I'll support Obama

I'll keep this short.  

McCain will probably be the Repub. nominee.  Hillary excites the Repub base.  Obama has a better potential than HRC for getting cross-over votes.

The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are minor.  I think Clinton would govern more ably at first, but I think she has less of a chance of ulimately beating McCain.

Since the most important thing is to get a Dem in the White House, this is not a difficult choice -- even though I'm not personally enthusiastic about Obama (or Clinton for that matter). Oviously, the McClurkin incident did not endear him to me.

Either of them could beat Mitt, I think.

•  Thank you!

  by Awakening on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:34:51 AM PDT

  •  Why "Thank you"?

    This is, I think, my duty to my country and my beliefs.  That's it.

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:43:35 AM PDT

•  I think alot of Obama supporters understand.

  I made a similar choice about John Kerry last time around after supporting Dean.

  by smartdemmg on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:36:05 AM PDT

•  Welcome. I think your logic

  is sound. Nothing would help the Republicans get out their base more than Hillary as the nominee. Now, let's work to get Sen. Obama past the convention and start worrying about the general election, where I'm hoping that Mr. 100 more years in Iraq against out in 16 months will be a pretty easy choice for the voters.

  by Travis Stark on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:38:38 AM PDT

•  Yep, me too. I am

  saddened by this missed opportunity of having John Edwards as president.  He would have been a serious difference maker.  But reality is.  I'll throw my meager but heartfelt support to Obama now.  I just don't think we'll get the level of change we need with Clinton.  That being said, if she gets the nomination I'll vote for her.  At the very least she would pick MUCH better judges for the Supreme Court than any repug out there.

  by coloradocomet on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:41:34 AM PDT

•  I think Obama

  would also be a more effective leader. Why? Mandate. Also he'd break Republican unity.

  by Jaiwithani on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:42:27 AM PDT

•  I'm beginning to get that uneasy feeling

  that our nominee has already been picked
  and not by us. You can' t know how much
  I hope I'm wrong. Tuesday will confirm it.

  by Alan Charles on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:46:00 AM PDT

  •  Not by us?

    This isn't going to be over Tuesday.

    By the time it is decided, even in the media, well over half the states, and more than that in population, will have voted on our candidate.  

    Who do you think is picking?

    by bawbie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:05:21 AM PDT

•  So will I...

  if Hillary isn't the nominee.
  Obama is an acceptable second best.

  by Niniane on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:48:34 AM PDT

•  Can't agree

  Obama shows little or no stomach to fight. Clinton, like or hate her is tough as nails and will fight. Obama's rhetoric is nieve at best. Besides, in states like mine of KY he is getting shelled by McCain. I want a chance to win some downticket and we definately won't get that here with Obama. His NRA comment debate before last has already defeated him all over the south, parts of the midwest, and the west, he just doesn't know it yet. Obama may be President one day, but this time around he gets us shelled in a landslide. I respectfully hope you reconsider.

  by RDemocrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:54:28 AM PDT

  •  Well, she'll fight for herself.

    Ironically, the willingness to do anything for her own personal advancement is exactly the negative she has with the public, and the one she builds as she campaigns.  It's a bad matchup with McCain.

    His NRA comment debate before last has already defeated him all over the south, parts of the midwest, and the west, he just doesn't know it yet

    Neither does anyone else.  Of course, if you were to be honest, you would admit that HRC would start the campaign with huge negatives that she can't change no matter what position she takes on anything.   She's poison.

    by Inland on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:01:11 AM PDT

  •  Wrong

    Obama has shown fight against the Clinton attack machine, but has also shown that going negative against him backfires.  

    Not sure the same is true for Hillary.  A lot of people seem to relish being negative about her and piling on.

    by VirginiaDem on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:29:24 AM PDT

  •  I live in Colorado and he is ahead in the polls

    here so your early obituary of his presidential bid is premature, to put it politely. I'm from Illinois and I'm pretty sure that's one part of the midwest that is going Obama.

    Amazing how quickly you went from ardently defending Edwards to now ardently defending Clinton.

    Clinton will kill us statewide, down ticket. Even our local Democratic county chairs are already strategizing how to work around her as a nominee, to minimalize the damage it will do to our other local candidates if she is at the top of the ticket. They like her but they are realists--Obama has an amazing amount of crossover appeal here among Republicans and particularly Independents. Clinton doesn't.

    I hate to break it to you but the West and the Midwest is known to have more important issues to us than our guns. Hard to believe I know but I thought I might mention that your stereotyping of both doesn't do much for your credibility.

    I think it's safe to way that you wouldn't have picked Obama, no matter who the other choices on this ticket were, no?

    by Pager on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:41:59 AM PDT

•  Thank you!

  This is a chance for truly transformational change instead of going back to the past (McCain=Reagan, Clinton=Clinton).

  We've GOT to do this.

  by chicago DEM on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:55:02 AM PDT

•  Keeping it simple....

  if neither exites you, I think it's true: Obama is a better matchup against McCain.

  And Mitt....He's less scary than Huck.  What's wrong with that guy?  All the talking heads have it exactly right, Mitt should be out there talking economics and high finance and all that other stuff nobody else understands, but he's mired in pandering to the religious right and the In Iraq Forever crowd.

  by Inland on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:56:49 AM PDT

•  Is Obama really progressive or is he too nice

  http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

  Why is he praising Rumsfeld as a good choice for Sec Def and called him mainstream in 2001?

  by timber on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:00:30 AM PDT

  •  Rummy screwed up war HRC voted for.

    Instead of worrying abuout Obama's inability to predict that Rummy would screw up the Iraq war, why not look at the fact HRC still can't figure out that the war was a bad idea, even today?

    Rummy isn't the democrat who is to blame for enablity Bush's war.

    But HRC thinks the war was a good idea and Rummy screwed it up.  She'll still hire Colin Powell.

    Geez, is this the way HRC is going to win?  

    by Inland on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:04:11 AM PDT

  •  Clinton was in the Senate

    how did she vote on the Rumsfeld nomination?

    This was in 2001, before Rumsfeld became a national joke.  He was a well respected figure, at that time.

    by bawbie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:06:45 AM PDT

    •  exactly

      Who the hell knew Rummy would be such a disaster in 2001? Just like Bush, the American public had no idea how these guys would eventually perform - and by the time they figured it out - they were already in power and half the population were already duped.

      by phillyPete on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:19:58 AM PDT

      •  Tapper actually answered my question in his

        stupid piece.  Rummy passed on a voice vote, no one, including Clinton, objected to him.

        by bawbie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:29:25 AM PDT

  •  Also

    What the fuck is Jake Tapper's problem?

    That is the single stupidest article ever.  And he ends it by saying:

    Obama is on the cusp of doing well on Super Duper Tuesday and has still never had a negative TV ad run against him, and it seems clear that Hillary Clinton is correct in her implication -- he has not been fully "vetted."

    There's a lot voters -- and the media -- do not know about him.

    So "vetting" someone to Tapper is running an attack add on what they said about someone 2 years before they royally screw up?

    Really?

    There's a lot I don't know about Obama too. Boxers or briefs?  Does he like mustard?  What brand of toothpaste does he use?

    Maybe Tapper can go through the Obama's garbage and find out those things for us too, just so Obama is thoroughly "vetted"

    by bawbie on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:11:04 AM PDT

  •  compared to Ashcroft?

    compared to Ashcroft he was more politically mainstream.

    by Kimball on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:45:42 AM PDT

    •  Actually in retrospect Ashcroft was ...

      Ashcroft is the one who refused to sign off on the warantless wiretapping after OLC came to him to say it was illegal.  And it was Ashcroft on his hospital bed who refused to be bullied by Gonzalez and Card.

      by Bartimaeus Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:50:02 AM PDT

      •  which is a fairly limited aspect of his history..

        and in 2001, hadn't happened yet.

        by Kimball on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:40:17 AM PDT

        •  None of which proves that Rumsfeld was mainstream

          in 2001.  He was not.

          by Bartimaeus Blue on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:16:57 AM PDT

•  And for Edwards supporters

  I think John Edwards has a better chance at a substantial Cabinet position with Obama than with Clinton.  

  by Fortschreitend on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:11:12 AM PDT

•  Hopefully one day you'll be...

  ...a Famous Kossack.  Then you could say the exact same thing, get a thousand recommends from your fans and be on the top for five days.

  by dov12348 on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:46:25 AM PDT