Leaders must be able to assess and judge situations and use all of the tools available to provide effective leadership. Character flaws, little and big, diminish their effectiveness, either because they lack the ability to assess properly, or because they lack the ability to use the right tool.

When Obama choose to vote "present" he was using a tool. That tool could have helped lead him to a position of more power, INCREASING his effectiveness; he is not SOFT in his pro-choice stance - he is an intelligent man that balances issues and needs to get to a desired outcome.

Hillary may have used the sledge hammer in her tool box simply to prove that she wasn't afraid to use it. The needs of the country at that time were clear to me - I worry that she didn't see it the same way, and need an answer about her vote that led to war with Iraq. I am somewhat appeased because she was the senator from NY - the very site of the tragedy - but I NEED MORE to assuage my doubts about her ability to make sound decisions, not based (at all) upon her need to appear strong. The war in Iraq is disastrous - and I count myself among those who saw it coming. Hilary would need to give me something to sink my teeth into - until then, Obama looks like the candidate most reflective of my values.

One more thing - one issue voters (as in NOW, anti-abortion, taxes, etc.) get on my nerves - nothing is so simple. And people who ascribe the rants of one person to a whole gender, race, political party, etc. reflect ignorance as well. Let's take the debate to a higher level.

Abortion on Obama??? Is it not a bit too late? I mean, ha was born already quite a few years ago...

This is nothing more than NOW trying to assert itself into an election that has nothing to do with abortion. If Roe v Wade wasn't' overturned with a Republican White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, it never will happen if Obama is President - they know that but if they don't scare up some controversy their ability to raise funds will trickle to nothing.

Sorry Now but you need to find another issue to get contributions - cause attacking Obama is just not working.

NOW is playing gender politics; in the past they supported Obama in his Illinois races. It is sad to note that so many women ignore facts like: (1) Hillary has taken more money from lobbyists than any Republican, and certainly more than any real Democrat; (2) Rupert Murdock raised monney for Hillary. And in the media controlled "debates" little attention has been given to real issues, and Hillary has been given soft lobs to score with -- on things where she has nothing different to say than Obama. But a big issue with me is her deviousness. She talks one fight, joins another all too often. (And if she was "tricked," "fooled" or misled, then perhaps -- just maybe -- she isn't quite as smart as it is claimed for her. Perhaps the difficulty she had in passing the bar exam should be noted and thought about.)

NOW is certainly in danger of tarnishing their reputation by false, misleading attacks against someone who they should be thrilled with as a candidate.

What on earth has abortion to do with an election, or for that matter even religion.
Gosh, this is supposed to be America, a progressive land, but it is far from it. So many hypocrites. We have way too many people
already and if people are too stupid to use birth control, then there is abortion. 75% of the people support this measure and the civilized rest of the world. USA - your are hopeless.

ha! NOW? The same folks who called women traitors if they don't vote for Hill. No thanks. I'll take Obama or Edwards had he not dropped out.

I have no problem with a woman in the WH. NOW wants any woman in the WH and that, to me, is simple radical feminist bias on par with the evangilical nutjobs who want to reduce women to a truly subserviant role and rewrite the constitution to conform with the "living God" to quote Huckabee.

I believe in a womans right to choose and I feel that NOW is a radical group of manhaters who don't care that I support that right.

Most of us understood that Bush would attack Iraq as soon as he could get away with it. Many members of Congress also understood it and voted against it. At best, Hillary was out of touch with the rest of us when she voted to give Cheney the authorization of use of force in Iraq. She still is out of touch.

I have no problem with a female POTUS. Or an African American one. What I am listening for is dedication to principles and ideals that are foundational to our country and indicate that POTUS will lead us in those directions. Further, I think that accountability for this administrations many egregious crimes is an absolute must for regaining America's status.

I am hearing consistent principled commentary from Obama, not from Hillary, and niether of them are speaking to the need to aggressively engage the worst criminal presidency in modern history.

As an Independant who is always treated by both parties like a Dem, I am trying to find a way to vote MY conscience in all of this. It would be great if I could find a candidate that puts their conscience before their career but Kucinich was run off early on because he threatens all the career politicians...

Hillary definitely hasn't and isn't voting her conscience and won't get my vote. Not sure about Obama yet but I would love to have a viable third party that truly represented my concerns.

NOW is a very bigoted group!

You will NEVER meet a better person than Barack Obama.

You are attacking him on this issue when Hillary VOTED FOR THE WAR!

What are you thinking???

NOW, you will need to gather all of your members as well as recruit new ones to help Hill win an election. No one will support her, or your tactics. Hello Prez McCain...!

Per Taylor Marsh, here's Ambassador Wilson on Hillary, Obama, and THE Resolution:

""Well, I think the fact that's [the war authorization resolution] dominated the narrative is an indication of how little people really understand the dynamics of the debate as it was going on at the time.

And the people making a lot of hay over this weren't there. I was there. I was fighting the fight. I looked to the left of me. I looked to the right of me. I didn't see Barack Obama anywhere.

I was out there and there is nobody who can deny that. ... I didn't talk to Edwards about it because he was a co-sponsor of that particular resolution, whereas a lot of us were trying to fight for more restrictive language. Being in the minority, you couldn't get that restrictive language at that time. So what happened the day after the bill was passed?

Hillary Clinton and Robert Byrd went down and submitted another bill which further restricted, attempted to restrict the ability for the president to act.

But in actual fact, those who were there at the debate will remember that the American people and the U.S. Congress were sold on this resolution not because the president wanted to go to war, because he said publicly, I do not want this resolution to go to war. I want this resolution so I can get to the United Nations and get intrusive inspections. That's what Colin Powell said. That's what the president of the United States said and that's what they got. They got a resolution that permitted the president of the United States to go to the U.N. and get intrusive inspections.

The great betrayal of the America people is not in that Resolution. It was in the president not allowing the inspections to reach their natural conclusions. He short circuited the process. That is the betrayal of the country. That is the betrayal of the Congress. That's the betrayal of the American people. That's the betrayal of the world.""


http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26818

Thanks to NOW for pointing out again that Senator Obama has often been an absentee senator. It would appear that when it comes down to the wire he cannot make a decision. This is of great concern for someone who wants the opportunity to make life and death decisions involving you and me. This approach reminds me of the Reagan and Bush styles of leadership - let those around you make the decisions. On the other hand, Senator Clinton's Senate voting record is excellent We need someone strong, as well as pro-choice. And, by the way, I am somewhat surprised that the The Huffington Post permits such vicious name-calling, hatefulness and sexism in lieu of reasoned comments.

Another great reason NOT to support Hillary. If this kind of radical nut jobs are supporting her.
When I went to the polls tonight All the Obama signs were ripped down off the fence leading up to the polling place, and Hillary signs were in their place. People who will do that, are mentally Ill.

Then again, I think we all are being as we continue to elect the same kind of people who work only for the corporations. Hillary, Obama, McCain, Romney, doesnt matter, its Corporate first, and Corporate last, screw the people.

wow, now attacking Obama is going to do the same as if Pat Robertson attacked him. It will only increase his supporter base. Especially after that whack job New York Now comment about him. Now has gone from a good organization supporting womens rights to a total flake or an organization. At least the people who are higher up are.

Why don't they rename themselves YESTERDAY. If NOW's goal is to alienate themselves from the next generation of feminist women, mission accomplished. Feminism doesn't require women to be pro-women, it requires gender equality.

These baseless attacks sound more and more shrill and, frankly, sexist. Obama has a 100% voting record from planned parenthood and the support of long time NARAL head Kate Michalman. If a female candidate were smeared in the way NOW has repeatedly smeared Obama, NOW would justifiably complain.

Also, the voters who succumb to this nonsense ought to think long and hard about the implications for the pro-choice movement, if people like Obama are punished for voting how they are asked to vote by Planned Parenthood.