Why I'll Be Voting for Barack Obama

As you may know, I'm running for the United States Senate in Oregon because I'm really worried about the direction of the country. We face an awe-inspiring quintuple challenge of ending the war, stopping global warming, combating runaway economic inequality, reforming the health care system, and preventing the national debt from soaring out of control. We need to get moving on all of those issues -- and we needed to do so yesterday. To meet those challenges, we need political leaders who will be willing to take risks, willing to call for sacrifice, and be able to persuade the American people that their sacrifices will not be in vain.

That's why I'm voting for Barack Obama.

Oh, I know there are darned good arguments on the other side. Hey, I was an Edwards guy; I can recite the arguments against Obama in my sleep. No, his health care plan isn't as good as Hillary's; we do have to require everyone to have health insurance (or go with single payer), or the math doesn't work. He's voted for at least one ugly "tort reform" bill, and has made unnerving comments about the civil justice system. And yes, he did say very disturbing things about Ronald Reagan. Sure, the Clintons exaggerated it - but what does it mean to say that for years, the Republicans were the party of "ideas"? Slashing taxes for rich people is an original idea? And what does it mean to say people welcomed Reagan as a response to "the excesses of the '60s and '70s"? What "excesses"? Medicare? The Clean Air Act?

But Barack Obama has been willing to take risks. He did, in fact, oppose the war from the beginning. No, he wasn't in or even running for the Senate in 2002, but I bet he was already thinking about it. He recently made some dangerously sensible remarks about Iran, "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior." He's been willing to risk the Republican battle-cry of "no new taxes" by emphasizing the need to start applying the Social Security tax to incomes above $100,000 (though perhaps with a sort of doughnut hole for incomes below $200,000.)

Finally, I think the very fact that he has inspired such an impassioned following increases the likelihood that he will take the risks that have to be taken. People from cross-sections of society that have been disillusioned by conventional politics are inspiring by his campaign. Leaders respond to their followers. If Obama's elected, he'll know that millions of voters are counting on him, not just to do a decent job, but to make a big, thumping difference. He won't want to let them down.

Now, I know there are excellent arguments for Hillary Clinton. She knows, possibly better than Obama, what's wrong with the country, and she knows what we need to do to fix it; January 21 New York Times article made that very clear. I will quote much of the article below, because I think it is worth reading, partly because I agree with every word she says (and every thought attributed to her) in these passages:

Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.

She said that economic excesses -- including executive-pay packages she characterized as often "offensive" and "wrong" and a tax code that had become "so far out of whack" in favoring the wealthy -- were holding down middle-class living standards.

Interviewed between campaign appearances in Los Angeles on Thursday, she said those problems were also keeping the United States economy from growing as quickly as it could.

"If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market," Mrs. Clinton said. "And we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced."

She added: "I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market."

[..]

"Inequality is growing," Mrs. Clinton said. "The middle class is stalled. The American dream is premised on a growing economy where people are in a meritocracy and, if they're willing to work hard, they will realize the fruits of their labor."

[..]

Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign initiated the interview, can speak in both fine detail and sweeping historical terms about the economy -- almost as would a policy adviser, which she essentially was for a long time. When talking about the middle class, she divides the decades since World War II into two periods, using the same cutoff point that many economists do.

In the first period, from 1946 to 1973, the pay of most workers rose steadily. The income of the median family -- the one earning less than half of all other families and more than half of all others -- more than doubled during those years, to almost $50,000, in inflation-adjusted terms, according to Census Bureau data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal group in Washington.

Since 1973, the income of the median family has grown only about 25 percent.

During the earlier period, Mrs. Clinton said, the share of workers in labor unions grew, allowing workers to win raises and benefits that they can rarely win on their own. Marginal tax rates on the affluent were "confiscatory" by today's standards, she said. (In the early 1970s, the top rate, which applied to income above $1 million in today's terms, was 70 percent; the top rate now is 35 percent.)

Jobs once paid enough that only one parent in many families needed to work, saving them from expenses like day care. And not only did the federal government invest in public goods like the highway system, but companies also invested more in communities than they do today. In Rochester, for example, Kodak helped build hospitals and schools.

"You had a corporate ethos, that, because of the more self-contained American economy, was really focused on community," Mrs. Clinton said. "There was a sense of multiple obligations. It wasn't just to one's shareholders. It was also to one's employees, to one's community."

Rarely have I read anything so impressive about an American politician. I felt completely at home with that Hillary Clinton. She's read the same history I have. (Since she's a bit older than I am, and she has directly experienced more of it too.) She's come to the same conclusions. She knows this stuff. She could be a great president.

So why am I voting for Barack Obama?

I'm voting for Barack Obama largely because I wonder whether Hillary Clinton is willing to take the political risks she'd need to take to act on what she knows.

Let's look at the subject of tax policy. Hillary Clinton acknowledges that wealthy Americans used to pay staggeringly high tax rates. She knows that the activist government we used to have was funded by those taxes. But in this campaign, she has offered nothing bolder on the tax front than repealing Bush's tax cuts for the richest 1% - something we all know won't be enough to pay for the kind of investments we'll need in renewable energy, in health care for the uninisured, and for Medicare and Social Security when the baby boomers retire. In fact, she has viciously attacked Obama for suggesting -- as Peter DeFazio does, as John Edwards did, as I do -- that people who make over $1 million a year should pay Social Security taxes on all their income, rather than just the first $100,000.

Yes, I know there is a technical argument against lifting the cap. Technically, Social Security itself, if it were truly a self-contained system, would be in good shape for decades. But it's hard to see how the Federal government is going to repay what it has borrowed from Social Security. Since much of the borrowing from Social Security was for the purpose of giving tax cuts to the wealthy, asking the wealthy to pay Social Security taxes is a reasonable way to ensure that promised benefits are actually paid.

And anyway, Clinton didn't make a technical argument against Obama. She just screamed "trillion-dollar tax increase!" -- ignoring the fact that it would only affect people who make over $100,000, ignoring the huge obligations we have to fulfill.

And let's look at that troublesome subject of the war. I can't really excuse anyone for voting for the war. Even if you believed Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction," did you believe they would use them while U.N. weapons inspectors were on the ground? And if the idea was that we were supposed to invade any hostile country with weapons of mass destruction, why not invade North Korea first? Those are among the questions the Democrats should have asked George Bush, and they should have voted against the war unless and until they got good answers.

Then there's her vote for the resolution characterizing Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Anyone who cast that vote was taking a huge risk that George Bush would see it as a green light for war. Jim Webb understood that. Hillary Clinton ignored that risk, in the interests of wanting to look "tough on Iran."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." I fear Hillary Clinton's fear. I fear that her actions as president would too often be based on fear -- fear of losing the next election, fear of the next Republicans attack, fear of whatever goblins Mark Penn has conjured up in his latest poll.

I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe that he has the self-confidence to base his presidency on hope, rather than fear. And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I'd rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

But if Hillary Clinton becomes our party's nominee, I'll support her. And if she becomes president, I will do whatever I can to help her become a great president. I'll just take that New York Times article along whenever I get a chance to see her. I'll wave it at her and say, "Madame President, I know that you know what to do. So, as a little Oregon shoe company likes to say - 'Just Do It!'"

________________________________________________________________________________
You can learn more about Steve Novick and his campaign for US Senate at www.novickforsenate.org

Comments

[fredamae]

Thanks Steve! I support you and here is why.... I get the Distinct Pleasure of casting my vote for you, Mr. Novick! I am proud to be your supporter. You are Not "just another politician".
Steve, you are smart, fair, progressive, thoughtful, original and you are ACCESSIBLE to your future constituents. If you are not familiar with an issue, you say so. You ask questions, engage the people you speak with and apparently you do something that closely resembles thoroughly researching an issue before you make a decision about it. You not only Have common sense, but you are also Not afraid to use it. What a refreshing candidate.
You have made me feel like I am really a part of my Government process and Sir, that feels great!

[Mormondude]

You complain that Hillary's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts isn't enough money.

And yet earlier in the piece you extol Obama for his plan to increase the SS cap. Why the double standard? The economists tell us that even if we completely ELIMINATE the cap, it won't save Social Security. Not even close. It would only add an extra 7 years of solvency before the system goes bankrupt.

That's not a solution. And he has actually come out strongly against pretty much every other avenue to save Social Security.

NO raising the retirement age.
NO cutting benefits.
NO private accounts or investments to increase the return.

There's nothing left but to raise SS taxes on EVERYONE, not just the rich. And we all know what that portends for our grandkids. They'll be paying 70% of their income to the federal government, just to keep the entitlements funded.

Raising taxes CANNOT be the only solution. It's extremely selfish and unloads MUCH too heavy of a burden on our grandkids.

That's not leadership. It's not making a tough decision.

If you want to see someone that took a tough stand on Social Security, Bush did it. He's the only one that has done it. And Democrats viciously attacked him for it, without offering a single alternative plan. They obstructed needed reform just because it was politically convenient to do so.

I can understand opposing reform because you have a BETTER plan. But to do so without offering anything at all is unconscionable. It's no wonder that so many voters are cynical and don't believe that Washington is CAPABLE of solving such problems.

[rwilliams1961]

I have major issues with Bill Clinton, but I have rarely had issues with Hillary. She is brilliant, more or equally informed as anybody else I've heard speak in the public forum, and she seems to have the right priorities - less for one.

Her first priority is Hillary. This consistently reveals itself in small ways.

Most egregious and obvious was her vote on Iraq. Giving Bush that much power was either naïve or political. Hillary is not naïve. Ditto on her Iran vote.

I would make two more points. Following Bush, this country will have to make big changes. That requires setting aside the polls and risking one's political legacy. Hillary's senate career and campaign show that she will not do that. She will work to be remembered as a president who did not make mistakes, but a president cannot make substantial progress if they are unwilling to risk mistakes. And Hillary's senate voting record (including Iraq) shows that she is unwilling to take those chances.

The second point is that Hillary will face unprecedented opposition. The Republican party has had a target on the Clinton name for fifteen years. They will use the Clintons to energize their base, and in the process make her presidency untenable. Thus, it's likely that she will be unable to accomplish any of her goals, despite friendships created in the senate.

I do not wish Hillary ill. But I do wish this country the best. That will take the political capital that comes with broad public support. Bill Clinton garnered that with his youthful energy, new ideas, and innate ability to read the public will. This campaign has shown that, regrettably for her campaign and, yes, possibly the country, Hillary, despite her depth of knowledge and detailed solutions, does not possess these.

[drblack]

Hillary gets more money from health insurance companies than any other member of congress.
Her health care plan will FORCE everyone to buy health insurance from these companies andit will make them a gigantic profit.
If Clinton's health care proposal eliminated for profit health insurance I would be for it.
Insurance is a big pool of public money so why should someone profit off it?
All insurance should be owned and controlled by the people and it couldn't ever be used for any other pupose. This is what got social security in trouble when President Johnson borrowed from it to hide the cost of Viet-Nam.
I want a Democrat in the White House and Obama will beat McCain and there is much doubt if Hillary will.
Independents will only vote against Hillary not for MCain and Obama has shown that he can win big in red states, Hillary can't.
I want to win in 2008 so i choose Obama, but I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee.

[anghiari]

Mr. Novick,

the very real question is that Hillary Clinton hasn't a clue what is wrong with her...that is the premier question when looking for a leader...she follows in the footsteps of the Bushman, who hasn't a clue who he is or his place in the world...Few of you ever dissect the fact that Hillary spent years eeking out the other women in her husband's life and then denying they meant anything to him ...and nobody seems to think there was ever any impact on her psyche having a serial philanderer as a husband. And this man eventually humiliated her in front of the world and nobody assumes there was any damage that would or could frame her view of life....so interesting

[drblack]

Clinton didn't even show up to vote on the FISA bill while Obama did and voted against allowing lawbreaking Telecoms and Bush off the hook for their lawbreaking.
Both Clintons sold out to Big Money a long time ago.
With Obama we have a chance for a progressive who is his own person and not totally corporate controlled.
If Hillary can't show up for a very important vote she is not fit to be President.

[trinity29]

Steve

you have made an excellent thoughtful argument. You displayed the two candidates' positions as best as you could and gave merit to where merit is due. In some instances I found you to be overly generous in your admiration of Hillary and admonishment of Obama, but I forgave you since you were trying to show a balanced perspective. :)

You have identified the critical issue of the two candidacy. Obama said it best the other night that there is no lack of good ideas but the political will to implement it. As long as Clinton is supported by lobbyists, she cannot implement all that she wants to do. Clinton also has been inconsistent with her rhetoric and her voting record. She has distorted multiple facts of her own record and of Obama's. Perhaps that regular political warfare. But this season the voters are a bit tired of regular political warfare.

[ljsfolly]

I am glad you have made the choice you have because you will see if you look really carefully at how Hillary has voted what she thought would look the best when she ran for president. She I doubt ever voted what she thought and felt on some deep level with the thought if I vote like this I will seem too soft on those bad guys. The bills she helped along where more like you would see as a city council at a national level. Bridge names? Building names the like all safe. But every tough bill like Kyle Lieberman and anything that looked like she was giving power to the president was her looking down the road at what she could do with that same power. A real person with feelings that doesn't have the multiple personality disorder she's had recently is the best bet. It has been a long time since hope friendship and respect has visted washington dc.

[darker]

Why you'll Be Voting for Barack Obama:
because you're too hyped and stupid to
be voting for Hillary Clinton. H. can actually
do the job. Obama will be shredded as Redumblican "easy" cannon fodder.

[Halsey]

darker..it's obvious you wrote in a frenzy..that's okay..but chill out dude.

Sadly, unlike the author..if Hilary "wins" the nomination..I a so called "liberal" (whatever that means.. I'm a capitalist..but still care about people..ergo..I guess..a liberal)..

anyway..I will NOT vote for Hilary...can't do it.
she IS everything I dislike about the democrat party..back room politics..cronyism (can you say "friends of bill)...those two were as secretive as cheney...how scary is THAT?

Obama has flaws..he is human..but he has a vision for American that I share..and I'm not some starry eyes acolyte..I am a cynic, a realist..a pragmatist.. who wants no more Bushes or Clintons anywhere near MY White House.

[zull2]

First off, Steve, I live in Oregon and I'm going to vote for you.

Second, you have the best campaign videos ever made. If anyone hasn't seen them, go to his site and watch them. They are hilarious...even Faux News people think they're funny and they don't even know why.

Third, I have a lot of respect for this post, and I wonder...why don't Hillary Clinton supporters declare their endorsement without kicking Barack Obama in the process? Why do they feel they need to insult the other Democratic candidate when they declare their support for Clinton? My feeling is that Obama makes them personally feel irrelevant and outdated, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, thanks.

[hrayovac]

Why I voted for Barack in my primary:

Just think of the effect Senator Obama will have on our youth by having achieved the highest office. He will encourage an entire generation to particpate in civic affairs. The other candidates cannot or will not do that.

That alone is reason enough as the next generation must be the ones to save what my generation has lost.

[Zeusthunderbolt]

SO many comments call Obama supporters, sexist. This is such a disgusting lie. I do not know a single Obama supporter who dislikes her because she is a woman. My wife is a woman. My daughter will grow up to be a woman. My mother is a woman. In fact I have had to overcome a prejudiced voting instinct to vote for her because I wanted my daughter to think she can be anything she can be. I wanted to point to her all her accomplishments and I still will. I just happened to agree with him more, found him more inspirational, thought that he would make it possible to live in a more peaceful world where people respect each other and dialogue is more important than war. I thought that growing up in a different culture gives him a wider perspective of the world. His legislative record and his books convinced me of his intellectual strengths and honesty. The way he has ran his campaign gave me the answer to what his administration would be chosen and run ( competent, responsible, honest ) as compared to senator Clintons ( favoritism based, rewarding of complete blind loyalty, lacking foresight, hate based, divisive, dishonest, destructive, poll based, condescending ).

These are the reasons I support him and not because I am a sexist. I come to an intelligent conclusion which might be different than yours and you need to respect it. And if you are voting for her because she is a woman then admit your own bias and we would understand. Just like we understand that when an African American chooses to vote for Obama because of race because when one of your own race runs and he is making the whole world proud, you have a right to be double proud because it validates your believe that this proves that an African American can be smart and intelligent and charismatic and that if this happens then one day my son or daughter can be the president f the USA.

So please be honest, and stop calling everyone who does not support Senator Clinton a sexist, stupid, rich, young, delusional, incapable of the ability to reason, a blind follower walking into some kind of abyss of darkness and magical fantasy land to be slaughtered and taking everyone else with them.

[ginnypoo]

Okay, I'll be honest, I cannot for the life of me understand how people that support Obama come on and talk about how wonderful his campaign has been run, so he will be a good President....his campaign played the racist card on the Clinton's during MLK week in SC to win that states primary contest. He was caught live at the debate following Sc or did you miss that? I find that disgusting.
They have again mailed out those false NAFTA mailersthis week, they did it a couple weeks ago and retracted, this week they stand by the exact same mailing...which looks exactly like what the repugs used on her in the 90s against healthcare then. So, he calls his opponents racists, he lies in mailings using an almost exact replica of the pic they used on theirs....and now they spread this pic of Obama in African garb and blame Hillary. It'funny that you say Hillary is divisive when Michelle Obama said she may not even vote dem if Hillary gets the nom. Now imagine the firestorm if Bill said the same thing....how can you see these things and just overlook them?

[altohone]

Bill Clinton played the race card.
Obama's response was necessary.

Hillary supported NAFTA until she wanted Edwards delegates.
Bill's WH worked to pass it over the objections of liberals and unions, and then signed it into law.

If you're going to "be honest", you shouldn't revise history in the process.

[Zeusthunderbolt]

I went to see Obama speak. Lot of people showed up. How is that his fault that it became a big rally? Every time she unfairly attacks him and I feel it is wrong, it makes me go and donate so I can help him defeat her, how is that his fault?
She attacked him about his lines: He said, my friend gave it to me, I made a mistake I should have given him the credit.

What is wrong with saying: I supported NAFTA, my intentions were noble, it did not work out and now I know better.
Or I did and I still believe in free trade but fair trade, never again, will there be a deal that is unfair.

What is wrong with saying: I do propose that everyone contribute so all are insured, some call it mandate, I call it a privilege to live in a compassionate society with health care for all. And if you cannot afford it, we will cover you, just like senator obama plan does.

Too honest and straight forward, is it Senator Clinton? Suits the Messiah with the delusional followers-------

Lets us go donate, and make sure the messiah wins and the people from the middle and north of the country who stood in freezing temperatures to vote for him are not disfranchised.

Let us go and donate so that " We the delusional will be called the AMERICAN PEOPLE< YOUNG AND OLD, WHITE AND BLACK, ASIAN AND HISPANIC, DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, MEN AND WOMEN WHO CAME, VOTED IN DROVES FOR THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET, INSPIRED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND CHANGED THE AMERICAN POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.

How is that for a change that we believe in? Can we? NOOOO say the Hillary lovers: do not dream, the republicans are here to stay, their machinery is too strong, Rush Limbaugh is too powerful, you guys are being fed false hopes, no one except Senator Clinton can beat the republican machine. But do not count on her inspiring you, for that is below her. Read her record, she knows the issues, and ignore her hateful rhetoric, ignore her temper tantrums, she has been working hard all her life for this, so that all the women could feel that men are not sexist anymore, so the glass ceiling could be lifted. See the light yourself, you ignorant, delusional, dreamers, republicans, independents, young democrats, old fools, vote for her, just do not come out to listen to her or we will call you a movement. We are cynics, realists, anti movement democrats, who hate you all. If it was not for you she would be our nominee and guess what, she is a fighter and she would have won anyway. She does not need to inspire, she does not believe in word but action and solutions. Who needs more democrats in the house and Senate? She can rule with one vote majority. She is the girl we have been waiting for.

So I have a choice. Go back to the hole I crawled out of, accept the republican dominance of ideas, accept that things will remain the same, forget I felt inspired to be part of something bigger for the first time, accept that I had been duped and had become delusional. Loose all hope for hope is always just that , Hope. The world can never get together. Republicans and Democrats can never work together. The dream of bringing the world on a table is delusional. The Iranians can only be tamed by bombing. They will never wisen up, even if we stop being a bully. All Muslims are Islamic Fascist Terrorists. They are warmongers and we are in a third world war with them. Do not believe in the false hope that this war can ever end with dialogue. They have to be eliminated. Do not hope for a better future for our children. This is all baloney. Let us elect a president who does not believe in changing the nations mind about misguided conservatism. Who cannot inspire by her speeches to make people believe that they can be better than the sum of their genetically controlled selfish pursuit of dog eat dog capitalism. Come to that conclusion on your own. If you believe in that because you were inspired by the empty words of a messiah like cult producing leader then you are not worthy of your betterment anyway. This country and the world can only be changed by policy manuals, relying on loyal non confrontational, lackey cabinet members who will follow the experience and wisdom of a woman who has been studying the issues for 35 years.

Or I can Hope that change is possible, that words inspire, that people can come together , and the world can be a better place without war. ( Do I stop here and let these words of hope and Change Stand or explain all the above again, for some leaders and their followers will once again call them empty rhetoric ------- oh my , how can we ever win against this Clinton machine ).
I turned out to be a realist and cynic after all. May be just go and vote for Ralph, because change and hope are empty words anyway.

[ginnypoo]

Hillary didn't support NAFTA, she supported her husband, she was first lady was she supposed to speak against her husband...no, she wasn't. It was her job to be a help to him not undermine whatever he was doing. Stories are coming out that she didn't support it, but helped him because that was her roll as first lady. She didn't vote for NAFTA, she was first lady. She didn't write it, she was first lady. Are we blaming Laura for the wars now?

[langstonhughesfan]

The problem is...She COUNTING those years in the White House as part of her 35 years of experience. So, if she supported her husband's policies--that now has to be a part of HER RECORD. She can't have it both ways.

[LDW]

Steve Novick - You astound me. You are voting for Obama because you think he'll be able to make tough choices, and take political risks?

Look at Obama's various stances on the Iraq war. Peace activists in Chicago were getting good press in 2002, and opinion polls were running in their favour. Obama went to a rally, made an anti-war speech and posted it on his website. After Bush launched the war anyway, in the early days the country came together and opinion polls were showing support for Bush and for the war. What did Obama do then? Why he stated publicly that his position was not so very different from Bush"s and he took his anti-war speech off his website. Now, opinion polls are again siding with the anti-war movement, and Obama is claiming to have been right all along. Well, since he took every opinion going and wore it as his own, he"s like a broken wristwatch " guaranteed to be right at least twice in the cycle.

Obama"s opinion du jour, is based on either what"s popular or what would benefit him, personally, the most. He supported including Florida primary votes, until he lost in Florida. He criticized 527 ads, until he got expensive free advertising from them, by the United Food and Commercial Workers, and the Service Employees International Union. Now Obama, who went after Edwards and Clinton for allowing this type of ad, is silent when he"s the one benefiting.

Obama"s team has likewise lifted poll-tested policies from other candidates, claiming them as their own. Obama"s healthcare plan is an exception to this rule, but most serious analysis says his plan is inferior to Clinton"s. Worse, Obama ran those Harry and Louise style ads against Clinton"s plan, seriously undermining his own chances of enacting workable legislation should he become president.

Then, if you watched any of the debates, it"s actually embarrassing to listen to Obama, because he obviously doesn"t have a grasp of the policies on his website and he tries to talk off the top of his head without actually saying anything. Once in a while he"ll throw in a phrase or talking point that seems just slightly off-track, like he"s grasping at straws or else trying desperately to keep up with the earbud prompts.

Obama is a nicely packaged product, be he was brought to the market in haste, and not properly tested. Also, not all his features are fully functional. If you"re going to vote for Obama, view him and his team just as if they were George W. and his dream team that was supposed to support and guide him in office. Obama has spent a large part of his political efforts in self advancement, looking for the sound bite and the popular stance, and has shown himself to be a follower and a panderer rather than a leader..

[ChiGuy]

Despite the back-handed manner in which you compliment him, I'm glad that you are voting for Obama

While I disagree with you on most points made about Hillary vs. Obama on policy, I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time posting counterpoints.

Suffice it to say that there is no question in my mind that Obama is the right person for the job.

[imsosure]

I like the way you put that, saves me a lot of time too.

[SKayum]

Well, I, too, agree that Sen. Clinton will make a great president. I'm not so sure about Obama for a reason that you've just proven. People are willing to question a President Clinton. I don't think they will be equally willing to question a President Obama, and that is dangerous.

[JasonEverettMiller]

What? Hillary is the ultimate employer of Yes Men and Women. They never question anything or she wouldn't be getting beaten so soundly.

[SKayum]

I'm not talking about her administration, and I don't understand why that isn't clear. I'm talking about the media, congress, journalists, americans. They didn't start really questioning Bush and holding him accountable until it was all too late.