re: people voting for Obama -

What tide is turning? Americans demonstrate every day in ways large and small their seemingly endless affinity for mediocrity dressed up like something special. Every time I hear someone speak of Obama as a "poet" or talk about his "charisma" I wonder, who ARE these people, still so easily led and still so deaf, dumb and blind even after one might hope they'd have learned one hell of a lesson six and a half years ago about seeing and hearing what they *want* to see and what they *hope* is true rather than what's actually there. What's actually "there" in Obama's case? Not much.

"It is beyond me how the formerly beloved Clintons can be vilified by Democrats with RW talking points."

During the eight years of Bill, for every 1 good thing he did, there was at least 1 bad thing, and sometimes more. Many here have extensively listed the bad and the good, so I won't bother.

Now, Bill-Hill want a do-over. Hillary EXPLICITELY reminds people of the Clinton years. It's HER CHOICE. So, we are here to indicate what was GOOD about Clinton (either) and what was bad. We are weighing the soul of Clinton, and he/she has been found wanting.

That's the point.

I'm sure your are aware of the criticism of Obama's book noted by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen and the Chicago papers. Some of the events in the book are not quite accurate.

I don't doubt that Clinton may do better in Ohio and Texas. but the question is, IF things keep going the way they are (and theres no guarantee of that admittedly), then Texas and Ohio aren't going to matter. Let's look at the numbers.

Post Feb. 5th States (Louisiana to Wisconsin) is 447 pledged delegates.

Ohio and Texas is 334 delegates.

If Obama continues to win the way he is, and even if he does as poorly in Texas and Ohio as he did in, say, California at 42%, theres not a very good chance Clinton will make up her string of losses.

This is not to say she can't do it. Certainly if she turns it around on Tuesday, and further on this month, she could pull Obama to a draw in Feb and then win in March. But that's not looking very likely.

Anonymous wrote:

" Ethics is always in the eye of the beholder. Thats why its always better to focus on the issues and not buy into the character counts charade."

------------------------------------------------------

Why can't we have both? I like Obama on the issues and I admire his character. I am about half-way through his first book, Dreams from my Father. It's an incredibly honest and insightful examination of his own person, his strengths and as well as his weaknesses. His life seems to be an extension of this self-examination. I often think that if Bill Clinton were willing to do the same, he would have been a brilliant leader instead of just a brilliant politician. He was undone by lack of character, and it really hurt his (and our) causes.

I think it's fair to ask what Obama is proposing to change and what policies he supports. If you are genuinely interested in finding out more about his substantive (and I think, thoughtful) positions on issues there are a number of places to find more information: his website barackobama(dot)com to start with; the nytimes website has a very simple chart explaining how candidates have positioned themselves on the issues (you do have to register to see it); and issues2000(dot)org is a visually difficult website to navigate but also has a lot of useful information about all of the candidates positions on the major issues.

I suspect that what you will discover is that Obama and Hillary agree on a majority of issues. They do disagree somewhat on health care. Hillary's supporters claim that Obama's plan for health care reform could leave 8.5 million people uninsured. Obama's supporters claim that Hillary's plan could force people to buy premiums they can not afford. They also disagree somewhat on the war/homeland security/military. Obama opposed the war from the beginning, Hillary voted for it. She has also said repeatedly that she will not recant her war vote; that it was Bush's handling of the war that was the problem, not going to war itself. Both Obama and Hillary voted against extending the Patriot Act wiretap provision in 2005, but voted for extending the Patriot Act in 2006. Both have consistently voted to restore habeus corpus. However only Obama wants to ban torture and called for reform in the VA. Hillary stated that she believed that national security is more important than human rights. Obama also wants to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" immediately. Hillary would like to keep it in place, at a minimum, until 2009.

Part of the reason why the bickering in these forums seems so over-the-top and vituperative is that in fact the stakes (as far as the issues go) are so small. Either of the two candidates has pledged to take the country in a more progressive direction. So it stands to reason then that a lot of voters, myself included are making their decisions based on other factors; i.e.: who seems more likely to be elected? who is more inspiring? who seems to be more likely to be able to work with Republicans and Democrats? who will be able to do more to restore our standing in the international community?

For me the answer was Obama, and that's why I'm planning on voting for him on Tuesday and then again (I hope) in November. Not because I'm black, not because I'm a traitor to feminism, not because I went to graduate school or because I have been brain-washed, and not because I hate Hillary. After looking at all of the facts and listening to both of their speeches and watching the debates, I decided to support Obama.

I'm not sure if that helps at all, but there you go.

It is beyond me how the formerly beloved Clintons can be vilified by

Democrats with RW talking points. Somebody new and "inspiring" comes along

and suddenly people hate Bill and Hillary? It's OK to call Chelsea a

whore? Everything he did in office was wrong? She did nothing but

serve tea? Eight years of peace and prosperity was nothing? They hurt

the Democratic party? WHA...???