Okay, I took mercy on you and dug up a link - too tired to copy and paste any more at the moment. BTW, this is a very liberal alternative paper - the reader comments are worth a look, too:

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full#comments

Sorry about the url getting cut off - just type in '#comments' at the end.

--One of my major problems with Obama's supporters is their near total refusal to take a closer, more objective look at him. If you still like the guy warts and all, fine, I have no problem with that. But conspiring to create a god where none exists is not fine; I have no desire to be at the mercy of someone else's myth.--

I assure you that I have vetted both Hillary and Barack. I doubt that anyone is conspiring to create a god. This is pure Clinton hyperbole and her supporters are as delusional as Clinton accuses Obama's supporters to be. In my over 40 years of voting I have never seen such a juggernaut of voter turnout that I have seen in this election cycle. Never have there been such early endorsements of a candidate from intellectuals, influentials, artists, writers, authorities in education, health and social services and the list goes on and on. Obama has gotten early endorsements from people like Toni Morrison, the Nobel winner in Literature, Alice Walker, Lani Guineer, Garrisson Keillor of Lake Woebegone, Robert Reich-the labor secretary in the Clinton administration, Ted Kennedy-the truest liberal Senator, even Ike Eisenhowers grand daughter who is a registered Republican, almost all of Hollywood, feminists such as Kate Michelman of NARAL, and so many many more, I am astounded.

Do you honestly believe that all of them have elevated Obama to an ephemeral god status? That is as specious as the claim that Hillary has any integrity. Her record and her shenanigans are all in the public domain. We accept Obama, warts and all. He is as human as the rest of us. But he does have the ability to bring out the vote and will defeat McCain in the general elections. Hillary does not have a donkey's chance in hell to confront McCain even as she is now against the war in Iraq that she voted for and make it happen.

You have created a myth around Hillary and while I do believe that the media has been tougher on her than on Obama and McCain, most Democrats are turned off by Clinton fatigue. People are tired of the Clintons working their dysfunctions out in the public arena.

You don't need to mock and ridicule Obama supporters like your candidate routinely does. We have not constructed a myth around Obama - that's the myth that Hillary hopes will win her Ohio and Texas.

Didn't the Clinton have their day in the sun? I think that day is now over and done.

According to Open Secrets.org, Florine Mark contributed, $2300 to Hillary's campaign, on 3/27/2007.

http://tinyurl.com/25svzj

.......

But perhaps the most emblematic word for Hillary was uttered Wednesday during a news-free, but determinedly serious, economic roundtable in Zanesville. The speaker was not Clinton, but a panelist, Florine Mark, the CEO of Weight Watchers. "When I think of Senator Clinton, I think of the word 'safe,'" Mark said in a line that, had it been uttered by an ordinary voter during a focus group, might have prompted a pollster to write a "listen to the voice of the people" memo.

"I will always feel safe with this woman as president of the United States of America," Mark continued moments later. "If, God forbid, that red phone in the White House rings, I want her there to answer it."

.....

I realize you are a writer, Mr. Shapiro, and writers like to see symbolism in things, even where they are a stretch...this is a stretch...a huge one...nice try!

I googled Obama/Lieberman and while he did endorse Lieberman, he also endorsed Lamont. Yep, sounds like Obama all right!

I stand corrected: by virtue of his ability to bullshit people Obama indeed "earned" his present position.

Any thoughts on the yes vote for the Cheney Energy bill? Patriot

Act? "Present" vote on Stem Cell Research?

But he does have the ability to bring out the vote and will defeat McCain in the general elections. Hillary does not have a donkey's chance in hell to confront McCain even as she is now against the war in Iraq that she voted for and make it happen.

The same thing was said about Howard Dean when he fired up the base with a novel (for the time) campaign of raising cash on the Net...how did that work out for him? Newly registered voters historically do NOT go from primary to general election in large numbers...a large number of young voters fired up in 2004 never made it out to vote in the general after professing they would in primaries...so Obama's ability to BRING OUT THE BASE is not a clear foretelling of what will happen in November...in other words, this is sheer wish fulfillment, not based on factual evidence from years previous.

BTW: Who's to say that the Republicans won't manage to get their base energized over an issue like they did with gay marriage in 2004? There are alot of factors in play before the general...until Obama has actually secured the nomination, I think it is best for all to stop the ridiculous speculation and counting chickens before they have hatched...a hazard the Dems have done before, with deep disappointment being the result...not being a pessimist...just simple reality...something in short supply for some Obama lovers.

You called my questions rhetorical, meaning I was asking them,

not expecting an answer.

Au contraire, I woulldn't have asked them otherwise.

Please speak for yourself and for your own motivations.

great article on Obama by one who "knew him when"

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/n ews/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

I think "safe" was what the Clinton campaign didn't need to be; she needed to be bold and decisive, when instead she was cautious and calculating. Her iron determination might make "security voters" feel safe, but it's been done before and better by the Bush League -- look where unflappable, unshakable determination in one's own rightness has gotten us. Have people learned nothing since 2000? Maybe the immovable object of Clinton will somehow stand fast against the irresistible force of Obama, but it seems to mark a continuation of the approach of Bush (e.g., "we know best, and we're not changing based on the evidence"), rather than a departure from it.