"Mrs. Clinton threw Al Gore under the bus during the first round of the Clintons."

Well, I guess the First Lady does have some clout.

Except when she wants to put it on her resume.

How's the cake you have taste?

I am impressed by your commitment to Mr. Obama if not your arguments, and I want to apologize for inferring that you were a “groupie.” I also agree to disagree, but I want to address a few of your points briefly.

Mr. Obama has not put his compliments to Ronald Reagan to bed simply by saying they are “played out.” In a sense, everyone can agree that his ideas are played out. It has been 20 years since Reagan was president. I am requesting a clearer statement about how Mr. Obama interprets Reagan’s ideas and their impact. My call was for emphatic refutation, and clear and consistent answers. He has not met that standard. So, I have my doubts. By the way, it is very Reaganesque to say things in a way that both sides can interpret them to support their side. That is what Mr. Obama has done. This is one of the things that bothers me the most about him. He speaks about civility and unification, yet his campaign sometimes works against those principles.

Second, I did not bring up Anne Coulter. If you want to site her as your source, do not blame me for the association. With regards to the bigger question as to whether Ms. Clinton is so much more pro-militarism tan Mr. Obama, that question is still up for grabs. Barack Obama gets credit for being against the war from the beginning. I believe that most Democrats held the same belief at the time. Hilary Clinton and all US Senators at the time face a wholly situation when the authorization when the Bush administration dressed the vote in the guise of intimidating Saddam Hussein into allowing inspectors into the country. Do not say that Hillay Clinton has not addressed this issue. She has addressed it ad nauseum. You may not like her response, but to say she has not addressed it is as wrong as saying Barack Obama has addressed the Reagan issue. Barack Obama saying that he would plan attacks in Pakistan regardless of what the Pakistani government says does not reassure me that Mr. Obama is less militaristic. Since Barack Obama has been a part of the US Senate he has pretty much either voted with Hillary Clinton or he did not vote at all.

In part, I agree with the argument that you have presented regarding my complaint about Republican talking points. The problem I have with the Republican talking points against the Clintons is that many of these points are demonstrably false, and should not be given credence by well meaning Democrats, especially when they are claiming to back the “Great Unifier.” There is already an anti-Clinton playbook, much of which has been discredited. The playbook against Mr. Obama is still being developed, and likewise falsehoods should be stopped. Hillary Clinton should do what she can to stop them as well, especially if the claims are inflammatory. Just as I expect from the Obama camp. I will, however, disagree with your assessment wherever I think the talking points against Ms. Clinton are inaccurate or those against Mr. Obama are accurate.

You have given many examples of when Barack Obama, or his surrogates speaks out against international injustice and I appreciate that, but again talk is not action. It is Hillary Clinton’s extemporaneous mastery of the issues, as demonstrated in the debates and interviews of Ms. Clinton, that puts her way ahead of Mr. Obama in my assessment. With regards to Bosnia, Bill Clinton directed military action that was completely successful in halting genocide and lost no US lives, so I would not use that as a negative. Given that positive action, I do not attribute that to Hillary Clinton.

You have followed Barack Obama’s words and studied the perspective of his career offered by his campaign, and you have even gone beyond that. I respect that. I just do not see it the same way. Should Barack Obama become president, I hope you are right.

After this, I promise to let this rest after this. And I concur with your conclusion about the "unity" message being at times trying. No one can unify everyone. Some of the rhetoric may be high-fallutin' as they say. And I appreciate your thoughtful response.

And I can recognize the fear in Clinton supporters that Obama is too green or has not been sufficiently tested. I have these thoughts too--however, the claim that he is all talk and no action isn't borne out even by his short career in Washington D.C. I appreciate his action as well as his words on issues that matter to me as demonstrated here:

1. By partnering first with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.

2. The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for a web site, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.

3. In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.

4. In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (D–WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", which was signed into law in September 2007.[68]

5. He joined Charles Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.

6. Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.

7. Obama also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act", a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.

8. Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accountability Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs.

9. He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry, and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill. Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries. After passing both houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities, SCHIP was vetoed by President Bush in early October 2007, a move Obama said "shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans."

The idea that he hasn't been tested over seas is not borne out either as this shows:

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks. Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel."[65] He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya. The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.

Words aren't necessarily distinct from action. Part of a President's job is the job of diplomacy--arguably one of the most important parts of that job. So someone who can speak well and act on his speeches is a political talent worth considering. The "Obama is a lightweight" arguments have not held up to close scrutiny. He has come as far as he has in this race against an almost presidential incumbent ("two for the price of one") because there is substance too. He isn't perfect, but he has experience and substance, and action, not just words on his resume.

And this is what this race is all about.

(And one tiny caveat about Reagan--you never responded to the fact that the Clintons have made similar positive remarks about Reagan without similar censure....Just noticing...Maybe you were more offended by Obama's remarks not because he praised Reagan but because he criticized Clinton by saying that he hadn't had as big of an impact on the trajectory of the nation. If this is what offended you about his remarks, I can better understand your position.)

Peace.