When she was given a possibly once in a lifetime opportunity to reform the US healthcare system, with her husband the president and the Democrat controlling both houses of congress, she failed badly. She rejected and disregarded suggestions from other Democrats and natural allies that didn't match hers, and was widely considred by those involved as arrogant and dismissive. Her second potential great moment came with the Iraq vote, and she chose to to do what she believed then would benefit a future presidential run, not what would benefit the nation. I don't know of any Obama supporter, including myself, who thinks he's perfect or that he hasn't made mistakes or doesn't have skeletons in his closet-all politicians and aspiring politicians do. However, we have no doubt that he's a far better decision maker than Hillary, is less self centered and arrogant, and that he actually cares about the nation more than he cares about his own ambitions.

To the voters of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island: Please vote for Hillary tomorrow. Make sure everybody you know gets to the polls bright and early. The prospect of an inexperienced, unqualified President at the helm of our country when we are on the verge of a recession and in the middle of two wars, is unnerving at best and frightening at most. And that's if he wins. Can we assume the rest of the country will throw caution to the wind like Democratic primary voters? Will we end up with McCain?

So many people have thrown critical thinking out the window and are not really voting for a President, but for a symbol. They think this vote makes them hip, cool, and progressive. Never mind that his meager voting record is anything but progressive. I can understand why young people would fall for this, but older people should know better.

I'm not chalhabi, but I hope you don't mind me taking a crack at a few of your points.

Maybe you'll be able to explain why he voted "NO" on a bill sponsored by Sen. Clinton to provide grants to low-income college students eligible for PELL grants?

I'm guessing that you mean the "Higher Education Reconciliation Bill" as it's noted on the Clinton senate website that she is a co-sponsor. That's the only mention I see of a bill by that name. It looks like it probably became the "Tax Reconciliation bill" which Senator Obama did indeed vote "no" on. So did one of my Senators, Carl Levin. As did other Democrat heavy-hitters: Sens. Boxer, Dodd, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, Mikulski, Feingold, Reid, Murray, Byrd, Leahy. All but two Republicans, Coburn and Voinovich, voted for it. Why, I don't know, but I hope you aren't suggesting that this vote reflects a lack of committment by Senator Obama, and his fellow naysayers there, in support of Pell Grants.

The first bill Senator Obama introduced in the Senate was to increase the Pell Grant from $4050 to $5100. In 2005, it was called the Higher Education Opportunity Through Pell Grant Expansion Act and was cosponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin and Sen. Daniel Inouye. It went nowhere but he continued.

In January of 2007: "Obama is co-sponsoring a bill that would increase the top grant for needy students to $5,100 for the 2007-2008 academic year. The bill would add another $300 to the maximum grant annually until it reaches $6,300 by fall 2011. The chief sponsor is Kennedy, who is the chairman of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee." http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_6933.shtml

I found it hard to track down the eventual disposition of these bills, but in July 2007, it looks like the Senate passed a version of that Kennedy bill (Clinton aye, Obama not present) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290117,00.html?sPage=fnc.national/education that apparently then morphed into "The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007", which was last voted on in the Senate in September. Ironically, neither Senator Clinton nor Obama voted on that final version which actually passed.

"The $20-billion package that includes grant increases and loan rate reductions, was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in September. ... To that end, the maximum award for the need-based Pell Grant, funded at $4,241 for 2008-2009, will increase by $1,090 the next five years to a maximum of $5,331 by 2012." http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856698-298.stm

And I'm dying to hear an explanation of why he vetoed two SIGNIFICANT amendments to war funding bills that a) established a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and b) that urged President Bush to begin withdrawing troops at the end of 2006.

Which amendments were these? Talking POints Memo has a chart of Iraq votes for Obama and Clinton here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/03/compare_and_contrast_hillary_obama_and_liebermans_votes_on_iraq.php Their votes except regarding General Casey are identical.

That chart only goes through March 07 but this FactChecker page by the Washington Post notes the identical votes extend through 07: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

Perhaps one of the amendment votes you're referring to is as discussed here: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2006/06/obama_and_durbin_divide_on_ira.html

"By 86-13, the Senate killed an amendment by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) to set a July 1, 2007 date for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. Durbin voted for this approach.

Obama, by contrast, voted for a second, more centrist version by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) that merely called on the president to submit a troop-exit plan by the end of the year. This proposal was non-binding, and according to its supporters, did not impinge upon the commander in chief's authority. It failed by a vote of 60-36. But if it had passed it would have sent a powerful message to the White House that it was time to change course on Iraq." ...

He took essentially the same position as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who praised the Levin-Reed amendment while criticizing Republicans for engaging in cynical politics for questioning the patriotism of war opponents."

It's clear to me in trying to track any piece of legislation through the morass of multiple versions of similar bills in both houses of Congress, that it's difficult to assess meaning based on a single vote when not considered in context.