Sure, Clinton has made tons of money on the lecture circuit, but so far as capitalizing on his past public service goes, that is not nearly so eyebrow-raising as brokering deals between mining magnates and Eastern European dictators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302352.html?nav=rss_opinions

I extracted it from the Wikipedia biography notes on Barack Obama.

DeeperTruth: "Hutman, doesn't it make sense that if I am a Hillary supporter, my posts will reflect that?"

Sure it makes sense, but what makes less sense is that you only came into existence, message-wise, during this campaign, and that for all of that time you only have written about Clinton/Obama, with no other comments about any of a myriad of subjects. Now, you are well within your rights to comment on whatever you like. But it's definitely something worth pointing out, and it does make one wonder. I wonder the same things about people who only seem to write about Obama to the exclusion of all else (like mkoch, wherever he/she went). I also wonder about people who seem to come into existence solely to leave an anti-Obama comment, with no other posting history. Maybe they're real people, sure, but it does make you wonder about the possibilities.

DeeperTruth: "The point about Obama's words is that they are just words. And anyone can say them. They don't show or prove that he can do anything, other than speak well."

That's a Hillary talking point. It's not even a substantive criticism, since Obama has a very distinctive legislative record.

The whole "just words" point against Obama really fails for Clinton when you look at the video of her copying a key phrase from Bill Clinton. You have now even admitted that Hillary copied phrases from Bill.

DeeperTruth: "If he gets elected, I hope he will be able to do more than speak well, but so far, I haven't seen much proof."

Wait -- didn't you say you were intelligent and well educated, and that you care about truth? Okay, then here is some material for you to look into:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

The article gives a detailed analysis of both Clinton's and Obama's legislative records. If you read it -- and I encourage you to read the whole thing -- then you will get all the "proof" you require. Have at it! Let me know what you think after you've read it.

DeeperTruth: "I know this will make you Obama supporters mad, but I know that Hillary knows what she's talking about..."

It's nice that you have a good feeling about Hillary, and just know, in your gut, that she'll be swell. Congratulations to you for your opinion. It does not make me angry at all that you have these feelings. Go ahead and share them with everybody. Where I object is when those feelings are stated as facts and when they turn into negative and inaccurate statements about the other side.

DeeperTruth: "I think [Barack Obama's] administration would be disorganized, inefficient, and falter, and take a long time to get on it's feet and get anything done."

On what basis do you think this? Based on your feelings? Because if you look at Obama's campaign versus Clinton's campaign, he has demonstrated a sharper financial and organizational ability than Hillary Clinton has. His campaign is solvent and has grown its successes, while Clinton's campaign has had to deny people their paychecks and has progressively lost supporters and employees. By what other measure would you draw your conclusion?

What you leave out about the book deal is that the Senate actually absolved Senator Clinton of any ethics violations concerning the eight million dollar advance. I am quite familiar with that story. At issue was the fact that most advances are paid out as a book profits. Instead, Clinton's advance was a unique deal that meant that she would have kept the money even if the book had not paid out. When I say unique, I mean unique to bestselling authors and celebrities. Publishers aren't stupid. They have to, in effect, bid for those books which appear to be probable bestsellers before the author even begins to write. It is not unusual for non-fiction writers who aren't even yet published to get an advance on the strength of a query letter, five chapters, and an outline.

The reason some people tried to level ethics charges against Clinton on the book matter was because it was just more of the same old, same old Republican attacks on the Clintons. That you raise this dead issue here indicates that your feelings about Hillary Clinton are much closer to those of the Republican attack machine -- those Rovians you so decry -- than they are to those of the average progressive who is just disappointed in her vote on the war.

Are you even a Democrat?

You seem to go way beyond the reasonable person who supports Obama to being a little obsessive with the Hillary-hating.

I actually like Obama despite the fact that he plagiarized Patrick's speech. I plan to vote for him, and gladly, if he is the nominee as long as no unforseeable scandal emerges.

Whatever you may say, I find it very hard to believe that you would vote for Clinton.

I would love to be proven wrong about my cynicism about politicians and my pessimism about the persistence of racism and sexism. I actually started out as an Edwards supporter, in part because I like his progressive plans with an emphasis on solving problems of poverty and the squeezed middle class, but also, I don't trust this country on matters of race and sex discrimination.

Maybe it is because I live in a small town in Texas.

but i wouldn't vote for her.

Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless elected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.

- Washington Post online, 2-23-2008

Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

- Barack Obama, Statement on the Military Commission Legislation, 9-28-2008