for the love of God (or deity of choice) please speak passionately with your elderly and senior matriarchs and persuade them to cast a vote for Obama, to take a chance on change instead of the perceived comfort of the past, to follow in Kennedy's words almost fifty years ago when he said the 'torch has passed'. Time to let the Clintons and the boomers to move on, enjoy their retirement and let a new generation of Americans take the mantle.

I'd love to see New York State Attny General Andew Cuomo running, for the marvelous way he bitch-slapped and pistol-whipped the student loan industry.

have been brainwashed about the Clintons and have had their history and memories rewritten by it.

Experience isn't such a good thing when you are looking for someone to help clean out Washington. Experience means you owe people favours.

That said: Between the two there are real policy differences, Obama is slightly more conservative on his healthcare plan, Hillary is a Jack Trick fan.

Both claim to want out of the war, but Hillary's peace plan seems to revolve around whether the war is popular at that moment. This is what is the major strength to Obama's speech against Iraq - at that moment being anti-Iraq could have meant political suicide.

Now ordinarily, the healthcare difference would have me siding with Hillary, except I don't think either plan will work so that leaves that moot.

Censorship is a major issue to me, because if we allow it in gaming, it will spread to effecting newspapers - which means it would end up effecting me professionally and personally.

On immigration reform, they take totally different views. Obama seems to feel xenophobia isn't going to solve the problem of unemployment, and Hillary seems to think that those dirty Mexicans are stealing all of your jobs. (Note I know I am biased.)

Now that aside:

Here is the major personal difference: Both are centrists on most issues. Neither is a firm leftwinger.

Hillary is a divisive figure who will have to battle to get anything done. She will not be a popular president, and her policies will not be radical enough to effect a real change in America - in four years you will end up with a resurgent Republican party because you will still be in Iraq, still be arguing over healthcare, and still trying to balance the budget.

Obama, is a unifying figure. He is a great orator, he is probably the most charasmatic figure in American politics today, and he is already getting a headstart on a 50 state strategy for taking the White House.

Which means with Obama, you stand something of a chance of putting an end to the Republican Party, and having the slow rise of the Greens as an alternative to the Democrats. With Obama you stand a chance of permanently discrediting Republican conservatism as a policy viewpoint, with Hillary, not so much.

Further, Obama's support base seems less invested in the language of the Republicans. Seriously, this constant whining about "Hillary Haters" just reminds me of seven years of Bush, in which those of us who thought the guy a twit got a choice between being called traitor or hater. Its enough already.

YOU WROTE:

Another Trouble: Campaign Manager Resigns

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

MY RESPONSE TO YOU FOR YOUR IRRESPONSIBLE COMMENT:

Patty Solis-Doyle was the campaign manager, but she is now an advisor to Hillary Clinton and will be traveling with her.

Patty Solis-Doyle is a very strong woman and will be utilized to her highest potential to ensure that Hillary Clinton is our next President of the United States.

THE OLD QUOTE STILL STANDS IN REGARD TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU:

"Women are their own worst enemies"

...expresses your same sentiments (Obama's candidacy as a GOP ruse), as it does a lot of mine:

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

Indeed, Rove is NOT at present devoting himself to merely posting little essays in the Opinion pages. That strange pattern in the current primary season bespeaks a Trojan Horse wreaking havoc in the Dem camp, with a view to the Dems' ultimate loss.

The reason Colin Powell's name was brought up in this thread (hey,I've been paying attention! It ain't easy, but I have) was because maureenodonnell, god love her, was trying to take some of the pressure off Hillary's vote in favor of giving Dubya the "blank check" which led to our idiotic invasion and subsequent destruction of the sovereign nation of Iraq. Ms.m isn't completely off-target here either, and she's got some traction because she is a relatively disinterested third party.

Now then, what did Colin Powell do and why? He had some intel about some trailers and some aluminum tubes, all of which he was told could add up to mobile WOMADs and the tubes perhaps intended to be used toward the same end. There was a lot wrong with this intel as it turns out, but on the face of it there just wasn't enough there to warrant going into Iraq to find the imaginary weapons. Powell knew this (he admitted as much in the aftermath, which is one of the major reasons he stepped down without a fuss). George W. Bush requested of Gen. Powell that he use this flimsy information, in combination with his impeccable military credentials, to flummox the remarkably stupid (and needy) Congress into giving the Prez the "blank check" he wanted so badly.

Everyone in the Bush administration at the time played a major role in this flim-flam game, but Congress also was complicit as there was so little information and so much that we did not know which was overlooked in the rush to curry favor with the 70 per cent of the American public who only know what they are told. The other 30 per cent of us were screaming "Wait a minute!" but no one was interested in thinking things through. The lust for revenge was far too strong at the time.

I screamed at anyone within earshot. It wasn't what we knew but what we did not know which concerned me. We didn't know plenty, and it turned out, in the end, we actually didn't know anything. This is what badly damaged not Colin Powell's military career, but his legacy as a great man and a potential future Presidential candidate among other things. He was the Good Soldier to a fault, doing the bidding of his Commander-in-Chief when he knew what he was telling Congress was wrong.

Congress understandably paid attention to what was being said because of who was saying it, which was a terrible thing. But they still had the power of reason at their disposal (just how the hell did this mention of some trailers and some aluminum tubes warrant us going to war?) but they threw caution to the wind because the country was in an ugly mood. So, with Osama bin Laden almost in our sights, we turned and marched into Iraq on the flimsiest of info. Mission accomplished!

The maority of Congress and the Senate voted for this insanity. Hillary Clinton was part of that majority. She's never owned up to the fact that it was a bad call on her part, and she is the one running for President.

Barack Obama screamed along with the 30 per centers that the move was wrong. Later, when he was in the Senate and Bush was holding our troops hostage, of course he voted to fund the damned war! We weren't going to leave them out there without the provisions to at least try and stay alive!

There is enough blame to go around for this war to get some on almost everyone. Almost. But certainly not Barack Obama, who protested along with the rest of us at the time, and then did the decent thing and supported our troops once he was actually in the Senate.

Colin Powell was the fall guy in a "kill the messenger" plot. That's his cross to bear now.

Hillary winds up being lumped with all those who did support the silly-ass war. She's not alone, and I think that's what maureenodonnell was trying to say. She's right. But in comparing the two Presidential candidates this liability is bound to come up. It will continue to, I'm sure.