Yes, Obama Has Substance to Match the Charisma Thing

Of late, reporters have been asking more pointed questions about Senator Obama's specific proposals and policies should he be elected president. Such scrutiny is appropriate and welcome. It speaks to the Senator's increased stature and to the real likelihood that he will win.

Underneath the questioning, though, is an implication that Obama supporters are unduly swayed by his charisma, and that his gullible followers are swept up in a cult of personality that lacks substance. There is the implicit argument that America elected an appealing guy last time around, and that we shouldn't be seduced again.

If the Obama campaign is a cult, it includes a remarkable number of notably ungullible, notably non-follower-type people. His advisors and supporters include many of the nation's most distinguished economists, legal scholars, and political scientists. It includes a striking number of policy experts and elected politicians who worked closely with both Clintons.

Senator Obama's personal qualifications do not call to mind the towel-snapping frat boy who now occupies the nation's highest office. Senator Obama has taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and was president of the Harvard Law Review, two notable non-starstruck arenas of personal advancement. He has held elective office longer than Senator Clinton has. The two hold very similar policy positions and would employ many of the same experts in the next administration.

When you look past the position papers, I don't see that Senator Clinton has the surpassing record of legislative mastery she claims to possess. I don't see that she has greater substance as a manager, either. Hard-nosed journalist Joe Klein notes that Obama has run "a smarter, more rigorous campaign." Based on the campaign, "Obama has proved himself the best executive by far."

Today the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal , the largest paper in Wisconsin, endorsed Senator Obama. Its editorial board concluded:

The Obama campaign has been derisively and incorrectly described as more rock tour than political campaign and his supporters as more starry-eyed groupies than thoughtful voters. If detractors in either party want to continue characterizing the Obama campaign this way, they will have seriously underestimated both the electorate's hunger for meaningful change in how the nation is governed and the candidate himself. In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision. They are not mutually exclusive.

Speaking for myself, I have some very practical reasons to celebrate Barack Obama's ability to inspire people behind progressive causes. You have a better chance of being a fine candidate and president if you have this talent than if you don't. Charisma isn't necessary in a candidate, any more than height is necessary to win an NBA championship, but it helps. Hillary Clinton has had four years as the dominant front-runner to make her case. Although she began with every advantage, she has not done this as well as Senator Obama has.

This is only partly due to his superior eloquence and electability. It also reflects the reality that he is offering something important that Senator Clinton cannot.

Don't just take my word for it. Here is what many of the nation's leading historians say:

Historians for Obama

Our country is in serious trouble. The gap between the wealthy elite and the working majority grows ever larger, tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance and others risk bankruptcy when they get seriously ill, and many public schools do a poor job of educating the next generation. Due to the arrogant, inept foreign policy of the current administration, more people abroad mistrust and fear the United States than at any time since the height of the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, global warming speeds toward an unprecedented catastrophe. Many Republicans and overwhelming numbers of Independents and Democrats believe that, under George W. Bush, the nation has badly lost its way. The 2008 election thus comes at a critical time in the history of the United States and the world.

We endorse Barack Obama for president because we think he is the candidate best able to address and start to solve these profound problems. As historians, we understand that no single individual, even a president, leads alone or outside a thick web of context. As Abraham Lincoln wrote to a friend during the Civil War, "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."

However, a president can alter the mood of the nation, making changes possible that once seemed improbable. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and kept the nation united; Franklin D. Roosevelt persuaded Americans to embrace Social Security and more democratic workplaces; John F. Kennedy advanced civil rights and an anti-poverty program.

Barack Obama has the potential to be that kind of president. He has the varied background of a global citizen: his father was African, his stepfather Indonesian, his mother worked in the civil rights movement, and he spent several years of his childhood overseas. As an adult, he has been a community organizer, a law professor, and a successful politician -- both at the state and national level. These experiences have given him an acute awareness of the inequalities of race and class, while also equipping him to speak beyond them.

Obama's platform is ambitious, yet sensible. He calls for negotiating the abolition of nuclear weapons, providing universal and affordable health insurance, combating poverty by adding resources and discouraging destructive habits, investing in renewable energy sources, and engaging with unfriendly nations to ease conflicts that could otherwise lead to war. He takes more forthright stands on these issues than do his major Democratic competitors.

But it is his qualities of mind and temperament that really separate Obama from the rest of the pack. He is a gifted writer and orator who speaks forcefully but without animus. Not since John F. Kennedy has a Democrat candidate for president showed the same combination of charisma and thoughtfulness - or provided Americans with a symbolic opportunity to break with a tradition of bigotry older than the nation itself. Like Kennedy, he also inspires young people who see him as a great exception in a political world that seems mired in cynicism and corruption.

As president, Barack Obama would only begin the process of healing what ails our society and ensuring that the U.S. plays a beneficial role in the world. But we believe he is that rare politician who can stretch the meaning of democracy, who can help revive what William James called "the civic genius of the people." We invite other historians to add your name to this statement. You can do so by contacting [e-mail] and/or Ralph Luker, [e-mail] .

Manan Ahmed, Cliopatria*
Shawn Leigh Alexander, University of Kansas
Catherine Allgor, University of California, Riverside
Laura Anker, SUNY, Old Westbury
Joyce Appleby, University of California, Los Angeles
Ray Arsenault, University of South Florida

Robert Baker, Georgia State University
Lewis V. Baldwin, Vanderbilt University
Christopher Bates, California State Polytechnic, Pomona
Rosalyn Baxandall, SUNY/Old Westbury
Robert L. Beisner, American University
Doron Ben-Atar, Fordham University
William C. Berman, University of Toronto
David Blight, Yale University
Ruth Bloch, University of California, Los Angeles
Daniel Bluestone, University of Virginia
Edward J. Blum, San Diego State University
Carolyn A. Brown, Rutgers University
Mari Jo Buhle, Brown University
Paul Buhle, Brown University

Randolph Campbell, University of North Texas
Charles Capper, Boston University
Clayborne Carson, Stanford University
John Chavez, Southern Methodist University
William Cohen, Hope College
Dennis Cordell, Southern Methodist University
Mary F. Corey, University of California, Los Angeles
George Cotkin, California Polytechnic Institute
Edward Countryman, Southern Methodist University
Daniel W. Crofts, The College of New Jersey

Robert Dallek, Boston University
Jared N. Day, Carnegie Mellon University
John d'Entremont, Randolph College
Dennis C. Dickerson, Vanderbilt University
David Doyle, Jr., Southern Methodist University
David V. Du Fault, San Diego State University
W. Marvin Dulaney, College of Charleston

Gretchen Cassel Eick, Friends University
Carolyn Eisenberg, Hofstra University

J. Michael Farmer, University of Texas, Dallas
Michael Fellman, Simon Fraser University
Antonio Feros, University of Pennsylvania
Peter Filene, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Kenneth Fones-Wolf, University of West Virginia
William E. Forbath, University of Texas, Austin
Shannon Frystak, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania

Matthew Gabriele, Virginia Tech
Lloyd Gardner, Rutgers University
David Gellman, DePauw University
James Gilbert, University of Maryland
Toni Gilpin, Chicago, Illinois
Rebecca A. Goetz, Rice University
Warren Goldstein, University of Hartford
Linda Gordon, New York University
Anthony T. Grafton, Princeton University
Will Gravely, University of Denver
James Green, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Sara M. Gregg, Iowa State University
Robert Griffith, American University
Michael Grossberg, Indiana University
James Grossman, Newberry Library
Carol S. Gruber, William Paterson University
Joshua Guild, Princeton University
Roland L. Guyotte, University of Minnesota, Morris

David Hall, Harvard University
Kenneth Hamilton, Southern Methodist University
J. William Harris, University of New Hampshire
Nancy A. Hewitt, Rutgers University
Jonathan Holloway, Yale University
Jeffrey Houghtby, Iowa State University
Tera W. Hunter, Princeton University
Harold Hyman, Rice University

Maurice Jackson, Georgetown University
Lisa Jacobson, University of California, Santa Barbara
Randal Jelks, Calvin College
John Jentz, Marquette University
Benjamin H. Johnson, Southern Methodist University

David A. Johnson, Portland State University
Robert KC Johnson, Brooklyn College
Jennifer M. Jones, Rutgers University
Patrick D. Jones, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Peniel E. Joseph, Brandeis University

Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Ari Kelman, University of California, Davis
Richard H. King, University of Nottingham
Sarah Knott, Indiana University

Melinda Lawson, Union College
Steven Lawson, Rutgers University
Jackson Lears, Rutgers University
Alan Lessoff, Illinois State University
Edward T. Linenthal, Indiana University
William A. Link, University of Florida
James Livingston, Rutgers University
Paul K. Longmore, San Francisco State University
Ralph E. Luker, Cliopatria

J. Fred MacDonald, Northeastern Illinois University
Chandra Manning, Georgetown University
Norman Markowitz, Rutgers University
Kevin Mattson, Ohio University
Martha May, Western Connecticut State University
Timothy Patrick McCarthy, Harvard University
Joseph A. McCartin, Georgetown University
Robert S. McElvaine, Millsaps College
Marjorie McLellan, Wright State University
James McPherson, Princeton University
Tony Michels, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Walter Moss, Eastern Michigan University
Todd Moye, University of North Texas

Joan Neuberger, University of Texas, Austin
Michelle Nickerson, University of Texas, Dallas

David O'Brien, College of the Holy Cross
William L. O'Neill, Rutgers University

William A. Pencak, Pennsylvania State University
Claire Potter, Wesleyan University
Michael Punke, University of Montana

David Quigley, Boston College

Stephen G. Rabe, University of Texas, Dallas
Albert J. Raboteau, Princeton University
Monica A. Rankin, University of Texas, Dallas
Janice Reiff, University of California, Los Angeles
Leo Ribuffo, George Washington University
Natalie J. Ring, University of Texas, Dallas
Ruth Rosen, University of California, Berkeley
Peter Rothstein, Juniata College
Edward B. Rugemer, Yale University

Douglas C. Sackman, University of Puget Sound
Leonard J. Sadosky, Iowa State University
Nick Salvatore, Cornell University
Brian Sandberg, Northern Illinois University
John Savage, Lehigh University
Martha Saxton, Amherst College
Ellen W. Schrecker, Yeshiva University
Rachel F. Seidman, Duke University
Brett L. Shadle, Virginia Tech
James Sidbury, University of Texas at Austin
Daniel J. Singal, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Manisha Sinha, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Harvard Sitkoff, University of New Hampshire
Daniel Soyer, Fordham University
Paul Spickard, University of California, Santa Barbara
Brian Steele, University of Alabama, Birmingham
James Brewer Stewart, Macalester College
Jeffrey Stewart, George Mason University
Mary Stroll, University of California, San Diego

David Thelen, Indiana University
Jeffrey Trask, New York University
Stephenie Ambrose Tubbs, Helena, Montana
Bruce M. Tyler, University of Louisville

Siva Vaidhyanathan, University of Virginia
Kara Dixon Vuic, Bridgewater College

David J. Weber, Southern Methodist University
Barbara Weinstein, New York University
Richard Weiss, University of California, Los Angeles
Kathleen Wellman, Southern Methodist University
Daniel Wickberg, University of Texas, Dallas
Craig Steven Wilder, Dartmouth College
Margaret Williams, William Patterson University
R. Hal Williams, Southern Methodist University
David W. Wills, Amherst College
Charters Wynn, University of Texas, Austin

Susan Yohn, Hofstra University

Eli Zaretsky, New School for Social Research

*Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and, of course, do not indicate an institutional endorsement.

Comments

[patrice37]

The Clintonistas are again spinning irreconcilable notions --- in this case, that Obama supporters are (1) gullible morons and (2) out-of-touch elites. So we're to believe that Obama has generated a wave of cult-like, delusory adulation among medical researchers, lawyers, computer programmers, artists, anthropology professors, librarians, civics teachers, and others apparently robbed of their senses by advanced degrees. I, for one, probably WILL lose my senses if I hear the idiotic complaint about "substance" one more time.

[freecasey]

Anyone who has been successful in a private-sector leadership role knows that it is not him or her, but his or her people, who are the most important ingredient to his success. A leader should motivate and inspire his people, intellectually, creatively and ethically, to create the best product. Obama has demonstrated this talent, while Clinton has demonstrated the "command-a­nd-control­" style throughout her career.

All the talk about "solutions" nauseates me. I want a broad vision and ideas from Clinton and Obama during this campaign, not specific nuts and bolts policy. It scares me that either candidate would be so bold as to have their plan for health care et al set before their term. I'd rather they set up their administration, get the right people in the right seats on the bus, then come up with specifics and go to work on them.

[Herrington]

Agree freecasey, a detailed legislative docket will not survive the first congressional committee. What is needed is perseverance, and perseverance is a product of vision.

You may have noticed Apple making a creative comeback under Steve Jobs. Jobs leads exactly as you describe it should be done. How do I know? I was there at the beginning of the Macintosh.

[vsign]

I think it the evangelistic left wing of the democratic party (they call themselves progressives) and the youth who are taking over like the right wing took over the republican party in 2000. We got Bush and the Iraq War and a downward economy because of what the right wing did. I don't think it will be much different with the left wing. The center-middle ground needs to rule. Too much power in the hands of too few people backed up with moral certitude=too much danger

[bakersdozen]

You neglect to recognize that what once might have been described as "center-middle ground" no longer exists. The right has been pushed so extremely far to the right, that the true center is now vilifed as "liberal."
Because a candidate inspires fervid support and enthusiasm does not qualify his advocates as "evangelis­tic."
There is no political, social, or moral equivalency between the radical ideologues who have hijacked our country and the desire of the current Democratic candidates to begin to repair as much of the damage that gang of criminals has done.

[finally]

No where does the support of Warren Buffett for Senator Obama fit in? Sen. Obama does not represent the "evangelical left wing" of the dem. party - his appeal is much broader than that; just look at the way the vote broke in VA, including independents!

[drlenamarie]

Thank you for saying exactly what needed to be said.

[Politihal]

Thanks for your list of gullible people.

[kingshmoopy]

Honestly, how can you be so dismissive? These historicans have, obviously, researched this decision very thoroughly and, because they happen to disagree with you, you just write it all off?

[ACunningham]

Dear Mr. Pollack,

As a historian, I found your article heart warming. I was also delighted to read so many familiar and honourable names in my field who, like myself, support Obama for President!

Peace!

[Teddy12]

After reading some of your posts, the fact you refer to yourself as honorable is very amusing. We would be delighted to learn of your honorable credentials as a historian. Please inform us of your achievements in the field of history so we may afford you the respect you obviously deserve.

[SamThornton]

Teddy, Teddy, Teddy, get a grip. ACunningham didn't refer to himself or herself as "honorable," but characterized those who were listed in the original post as "honourabl­e."

As for bio reading, I note you are a committed Clinton supporter. So what? It's not that which might call your opinions into question so much as boners like the one noted above.

Best wishes anyway.

[Walterba]

We hired plenty of bright articulate MBA's with no experience. One hires somemone with a track record of accomplishment to the a job if you want success. 40 years of experience will tell you that.This is a first principle of any undertaking. It is obvious beyond dispute. It is immutable, it is uncontrovertible. BO has nothing, again I say nothing, in his background which would lead one to believe in an eternity that he has the experience for President of the USA. Graduated from Law school in 1983. For 10 years in non descript jobs in the lower tier of a law firm,i.e. worked under supervision. 1993 to 2004, part time Law Professor at U Chi Law School, community organizer( read midnight basketball) state senator with a huge array of "present" votes. Senator for 2 years, runs for president. Give me a break. With this guy we are on a yellow brick road looking for OZ. We aint going to get him. We're looking at another Bush but with the ability to speak in sentences. If we were headhunting for President, BO would not even qualify for an interview.

[mthespian]

I fail to understand how people can buy into this load of *. President of Harvard Law Review? More years in elected office than the Senator from New York. Check the bills they've successfully authored or cosponsored over the last couple of years (if you choose to go back further, look at his in the IL legislature by comparison to hers in the Senate). Examine the topics they have addressed. It's a close call, but the edge (in my opinion) is clearly for Obama.

The fact that you perpetuate the "present" vote meme from the Clinton campaign without understanding its significance in Illinois politics makes it sound suspiciously like your opinion has been provided by Hillary's campaign with little research on your own. I suggest you take a look around a bit. Some of the strong support from people who've worked with him on political issues may surprise you.

[foreffectivegovernment]

How many of these "Historians" made their choice the way this "Legislator" did?

I watched a very interesting interview on Real Time with Bill Mahr on HBO on 2-15-2008.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) Missouri, elected for the first time to the United States Senate in November 2006, explained why she was supporting Senator Barack Obama to be President of the United States. She is the only one of the 16 female Senators who now is.

These are her words. “It was a little nudging from my 18 year old Daughter.” “It was Maddie in my face.” “She, (Maddie), said, ‘How can you look yourself in the mirror, you’re a slug, you’re playing it politically safe, I believe in this guy, I’ll never speak to you again if you don’t stand up and have some courage.’ “
“It was pretty intense, she was right, it was like a cold bucket of water on my head, she was absolutely right.”

Usually it's the parent that leads the children into a cult. Look at Bob Jones, David Koresch, etc.

This is a complete reversal of roles.

[rbe1]

Not to mention the fact that she hates Hillary Clinton.

[Teddy12]

Ms. McCaskill should return all the money she was given by Emily's List who played a huge role in her election win. Speak of biting the hand that feeds you.......­....

[Fabienne]

So Emily's list only supports female candidates who vote exactly as they are told to vote? That's certainly a great step forward for independent women.

[December7]

The fact that Obama taught constitutional law for 11 years at the most conservative law school in the country is enough to get my vote. America is not short of policy wonks, what is lacking is ethics, integrity, accountability and national grounding of politics based on the constitution. That goes for domestic policy such as health care to grave issues such as war.

[Marrob]

Constitutional law at the university of chicago and yet, he voted for the patriot act? and he gets your vote? never say obama supporters are well informed voters.

[finally]

Sen Clinton is the only dem candidate from the entire raqce who has refused to sign a pledge to restore the constitution to it's pre-Bush state. What is her stance on signing statements?

[Teddy12]

My brother was Dean of Business Law at two universities including the University of Arkansas . Can he be President? I would like to stay at the White House.

[mthespian]

uh --- so did she. And she was willing to vote for the initially presented version. He pushed for amendments to improve it as much as possible.

[finally]

Exactly - Sen. CLintons many qualities are unitmately suited to make her a great senate leader - maybe we can all agree we are in dire need of that. She is, however, way too divisive to be a leader (i.e. some one people want to follow- look at indeps, and think about which GOP-er ever to be re-elected would want to be on record as haven given her a victory of any significance? For Mr. Edwards, fighting includes planning and the ability to win, not just shouting and showing boxing gloves....

[superterrificdelegate]

I think the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel hit the nail on the the head. The Clinton campaign is asking dems to make a false choice between substance and charisma. Obama's ability to communicate with energy and passion is the result of what happens when a deeply thoughtful person is comfortable in his/her own skin, and this is at the core of his ability to connect to voters. With all the documentation available about his ideas (his books, his Web site) there is really no excuse to attack him as being shallow on lacking in substance.

But for any doubters, check out the speech Barack gave to progressive Christian leaders in 2006. I choose it because it is not one of the hot button issues in the democratic primary. Obama gives one of the most thoughtful, circumspect, and well informed explorations of the relationship between faith and public life I've heard from any elected official since Senator Mark Hatfield.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/

[Marrob]

Or their just a damn good con-man.

[SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia]

And whom would be better, in your opinion? How has he tried to con anyone?

[bauersox]

A list of people -- clearly self-important enough that they think they can tell us how to vote -- is supposed to "prove" that Obama has substance? Are you serious?

Do all of these teacher believe Obama is offering universal health care? Can't they read? He's not.

[sn]

Clinton's "mandated" health care was a great debacle in 1990s and will be a great debacle now. Do you think "mandated" plan will pass the congress? Clinton will have to severely water down her health care plan to get it passed in the congress. Her plan will look more like Obama's by the time it (if???) is passed in the congress. Talking about policy specifics is irrelevant at this time because to get anything passed in the congress, both Clinton and Obama will have to find compromising solutions. Such a compromise will be v difficult in case of Clinton, given how much republicans hate her.

[bauersox]

"Talking about policy specifics is irrelevant at this time ..."

I disagree. We need to know what the candidate intends, what the candidate would like to accomplish in a perfect world. The idea is to set very clear goals and then come as close as possible to achieving them.

[bauersox]

You're wrong about that. She has shown she can work very nicely with the other side of the aisle.

[SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia]

He is, however, offering a way to mend two generations of polarized politics that has the best chance of getting real universal health care. Who else can say that?

And when you point to a bunch of demonstrably smart people and scream that they are stupid . . . well, you don't have to be stupid to see what that means.

[bauersox]

"He is, however, offering a way to mend two generations of polarized politics that has the best chance of getting real universal health care. Who else can say that?"

Who else would *want* to? It's gibberish. Obama's platform as it reads now does not aspire to universal health care. Furthermore, it's naive for him to think that even if a health care plan is offered at a low price that people will buy it if they are not forced to. It shows the sort of ignorance of human behavior with respect to money. But it's not surprising when you remember that the Obamas admit they were maxed out on their credit cards at one point.

[MPeter]

Thank you for putting the media in its place. These are the same people who were calling Obama naive and never gave his a chance past Iowa. Then when he succeeded, they started claiming he was too professorial. Now they have come up with this foolish claim that he is a cult-like leader who has mesmerized his supporters. The same media that had crowned HRC as the inevitable nominee--a shoe-in. The media has been wrong on Obama so many times I stopped listening to MSM.

[Marrob]

yes, thanks for putting the media in it's place. how funny is that? the media has been kissing obama's ass this whole time. wake up please.

[bauersox]

I don't recall reading that Obama was professorial in the least. The story has always been that there has been an absence of substance and detail in his pronouncements.

[JazzNPG]

Alright, I hate to be critical of voters but I have to say I hear that argument alot, "I don't see the substance in Obama." The problem with the argument is that the substance is there if you are actually interested; and this argument is starting to boil down to either A) People who are too lazy to actually check their positions, hear the entire speech, etc. or B) People who are parroting a Clinton talking point.
Now, I don't agree with every position of either of these candidates but I only know that I don't because I've actually read what their positions are. I understand that Obama doesn't go into the details in a rally speech but neither does Clinton (How long did it take to get clarity on the garnishment issue?) But let's at least be honest; this decision is too critical to not be.
I'm saddened that so many people are getting all their information from video clips and sound bites. I would hope after nearly 8 years of "the guy you want to have a beer with" that Americans would do more than just vote on a name brand (Clinton) or the warm fuzzies (Obama) ...we should actually make an honest effort to know what we're voting for.
BTW I chose Obama...an­d I'm not cult member nor am I not a 20 something.

[CitizenFace]

My sentiments exactly. I'm constantly hearing people complain that Obama "lacks substance.­" I've determined such statements are just expressions of laziness on the part of the voter.

Most people won't take the time to seek out details, they expect specifics to be delivered in 30-45 second responses in debates. And then at the end of every debate, they complain that they didn't hear enough specifics and clamor for another, and another.

[BitJam]

It's not necessarily laziness. It is a sound bite, or as the Republicans call them, a "talking point". The speaker is not being lazy, the speaker is banking on some of the listeners being too lazy to see if there is any substance behind the sound bite. Rove would be proud.

[bauersox]

"Most people won't take the time to seek out details, they expect specifics to be delivered in 30-45 second responses in debates."

Clinton manages to deliver specifics, so why can't Obama do it?

[SwingStateVeteran]

zzzzzzzzzz­zzzzzzzzzz­zzzzzzzzzz­zzzzzzzzzZ­ZZZZZZZZZ

[drblack]

We know Hillary is sold out to and controlled by the Big Money interests,
There is every chance that Obama isn't.

[bauersox]

Tell us, which big interests are controlling her, and in what way?

[SicPlurisPoenaPrestantia]

Big Prosthetics. They made her vote for the "Just say yes to clusterbombs!" act.

I mean, how else can you explain that vote?

[nage1]

Thanks. After all the unsubstantiated claims that we Obama supporters view him as a god, ignore experience, and support patriarchy (talking to you, Erica).

I've been a political junkie for five years, spending at least an hour a day researching current events. It was only a few weeks before Iowa that I leaned towards Obama, because of the issues. (like the 100% LCV rating) Before that I supported Mark Warner and Tom Vilsack (they were, after all, popular guvs)

I read, months before the election got heated, that Obama sponsored global warming legislation with McCain and Lieberman, which is certainly better than nothing.

I am also a democratic partisan, believing that Obama is more electable and would benefit Dems by being at the top of the ticket. Polls showing that Obama would carry Colorado while Hillary can not, also sway me.

Not all of Hillary's troubles is her fault. But I don't feel that being in the white house with Bill or being the subject of false republican attacks are reasons to support someone.

But what caught me was a '96 Frontline documentary showing Clinton providing gov-funded trips for Democratic donors. I'm not saying Obama won't do it, but I think he's had experience in ethics reform and would be best in that regard.