Barack Obama all the way!

Obama's platform is more detailed and comprehensive, no doubt about it.

But does Obama have the experience and political will to accomplish his promises?

Are you really telling me, Michael, that your decision on whom to support is based entirely on their platforms? We all know that politicians will promise much that they either can't deliver, or aren't committed to deliver.

Obama has not convinced me that he has the experience, connections and, yes, dedication to carry out his promises. Clinton, whom I dislike intensely, at least has more experience and political connections.

Honestly? I dislike them both. And I resent greatly that due to media, money and corruption, they are the only two choice we have against 4 more disastrous years of a Republican administration.

I think it's funny how even they're running. As in real life...

I also have to point out for the peeps who keep harping on Barack's 'experience', the current misadministration was the most experienced in history, and look how they jacked things up.

Abraham Lincoln at the time of his election in 1860 had served only a single term in the House and lost a US senate race. I daresay historians rank his presidency in terms of greatness far higher than the current occupant of the White House.

Monica and Michael, you both have really good points. But now that McCain is being listed as the GOP frontrunner, I have to wonder which of the two has a better chance of beating McCain.

Honestly, I won't have my mind made up until I walk into the voting booth on Tuesday.

Serena
That would be Senator Obama and im a McCain supporter Obama vs. McCain election would be very close with Obama probably taking the win. Clinton would lose and lose badly to McCain she however would destroy Romney or even Huckabee. Where as Senator Obama can rally the Democrats and independents as well as the moderate Republicans Senator Clinton will be doing good to keep a wide Democratic collation and she would lose even the more independent Republicans.

Abraham Lincoln at the time of his election in 1860 had served only a single term in the House and lost a US senate race.

I don't know if that's the type of President we need right now. He was actually more like W. Suspended habeus corpus, huge deficit spending, thousands of Americans killed in war and tons of civil rights violations and presidential power trips... And it didn't exactly end what I'd call "successfully."

Just saying...

oh Bil reread what you just wrote it sounds like if you were alive at the time. I would now be living in the CSA not the USA.If a war was ever needed and harsh measures needed taking that was it.For Mr. Lincoln’s war was one to preserve the Union not one of a foreign nature and traitors and rebels need dealing with and this is from a southerner Bil.

Regarding Hillary Clinton's experience and connections, they did not stop here from voting for the Iraq war which has caused thousands of lives and wasted hundreds of millions of dollars.

Very good point.

I understand that you think there were reasons for suspending habeus corpus, for example, Cathy. Bush thinks there's reason now - and has lots of others who believe as he does.

I'm just saying that there's much better models to put Obama next to - Kennedy, for example. It's a much better ideal that fits his image than Lincoln. :)

Another good match would have been Fred Thompson and Mr. Wilson from Dennis the Menace...

Bil
The original point was experience in years in office should not be a problem and JFK and Senator Obama is a better example.

But back to President Linclon's time I am only 2 generations away from that era in history. I have known one person whose father served in that war and several whose grandfathers served on both sides. I have lived with the aftermath of that war all my life. There will be lots of time after November to armchair quarter back GW and his administration.

Not since George Bush fils labeled himself a "compassionate conservative" and the world and mainstream media didn't laugh him all the way back to Crawford has any politician gotten the free ride that Obama's getting over DOMA. In so many quarters, anything Sen. Clinton says is automatically doubted and anything Sen. Obama says is automatically believed.

Look it up yourself but, trust me, Section 2 of DOMA has never meant anything legally. Some think it explicitly bans states from legally recognizing gay relationships of any kind. If that were true, gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts wouldn't be legally marrying now, and in California and New Hampshire have domestic partnerships.

Some think Section 2 "empowers" states to refuse such recognition but it's more like a pat on the head. Sen. Obama's own supporter and Harvard Constitutional law professor pointed out in an interview with ABC in August, that states have never needed Section 2. Quote: "Marriage is not something that states have ever been obliged to recognize if it's been against their own public policy," said Tribe, who has testified on the subject before Congress. "Same-sex couples in [for instance] Massachusetts are neither better nor worse off with DOMA repealed except that the repeal of DOMA is a way of telling that couple that their marriage in Massachusetts is not going to be made the subject of a symbolic and ineffectual slam by the federal government."

The article also says, emphasis mine, that, "OBAMA BELIEVES STATES SHOULD BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES. He wants to fully repeal DOMA, however, because he views the statute as 'ineffectual and redundant', in the words of Tribe. OBAMA BELIEVES A LONG-RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION TO THE CONSTITUTION'S FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE EXEMPTS A STATE FROM HAVING TO RECOGNIZE A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FROM ANOTHER STATE WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO ITS OWN PUBLIC POLICIES."

Though, according to the article, Tribe "called ABC News at the request of the Obama campaign," with for the purpose of attacking Sen. Clinton with a term that vies with "being Lanced" for absurdity-a "symbolic insult" when he, one assumes accidentally, revealed the real insult in the duplicity of Sen. Obama's positions. Not surprisingly, I've found no subsequent references to Professor Tribe speaking for the campaign.

So, there you have it. The support that Obama pursues and gets is based on a political hat trick. He would make toothless Section 2 of DOMA vanish while keeping up his sleeve his support for states' rights to deny legal gay relationships-the same position he, and countless Obama supporters like Jim pillory Hillary for.

Of course, they BOTH should come out and say that regulation of any kind of civil right [and I mean pre-existing policy not meaningless Section 2] should NOT be among those left to the state's to individually regulate. They are much more important than, for example, speed limit differences or sales taxes. But anyone over 45 [am I the only one left?] remembers all the fights over countless issues related to state regulation and how long it can take to change them. I remember people from Indiana driving to Kentucky to buy laundry detergent after Indiana outlawed phosphates before them.

A secondary fact that makes the whole smoke and mirrors routine about Section 2 absurd is that all but about five states have now passed their own versions and/or state constitutional amendments. Why should we be fighting over a meaningless provision? Yet, there's Sen. Obama repeatedly bragging about wanting to close the barn door long after all the horses are all out, and one that obviously never kept them in anyway.

They both equally support the repeal of those parts of DOMA that forbid access to federal rights and benefits, so in the attempt to determine who is best for us, the only relevance DOMA currently has is contrasting one candidate's willingness to be honest about a painful political-reality position [for now] that is costing her votes with another playing totally dishonest word games to get votes. I guess this is what Irene Monroe meant when she said Obama was playing us stupid.

I think I'm one of only two people to have voted undecided in that little poll....

Electability doesn't really swing me here, especially since there are good arguments to be made on that topic for either Obama or Clinton. Obama brings new people to the polls and might pick off some centrists because of his more conservative stances; Clinton has more experience with the Right-Wing slime machine (no, beating Alan Keyes for Senate doesn't count for anything).

They aren't too far off on policy, and I find the rhetoric of each to be rather empty (isn't rhetoric always empty?). They'd each be better than Bush, but then again that skate-boarding dog from YouTube would be better than Bush (and so much more entertaining).

Blah. By the time it comes around to Indiana, there'll only be one person on the ballot. Go Hoosiers!