Ok, you made some good points in there, but I do not know if I agree with the idea of he cannot win because the change guy has lost in the past. This is not the 80's or even the nineties and we have never (as you pointed out) had a president who so fucked the American way as Bush has.

We have also never seen young people get out and vote in the numbers we are seeing now. This (if it holds, and I think for once it may) completely and utterly changes the election landscape. We are talking millions of people age 18-30 who have never voted before.

The past should be respected and used as reference, but the present must be taken into account when comparing. Bush has destroyed this country in so many ways and Mcain plans to go the same way.

I also asked that you refrain from the insults. You have the right to speak as you wish but you lost some serious respect from me when you had to stoop to insulting me. I have not lived with my parents in 10 years and your assumption that just because I dislike and do not trust politicians makes me a pale faced shut in is insulting and frankly, closed minded.

You also failed to point out any reason that Clinton is actually worth voting for in any more then a hold my nose manner.

First, I just want to say that I disagree with much of your praise of Obama and your criticism of Clinton's tactics. I understand and appreciate that you want to know why people are supporting Clinton and not why they are opposed to Obama. But I do want to make it clear that I don't really agree with your pro-Obama and anti-Clinton arguments.

That said, the main reason why I'm supporting Clinton is that I believe she'll be a better President. It seems pretty obvious, but as you point out it's not something that is widely talked about. So here, in no particular order, are the top reasons why I support Clinton:

- She has an astonishing grasp of policy. And like anyone who is hiring someone, I'm looking for a candidate who actually knows what they are talking about. If I were hiring a cardiologist, their knowledge of the heart would be one of my main hiring criteria. So since we're hiring someone to run the government, I'm looking for someone who knows how the government works.

- She's tough. She is at her best when things are at their worst. This is definitely not a criticism of Obama. It's just that Clinton has demonstrated an amazing capacity to stay positive, focused and determined during this campaign, and I think that will matter in the general election, and, even more importantly, in the White House. Bush has been a weak President - he is both cowardly and bullying - and I think it would be great to have someone as strong as Clinton in the White House.

- She's demonstrated that she can get along with some of her biggest political enemies. Republicans who voted to impeach her husband like and respect her, and I think that level of personal one-on-one charm is valuable in a President. I know that a variation on this argument is commonly used by Obama supporters, but I believe she simply has a greater record of actually working with Republicans.

- She's willing to take a stand. Sorry, but this does border on a criticism of Obama. I don't agree with her votes on Iraq and on the Kyl-Lieberman legislation, but I respect that she will take a stand on these tough issues.

- She cares about Global Warming. Like many young people, I believe that Global Warming is the greatest threat the world faces. She voted against the Cheney energy bill, and she seems genuinely enthusiastic about confronting Global Warming and building a Green Economy.

- She believes in universal health care. It's just embarrassing for the richest country on earth to not have universal health care. And yes, single-payer would be better, but you can't have universal health care without a universal mandate. And as an aside, I think it says a lot about her sincerity that she is still so committed to this issue that has caused her to be the target of so much Republican anger.

- She knows exactly who she is, and she knows exactly what the job is. I find that she has a refreshing lack of ego - I may be generalizing, but I have to think that it has something to do with her gender - and she sincerely likes the work. All politicians are somewhat self-obsessed (it's just part of the job, unfortunately), but I think that she is more interested in the issues, and less interested in herself, than almost any other politician.

- She has a solutions-oriented intelligence. This is a comparison, but it's not a criticism of Obama. I've noticed in the interviews they've given, and in their debates, that while both Clinton and Obama are extremely intelligent, they do have different kinds of intelligence. When Obama says something really smart it's almost always an insight into the roots of a problem. But when Clinton says something really smart, it's almost always an insight into the solution for a problem. It would be underestimating both Obama and Clinton to suggest that either lacks the other kind of intelligence, but like everyone else they do have their strong points. And both kinds of intelligence are important and impressive. But I believe that Clinton's more solutions-oriented intelligence is more valuable in a President. This is really a matter of how you define the Presidency, so I appreciate that there is no right or wrong answer to this question of the usefulness of different kinds of intelligence.

- She's electable. It's hard to make this point without criticizing Obama - since it is a matter of comparison - but I'll try. Aside from any particular issues or anything else, she seems more interested in other people and less - I hate to use this word but I can't spend all day trying to think of a nicer way of saying this! - condescending than Obama. Gore and Kerry, who everyone thought was the most electable Democrat in 2004, were both widely and unfairly criticized for being condescending. There is a lot of evidence that Democrats and general election voters feel differently about this, and I just don't think this is where Democrats need to take a principled stand against Republicans and Independents. Let's just accept that they feel differently, and nominate our candidates accordingly. It's really not a matter of picking candidates who are too smart, and we are kidding ourselves if we suggest it is. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar but people didn't find him condescending. The truth is that if many middle and lower-income Democrats find Obama too Ivy League, it's hard to imagine that general election voters are going to feel differently. Clinton has shown that she can get the votes of the Reagan Democrats.

- She talks about the details. I know that some people have criticized her for a lack of rhetoric, but I think that talking about student loan forms and social security economics is very important. You can't change things without changing the details, and Hillary Clinton is the person to do that.

I could go on much longer, but thankfully I won't. I hope that this has helped you understand what motivates Clinton's supporters. Thanks for asking your question.

Thank you Rose, this is exactly what I asked for. I don't agree on every point, but I definitely see some things I didn't before. Your post is a breath of fresh air here.

It's the kind of thing I hope to see more of.

Oh, and to Desidero, that is actually one of my problems is that I am not sure if fighting the republicans is enough. That spin machine will be as nasty against Clinton as it will against Obama, and true or not so many people have already decided the Clinton's are corrupt there job won't be very hard against her either.

My personal feeling is that fighting them is allowing the game to be played on there level. (thats not meant as a slight against Clinton, she fights well but I think many democrats hold a certain disdain for that kind of fighting)

One of the things I like about Obama is how he can throw down, and no one even realizes he did throw down. He can spin an attack back on the attacker in a pretty effective way and still look like he has taken the high road. I like this, I think it is subtle but it works.

JSmith...I'll do my best but won't go into any kind of detail on each point. It needs to be noted that there really aren't vast differences in their positions on issues.

First, re healthcare, I'm a mandates person rather than an incentives person. I believe that Clinton does have more relevant experience which makes her better prepared to be effective sooner. (But, no, not on Day One.) I also believe she tougher than Obama and has the scar tissue to prove it.

It's maybe Obama's naivete that scares me the most. He thinks that "reaching out" is going to bring us all together. That's garbage. Count the filibusters in the Senate this year in spite of Reid "reaching out" offering compromise and deals. It's going to be more "slug it out" than "reaching out" IMHO and I believe that she is better prepared to do that.

However, if Obama wins the nomination (and I think he will), I will hold my nose and vote for him...not because I think he'll accomplish much but I believe he can get judicial appointments right because they'll be easy with a dem Senate.

Thank you J for giving us Clinton supporters have a word without the crazy attacks. And thank you Red, Des, Rose & Miki for saying all that I believe!!

As an Obama supporter who is becoming increasingly distasteful of Senator Clintons tactics (or should I say the tactics of her advisor's and surrogates) I would like to have a discussion as to why I shouldn't have to hold my nose and vote for her if she does take the nomination

I could not have said it better. I know now i'm sounding like Obama after a Hillary answer, but Hillary has done so much and has overcome so much in her life that she gives me hope and is an inspriration to me and my daughters.

She is a change in the best way possible and Obama gives me doubts. He keeps down playing the importance of the people he surrounds himself with and what they say, yet on the other hand anything negative from Hillary gets overblown and condemed.

I don't buy into the MSM that Hillary is bring the race card up and Obama isn't. I don't buy into the MSM that Hillary is polarizing and can't win in November. Obama is too weak and can not win in Novemeber. I will not nor will I ever vote for Obama after looking at the whole package. Even with Hillary and all her faults she is still the Best and No one can change my mind. I do know that if Obama is the nominee I will be voting for McCain.

"I will tell you why (even though I was looking forward to voting for her) I am not now. I did not expect a candidate like Obama to come along, and the fact is, no matter what anyone says he is doing things differently. I have never trusted politicians, not Bush, not Bill Clinton, not W. Bush., not Gore, or Kerry. So I never expected to see a politician that I felt I could trust on at least some level."

I think the big difference here is that I trust Hillary and Obama equally, which is to say I don't trust either of them very much!

-- I believe Hillary will play nice when she has to, play dirty when she has to, and do a weird hybrid of nice and dirty when she has to. In other words, she's "in it to win it." And I DO trust her on that. When Obama says that she'll "do anything to win," he's RIGHT! And that's why I like her.

-- I agree Obama is running a "different" kind of campaign. HOWEVER, I think he is running this kind of campaign *because it's the only type of campaign he could have run*. It turned out to be very successful, so he is a *much* better tactician than I first suspected. But at his core, he is a politician. Full stop. He is smart, but like any politician, he is ambitious and will take the necessary steps to further that ambition. Running a "nice" campaign was his way to win -- and that's what he's doing.

If you put them in the same plane (ie, they are BOTH politicians) instead of elevating Obama above "the old politics" (and by implication Hillary and every other Democrat since Kennedy), then it comes down to who would make the better President. I think Hillary for many of the reasons outlined abovt by Rose.

I probably shouldn't post here, I am very totally NOT a Hillary supporter. I think Obama is the conduit that will make this country whole again. Period. I think Hillary will give us more of the same divisiveness. That being said, if, by some great coup, Hillary is made the nominee, we will all have to come together and work as hard as we can to get her elected. The health of the whole country depends on this. It is for sure that there will be at the very least 2, and most probably more, USSC retirements, and therefore, appointments. We simply cannot count on the Congress, as it stands, and it will not change under a Clinton election, (meaning, no coattails), to stand firm against hideous appointments such as Alito and Roberts. We will be screwed for generations to come. What a future.......

First, congrats on starting a civilized discussion. This is very refreshing.
Second, does anyone realize that these two excellent candidates have received 26 million votes between them - IN THE PRIMARIES!!! -and there are still 12 states and 2 territories to go?

I will support the winner, be it Hillary or Obama. I do support Obama now, but I agree with the point that Oceancat made - rookie mistake. I'm cool with that. I think both HRC and BO will make mistakes, but in the grand scheme of things, I feel that Obama will do a better job of recognizing and recovering from them than Hillary will. In some ways, I think that Bill and her advisers are a liability for her - she does much better when she hasn't been 'advised' on what to say. I also agree with joehigashi that detail oriented people like her are better in surrogate positions.
But, ultimately, I feel like we are on the brink of disaster. Mostly economically. And I thin it is going to take a big thinker with a lot of charisma to pull us out of it. I think that some people's impressions of him as 'soft' or 'not a fighter' are incorrect. Why fight when you've already won? I don't mean that to be a snide comment, but winning or losing PA by 5% doesn't really affect his delegate lead, and he's known that since early February. I think he's well ahead of the curve in his thinking and planning, and that excites me. Hillary, on the other hand, has been more reactive than proactive, and didn't seem to get some important concepts (like delegate counts) until it was too late. I think how a candidate runs a campaign is one of the best ways to judge a candidate, and he's run a better one than her.
I like Hillary. I think she would make a very good - even great president. I think Obama has the potential to be greater yet. I think it's fitting that this is going into overtime, and I think either one should beat McCain. But that's a discussion for another time.

Haremoor - You are right, if we could keep 80% of these voters out and voting the democratic candidate (whoever that may be) will win in a landslide.

Just a couple of notes based on Rose83's comments:

She is "tough" ... I would argue she is a masochist and seems to like getting beaten up/down. And can you tell me when and where she took and passed the "all important Commander-in-Chief Test?" I have looked through her records and see no prior military service (Bill actually dodged the draft to avoid Vietnam), she was not raised in a military family (like I was), the First Lady has no responsibilities with regard to the Department of Defense. And so aside from spending time on the Senate Armed Services committee -- which would make the other Senators on that committee and its counterpart in the House at a minimum equally qualified with her -- I see nothing that makes her C-I-C material, other than she voted for the war in Iraq and was a very vocal proponent of it.

Gender/Sexism... She has used her gender (the piling on commercial after the one of the early debates, the trek back Wellesley to crow about the "all boy's club of Presidential politics, the NH crying, the Ohio hissyfit, and much, much more.) If you are going to work in a co-ed arena where gender should not play a role, it is wrong to drop it like it's hot every other day on the campaign trail. You (nor your surrogates) cannot beg women to vote for you solely because you are a woman, and then be angry because minorities of the same race as your opponent vote for him.

Emotional Instability Everyone has can express their emotions in the appropriate time and place. Clinton's off-the-wall histrionics over a mailer in Ohio was disingenuous at best, especially given the deliberately falsified information she authorized to be circulated in NH with regard to Sen. Obama record on women's reproductive rights. It hardly sets the example or tone for how she would deal with say Dmitri Medvedev or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (Coonversely, Sen. Obama has maintained an even keel, and even temperment even when getting the kitchen sink thrown at him by Clinton. I'll take cool calm and collected any day.)

I do not find Clinton "agile" but a facile liar. That is tough, but true. Everyday there are new revelations (from the "most vetted, most investigated, most innocent" candidate in history -- words directly from her and her husband) which shoot down the myths, legends and tall tales she is telling about herself. I find the need to create a larger than life role for herself particularly needy. She didn't "open" the border to Macedonia, she didn't enter a dangerous war zone, she didn't bring peace to Northern Ireland, it was just a speech she gave to the Chinese (just words, Hillary? "words don't matter...") to no real effect, she had no security clearance, she did nothing discernible with regard to the genocide in Rwanda (even her husband in contemporary reporting at the time said nothing of her input), she didn't create S-CHIP, failed at universal health insurance, was the root cause of the Whitewater scandal, Travelgate and Filegate, refused to settle with Paula Jones early, and then there's Monica-gate which she was involved in as well. In short, she seems to allow her ego to impair her judgment. (Which brings us to the increasingly bitter, divisive gridlock we find ourselves in with regard to the Dem nomination.)

The 3 am ad would have been excellent if she was selling home security, but it completely missed the mark with regard to homeland security. One, if something was happening somewhere in the world (meaning not in my hometown) I'm not going to be jumping out of bed to check on my sleeping children. Two, if something is happening, I expect someone in the NSA to field that call. I expect that person to wake and brief the President. I don't expect to see the President in suit and tie or lipstick and pearls at 3 am. I expect jeans and sweatshirt, no makeup and the full contingent of aides, advisers, specialists and loads of coffee in the Situation Room. Point blank, the ad was unrealistic.

"She did a lot better than Obama on Super Tuesday..." Actually on Super Tuesday, Sen. Obama won 13 states/contests to Sen. Clinton's 9. Where I'm from 13 is more than 9. (but I am not familiar with this Clinton New Math, where being behind in the delegate count states won, popular vote with no realistic chance of catching or surpassing one's opponent constitutes "winning" and deserving of the top spot on the ticket.)

I find Clinton's sense of "being owed" the Presidency, of being "inevitable" (another ego problem), her unbridled ambition, and her ruthlessness and willingness to go to any lengths to get what she feels she deserves is disturbing. It is this "my way or the highway" mindset that we have suffered under not just for the last 7+ plus years with George W. Bush, but with the Clintons during their "co-presidency" in the 90s. This stubborn obstinance is not what this country needs at this perilous time.

But, hey... that's just my take.

I find it strange and a little racist that 15 second sound bites would be taken out of many years of sermons by Wright and used against him and Obama.

If you took certain phrases out of the bible and did not look at the whole work you would also get a very distorted view.

The good works that Wright did for his community are being completely ignored. The MSM seem to be on a feeding frenzy over this which is more than disturbing.

When right wing ministers make statements that are over-the-top, I never hear recommendations for their followers to leave the church. The Wright drama is more about racism than anything else.

Wow, I don't recall ever seeing such a civil and well articulated post from a Clinton supporter (that said, "Obamabots" are not exactly famous for their civilness either), and here we have two in a row! Thanks Rose83 and miki, and of course to Jsmith0316 for bringing it out. This is for the first time that I actually understand how Clinton supporters think and see some rationale that I don't find completely, well, irrational. Just like Jsmith, I tried to see it before, but as a natural Obama supporter I just could not see it. Again, thank you. Now onto the topic.

I always asked myself how someone could support a politician who so obviously uses such dirty tactics as deception, manipulation, even lies. Now I see that people support Clinton not despite such tactics but because of them - because they see it as necessary to defeat an equally dirty opponent.

I remember thinking like that not so long ago, but experience from recent years (albeit in my country, which is not the US) taught me a few things that changed my mind:

1. Negative tactics have an amzing power to backfire. They may have a "positive" effect (for the one using them), but it is short-term at best, while the negative effect on both parties are a lot more long lasting (people forget a smear, but they don't forget being lied to).

2. Such "fighter" characters, who are seen as "strong" because of their preparedness to use any means necessary to win, have the capacity not only to fight their opponents, but also their allies. And there really are no permanent opponents and allies, so alienating people who could be your allies tomorrow is a really bad thing to do. Hillary is currently alienating about half of the Democratic party from herself and the other half from Obama. During "war time" (the war currently being between her and Obama) hurting your opponent seems reasonable, even if you also hurt yourelf in the process. But in just a few months there will be a completely different "war" and from the November perspective hurting any one Democrat seems like a suicide.

3. Using unethical tactics such as lies may seem necessary or even fun for those who support the attacker, but don't you mind that she's trying to win the election by decieving the people (i.e. YOU)? If she's decieving people for personal gain during the campaign, she's very likely do keep doing that if elected. And how can you trust her that she genuinely wants to help people, when you've already accepted that she's "no saint" and that deception is one of her strong points?

4. I don't understand how people can think of a politician who would not use dirty tactics as a wimp. It's like saying that people who don't steal, rob and murder are wimps. In a way that's true, but it's "being a wimp" that makes us civilized, isn't it? No one would have a hipocrite and a liar for a friend, but they would have one for president???

5. I find it funny that a lot of Christians, whose ultimate role model is Jesus, would not want a "Jesus-like" presidential nominee. "Jesus" doesn't stand a real chance to win in the end, so let's rather elect a Judas, because that's what a realistic politician is like.

6. As times have changed, such tactics have become less necessary and more harmful for the one using them. The internet changed a lot. Before internet, politicians could lie to the people and get away with it not just to get elected but also for their entire time in power. Now that people are more informed, it's getting increasingly harder to get away with such tricks and quite often they backfire on them the very same day. So I think that time has come (or almost come) when it's actually possible to win by being good.

A lot of people, especially older ones, believe that politicians are inherently corrupt, because of their own bad experiences. Just like the old Jeremiah Wright apparently still believes that white people are inherently bad, corrupt and priviliged, based on his experiences from the 70's, which certainly do support his claims, but are slightly outdated... Times are changing and our society is becoming more and more civilized and I think more just and tolerant. And we've long ago reached an age where being peaceful and smart is worth a lot more than being strong and aggressive (in fact that's quite negative). I just don't know why in politics it still seems to be the other way round...

There. I hope my post was civilized enough and that I gave some of you food for thought without offending anyone.

What do Hillary supporters think of the alleged "Plan B"; that she's in line for Harry Reid's job if Obama prevails?

Hillary's attributes make her a natural fit for that first for an American woman.

While it's true that Obama hasn't had time to accomplish a bunch in the Senate, what he has done has been impressive. I would encourage you to check it out - Google for Gov't, the 'Loose Nukes' bill with Lugar, Ethics bill, and some impressive co-sponsorships. He had a very good record in the Illinois Senate, a Constitutional professorship, a civil rights lawyer, and a community organizer.
Maybe not as long as Hillary - but certainly not a 'blank slate'. I do value her experience as First Lady highly. While I don't think she did much, I'm sure she learned a lot. But I like where Obama is coming from. I value civil rights and the Constitution very highly, and I think he's the right guy for that. We have greatly expanded Presidential powers right now, and I'm not sure that I trust Hillary (and Bill) with that. I think Obama can go in there and make it right. He says he taught the Constitution, believes in the Constitution, and will obey the Constitution. I believe him.
As far as the notion of Obama supporters as starry eyed romantics, I resent that. I've spent hours and days researching all the candidates. I've talked about it with my friends, and made a reasoned choice. And yes, I'm aware of what the Repubs have in mind. Karl Rove is working for John McCain. He stole a bunch of elections in 2000,02, 04, and 06. I think he might try to steal an election in 2008. Just a hunch. And I've watch one of the toughest guys there is, John Kerry, go down before him, against all odds, and I'm STILL bitter about it.
Look, one thing that Obama is a LOT better at is thinking on his feet. If Hillary is prepared, she's great. But I've seen Obama ( and other Dems) blindside her, and she gets lost, and gives very predictable answers. I don't think that's gonna get it this year. We had our 'Test Terrorism Alert' last week. Anybody catch it? I think they threw it out there to see what it would do to the polls. McCain gained three points in a week. They are paying 80,000 Sunni Iraqis 10$ a day to not shoot Americans. They are going to try to make Iraq look like Hawaii for the next 6 months - where was McCain today? In Iraq.
So yeah, I've thought about it. I think Obama is the right one to beat McCain. Never underestimate your enemy - McCain is sharp, and he is capable of conveying that to people. I think he could embarrass Hillary, and I don't think he can Obama.

Have you seen this video...

watch the entire thing... you'll see during God Bless America...

Obama refuses to put his hand on his chest....

hummmmmmmmmmmm WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS MEANS AMERICA...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5N-1-g90bW0

'86? congressional election year?

1984 is the year to focus on, because its the year Democrats lost big.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1984

Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro got owned by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. One state win, that's a joke.

Mondale thought he would be setting a great precident by selecting a woman as his VP running mate, ignoring some good presidential candidates he could have gone with (Geraldine was just a member of Congress from NY). Jesse Jackson ran for president that year and had won 3 state primaries, Mondale could have better his losses that year if he picked Jackson but instead he stiffed him, and that the black vote the Democratic party ignored joined the Reagan revolution.

I look back at that and wonder what the hell was Mondale thinking buy not picking any of the presidential candidates that year.

But what was so special about 1986?

I mean, similar criticism doesn't put Hillary and Al Gore in identical positions. Her emotional caprice is hardly the determinuing factor for why I'm going for Obama, it's incidental to the larger whole. I've already said the way she has handled executive power before makes me wary of her ability to really lead the nation. I think she is a very intelligent, politically-savvy, and knowledgable woman, but I don't know if she can lead.

Herbert Hoover was a genius of economics. In theory, there was no candidate better qualified to deal with the economy. Yet, for all his brilliance, he was an utter flop when the Great Depression hit. Hillary belongs way up in the government, without a doubt, but I still think she doesn't have what it takes to really lead. She has shown me that she's a fighter, a legislative pitbull who can get things done. But political pit-fighting and steering the state are two different things. I doubt Hillary can bring about real compromise or consensus, and while she will likely bring about change, how long will those changes last in the next administration? For issues like healthcare, you NEED compromise--a bipartisan, moderate route. It's the only way these critical issues start holding water for everyone and cease to be a "liberal" agenda. Incentives work better for all parties than mandates. It's the middle ground, but you need a middle ground if you want things to stick. Otherwise, unpopular decisions will just be overturned when a new majority sweeps Congress. I'd rather have post-partisan permanance than partisan fluctuations of interest. Obama at least offers the chance of a new consensus-building. Hillary doesn't.

But look, in all honesty, both Obama and Hillary are highly qualified and I (and I hope you) will vote for Democrat in November. Either candidate will realize a good deal of the vision of the other.

This post was clearly an opportunity for Obamaniacs to trap Clinton supporters and air their grievences towards Hillary.

I do not believe for a second that she is alienating half of the Democratic Party and killing her chances in November. The truth is that many people have had a tough decision on who to back, and that has shown in the voting.

Further, those who post on this and other similar sites are so overwhelmingly tilted towards Obama. The group is a poor representation of the party as a whole regardless of how strongly they may feel that they are a cross section of voters.

Anyone who tries to answer the question posted in the original post is setting themself up for failure. To do so would be automatically operating within the frame set by the author (which is clearly not an objective one), that gives B.O. supporters the chance to trap that person.

It reminds me a lot of the debates - they ask Hillary a question and Barack gets to play softball.

So if you want a conversation that is really substantive, let's try this - post an issue and let's discuss their respective stances on that issue, as opposed to a general discussion on the candidates. Otherwise, it is just going to be the ranting of fired up supporters on both sides, and not get to any real resolution or discussion.

But then again, maybe that is not really what you wanted in the first place.

Yeah, it really boils down to a fundamental matter of appeal. I partly agree with you on the evident MSM bias against Hillary. Making fun of her cackle or her wardrobe or all these other petty issues is so inane and petty. However, for all this pettiness, I'd like to see them grill her more on her tax returns (they are important--I need to know to whom she feels obliged), or spend less time questioning the extent of her foreign policy credentials and more about why it's significant. But the MSM is just tabloidal. I can remember the day Hillary released a memo boasting her foreign experience Chris Matthews spent the entire segment of Hardball talking about "as far as I know." It was so absurd. Personally, I thought it was kind of smarmy, but it didn't deserve sixty minutes. Even this Rev. Wright stuff gets the wrong kind of coverage--all the media ever talks about is strategy and jungle-gym gossip (was Obama there? Is he lying? Will Rev. Wright hurt his chances? What will the Republicans do with this?)--it's just a dismal inevitability.

I mean, I hope you'll vote Democrat either way. Personally, accomplished as Clinton is, her actual handling of power in the past makes me wary that she can handle it. Herbert Hoover was an economic genius, but none of that brilliance helped him in the Depression. It's not just about resumes.

Neither is it just about a feel-good message. But the truth is, I have a faith in Obama that'll allow me to take the gamble. Should he become President, there's no telling how he'll be, but I want to see this approach of his in action. It could be dynamic, it could be more of the same, I really don't know. I'm aware of the risks and the potential disappointment, but I want to give him a chance. Plus, for me, the only Presidents I have ever been conscious of are Bushes and Clintons. I need a change, yo.

She is committed to universal healthcare, but I'm wary of her ability, not so much to make it happen, but to have it stick. It's a polarizing issue, which is why I think Obama's incentive strategy is a better starting point. I'd like healthcare to become a broader issue instead of part of the agenda of the progressive left. I like the progressive vision and moderate policy of his incentives. I feel more people can get on board with incentives than mandates. I'm just worried if Hillary's fighting for change will make those changes last.

I tend to agree with AKBNYC, in that these types of posts tend to be "really, seriously, post your reasons why you would vote for Clinton... we'll hold the political football for you, really Charlie Brown." So, we'll see just how sincere the OP really is. Here are the main reasons why I'm more inclined to vote for Ms Clinton than Mr Obama.

1. Ms Clinton wants to scrap No Child Left Behind, and start education reform from scratch. Mr Obama wants to tweak it, only. Since I'm fundamentally opposed to "teaching to the tests", I support Ms Clinton's efforts.

2. Ms Clinton's rhetoric concerning gobalization seems more rational. As someone who supports international trade, I appreciate Ms Clinton's more nuanced approach to business. Mr Obama has sounded rather populist and anti-trade in his policy speeches. Although Ms Clinton has started to lean leftwards considerably in this regard, she appears more pragmatic with her approach to free (and fair) trade.

3. I prefer Ms Clinton's views of health care reform to that of Mr Obama's. The differences between the two have been hashed out countless times on boards such as these, so I won't go into the minutae.

4. Both have good energy policies; however, it seems Ms Clinton's goes farther in scope and funding that Mr Obama's.

5. Ms Clinton has traditionally supported women and children's health, development, and education opportunities. She has been championing these issues for decades, and it's a very important issue for me. Both have good platforms, I just find Ms Clinton's more appealing.

I confess that I have not read all the comments as there are so many and that my comments may be considered contrary to the purpose of this thread

First ...Someone mentioned Sen. Clinton's school days ...let's remember that she was also PRESIDENT OF THE YOUNG REPUBLICANS AT WELLESLEY.

SECOND ...Let's note that the Clinton campaign folks are the ones challenging the processes [TX, NV, IA, NH] that has been in place for years and got her husband elected. Suddenly, because her entitled inevitablity is being succcesfully challenged by someone who is not a part of the good ole Wash. club she finds so much undemocratic about the process.

THIRD ...No matter her policies and there are very few differences between the candidates, her record demonstrates that she would not be able to get very much done due to her inability to play well in the sand box as well as republican angst against her and their hatred of Bill.

I have a serious question for those thinking that the Hillary camp is putting out all of this "negative" press regarding the pastor at Obama's church. That church appears to be predominantly black. Who would have sent out that tape from that congregation? Has anyone thought of the possibility that Obama leaked it out himself? That the idea to make Hillary Look like a racist isn't just another political ploy by the Obama camp to undermine her? The timing is perfect, with the good pastor retired now, How would she have gotten hold of such a tape? On my worst day, I wouldn't sell out the preacher in my Church.