'COSMO, I've no objection to being thought, or to having my posts, thoughts, titles, etc., thought 'transparent.'

Otherwise, I don't need lectures from you, thanks. Your hectoring tone automatically causes me to dismiss what you say. I don't like to be shouted at and I don't like being lectured in boldface or patronized by having someone recite the dictionary to me. I can't hear the merits of your arguments through the no doubt intentionally offensive tone.

Don't like my position? Feel free to read the many other writers here who support Obama rather than Hillary. If you don't believe I am struggling with my feelings for Obama, that's your privilege. Just move on.

Till I've resolved my doubts about him, I will speak as I find. Just…scroll down and share your thoughts with someone whose position you find worthy.

Feel free to have the last word—-in all caps, if you wish. I'm not engaging any further on this issue.
reply'

So sayeth the shill with the hand in the cookie jar. Don't want lectures, don't try to couch them in such puerile nonsense. Period.

I welcome any scrutiny that either Hillary or Obama receive and the point of my earlier post is that people need to make well-informed decisions. Most people let one or two issues form the full basis on whether to support or NOT support a candidate.

Look what we got because the Bush/Rove machine was able to frame the 2004 election around national security and managed to convince the American people that the Dems would endanger us… If more people made well-balanced decisions our country would be in a very different place.

So while we have differences, it's great that you're going through the process and care (like everyone posting on here) about our country and want what is best and take the time and responsibility to consider and debate the various issues (not just policy issues, but other issues such as electability, the tone, etc.).

Thanks for all who post on here, defending your positions and considering others' opinions. It's really great that we all care about our country and will get into these arguments.

I've been doing some reading on Clinton's and Obama's policy decisions today. Basically, I wanted to give Clinton a chance to show me I've been wrong before I go vote in the caucus tonight. I am sure you are aware, but both candidates have policy positions at about the same level of detail on their campaign web sites. I will link to the Issues page for both, in case it helps people.

Clinton
Obama

Many of the policies are quite similar, as we all know. One strong positive for Obama to me is that he has a position right there on fiscal discipline where I did not see something similar for Clinton. If Obama can successfully hammer this point, that might help him with some centrists in a general election.

Getting back to the point, Obama seems to have policies at a similar detail level as Clinton's. I think the difference between the two is that Clinton is selling her policies. Obama is selling a way of working or a manner of conducting governance primarily. Policies aren't lacking in the latter, they just aren't focused on in a stump speech. Since both are necessary, shouldn't we be hammering Clinton for not detailing her manner of working with people?

It's true that Johnson doesn't have a lot to say about Obama that's favorable. I don't know that he's right, but I've been reading his blog for some time and I can't dismiss his allegations as clearly noncredible. The piece to which I linked was at The Huffington Post, not at No Quarter.

I started reading No Quarter quite some time ago while researching torture/intelligence issues. As Johnson's bio reflects, he is more qualified than most bloggers to speak on those matters. This doesn't mean he is right about Obama, but it does mean that I have read his past opinions with respect. He's been right about a lot of things. He's not a fool, not credulous, and strikes me as amply qualified to assess a potential red flag.

The point of my piece wasn't to say that the allegations he refers to are true or even that I believe they might be true—I trust not. The question is whether they are sufficiently unexamined or sufficiently credible to imperil Obama's candidacy down the line. I choose to believe that a thorough examination would reveal them to be groundless, but I am very very nervous about all the unknowns

SHANNONLOVE:
I agree with you, including with what you say about Hillary Clinton. People don't like her. Since I don't view McCain as a credible option for me, I'm pretty much stuck between a candidate I personally like and respect and who I feel certain could do the job (but who is widely loathed) and one who is widely adored but whose credentials don't impress me and whose personal and political history seems still to be quite hazy.

I AM going to have to come to terms with Obama—-this is increasingly clear. And it is actually helpful to read the responses of people who already have.

POLIMOM:
I don't think Clinton IS really bringing up everything she could on Obama—partly because there has been such a backlash every time she (or anyone connected with her) has said anything at all about him.

There's a blog called Rezko Watch that I've been looking at and I've also read some of the doubts raised by Obama skeptics such as Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune. Rezko definitely ISN'T a good connection for Obama to have had.

At the end of the day, I'm convinced that he'll either not be implicated in any way or, if implicated at all, ultimately vindicated. I don't have any grounds for thinking so except that he seems like an incredibly intelligent and good person to me and I want to believe that he will.

But…my point is that there are still a lot of unknowns about him and I'm not comfortable with that. I don't understand him or really feel I know who he is (which I do feel with Hillary).

I most definitely do think that the right will be much more aggressive in dealing with him than his fellow Democrats. No Democrat swiftboated Kerry during the last hard-fought nomination process. That didn't happen till the GOP decided to undermine his very real heroism in Vietnam.

I'm sorry to be a skeptic and—believe me—am working to change my opinion since I imagine he will be the nominee. But I would rather have had any of the others this round.

COSMO, I've no objection to being thought, or to having my posts, thoughts, titles, etc., thought 'transparent.'

Otherwise, I don't need lectures from you, thanks. Your hectoring tone automatically causes me to dismiss what you say. I don't like to be shouted at and I don't like being lectured in boldface or patronized by having someone recite the dictionary to me. I can't hear the merits of your arguments through the no doubt intentionally offensive tone.

Don't like my position? Feel free to read the many other writers here who support Obama rather than Hillary. If you don't believe I am struggling with my feelings for Obama, that's your privilege. Just move on.

Till I've resolved my doubts about him, I will speak as I find. Just…scroll down and share your thoughts with someone whose position you find worthy.

Feel free to have the last word—-in all caps, if you wish. I'm not engaging any further on this issue.

I might quickly condense my argument this way: Clinton is widely disliked. Even people who vote for her often have reservations about her as a person and public figure. Most Clinton votes are votes for Clintons policies not the person. By contrast, people like Obama the person, even if they don't know the specifics of his policies. Even Republicans really like him as a person. Votes for Obama are mostly votes for the person, not the policies.

He runs the very real risk of winning as a person just to find out he does not have an actual mandate for his policies. Something very similar, I think, happened to Bill Clinton in '92 and he ended a very weak President, forced to concede virtually every major policy area to the Republicans.

Just for disclosure, I am a right leaning independent who will probably who will probably vote for McCain over Obama. Even so, I can see definate social and political advantages for the country as a whole if Obama wins based on his attributes as a person. On the other hand, I don't see any significant advantage in a Clinton win. You might want to factor that in as well.

Thank you for linking to No Quarter. Before I knew of that site I thought that hillaryis44.com was the most biased fever swamp supporting Hillary Clinton on the Internet. I now see that I was mistaken. No Quarter clearly takes that title.

….Whereas your constant popping up to rebuke me for preferring Hillary is proof of your wisdom and disinterestedness. You know what I think; feel free to read the many posts here that are pro-Obama.

Dam:

When you put up a ludicrous post like this, titled as it is, that is shilling. It is not about you preferring Hill, but trying to booster her by acting as an arm of her media machine, rather than objectively looking at a fact.
I prefer Obama, and can argue why, but I am not posting nonsense like this on a blog. That is shilling, and you are acting as a shill. Don't like it? Don't shill. Perhaps try to not participate in the fulfillment of the stereotype of all bloggers as pajama-wearing wannabe journalists.

I am not 'shilling' for anyone. I don't feel strongly about Hillary from a personal standpoint (I would have preferred Edwards or Gore to either of these by a moonlight mile); I just don't trust Obama and I definitely prefer her to him. And I intend to keep saying so until I feel differently. (Note that I haven't said that your shilling for Obama is silly or indeed felt it necessary to analyze your motives or attack your reasoning. I could do so just as easily as you since I know approximately as much about you as you do about me.)

See above, and learn the definition of a word before you misuse it. And part of being a shill is that the motives are transparent.

It is not the past or that will come back to bite Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama in the ass during the general election but their policies. The biggest stumble on the campaign trail so far for Mrs. Clinton came in a debate via her answer to a question regarding drivers licenses for illegal aliens. It was not her waffling on the answer that hurt her standing, rather it was her underlying policy, (i.e., that illegals should be granted state issued drivers licenses). A majority of American disagreed with her policy, which caused her to waffle, which brought more attention to her policy, which caused her to drop in the polls.

I have not reviewed any policy statements that closely, but I believe what I have read that in general, there is not much of a difference between the policies of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. On the other hand, there is a great difference between either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. Because there is so little difference on policy, all of the debate has been personal, (who can lead on day one, who has the vision to change, etc…, etc…) without any real scrutiny on the policies.

Whoever becomes the nominee for the democrats, they will not be able to run against Mr. McCain on any personal level, (1996 notwithstanding), but will only be able to run on policy and I expect that the republicans will gain more support for their policy proposals. So, there is no need on either side to worry about the past, it doesn't matter. What matters are the policy proposals for the future and how they are viewed by the voting public.

“Dam: You're pro-Hill shilling is getting more and more silly.”

….Whereas your constant popping up to rebuke me for preferring Hillary is proof of your wisdom and disinterestedness. You know what I think; feel free to read the many posts here that are pro-Obama.

I am not 'shilling' for anyone. I don't feel strongly about Hillary from a personal standpoint (I would have preferred Edwards or Gore to either of these by a moonlight mile); I just don't trust Obama and I definitely prefer her to him. And I intend to keep saying so until I feel differently. (Note that I haven't said that your shilling for Obama is silly or indeed felt it necessary to analyze your motives or attack your reasoning. I could do so just as easily as you since I know approximately as much about you as you do about me.)

PACATRUE:
“Shifting slightly, Damozel, I definitely get the impression that you feel, not simply conflicted about your vote, which is normal, but under pressure to join some bandwagon or pilgrimage and that peer pressure, of sorts, keeps making you jump back.”

No, not so much that. I AM slightly envious of the Church of Obama. It would be nice to feel that passionate about a candidat. What can I say?

I wish I had their faith. And I am speaking from personal experience with any number of impassioned Obamacrats. I don't feel that way about any candidate.

I don't know how Dems where you are behave—possibly they are different—-but I'm in a town where there are a lot of besotted Obama supporters.

Re: The vetting. I agree totally with Mike_P that Obama is getting vetted right now, even as my little fingers dance across the keyboard.

Regarding Rezko: I've looked at the issue every way I can, and I really don't think there's anything more there. However, knowing Rezko's trial starts soon (next week?), I'm positive a more thorough “vetting” on that subject is imminent.

Currently, Hillary Clinton is throwing everything — including the kitchen sink. If it's there, Damozel, we're absolutely hearing about it right now. Furthermore, it's taking exactly the same form it would from the GOP in the general — as attacks.

We are, in fact, learning a great deal about both of them at the moment, are we not?

Also, it seems more than a little counterintuitive to claim that somehow Barack's liabilities could possibly outnumber or be worse than Hillary's. In addition to Hillary's own negatives (which approach the upper 40's in the general populace), she also has to, fairly or unfairly, be prepared to answer for her husband's foibles.

I think this desire is actually Obama's achilles heel. Democrats don't seem to be asking the hard questions not only about integrity but also about policy. They seem to fail to do so because they are caught up in the undeniable allure of the man himself.

If his policy ideas turn out to alienate enough people in the center he will most likely loose the general election. If does win the general election based on his force of personality, he will not be able to actually get his ideas passed into law.

The Presidency is no job to hire for based on emotion.

Shifting slightly, Damozel, I definitely get the impression that you feel, not simply conflicted about your vote, which is normal, but under pressure to join some bandwagon or pilgrimage and that peer pressure, of sorts, keeps making you jump back. If you feel that pressure, try to step away from the political boards and circles. It only feels like everyone wants you to join because you are running in political circles in your spare time; most people who will vote are on no bandwagon and are just making a slightly educated guess about who the best Prez would be. Once you are away from the political pressure, maybe you can just look at the two candidates and decide who you think is best. Don't be swayed by evil or wonderful supporters of a candidate. They make up about 2% of the population. Just vote your heart.

It's crunch time for me, as I am attending the Hawaii Caucus tonight. I've been supporting Obama at least since Richardson dropped out, but I will be visiting Clinton and Obama's campaign materials once again before I go to see if I should change my mind.

In fact, if we accept the supposition that the GOP would prefer to run against Senator Clinton, it would make sense to hold off on releasing any dirt, real or imagined, that they managed to dig up until after the nominee was decided (assuming it's Senator Clinton).