As a avid Bill supporter throughout his Presidency and a fan of the First Lady, I had no doubt I would be a major supporter of Hillary’s. Add to that my life long Equal Rights advocacy and you get a “No Brainer”.
But then she started Voting. Speak one thing- voting another- consistently. She failed to demand Oversight rights over the use of Our Armed Services, answers for why they were sent without the necessary equipment and safeguards- not to mention No Clear Mission or Exit Plan. And Yet she allowed them to be sent off to a war that has no goal, nor humanitarian basis (more have died since the invasions, and lack basic necessities & services). A Corporate War.
hillary’s real advesaries are not the ‘Right Wing’ it is the Betrayed Dems, women, and Patriots.Personally I see her true Allegience, but worse than that she causes me to reconsider her Husbands Presidential Legacy .Did she ever pick up that phone at 3 am, instead of Him? An Indictable Act in my view. She should review that Ad one more time for the other side of the coin it implies.

Cyrena:

“If I’m not mistaken, he taught at DePaul University as well. Now it may have been before the Univ. of Chicago, but I’m nearly certain that he did teach there.”

I have now told you four times that Obama never taught at DePaul.  He gave one speech there, but never taught.  All it would have taken you to know this is type in Obama DePaul in Google.  You are unquestionably the laziest person I have ever known.

“For months I’ve been pointing out that Barack Obama has more real-life experience than Hillary, even though it isn’t the ONLY thing that matters.”

The experience one gets in a state legislature is extremely different from the experience one gets in Congress.  The Illinois General Assembly (their legislative branch) has 118 reps and 59 senators.  Congress has 435 reps and 100 senators.  As well, the “import” of what is done in a state legislature affects only the people of that state, while the matters that come before Congress affect the entirety of the country.  To suggest that Obama’s eight years in the Illinois legislature is “more real exprience” than Hillary’s six years in Congress is absurd.

“Character, judgment, integrity are the larger keys.”

Yup, I agee with this.  Here are some issues that touch on “character, judgment and integrity.”

Obama betrayed his constituents on the Exelon matter - and then accepted over $200,000 in campaign contributions from them.  He lied about his association with Rezko - blatantly, during a televised debate - claiming to have had only one connection to him ("5 hours as a junior attorney on one case"), when in fact he had also done the real estate deal AND accepted over $150,000 in campaign contributions.  He rails against the “special interest,” but has accepted over $35 million in business and industry donations, including the most taken in by any candidate in either party.  He has tied to downplay Zbigniew Brzezinski’s role in his campaign, despite the fact that even members of his own campaign are on record stating that ZB is on the foreign policy team.  He admitted that his vote on the Schiavo issue was wrong, even stating that, “As a constitutional law professor, I knew better.” (So his being a constitutional law professor apparently didn’t serve him well when it REALLY become an issue, did it?) And he recently lied about the NAFTA-Canada affair when he first claimed that “no meeting” has “ever” taken place - and then reversed himself only 36 hours later, stating that a meeting HAD taken place, but it was only “a courtesy.” Yeah, right.

However, as I noted, those of you who wear Barack-tinted spectacles are blind to the truths about your candidate.

Peace.

Did you know that Barak Obama has more foreign relations experience than Bill Clinton did when he took office?

Did you know that Obama now has more foreign policy experience than when either Ronald Reagan or Dubbya were elected?

Do you know that, when combining his time in state politics, Obama has more years of congressional experience than Hillary?

Did you know he *taught* Constitutional law (and when have we ever needed someone with such experience more in that area, if not now)?

How is it that such a naive young man can exactly predict the outcomes that have come to be in Iraq before we shot our first depleted uranium shell?

As for someone so innocent and lacking in a courageous spirit, let’s focus on his public statement against waging war in Iraq:

No. He had no vote. So his public statements didn’t make a hill of beans difference, Right?

Well, think back on that one just a little bit. I’ll just mention two names:

1) The Dixie Chicks;

2) Bill Maher.

That group of people had the courage to speak out at that very time and they paid for “just words” by losing jobs, almost entire careers, and receiving death threats.

Saying anything that bucked the gung-ho, let’s kill the world for 9/11 fever back then was political and social kryptonite. That is exactly why the more spineless, short sighted Democrats enabled the Bush/Cheney faction to wage a war they planned on even before entering the White House by voting “yes” on that hated bill.

Enough of that bit.

As for Hill being the “best prospect?” I take it you don’t pay any attention to the national poll head-to-heads. Or the fact that Rush Limbaugh spent a fair while this weekend on his radio show encouraging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary.

Why do you think she is every Republican’s wet dream, exactly? And, believe me—this rhetorical question is not an attempt at misogyny, not a sexist remark (remember Larry Craig; such allusions don’t necessarily work here anyway...).

The Repugs are completely fractured right now—unless Hill is anointed by Super Delegates. That will solidify them like nothing else.

Oh, yes, on that youth issue. There was one other youngster who swept into office in a way very, very similar to Obama (bringing with him a whole cadre of new and crossover voters). In fact, that particular comparison is quite fitting. And, oh my, wasn’t he a good, extremely persuasive speaker!

Nope. Not John Kennedy.

That guy’s name was Franklin Roosevelt. I think his wave of popularity held for a fair while, and his youthful inexperience and naivety didn’t prevent him from solving the Great Depression and leading us through all but the closing of World War II.

Enough of bumper sticker politics or voting on wedge issues alone. I believe going with a person who has such power of persuasion is just the right direction to take at a time when political solutions handled with extreme finesse of “just words” of true diplomacy is maybe the only chance we have for extracting ourselves from Iraq and healing the extreme damage done to our relations with almost all other countries in this world.

What do you really want to massage these bruised relations? The person who can send chills down the spine of *Republicans* or the person who has to resort to “Shame, shame on you” rhetoric or “the big bad wolf is going to blow your house down” tactics to sway the vote?

“There is nothing to fear but fear itself,” right?

Could it be that Clinton feels like everything that can be done has been done, so she can finally let her hair down a bit and enjoy the ride - even if it doesn’t lead to the Whitehouse? I hope so. She deserves a bit of repose.

The odds don’t look especially in her favor at this point, but don’t be surprised if she pulls it off. (Aegrus)

Well, there ya go, eh - a mature woman who doesn’t have to apologize to anyone for her comments can so easily handle all tough guys, smart guys and even Jon Stewart in a single line - and with a smile, ha ha!

She not only doesn’t have to go around making excuses for herself but she doesn’t ahve to worry about her ego, either. That is the difference.....

Choose a younger man and you get a set of problems which will be targetted by the leaders of every nation on Earth. Conversely, he would also be an easy touch for the opportunists who could find ways to manipulate him through his naivete.

You mightn’t like her - you don’t have to - but she is the best prospect for a president that the USA has right now. Miss the chance and you will be left with the uncertainties that come with the kinds of ‘change’ that you might well have preferred to do without.

Hillary has finally learned how to smile convincingly. Love how people in Ohio and Texas, two states affected greatly by NAFTA, are split between Clinton-NAFTA and Obama-FTA. Gee, which one do they choose?

Obama victory tonight.