And how do you propose to do that, if you have a president in charge of America, who doesn't lose any sleep over torture and who won't lose any sleep over leaving the US Army in Iraq without adequate funding?

And a Republican that backs him to a hilt.

Bush is a psychopath who would think nothing of the deaths of those soldiers if he ended up leaving them there without funding. It would be a greater blow to Bush's self esteem for him to be forced to admit he is wrong, than for every soldier in Iraq to die.

It is the difference between McCain and Bush, McCain can be forced to withdraw, Bush does not have the emotional depth required to force him to withdraw.

This Obama supporter doesn't fault her for that vote, which I think she made in part -- as she has make all Senate votes -- with an eye to her Presidential run. How could it be otherwise? We all knew she was running for President the minute she said she was running for the Senate. She's done something remarkable in positioning herself as "tough" and capable of being Commander-in-Chief and votes like that were part of it. Any woman was going to need that I-can-be-as-war-like-as-the-boys image and I don't begrudge her it; and any Democrat who wants to see McCain defeated if she becomes the Dem nominee shouldn't either, imo.

I like the fact that Obama was against the war from the jump, and I don't blame him for bringing it up because that's politics, but who knows how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate then himself? 20/20 hindsight and all that.

I'd really like to see an end to some of the nitpicking over this or that Senate vote or the details of plans neither one of them will be implementing in their entirety once elected anyway. The differences in the two candidates amount to little in many areas. And while people should be familiar with the candidates' positions, they are most likely going to vote based on the intangibles, on perception. What do the candidates care most about? How will they facilitate the change they both espouse? What is their vision for America? How will they lead us to it?

What are you saying? Also, you let me know how different in policy Hillary is from Obama?

YOU WROTE:

The race was really between Obama and Edwards for me, Hillary, I saw and still see as combining the worst elements of both.

MY RESPONSE:

THE ONLY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HILLARY AND OBAMA ARE:

HILLARY HAS THE EXPERIENCE

OBAMA IS GOOD AT DELIVERING SERMONS TO HIS FOLLOWERS.

That is so funny on so many levels.

So you support the Harry Reid et al. 'slow bleed strategy' of letting American troops in harm's way become sacrificial pawns in a political tug of war until one side cries uncle? What a cynical little sociopath you are.

not because they have undergone some miraculous conversion experience, how delusional can people be?

Apparently you are tone-deaf to irony. It's an occupational hazard, for some reason, among Obamadroids. I promise not to make a joke again.

At the time Obama was taking a position which was unpopular across America, and could have cost him those elections.

I'm just not sure I buy this, having to please both those in the 5 boroughs who were still having nightmares, and the more conservative contingent upstate, especially with "America's Hero" Rudy breathing down his neck?

I like the fact that Obama was against the war from the jump, and I don't blame him for bringing it up because that's politics, but who knows how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate then himself? 20/20 hindsight and all that.

I appreciate you for saying this, though this is why I have a problem with people demonizing her for that initial vote. There's no way to tell for sure what he would have done, had he been in the same position.

I think Obama would make a fine president, but let's criticize the war isssue on a level playing field.

That was just aired on the news. Patty Solis-Doyle resigns from Clinton campaign. Perhaps this is fallout from the recent losses.

Independents do. Some of them may be registered as Republican, but they are actually independents who think and vote independently. They're commonly referred to as 'swing voters' and they come in all shapes, sizes, and party affiliations. They decide who wins the election. Every time.

Of course no die hard far-right Republicans are going to vote for Obama, any more than a die hard far-left Democrat would vote for Huckabee. But that's hardly relevant to this discussion.

The wheels are coming off the Clinton bus.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote2008/story?id=4269776&page=1

The Arthurian legend is part of Celtic cultur so allow me to enlightn you. Arthur's life was not a bed of roses because his wife, Guinivere, had a "hot" romance with the knight Sir Lancelot. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Guinivere was "cool" and "hot" simultaneously which makes about as much sense as your assessment of a presidential candidate as being "uncool". Is it Hollywood or the Whie House you have in mind? By the way, Arthur is part of Celtic mythology and I wonder why multicultural America needs to purloin this legendary figure for more ridiculous hyperbole about Barack Obama.

I'm still waiting for Xrandadu Hutman's reply. I do hope he hasn't stood me up.

re: "I'd really like to see an end to some of the nitpicking over this or that Senate vote or the details of plans neither one of them will be implementing in their entirety once elected anyway."

The "nitpicking" to which you refer has been the very backbone (I'm speaking figuratively, obviously) of Obama's efforts, in debates and otherwise, to set himself apart from other Dem. candidates. He is the one who invariably brings it up, eh?

Look, I wish Obama weren't such a profound disappoinment. It'd be just swell if he actually brought the goods. He doesn't. Luckily for the Obamas of the world, in America you don't need actual goods, only a perception of goods.