Sue:

Brava!  Will you marry me?  LOL.

Peace.

MMC:

“Obama is a real change.” What on God’s great earth does that MEAN?  WHAT “change?” What will Obama actually DO - indeed, what CAN Obama actually do - differently from Hillary AS PRESIDENT?  How will he govern differently?  How much change does - CAN - ANY president actually effect per se?

Are ANY of the Obama supporters on this thread actually LISTENING to themselves?  Or are you so caught up in the thrill of the moment that you don’t realize what a HUGE letdown an Obama presidency is likely to be.  Remember, the higher the expectations, the greater the disappointments.

Sue is 101% correct: if he had waited his turn, he would have been a shoo-in in 2016, which would have meant having the first woman president and the first black president back-to-back.  Instead, he literally betrayed Hillary - his mentor - by NOT waiting, and challenging her after less than a full term in the Senate.  Indeed, Obama’s betrayal of Hillary is unquestionably among the LEAST principled things any neophyte politician has ever done to a mentor.

Peace.

CY:

You anti-Hillary types really hate being proven wrong, don’t you?  One of you harps on Hillary’s support of bankruptcy reform; yet when I point out that she did not vote for it, you turn around and accuse her of missing the vote because she was out raising money for herself.  Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t, huh?  That is what is usually called “dirty politics” (to say nothing of “sour grapes"). Shame on you.

As well, bringing up a politician who died over 40 years ago as a comparison to those currently in the Senate is absurd, even by your standards.  I’m sure we can find plenty of former (and dead) politicians whose voting records were worse, or filled with more “NV"s, than Obama’s.  But you are simply trying to weasel out of my point.  Nice try.

G. Anderson:

Thank you for pointing out that Hillary supported Kucinich’s resolution for impeachment.  I hope that increases her “stature” in your eyes at least a tad...LOL.

Louise:

Didn’t realize you were also a 9/11 Truther.  So why aren’t you supporting Ron Paul, who is the ONLY candidate calling for a new, thorough, non-political investigation into 9/11 - including following ALL evidence and seeing where it leads, come what may?

Expat:

As noted, I agree with the concern over the restoration of lost civil liberties, freedoms and privacy.  Hillary has mentioned it twice that I know of, though I will understand if many people feel it was only lip service (remains to be seen).  Still, I’d like to hear Obama and Edwards on this, as well as the others.  As you suggest, it is actually an incredibly critical issue for restoring trust and (dare I say it?) faith in our goverment.

Peace.

A couple of items for your consideration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/opinion/06kinsley.ht ml?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/05/oba ma-mr-opportunity-return-of-the-hollow-man/

Peace.

G. Anderson:

Mere repetition of something does not make it fact: Hillary did NOT vote for bankruptcy reform.  (For her voting record, go to http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463.  For Obama’s voting record, go to http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490).  As an aside, almost every Democrat voted for NAFTA, including Edwards.

As for “She was more interested in trying to convince the people she was tough enough to be President than take a stand,” you willfully ignore my point that, in fact, she has taken a stand on FAR more issues/votes than Obama, who was either absent or voted “NV” more times than almost any senator. THAT is called “not taking a stand.”

Hillary “unstable?” Where is THIS coming from?  She is, if anything, TOO stable in some regards (which is one reason many people have a problem with her). Her increasingly superb ability to handle the right, and whatever it throws at her, shows a stability that Obama clearly lacks, given HIS INability to handle even some of the campaign tactics of others in his own party.  As noted, a right-controlled campaign (particularly behind Giuliani) would CLOBBER Obama.

Dr. KIA:

Thanks for the support.  I agree: people hear what they want to hear, or get caught up in the heat of the moment, and simply don’t do their homework to check the facts.  (Look how many false statistics and outright lies Giuliani has provided ALREADY, yet those who support him simply ignore them.) This is why much of the electorate in this country has become increasingly ignorant: they let the media and campaign strategists do their thinking for them.

I also agree with your lengthier general post ("I doubt there’s any knight.")

Blackspeare:

Re Albright, are you also ignoring the facts?  As noted, most of Obama’s advisors are ex-Clintonites (the rest are ex-Daschle-ites), ALL of whom are just as “entrenched” in “party politics” as Clinton’s team.  Besides, the presumption that Albright would be a part of a Clinton Cabinet etc. is just that: a presumption, without any basis.  She may just be a visible supporter.

troublesum:

Excuse me?  I think you have your parties confused.  It is the Republicans who want to privatize or otherwise get rid of social security; the Democrats have been fairly unified in their fight to keep it just the way it is.

That said, you make an excellent point about Bush, Cheney & Co.  If there has been little talk of undoing the erosion of civil liberties, freedoms and privacy under Bush & Co., there has been no talk at all of holding Bush & Co. accountable for how they have shredded the Constitution.  (Although Kucinich et al did introduce a resolution for impeachment of Cheney, which unfortunately went exactly nowhere.) That would be a great question for all the candidates; I’d very much like to hear Clinton, Obama and Edwards on that issue.

Peace.

Hey Dr. Dr.----

I must have watch a different debate.  Hillary was a bit glum at the beginning and lacked the luster needed for a viable candidate and sounded kind of shrill in some of her responses.  On the other hand Obama gave measured responses that resonate with the silent majority as did Edwards.  Don’t be surprised if Obama and Edwards team up on a ticket!  Also, the opening gambit of nuclear security in the Democratic debate was a waste----too bad Rudy wasn’t there!  The main issue will be the economy not security.  With a recession looming, security will be at the bottom of the list.

Personally, I did like Hillary, but she has fallen off the mark and when I saw Madeline Albright standing behind her during her remarks after the Iowa caucuses I knew it was all over----who wants that old fossil in another administration.  I’m afraid with Hillary it will the same old politicking!

G. Anderson:

Do your homework.  While it is true that Hillary voted “for the Iraq war” (a misnomer), neither Obama nor Hillary supported bankruptcy reform.  As for NAFTA and credit card reform, Obama was not in the Senate when those were voted on, so we simply do not know how he might have voted.  Hillary, however, did NOT support credit card reform.

As well, BOTH of them voted FOR the 4/26/07 bill providing additional funding for the war (with a timeline withdrawal provision).

Finally, it might interest you to know that Obama has among the worst “NV” (no vote) records in the entire Senate; i.e., while Hillary may vote wrongly on some issues, at least she takes a stand.  Obama, on the other hand, either doesn’t attend the voting (and what does THAT say about him?) or simply refuses to take a stand on many issues.  This does not exactly show alot of “backbone” re his alleged principledness.

As for a “life of privilege,” every candidate is a millionaire and lives a “life of privilege” compared to the average Joe (or Jane).  So what?

Louise:

Re Clinton v Kerry vis-a-vis the right, you forget that Kerry put himself in that position by wanting to have it both ways: he was a war hero, but he was against the war.  Both were true, of course, but the right used the confusion around it to create the “swift boat” campaign.  They will have no such opportunity with Hillary: the only “flip-flop” they can really point to is her vote “for the war” (as noted, a misnomer); however, that has aleady been beaten to death in the media, so most people will not care.  As an aside, Obama would be absolutely CLOBBERED by a right-controlled Giuliani campaign.

Re Kucinich, I like him too.  (I like Ron Paul almost as much; he’s the only one calling for a completely new, thorough, non-political, non-partisan investigation into 9/11, as well as a repeal of the (illegal) income tax.) However, while I am all for the “principled” vote, that is what got us Bush (okay, it was a combination of Nader, the denouement of Gore’s campaign, and the stealing of the Florida election).

We cannot afford to “split the vote” this time; i.e., this is one election in which the “lesser of two evils” (since that is how many people will see a Hillary candidacy) is worth voting for, just to make sure the Republican (especially if it’s Giuliani!) doesn’t win (by any means other than voting chicanery...)

Dr. KIA:

I agree re the debates - and I knew it would happen.  Clinton has SO much more foreign policy experience than (and equal or more domestic policy experience as) Obama, which is why she sounded so much more grounded and “poised,” and why he sounded a bit lackluster.

Obama’s “rock star” moment may already be fading. We’ll see after the New Hampshire vote.

Peace.

Did you see the NH debate?  I’m not a Hillary fan but, IMO, she blew the good ole boys away.  She was poised, she answered the questions, she stayed on subject and she was specific.  Politically, it was a pretty masterful performance and seems to illustrate that she may have what it takes to exploit a majority congress to get the job done.  What that job will be, of course, remains to be seen. 

Obama apparently doesn’t have what it takes to capitalize on Iowa momentum.  He acted kind of dead in the water.

Edwards was a little emotional.

Richardson talked a lot, said little.

She can “regroup” all she likes, it will not change the fact that she is no different than Giuliani in the sense that she has absolutely no chance of winning the general election, this will be clear after she fails to win even one state primary.

P.T.

What does being a corporate lawyer have to do with anything?  Franklin Roosevelt was a corporate lawyer.  So were most presidents, including those you would probably say you liked.

Louise:

Re “old guard” versus “new,” have you actually taken a look at who Obama’s advisors are?  Half are ex-Clintonites!  (The other half are ex-Daschle-ites.) And ALL of them are “entrenched” Democrats of the party variety.  So what exactly is the big difference here between Obama and Hillary?

As well, their positions on three of the biggest issues - Iraq, health care and climate change - are virtually identical.  So what exactly is the big difference HERE?

Also, what is being forgotten in the heat of Obama’s “rock star” moment is that while his message is wonderful and uplifting, a president CANNOT “change everything” by sheer dint of will or personality; there is a Congress to deal with, among other things. (Just look at what is happening to NY governor Elliot Spitzer, whose campaign slogan was “On Day 1, everything changes.")

This is why Hillary is right when she says that Obama is “peddling false hopes.” It’s not that she doesn’t feel that Obama has an uplifting message (after all, she was his mentor until he “turned” on her...) It’s just that she knows it is hopelessly unrealistic (given the realities of Washington) - and Hillary is nothing if not a pragmatist (arguably too much so, for some people).

Finally, I still disagree with you re who would weather the GOP assault during the presidential campaign.  Hillary has taken everything the right has thrown at her (which is ALOT!) and either let it roll off her back, replied with humor (often ironic and biting), or responded in kind.  Obama is untested here and, as noted, despite his seeming “innocence,” may well have skeletons in his closet of which we are unaware - and which the right will absolutely use to its advantage.  As well, he “bristles” quickly, and has not even handled the INTRA-party “attacks” very well.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m sure he has great strength of character.  But that does not necessarily equate with an ability to handle the kind of negativity, harassment, smearing and other tactics the right will undoubtedly use.

Peace.

troublesum:

Hillary has never been disbarred for lying under oath.  Hillary has never been accused of rape.  It was not Hillary’s $3 million defense bill.  “The Clintons” did NOT have two terms; Bill did.

Your visceral hatred of the Clintons is getting in the way of your reason - to say nothing of the facts.

P.T.:

Obama is no less a corporate Democrat than Clinton, if by that you mean “bought and paid” for.  Have you looked at the contributor list to Obama’s campaign?  There are just as many corporations, bundlers and 527s as there are for Clinton.

PulSamsara:

Bill is not “appointing” Hillary, so there is no nepotism.  As for experience, Hillary has it all over Obama.  Even setting aside her presence in the White House for eight years - and one cannot help but get at least SOME experience from that - she has been a senator longer, and has so much more foreign policy knowledge and experience than Obama that it is almost funny.

Louise:

Obama’s and Hillary’s plans for Iraq are virtually identical.  Only Edwards is calling for complete withdrawal within 10-12 months.  (Richardson is calling for complete withdrawal immediately.)

As well, I have not heard one word from Obama’s mouth about his plans for reversing the assaults on and erosions of our freedoms, civil liberties and privacy - certainly no more than Clinton, who has in fact addressed the issue quiet publicly more than once.

I hate the entire political system as much as anyone here.  And I dislike Hillary’s triangulations as much as anyone here.  However, I cannot help but agree that she is more qualified to “hit the ground running” as president than Obama.  For example, she already knows almost all the major leaders of the world, and would not need to “start from scratch” in creating relationships.  That is not an insignifcant thing.  (And it is by no means the only one.)

As important if not moreso, I cannot also help but agree that Hillary is FAR better suited to handle what will almost certainly be the most negative, vicious campaign the Republicans have ever launched against a Democratic candidate.  As one pundit said, all the skeletons in her closet have aleady been dragged heavily and publicly through the mud; there are unlikely to be any new ones that the GOP can use against her.  However, for all his seeming innocence, Obama is a neophyte in this regard, and we simply do not know what the GOP might find and use against him - successfully.  As well, given some of his “reactions” to intra-party campaigning, I am not sanguine that he will react well, or helpfully, to GOP attacks.

If we want the GOP out of the White House - under any circumstance - Hillary has the best chance of withstanding the GOP assault.  I like Obama alot.  And if he does not ultimately win the nomination, he is a virtual shoo-in in 2016.

Peace.

Obama may turn out to be a status quo guy, but he is able to raise large amounts of money from small donors—and he is no corporate lawyer.