Agreed.

However, my political wet dream would be President Clinton, Vice President McCain, and Sec. of State Richardson.

I would also like to see a unicorn.

__________________
Drown the fishes.

more dramma, just as hillary intended.

__________________
www.rob-sutherland.com

sick, isnt it!?

as she sheds tears for all those poor unfortunate soles in the world i bet she truly believes that she can feel the problems that america has. we dont need sympathy we need someone who has dealt with their sh!t and has a passionate motivation to make change, not hold a press hearing about it to boost her polls. the more i get to know her the more i dislike her. i just finished her biography yesterday and i was overwhelmed with bill and the drama that came about from his disloyalty and her passiveness that i almost didnt finish. i then started obabmas first autobiography and it is so much more enlightening. i guess if you like gerry springer and cheaters you will be more apt to vote for hillary. instead of watching it on fox it can consume your world.

__________________
www.rob-sutherland.com

This is turning into a fascinating race, on both sides actualy. It's amazing that every single poll and every single pundit were wrong, but I wouldn't count Obama out just yet. If nothing else, NH and Iowa showed 2 trends that should favor obama.

1.) White voters will vote for Obama. I think that question has been settled. This should help him with the electability doubts with black voters, i.e. watch for the South Carolina results, he should be looking pretty good there.

2.) He is far more popular with independents. This makes him more electable in the general and adds credence to the unifier theme.

Hillary is more popular with registered Dems and women voters. This can cripple Obama in closed primary states. Nevada and South Carolina will be fascinating. I think Obama takes SC and Nevada is a toss up, but the union backing he's about to recieve certainly doesn't hurt:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/0...sing_obama.php

__________________
"What's up Pops!" - Lebron James to Bush 41.

You're right...we should have had fewer Bushes.

What biography did you read? Because an awful lot of them are hack jobs. You don't like her because of how she dealt with her marriage? I find it hard to see how that has anything to do with how she would lead.

I'm not a diehard Hillary supporter, but the amount of garbage spewed about her makes me choke. Obama's policy platform is virtually identical to hers and somehow he is the "candidate of change?" Somebody please show me where he has been the voice of radical change during his whopping TWO YEAR career in the Senate. Making pretty speeches that say so don't make it true.

I don't hate Obama, but I think he's been getting a lot of media love fest just because he is a good story. I'm not seeing the substance, but if someone can make the case I'm open.

And I am tired of the "lack of substance" argument. The substance is there, you just have to pay attention. I made my case yesterday, I still think it holds mostly true, regardless of the N.H results.
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/nat...ill-win-3.html

As far as the media coverage, they're just following the trends. In the summer he was getting his teeth kicked in all over the place for his inexperience, unelectability, whatever...Then after Iowa, he was the story of the day, now we'll see the coverage shift back to Hilary, that's just the nature of the beast.

__________________
"What's up Pops!" - Lebron James to Bush 41.

it was an audio book, "a women in charge" i beleive. it goes into detail about whitewater and her misconceived personas. i too am distraught by how people seen to bash her persoanlly. i am just going by what i see. i thought about reading "it takes a village" and probably should before i vote. i am VERY impressed with obabmas audobiographies though. i have also recently read "the N WORD". being where i live now and beeing somewhat active in public politics, i understand him and his history related to mine more then any other candidate out there. i have a very mixed family as does obama.

we started reading these biographies cause we dont feel that getting the info from the media or from their fight for office really shows who they are. i dont want to rely on someone else to vote for me.

the whole thing about hillary that is upsetting to me is that much of what she is relates to bill and his legacy. i have found people who will vote for her cause she is female, or that they assume that bill will be her right hand man, ect. and i think that she plays that role for some. thats fine. they are not reasons for me to vote for her. untill she shows me otherwise and maybe i will find it in her books. either way ANYTHING is better then bush. ok maybe biden could be worse.

__________________
www.rob-sutherland.com

Is this your case?

How are these "substantive arguments?" 2-5 are simply about "electability." they have nothing to do with policy or whether he really is about "change' (not to mention #5 isn't a real reason!). Is there something else I'm missing?

As for his position on the Iraq war, do I have my dates mixed up? Barak was sworn into the Senate in 2005 (which by the way, how much Sentate-ing did he do before starting to run for President? Can't have been much. Thanks, people of Illinois!) The vote on the Iraq war was in 2003. So if he was against the war, it was as an Illinois state senator, right? who cares? he could take any stance he wanted to, because nobody cared. Whereas if Clinton had voted against the witchhunt of the Iraq war in 2003, she would have been absolutely crucified, no? Talk about looking "weak on terrorism..."

What's different about Obama is that he looks different, he's young, and he's a fresh face. As far as I can tell, nothing about his policies is remarkably different. That's not bad, but I'm not seeing how it is particularly good.

I want change, but in the sense that I want the federal government to change from a clueless god-spouting puppet of idealogical interests to someone who actually knows what they are doing and can make intelligent decisions that win back respect for the US on the global stage and put us on the right footing domestically. That would be a welcome change for me, whomever can make it.

well, fair enough. I haven't read the Obama biography, but I am going to, because I definitely need more information on him. I think you do really need to get your information from as many sources as possible. the media will tell you whatever they think will sell the most newspapers.

as a New Yorker, I think Hillary has been an all-star Senator and stood by the state in some difficult times. I was very impressed with how she ran her Senate campaign, which was definitely won in the "provinces" in upstate New York, where everyone said she wouldn't play. I know her persona turns some people off, but the way some people talk about her is nothing short of shocking.

But agreed, anything is better than Bush. Except maybe Huckabee. Or Giuliani...ugh.

Last time I checked, the primary elections are about electing who you think is the best candidate for the respective parties, not who you think is the best policy wonk. Democrats have been pushing forward policy wonks for decades only to get drilled in the general, it takes more and things like charisma and electability count, just as they did for Clinton, Carter and JFK (LBJ rode in on JFK coattails)

I disagree 100%. Obama's consistent stance against the war in Iraq is highly relevant, especially compared to Clinton's equivocating shifting of positions. Did 2004 teach us nothing? As far as justification for voting for the war in 2003 not to seem soft on terror? What does that say about the candidate? That she'll do whatever's political expedient at the time, regardless whether it's the right or wrong decision....What kind of leadership is that, if you're afraid to seem "weak on terror" you'll just cave in to the prevailing winds (especially in light of the recent Iran vote)? As someone who thought attacking Iraq was idiotic, I want to see someone who had the foresight to predict that disaster.
All those things are true, what you're missing is that this election is about choosing the best candidate and chosing someone with the mandate to enact their policies. Which I agree are not diametrically different. Obama does not have the polarizing effect that Hillary has, quite the opposite. He is running as a unifying candidate precisely because he wants to have the ability to implement his policies with a broad coalition behind him.
Agreed, we disagree on the candidates, but in the end we probably want the same thing. Maybe if Hillary was my senator I'd feel different, but since that is not the case, I do not see how her positioned to implement the change we all so desperately want.

__________________
"What's up Pops!" - Lebron James to Bush 41.