Obama is a disaster and bumbler, Benito? That seems quite presumptuous to me. While I respect the right to your opinion I will have to strongly disagree.

The point I'm raising is that the stakes ARE HIGH for me to make a leap of faith and put my eggs in the Obama basket. I liken him to be the let x in algebra. In fact, I view voting for him as solving a quadratic equation, with x and y unknowns--as in no concrete track record--meaning actions of import, not words.

The '08 Election does have great significance for people. It will make a major difference in peoples lives financially and socially in general. The stakes, as you said, are very high. That is why after my research I feel confident that Obama is not some random wildcard nor an outlier which will adversely effect our country. He is the essential antithesis of Bush and the notion of being bought by Lobbyists and Special Interests. Imagine a President who is truly indebted to the American people and not oil/pharmecutical (SP?) companies or other nations! That's what I feel he can and will bring to the table.

I've noticed something interesting. With all of the mudslinging happening WITHIN the Democratic party, John McCain is getting a free pass. Why has he not been taken to task on the issues of his candidacy? It's because of this rift between Clinton and Obama that continues to drive up negatives for Obama and Clinton while McCain simply coasts. As a Clinton or Obama supporter, do any of us find that good or advantagious? No. I can't pretend that I haven't gotten into heated debates and arguments with Clinton supporters because I have. But.....what I'm starting to realize is that for the good of the country, it is time to be more civil and let this play out fair and square. Maybe instead of Clinton and Obama's camps fighting, we could start to take Republicans and John McCain to task for his policies and past? This will help Obama OR Clinton in November because both sides will rally behind both in making the case why a DEMOCRAT (either or) would be better than McCain in the White House :)

The '08 Election does have great significance for people. It will make a major difference in peoples lives financially and socially in general. The stakes, as you said, are very high. That is why after my research I feel confident that Obama is not some random wildcard nor an outlier which will adversely effect our country. He is the essential antithesis of Bush and the notion of being bought by Lobbyists and Special Interests. Imagine a President who is truly indebted to the American people and not oil/pharmecutical (SP?) companies or other nations! That's what I feel he can and will bring to the table.

I've noticed something interesting. With all of the mudslinging happening WITHIN the Democratic party, John McCain is getting a free pass. Why has he not been taken to task on the issues of his candidacy? It's because of this rift between Clinton and Obama that continues to drive up negatives for Obama and Clinton while McCain simply coasts. As a Clinton or Obama supporter, do any of us find that good or advantagious? No. I can't pretend that I haven't gotten into heated debates and arguments with Clinton supporters because I have. But.....what I'm starting to realize is that for the good of the country, it is time to be more civil and let this play out fair and square. Maybe instead of Clinton and Obama's camps fighting, we could start to take Republicans and John McCain to task for his policies and past? This will help Obama OR Clinton in November because both sides will rally behind both in making the case why a DEMOCRAT (either or) would be better than McCain in the White House :)

Dyed-in-the-wool Dem here. But more a centrist--and I abhor extremes. A Hillary supporter to the core. I fight it out with the Obamaniacs at the Huffington Post.

Excuse me, have you forgotten the booming Clinton years? Were you born yesterday? Hillary was RIGHT THERE, where the action was!

Excuse me, have you forgotten the booming Clinton years? Were you born yesterday? Hillary was RIGHT THERE, where the action was!

Yes, Hillary was there - as First Lady. Nobody has claimed that Laura Bush, Rosalyn Carter or Nancy Reagan was qualified to be President just because they lived in the White House, discussed policies and went on photo-op missions around the world. Or how about Chelsea Clinton? She seems very bright, and went on many of those same missions and I'm sure had intelligent discussions around the dinner table with her father and mother? We know Hillary did not have top security credentials to attend high level meetings, so exactly what experience besides exposure coupled with ambition can you refer to here. Yes, there's her Health Care bill, which was crafted secretly. If this is an example of her style of leadership, and there are plenty of signs indicating that transparency is not really her strong suit, then, I'm not biting. (By the way, why do you think she's waiting to release her tax returns? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that there's very likely unpleasant news to be found there, and she's waiting to disclose them to incur as little damage as possible? After all, a quick trip to Kinko's is pretty much all that's required.)

And if Hillary is really going to run on her husband Bill's record, then she'll have to take responsibility for NAFTA. Saying that she really opposed it behind closed doors even as she went across the country promoting it, really doesn't wash with me, sorry. And while we're talking Bill's record, you'll also have to accept responsibility for the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, which deregulated the radio market and set the stage for today’s media merger. Now only 5 companies own the airwaves, thanks to Pres. Clinton.

These 2 measures - NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act - have been responsible for not only hemorrhaging America's jobs but also crippling the Fourth Estate, an essential component of a true Democracy. If all our news distribution (and also music) is owned by a few corporations, how can we expect to have an informed populace? Answer: we can't and we don't. When Hillary was recently asked if she would repeal the Telecommunications Act, she ducked the issue saying she was no expert on the subject. And she's running on the experience of the Clinton White House? OK.

And how about that wonderful "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy - again, signed into law by Clinton?

Hillary does have a Senate record which is verifiable and is a good indicator of how she approaches governance. I posted an interesting comparison of the Senate records of Clinton and Obama earlier. It is very informative.

Bottom line for me: If you're primarily running on having the most experience, you sure better back it up with more than fictional stories of ducking sniper fire and claiming a major role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. It's not enough to air scary ads about 3AM calls. Let's hear substantial evidence to back up her claims that she is more qualified to be the next President of the US. Isn't it Hillary that is saying that it takes more than words (Experience, Experience, Experience)? What it really comes down to is Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. She's running on the Clinton brand - and since Bill's legacy clearly helped to usher in the corporatization of America, that branding shoe fits pretty well.

There is little correlation between a successful US Presidency and previous years of federal experience.

Key examples of our greatest Presidents (Ranked in order by Historical ranking):

#1. Andrew Lincoln - 2 yrs. in US House; 8 yrs. State govt. - Total govt exp - 10 years
#2. Franklin D. Roosevelt - 4 yrs. as Governor; 2 yrs. in State govt. - Total govt exp - 6 years
#5. Theodore Roosevelt - 2 yrs. in appointed City/Fed govt; 2 yrs. as Governor - Total govt exp - 4+ years
#6. Woodrow Wilson - 2 yrs. as Governor - Total govt exp - 2 years

And our current Democratic candidates:
Barack Obama - 2 yrs. in US Senate; 8 yrs. in State govt. (similiar to Lincoln) - Total govt exp - 10 years
Hillary Clinton - 6 yrs. in US Senate - Total govt exp - 6 years + First Lady experience

All this shows that some of this country's greatest Presidents had little previous experience in Federal government. It is also true that some our of worst Presidents had loads of experience. I highly recommend this site as an excellent resource on the topic of Presidential experience v. greatness which is where the above info came from: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

Funny how you do the "projection" bit, i.e. the fact that your St. Obama is a tyro, you insist that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is also a blank slate. FYI, Hillary was a PROACTIVE First Lady, not your run-of-the-mill kind who contents herself to baking cookies and making tea. I cannot cite you specifics lest Hillary will be accused of dipping her fingers into the governance pie, without, as you would say, "security clearance." I now rest my case.

And please be content with your saint, who didn't have the decency to carry his butt to Memphis for the MLK death anniversay.

The far Right has controlled this country for 8 years. I recently found out that I would be considered a Mainstream Conservative in Europe with my beliefs. Meanwhile, here in the US, I'm considered very Liberal and Leftist. What are these terms and how are they defined anyway? I guess it's the overall positions on main issues, but these labels seem to detract from rational and realistic discussion. People seem more concerned about whether we are one or the other instead of actually solving our problems.

The problem is we vote under these two labels and elect a president under these two labels so it must matter.