A question for Obama supporters

Ok, not much of a diary, tonight, but I have been arguing a few points throughout the day, and so I am really curious - if you had to choose between Obama being president with Hillary as Senate Majority Leader, or Obama losing the election, but the Clintons out of politics, which would you prefer?

Not much of a diary, but please, vote, and let me know.  I admit this is a hypothetical, but its just something I am really wondering about.

For me, I want a Democratic president, and that answers it for me.  And, yes, I still remain uncommitted.

•  neither.

  sorry.

  by kate mckinnon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:20:54 PM PDT

  •  I say neither, too. n/t

    by JeffW on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:20 PM PDT

•  McCain Presidency? Are You Nuts? nt

  by Gooserock on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:21:09 PM PDT

  •  Im not recommending it

    but I am curious to see who would go that far.

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:07:16 PM PDT

•  As angry as I am at Hillary...OF COURSE

  I would not want McCain to be President....
  c'mon.

  by la urracca on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:21:39 PM PDT

  •  Perfect.

    I hope the majority agrees with you (us).

    by HeyMikey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:30:18 PM PDT

•  Your poll is sort of silly.

  It's like, would you rather have 10 million dollars and be good looking,

  or have cancer and die.

  by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:21:43 PM PDT

  •  Well, actually,

    I kind of agree with you - I think it is silly.  The problem is, I am seeing a lot of Obama supporters, at least here, who seem more focused on destroying the Clintons than on getting Obama elected.  

    Thus, the poll

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:27:41 PM PDT

    •  Destroying the Clintons?

      Are you really paying attention?

      I am an undecided voter who has decided to back Obama.  Until very recently, I was undecided because I was equally comfortable with both candidates.

      Then Hillary and her team convinced me to vote for Obama.

      I will not go through the laundry list of the absolute bullshit she and they have done recently.  I will mention only the tipping point:  when she endorsed McCain over Obama, she lost me utterly and forever.  I have been following presidential politics since Kennedy/Nixon.  You remember Kennedy?  The junior senator with limited experience whose critics labelled him a dilletante?  The best president of my lifetime?  That Kennedy.

      In all that time, I have seen some bare-knuckled, no-holds-barred primaries.  But I have never seen a potentially viable candidate from one side say, "Vote for me or vote for the other party; but don't vote for our front-runner because he is not qualified."  

      Tell me again about Obama supporters trying to destroy the Clintons.

      by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:34:32 PM PDT

      •  "Dilettante" sorry n/t

        by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:28 PM PDT

      •  Did you read my Sunday post?

        If not, may I suggest you read it, and some of IndianaDemocrat comments?

        I know not all of them are that way - im just curious if most of them are.

        by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:41:21 PM PDT

      •  I'm in full agreement, Endangered Alaskan Dem !

        You typed:
        "when she endorsed McCain over Obama, she lost me utterly and forever."
        She effectively said what you typed, "Vote for me or vote for the other party; but don't vote for our front-runner because he is not qualified."
        She lost alot of fence-sitters with that bullshit.  I still can't believe she tried to split her own party over her raging desire to be President.

        Also:
        "You remember Kennedy?  The best president of my lifetime?  That Kennedy."
        I see elements of Jack in Barack.  They're certainly not idealogic twins, but he's sure as Hell alot closer to JFK than Hillary will EVER be - or ever could be.  Jack used the party machine to get where he wanted to be, but kept his populist principles intact and didn't sell out to the machine.  Hillary is married to the machine - and I don't mean Bill.

        Celtic Merlin

        by Celtic Merlin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:51:04 PM PDT

    •  Well now lets see....

      I am seeing a lot of Obama supporters, at least here, who seem more focused on destroying the Clintons than on getting Obama elected.  

      Look at your poll. You're obviously not seeing a lot of people who seem more focused on destroying the Clintons than on getting Obama elected.

      In other words, you're projecting that in order to feel more comfortable with yourself about one thing or another.

      And before you disagree with me, it's YOUR poll!

      by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:37:47 PM PDT

      •  I can point to a lot of posts

        that say that Clinton doesn't deserve anything.  In countless diaries.  That the only deal is that she needs to accept the outcome, and get over it.  And that her supporters will fall in line, and vote for Obama

        I am not at all convinced of that, and have suggested that, as a method of uniting the party, a deal be made, where by Obama is the nominee, and Clinton would get to be something like Majority Leader, or Supreme Court Justice, assuming Obama wins.

        I consider that a good solution, and a way to bring unity to the party.  And I've had a number of people say she shouldn't get anything.  I can provide links, if you want.

        by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:45:57 PM PDT

        •  Don't need links.

          Look at your poll. Looks like 13% feel as you're describing.

          That's not nothing, but calling 13% "a lot of people" is poor use of language.

          And besides that your hyperbole has made it impossible for you to back up what you're saying with links.

          In countless diaries

          You can't link countless diaries.

          by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM PDT

          •  fine, replace countless with

            many (although I can't remember everyone).

            However, more to the point - yes, I have seen it a lot.  But I admit, I had no real way to gauge it - whether it was really substantial, or not.  But I did see a lot of it.  So, I figured the one sure to have an idea, was to post the poll.  

            What would you have done?  

            by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:59:41 PM PDT

            •  Sorry, I was going to include that.

              I was wrong about your poll. Now that I see what you're looking for, I have to say it's very good.

              My bad, as far as that goes.

              by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM PDT

              •  I'll let you off this time with a warning

                :D

                Don't worry about it to much.  Of course, if your feeling really guity about it, can I suggest you read about the space economy?

                by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:09:21 PM PDT

                •  Sure!

                  I'm against manned space flight for the next 50 years. Can you change my mind on that?

                  I'm NOT in favor of cutting funds, however, just using unmanned vehicles to accomplish so much more with the same money.

                  by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:17:07 PM PDT

                  •  I'll try

                    Reason your against it, if you don't mind?

                    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:20:56 PM PDT

                    •  The incredible usefulness of automation

                      as well as it's cost effectiveness in performing real science.

                      That and the politics involved with trying to get science done in the manned program.

                      Those two little Mars rovers say more than I can.

                      by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:23:52 PM PDT

                      •  Ok,short version

                        manned flight isn't about science.  I know most people think that is all space can offer - is science.  But the truth is that manned spaceflight is about development, and colonization.  

                        So arguing against manned spaceflight because it doesn't produce good science is like arguing against school lunch programs because they don't provide low interest college loans - thats not its purpose.

                        And we are fully ready and have the technology to develop outer space, and use it as an economic engine, to help our economy.  

                        1.  The Space economy Pt1

                        2.  The Space economy Pt 2

                        3.  The Space Economy Pt 3

                        And then there are things like space based solar power, which I admit is a little bit further down the road, but I don't think its too far.  

                        We have the technology, and we don't necessarily need to invest huge amounts of sums to get it

                        by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:34:43 PM PDT

                        •  I'll read it....

                          But I can tell already I'm not going to agree.

                          Looks like interesting diaries though.

                          by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:41:11 PM PDT

                          •  Feel free to email me your thoughts/questions

                            I'll be interested in your response

                            by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:53:39 PM PDT

    •  The Goal is NOT to Destroy the Clintons.....

      The goal is to bring about populist change in our nation's capital.

      Those who hate the Clintons can rest assured that after 8 years of President Obama, Hillary will be far too old to be considered "electable" and the Clinton's WILL fade from the political spectrum.

      Personally, I loved Bill's first term, but feel that he capitulated to the Republicans in his second term, making him less effective and ruining what would have been one Helluva run as President.

      Hillary.....I don't hate the woman.  I feel that she's a carpet-bagger and that she's FAR too well connected to the jackals of K street (lobbyists) to represent the BEST interests of the individual Americans living in this country.

      McCain???  My GOD, no!  Who in their right mind wants another four years of GWBush?

      Elect Obama first, THEN worry about the rest of the issues you raise.

      Celtic Merlin

      by Celtic Merlin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:38 PM PDT

    •  I just have to pile on here

      Seriously?

      I don't even know where to start with this. Clinton is the one going around telling the voters of Pennsylvania -- a crucial swing state -- that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama, who will probably be our nominee!

      We're just trying to get her to stop!!

      by Zackpunk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:47:51 PM PDT

      •  Im not justifying her attacks

        Im not even a supporter, as I said - I am an uncommitted Dem, who wants us to win.  And I would like to see those kind of comments stop.  

        Thats why I've said a deal should be offered - like Senate Majority Leadership - its not a bad deal IMHO.  It would unite the party, and we could really go after Mccain, after the primaries.

        I just worry that, to many people are more interested in getting her (and Bill) out of politics, than in getting the nominee elected.

        I'd love to be wrong - I just worry that Im not

        by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM PDT

        •  I think that's crazy

          You don't reward someone for trying to screw up the election. That's not a deal, that's extortion.

          by Zackpunk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:12:22 PM PDT

          •  No, its

            a realization that she could hurt the Democrats, and it can be part of a carrot and stick approach, to get her to stop these kind of attacks.

            The carrot is something like Senate Majority Leader.  The stick is political warfare from the Democratic party on her.

            Its just standard negotiating.

            by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:15:52 PM PDT

            •  Listen to yourself

              You're talking about her like she's an airplane hijacker, or a mafia informant. And I don't entirely disagree with the framing.

              Why should we reward her for lack of party unity?

              by Zackpunk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:22:25 PM PDT

              •  Because she is a better ally than enemy

                I don't agree that I am framing it that way.  I'd argue its more like bilateral relations between countries - she can hurt us, but she can also help us.  

                She makes a much better ally than enemy, IMHO.  And yes, I say again, I am not at all convinced that the 12+million who have voted for Clinton will fall behind obama, and vote for him, in Nov

                by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:25:46 PM PDT

                •  But that's my point

                  When did she become an "enemy"? Look -- John McCain is the "enemy," right? Why don't we make him majority leader?

                  To use your international negotiations analogy, it would be like working out a treaty with Ohio. Ohio is already a state. We shouldn't have to be banging out treaties within our own union.

                  by Zackpunk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM PDT

                  •  She isn't the enemy

                    not yet, I agree.  But she can hurt us.  and that should be avoided.

                    As far as banging out treaties with our own union - thats standard practice, for a number of things - Look at the push by California to be able to regulate carbon, but the EPA didn't want to.  

                    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:57:28 PM PDT

    •  Destroying is Too Strong

      but she has to be taken out - sooner is better. She is doing nothing but harm - driving up Obama's negatives. She can't win unless the Supers nullify the voters' decision, so she is hanging around for self-aggrandizement at the expense of the party. She is not in any sense of the word a viable candidate any more. She is conducting a hateful, mean-spirited and nasty campaign - against the number one choice of her own party.

      So - destroy is too strong. But, if she scorches the earth so bad that she keeps the Republicans in power she will have earned the undying disgust of all progressives.

      by dpc on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:54:46 PM PDT

•  My preference.

  Your missing the "Obama presidency and Bill and Hillary out of politics" option.

  That's the option I'd choose. :P

  by Anglo on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:21:57 PM PDT

  •  Not an option

    get over it.

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:24:43 PM PDT

    •  touchy

      the :P emoticon means the poster is just joshing around.

      by missreporter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:26:33 PM PDT

      •  YEa, I know it is

        I missed it when I first read it.  

        I admit Im getting tired of the primary wars, and the vitrol of the diaries.  

        by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:29:50 PM PDT

        •  the only way to vanquish the vitriol

          is to put out positivity.

          be the change you wish to see.

          by missreporter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:58:31 PM PDT

          •  Been trying to

            My past 4 diaries, which were posted within the last week, all of which I felt were quite positive.  And the 3 really good ones, on space, by and large, got ignored, and the one, which was about the primaries, turned very negative.

            by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:03:54 PM PDT

      •  I thought it meant the poster is

        sticking out his tongue at you....that's what it looks like.

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:30:23 PM PDT

        •  yes in a playful but not childish way

          that's my sense anyway.

          by missreporter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM PDT

•  Honestly?

  At this point...I'm not sure.

  A week ago I would have chosen Hillary as Senate Majority Leader, or HUD secretary, or SCOTUS justice or something...

  But at this point I can't give you an answer either way.  I just don't know if she can redeem herself from this.

  by DemocraticOz on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:22:10 PM PDT

•  Out of emotion right now

  I'd say the latter, I'll accept a McCain Presidency to get these filthy creatures permanently out of politics.

  My head tells me a Obama Presidency is worth having Clinton as Maj Leader.

  by IhateBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM PDT

  •  Don't pull a Nader!

    The last 7 years haven't been bad enough for ya? Ya want more?

    by HeyMikey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM PDT

  •  Yo

    Clinton as Majority Leader is a good thing imho. I don't like her too much today either, and I've never wanted her as president, but she's made for this role. Very prepared, knowledgeable, persistent. She's not the type to set an agenda or articulate a vision, but she IS the type to ram it through the senate.

    by Ivey476 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:36:12 PM PDT

    •  Unless she thinks her role

      is to obstruct President Obama.  There are legislative leaders of the same party who did this. Joseph Cannon, Rethug Speaker of the House did so for TR in the early 1900s.  And John Nance Garner as VP, did the same against FDR.

      by IhateBush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:54:25 PM PDT

      •  That's a scary thought

        Hadn't considered it. But the only reason she'd do this is for her own future ambition, no? So wouldn't it be to everyone's advantage to have Obama and Clinton sit down and plan an agenda together? Wouldn't a majority leader Clinton want credit for passing as much stuff as possible with little public tension?

        by Ivey476 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:09:16 PM PDT

•  Here's why I want her as Majority Leader

  I'm a New Yorker, and I want to savor the pleasure of voting her out of office...

  by sistermoon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:22:40 PM PDT

  •  That's a total nonsequitor

    What does majority leader have to do with it? You'd vote against her whether she was majority leader or not...but I'm sure she'd win without your vote.

    by Alice in Florida on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:33:40 PM PDT

•  jesus fucking christ

  will you guys stop with these stupid polls and 2 sentence "diaries" already?
  It's totally inconsiderate of your fellow bloggers who have written well researched thought out diaries only to have them pushed off the recent diary list in about 20 minutes due the the avalanche of this type of tripe.
  Stop it already.

  by FireCrow on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:22:57 PM PDT

  •  Re

    1 - First time doing this - I agree its not something that should be done with any sembiance of regularity, but I was seeing a trend, and really curious.

    2 - Given that I had a nice long series, on the importance of the space economy, intended for Obama, and his supporters, and each one (espcially the first 2) got knocked off the roll quickly, because of primary diaries, I don't feel out of line.

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:32:59 PM PDT

    •  I drive sober

      all the time, years now, it's considerate to my fellow drivers to not be fucked up when I'm on the road. Since I got rear ended last week by a drunk driver I figure to hell with it. I'm getting fucked up and behind the wheel now once in awhile.

      by FireCrow on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:55:09 PM PDT

      •  Hey, if I could put the poll in a comment

        I would've.  I don't have a lot to say on the subject, I said most of it on Sunday.

        So, if you have a suggestion, on how to get the data, without posting a diary, feel free to offer it

        by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:12:28 PM PDT

•  I know it's unpopular here...

  and I don't care. Hillary and her Surrogates (Ferraro) crossed a line this week. I want them all to go away.

  by ahdv on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:23:00 PM PDT

•  I voted for the first option but after this week,

  my real preference would be an Obama presidency and Bill and Hillary out of politics.  The 3 am ad, the commander-in-chief threshold, the Samantha Power episode (I'm sorry, her remarks were stupid but they were not sexist; Ferraro's are out and out racist).  The Clinton campaign has become increasingly toxic.  

  by nycmom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:24:28 PM PDT

•  Where is option 3?

  I am hoping for an Obama presidency, and Bill and Hillary out of politics.  That is the only real option.  She has no basis to be majority leader.

  by KevinQ on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:24:32 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, that choice is not allow

    I know a lot of people want them gone, but its pretty clear, at least to me, that they aren't going to go anywhere.  So, I am forced to ask - just how badly do you want them gone?

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM PDT

•  A month ago I would have supported her as

  majority leader but her campaign has gone way downhill.  We need the party elders (make sure at least one woman lest she complain about sexism or misogyny) to step in and tell them to stop the race baiting campaign tactics or get out.

  by nycmom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:27:54 PM PDT

•  I just responded in anger, but I'm really not

  sure.  I'm actually afraid of Hillary Clinton getting the presidency, though.  I really hate that we're stuck with two shitty options and one pretty good option.

  by NotablyZen on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:32:23 PM PDT

•  this site

  used to be full of really insightful diaries that the authors had done copious research on and the comments were as thought provoking as the diary itself.

  these days......not so much.

  by bluestateonian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:36:19 PM PDT

  •  You want insightful diaries?

    Why not learn about the space economy?

    1.  Part 1

    2.  Part 2

    3.  Part 3

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:49:08 PM PDT

•  Neither

  An Obama nomination makes a McCain presidency less likely. And Hillary extending her campaign until she makes civil war with the party makes her less likely to be majority leader.

  by faithfull on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM PDT

•  she's done with politics after this

  She'll be defeated in the next NY primary.  A lot of the support she has now is from people banking on quid pro quo if she's elected. Once defeated I expect her to have few allies in the Senate. She's burned a lot of bridges inside the Democratic party over the past year.  

  As far as the majority leader position goes, that's a job that requires working diplomatically with other members of your party. When it comes to that, she has 25 years of experience sucking at it.

  I personally think putting Durbin in that slot would be awesome in terms of coordinating with an Obama White House.  

  by VelvetElvis on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:12 PM PDT

  •  She'll be defeated in the next NY primary.

    Could be, but then she'll just go Lieber-style Independent on us, and with the 35% of Democratic voters who stick with any kind betrayal of the Party joining with Republicans after she talks sweet neo-con nothings in their ears, she might just be able to retain her seat.

    by William Domingo on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:48:22 PM PDT

  •  She will be a force in the party

    for years to come.  I am quite sure of that.  To think otherwise is a mistake.

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:52:04 PM PDT

    •  How is that?

      To be a "force in the party" she'd have to be able to be able to do the following:

      1. Build consensus to help pass important legislation. Not her thing.

      2. Be able to help people get reelected by campaigning for them.  Now that she's told democratic voters in most states in the union that they don't matter, her support would be a boon to any primary challenger.

      3. Fundraise. Without the lure of favors from a future Clinton administration, she's going to have a hard time getting the fat cats to come off the dough, particularly considering how much they gave to her presidential campaign with nothing to show for it.

      The bottom line is that she operates squarely within the framework of political patronage.  He power and influence will decline in proportion to her ability to do favors for people until she's insignificant.  

      by VelvetElvis on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:57:54 PM PDT

•  Majority Leader

  an Obama Presidency and Hillary serving as Majority Leader.  

  a Mccain presidency, but Bill and Hillary are out of politics  

  Hillary can't be Senate Majority Leader until she gets enough seniority to be Majority Leader, and that won't be for another couple of decades. Of course, I'm sure she'll try to "pad her resume" for the job before then somehow. Also, a McCain presidency won't mean the Clintons would "have to leave politics". As a matter of fact, I think they'd probably like it better that way, McCain being president that is.

  by William Domingo on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:43:27 PM PDT

  •  Seniority can be bypassed

    if necassary.  The only real requirement is a majority of votes.  And a deal could be arranged, where by she would be the Leader, in the next congress.

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:50:59 PM PDT

    •  A deal with who?

      And for what?

      Without the lure of favors from a future administration, she's got nothing.  Her negatives are so high that in most states she can't even help people campaign.  

      by VelvetElvis on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:01:04 PM PDT

•  It's the McCain, Stupid.

  Hillary is not the enemy.  Bill Clinton is not the enemy.  Geraldine Ferraro is not the enemy.  
      McCain.  McCain.  McCain.  McCain. McCain.
  McCain is the enemy.  A Conservative court, more years in Iraq, more dead soldiers, more wars, more hate, more   corporate giveaways, and more ignorance is the enemy.

  by haremoor on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:06:07 PM PDT

•  c'mon folks

  Hillary Clinton has played some very dirty politics, shown herself to be the political animal that most of already thought she was and certainly she does not have my vote for president. But she is a decent legislator with a record relatively similar to BO and if she were working under a good president ( as I believe Obama will be) I do not think she will be disruptive to the democrats. Lets practice some grace and be creative rather than destructive.

  The speed of communication is wondrous to behold.
  It is also true that the speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue. - Edward R. Murrow

  by daisychain on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:11:45 PM PDT

•  I love her when she's fighting Republicans

  I despise her when she's fighting Dems.

  That simple for me.

  by The Termite on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:20:37 PM PDT

•  hopefully you're feeling heartened, diarist

  When I voted, the numbers were 87%-12% in favor of an Obama presidency with Hillary as Majority Leader.  You've gotta be feeling appeased, there.

  Back in November/December, I would have been perfectly happy with Hillary as the nominee.  But the way she's run her campaign has irrevocably disillusioned me, from the negativity and fear-mongering to the plain old poor management.  The Clinton campaign is inarguably ruthless, and the implication she made that McCain is better qualified to be president than Obama was disloyal to the Democratic party in a way that I trust concerns you, given the nature of your poll.

  If for some reason Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her because I'm a yellow dog Democrat all the way.  I might even reach deep into my conscience, swallow my anger and go to work for her.  I wouldn't bring the joy to it that I bring to my efforts for Barack Obama, but I think we desperately need a Democrat in the White House.

  Since you're undecided, I also hope you'll take into account the effect our nominee will have down the ticket in races across the country.  I'm not going to make a case here for Obama - surely you've looked into this, or you will.

  I didn't come into this race with any a priori bile for Hillary Clinton, but this campaign has certainly deposited some in the ol' bank.  But ultimately I'm not supporting Obama in protest against Hillary.  I'm supporting Obama because he's the first candidate I've run across to inspire me not just to actively get involved in a campaign, but to also take a larger look at how I can help my community in the long term.  For a former political couch potato, that's priceless.

  I wish you luck making your choice.

  by The Gallivanting Monkey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:36:18 PM PDT

  •  The problem is that

    Im not happy with either candidate, on my 2 main issues.

    My 2 issues are space development, and seeing some sort of accounting for what has happened during the Bush administration, with the real possiblity of criminal indictments and prosecutions.  

    With regard to space development, Hillary has said some things that I like, and Lori Garver, who is advising the Clinton campaign on space issues - I've met her, and trust her to move Nasa in the right direction.  Obama's space policy, however, I find very trouble, as I find his comments about manned spaceflight.  I know that there is a group of space activists that support Obama - I am associated with the group, but his comments have me concerned, as I said.

    As for seeing some sort of accounting, and justice, while I have a small hope that Obama might do something (although its really minuscule), I have really no expectation that Hillary would do something to stop.

    As for making a choice - I already voted - in the michigan primary, I voted for Mr Uncommitted.  If we have a redo, I don't know who I'll vote for.  

    I do feel a little better, but I still remained concerned that the party could end up in a civil war.  Hopefully, that wont' happen.  And, as I said, I intend to vote and campaign for whoever is the nominee

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:51:45 PM PDT

•  Why it aint gonna happen ...

  I doubt that in the present climate Hillary could get elected majority leader. In order to do that, you have to have an ability to get things done in the Senate, with your fellow Democrats, that Hillary does not currently possess.

  Further, since there are 2 Senators per state regardless of size, all those "boutique" state Senators will not take kindly to her remarks.

  by Keith Pickering on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:44:19 PM PDT

  •  I think it could happen

    Between the two of them, Clinton and Obama have something like 20 Senators who are backing them - I can see those Senators ultimately falling in line.  And with the backing of Reid, and Dean, I can easily see it happening.

    by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:00:32 PM PDT