I just watched the DVD "Primary Colors" (starred John Travolta) and got good education on how the Clinton political machine works. The Clintons do not like to lose and they will do anything at any cost to win.

Folks- lets keep it real

1. Hillary, or any candidate showing feelings is not weakness. For one thing-she didn't "break down" (see the tape if you have such short memories)
2) those of you who dislike her will find fault with her either way- if she doesn't show feeling, she's a robot; if she does- she's a crybaby

To cut to the chase- no matter how you color it, (no pun intended)-Obama is a novice senator who is a good orator
(using prepared stump speeches)- but not a great debator. His positions are lifted almost whole cloth from Hillary's- so, as far as I can see- there is nothing original he adds to the campaign aside from vague promises of changes and 'hope". He uses the word 'we' when it comes to "change"- but the only "we there is in the process is whether "we' vote for him-after that HE gets to wield the executive power of the presidency--and I don't think he is ready for it.

You have minimized Hillary's experience- but her experience both in the white house was not that of a passive first lady and her senate experience since has shown her to be quite capable of working with both parties- not just "fighting" right wingers.

Please- those of you entranced with obamas smile, pretty family photos and semi-charismatic presentation of vaguities- look at what he has done to date and ask the media to ask questions that will better define him. He wants to remain a tabula rasa, a blank slate- the better to appeal to people who can then, simply, project their fantasies into him such as 'he will unify us, he will make the world feel better about us, there will be a different world once he is in office and, for the whites "we will no longer be thought of as racist and there will be redemption for the past history of black enslavement. Don't let thim continue with this crap unquestioned- lets ask him (and ask the media to ask him) what he plans to do, how he plans to do it, how hands on will he be? (he's said he plans to be a kind of philosopher king/preacher and leave the trench fighting to others"- but nobody calls him on statements like this- and WHY should he be chosen as the implementer of chage over anyone else, given his philosophical propensities and lack of experience?

Don't we deserve a president who is not trying to simply be, as he said, a "rider" on the "wave of change" that this country desires. Some politicians ride on the coattails of others- but Obama is trying to parlay the inital mass hysteria in regard to a likeable black candidate into a pinnacle of personal power. That, to me, is manipulative and the definition of hubris.

p.s. those of you who condemn clintonian politics- please keep in mind that his "great unifier" approach (in the beginning of his campaign) was planned by a political team composed largely of people who helped Clinton in his campaigns. Please- for the sake of our country- don't confuse inexperience with "purity of intentions"- Obama is as political as any of them-he wants power- the question is: what will he do with it if he gets it- ??

A leapfrogger is exactly what I'm looking for in a candidate for President. It means he hasn't had the time to become part of the Washington machine and sell his soul to the special interests - as Hillary has. It means that he has a much better chance of remaining true to his convictions and working for the good of the average American (not the average corporation, industry trade group, lobbyist, etc.). Obama is my choice BECAUSE he's a leapfrogger.

To Bill (and others of similar convictions)

you equate leapfrogging with purity of intentions?

take a course in logic, please.

Obama is not a saint (altho some of his followers deify him, already).

The system will not dissolve if Obama becomes president/ He will have to work and accomodate to various interest groups, right wingers, etc., the same as any President

Please define the 'average american, for me, please. The very word average denotes a statistical computation, not a real person. If you think he will be more "true" to your beliefs (whatever they are), then I would really like to know what YOURS are. Maybe, then, the rest of us MIGHT be able to get a handle on what Obama really believes in----because he sure aint telling (so far) and I think your belief in him is based, as benjamin said, on fantasied projections.

The more obama defines himself, the less he will be able to be "all things for all people". It's happening already in South Carrolina where he (and the African Americans who vote for him mainly because of their hunger to elect a black they think whites might accept because of his professed role as the "great unifier") are defining him as a black candidate,identified with traditional black interests.

By the way, before you blame this racial divide on the Clintons for having the audacity to challenge Obamas "historic"run for the presidency, let me remind you of the Media's constant polarizing of this "race" (no pun intended) and the fact that Obamas is appealing to black voters to turn out for him because (to them) he exemplifies (I think falsely) Martin Luther's " I have a dream". This is not racial politics, this is not manipulative--"give me a break!) Martin Luther king dreamed of a nation that did not divide along racial lines-not one where a black candidate (like obama) used race to win a State primary.

We are a country of different races and, while we should all vote for the best, more experienced candidate irrspective of race, this, unfortunately is not always the case. People do take race into consideration and sometimes, whether they are black or white, they give precedence to this factor. To prefer a candidate who shares your characteristics, even if that characteristic is only skin color is a racial preference- but it is not of itself racist unless you demean the other candidate for not sharing the melanin density of your skin.

. Bill Clinton has already said (although this statement gets little press) he would support a black candidate if one were chosen- I have yet to hear this from Obama .

p.s. For those of you who emphasize his 'being against the War "from the start- let me only say that it is a far cry from making self-serving statements as a STATE legislator to casting votes that count as a Senator. Since Obama has been elected Senator (in a race, by the way, that was a shoo-in for him)-his voting record on the war has not be consistent with his previous anti-war rhetoric.

All of this just goes to show that when you are in a position of real power- rhetoric gives way to a more pragmatic approach-and obama will no exception to this axiom- ahould he ever be elected.

Correction:

"Bill Clinton has already said (although this statement gets little press) he would support a black candidate if one were chosen- I have yet to hear this from Obama :should be changed to:

Bill Clinton has already said (although this statement gets little press) he would support a black candidate if one were chosen- I have YET TO HEAR A SIMILAR STATEMENT in regard to a white candidate from Obama . .

CORRECTION: The term should be "roll dem bones"- not Toll dem bones.

(Ask Not for whom the Bell Tolls, America, if obama wins thsi election-it tolls for thee!)