he must defend himself against guilt by association with the ideas of Reagan. Yet he isn't under any such obligation, any more than Clinton is for her admiring remarks about Reagan (or Bill Clinton, his admiring remarks--they have been uncovered by many media stories so I won't reference them here because if you don't want to read their admiring remarks, I can't make you read them). But at the very least, if Obama is "guilty by association" even mentioning Reagan's name, so are the Clintons. This case has been made, and the fact that you ignore it makes me think that you are willing to be unfair to the candidate who you do not prefer, regardless of the argument at hand.

2. Again, you are ascribing guilt by association with Ann Coulter. And before we get into a debate over the merit or lack of merit in Ann Coulter, an argument is valid or not valid, not based on who advances it, but on its own merits. So let me give evidence, other than Ann Coulter's remarks, for my concerns about Clintons' stance on national security:

a. She does not apologize for her war vote. She does not believe that she needs to.

b. Per the Atlantic Monthly, her advisors are made up of people who do not believe that going into Iraq was a mistake. Obama's advisors, per the same article, do believe that it was a mistake to go into Iraq.

c. Her remarks on using nuclear weapons to go after al qaeda. This demonstrates to me that she is interested in more aggressive, rather than least aggressive responses to terrorist threats. (Which worries me).

d. Her vote on Ky-Leiberman on authorizing power in Iran. It re-emphasizes the point that she does not believe she made a mistake in authorizing Bush in Iraq, and therefore she is willing to authorize the same kind of Bill with Bush still in office, on Iran.

Yes Obama voted to support the troops with funding, because Bush left no other option by veto against any attempt to impose a timetable for withdrawal. But I don't condemn either of them for supporting the troops. I do see key differences in their foreign policy perspective, which Clinton has attempted to write off as insignificant, but given that she is running partially on her contribution to her husband's administration, and that administration had responsibility for civilian bombings in Kosovo, and the humanitarian crisis in Rwanda, I have reason to not admire her foreign policy experience in regard to wars and the unwarrented deaths of civilians.

3. "Surely you cannot blame one Democratic Senator for the poor performance of a Republican-led Congress." If she was in opposition to the Republican-led Congress, I expected her to say so. As the election draws near her criticisms of the Bush white house years and the Congress grow louder, but when she had an opportunity in the Congress to vote against some of the Republican-led bills, I don't see her taking that opportunity. I see her record in the Senate like this; she was able to secure appropriations for New York after 9-11 and in this sense, she was a good Senator for New York. She helped New York to rebuild. I give her full credit. But for the rest of the country, her voting record does not show a marked divergence from Bush's policies. She did not lead filibusters or speak in the Draconian voice she now uses to critique Bush. So although I do not lay all of the "blame" on her shoulders--I believe she is at least responsible for her own actions, and so she is partially to blame as a member of that Congress for its actions.

4. "My bottom line in my last post is simple. Do not use Republican talking points that distort reality against a fellow Democrat."

Again, the logical fallacy of guilt by association. The important issue in an honest debate is whether or not an argument is valid. If you must smear an argument by its association with someone else who holds it, then you are not looking at the argument on its own merits. It doesn't matter logically who's talking point it is, so much as whether or not this point is valid or not valid.

One other point is that no such similar caution has been given to the Clinton supporters who have attacked Obama in full force, using "Republican talking points" against him, or perhaps where there have not been enough talking points to begin with, making a few up and handing them over to Republicans. If gloves are off in regard to Obama and the attacks on him during the primary season, you cannot argue for special treatment for your candidate. When you do so, it seems like a special pleading that I cannot understand. You know that the Republicans will attack her too, so I think you will have to get used to defending her on the merits of the argument, not on the merits of merely insulting the person whom you are arguing against.

As for your "from experience and a watchful eye on national politics, I do not believe that Mr. Obama has either the fortitude or the depth of knowledge to deliver a strong Democratic agenda as President. The other problem with Mr. Obama from my perspective is that his message changes with the wind (see Ronald Reagan – Mr. Obama just happened to say kind things about Reagan when the primaries were in crossover voting states)."

Again, Reagan needs to be evoked. I don't want to go back on that argument. I will say that Obama, not Clinton, mentioned the one in four displaced or dead persons in Iraq because of the Iraq War, and the humanitarian crisis that has already begun there. The fortitude and the depth of his compassion are what make me want to elect him. His twelve years of elected political office, his experience in constitutional law, his depth instead of only breadth understanding of foreign policy makes me believe that he is a better, wiser, stronger candidate. As for changes in the wind, I think his voting record and his beliefs have been closely aligned. Supporting the troops is different than supporting the war. Mr. Obama was one of the first to insist that Congress investigate Walter Reed for abuses.

This kind of heart-felt intellectual depth is why I prefer him as a candidate. Not because he "stokes my passion." Although we are in a country that may need stoking because we have been deadened by years of mismanagement under Bush, and yes, under the bad ideas of Reagan. I didn't think Obama's words about the Iraq War (he called it famously a "Dumb war") were sweet or unrealistic.

And as for the proof of his commitment--he has Samantha Powers, a former Clinton expert on genocide on his staff--he has been speaking against Bush, against politics as usual in Washington. He has former Clinton staffers who have distanced themselves from the foreign policies of the past eight years under Bush.

I don't see any point in debating further, since you have chosen Clinton, and I'm not trying to convince you to unchoose her. But I've made a different, an intelligent, and a well-reasoned different choice. I will support Clinton in a general election, but if all of the insulting of Obama supporters continues much longer, she will only earn a vote. She will not earn my voice, my efforts, my work to put her in office. She has been a divisive figure for me even during this campaign by attacking Obama supporters (myself) for her own remarks on LBJ. I see a person who is not inclusive even of all the members of her own party, and this is sad.

--won'tgetbamboozledevenonce