The current fervor for Obama is very similar to the fervor for Bush -- valuing popularity and words over authenticity and accomplishment.

It didn't work then, it won't work now.

Obama could not bring himself to chastise Jesse Jackson, Jr. for implying that Hillary did not care about blacks in Katrian while Hillary at the risk of defeat in New Hampshire fired Shaheen for using a new meme in his truthful description of what the Republicans would say about him. This told me all I need to know about who was willing to incite racial hatred to win. I cannot vote for Obama in the general after having voted for Democrats my entire life.

For me the choice is obvious, and here's why: Obama will serve as president in the same positive, pragmatic and tireless way he has run his campaign. He has achieved the near-impossible in his run against the Clintons. There's no doubt about that. So why should there be any doubt that he will achieve great things once he's in the Oval Office?

Obama not only wins on eloquence, he also wins on determination and an uncommon skill as a strategist. If there was any test of Senator Obama's mettle, this campaign was it. In my opinion, the Senator has now been fully vetted.

Another reason to support Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

Hillary has a lot going for her and no doubt she is intelligent. However there are a few things to take into consideration that people ought to know before they vote that she hasn't been vetted on .

While I believe "experience" is necessary it is only relevant if one grows and learns from his or her experiences. Actually judgment is more important than just "experience". One can have the "experience", but still lack judgment.

For instance Hillary's decisions are more political than anything such as her vote for attacking Iraq. She is afraid of taking political risks. More importantly what defines Hillary for example are her votes against 3 amendments that would have curbed Bush's rush to war. One of which was submitted by Dick Durbin (D-Il) that would have compelled Bush to demonstrate "imminent threat" prior to invading Iraq.

The second was Levin's amendment. Granted Levin's bill called for the UN's approval before force could be used, but it also reinforced America's right to defend itself even if the UN voted against it. Therein nothing in that bill was an impediment to the US in any way. Yet Hillary claimed it would have made the president "subordinate" to the UN.

So basically her vote against Levin's bill meant she was against international support and the UN's consensus. Moreover that vote would be relevant only if she believed that Bush 41 was wrong to go to the UN for international support and approval before he attacked Iraq.

Although the amendments were defeated Hillary had 3 chances to slow down Bush's rush to war, but chose not to! Now what kind of judgment is that! Furthermore she will not say whether the US will maintain permanent bases in Iraq. For someone entrenched in the Washington politics translates into more of the same.

Hillary also shifted her policy on torture. At first she said she would seek "legal" exemption to saying her current position, "torture cannot be American policy."

All of which leads me to believe Hillary will be more of the same, but as a "Bush-lite." And the republican contenders will be like Bush, only on steroids!

Additionally Clinton never talks about her tenure as a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm, an Arkansas corporate powerhouse.

In the mid-1980s, as a member on the board of Wal-Mart while the company mounted a campaign against unions Hillary was silent. She claims she fought for women's rights, but nothing was ever achieved.

I suggest taking a closer look at her actions rather than believe everything she says; it is what she doesn't say that worries me.

Actions speak louder than words.

Well, I always need to worry when I agree with Todd Gitlin. But on some things (opposing the Iraq War), I suppose agreement is OK (though I opposed the Kosovo War too).

As for Obama -- there are two questions: What kind of CANDIDATES are the two likely to be in the GE and what kind of PRESIDENTS Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be.

As for candidates, politicos across the country (who felt, also, that John Edwards would be the strongest at the top of the ticket, usually) are overwhelmingly, especially in the OtherThanSolidlyBlue areas, of the view that Obama is better for them. I agree (though I disagreed with the CW that Edwards was stronger than Obama). On Edwards, that's because, as in 04 -- where after all, he couldn't even pull in N Carolina -- he struck me as underwhelming, especially in the debates. Obama is said by some to be less effective at debating than as a speechmaker, but my OWN impression of the debates, not on "winning" or "losing" is that, as when asked his greatest fault, he consistently tries to give thoughtful meaningful answers even to the stupid questions they ask, while the other candidates (as on the fault question) are just trying to sell themselves as best they can. It isn't merely that Hillary Clinton "already" has high negatives. For all this talk about the 'new more attractive, softer and more human Hillary', she just doesn't seem better and better, to me and I suspect with voters, over time.

I think that the race-baiting that the Clinton campaign tried in desperation was OBVIOUSLY the case but also suggestive of how, no, Clinton is a figure that grows on you over time AFTER he's been in power and replaced by a patently unworthy occupant of the Oval Office. (The latter point, I would also agree with Todd Gitlin, was sufficiently obvious in 2000 that voting for Nader was, as I made my view painfully clear at the time, the wrong move).

Obama is a strong closer, he DOES have the momentum, precisely because he DOES grow on voters over time. Consider the following chart:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Note how Hillary's support has reached a plateau, while Obama's has been rising steadily, and never falling back, for months and months. This evidences the feeling I have had about Obama for many months now, since I started making (small) contributions to his campaign.

I also think that progressives (the ones who "sneer" while liberals "hope") sometimes need to refresh their memories. Yes, Clinton did a good job on some essentially Republican, albeit worthy, goals -- balancing the budget and maintaining prosperity. But he also stood for NAFTA and the WTO, betrayal of progressives in many ways large and small, with a VERY undistinguished environmental record that looks good only in comparison to Bush, and often chose strategies that could only be seen (Huge Congressional Hearings about Gays in the Military? What kind of strategy is that for DEMOCRATS?) as detrimental to progressives even though SEEMING to try to advance. Babbitt, who managed to create a smaller firestorm with his early policies of the Clinton years, more recently (Sept 2005) was on the op-ed page of the NY Times calling for New Orleans to be remade AS AN ISLAND city.

I remember seeing Jack O'Dell speak in Brooklyn about three months into the first Clinton year. It was obvious then that progressives had lined up (perhaps even worse than in the case of Carter) behind yet another Democrat determined to sell progressives out politically. Many attribute the loss of Congress to Clinton supposedly being too LIBERAL. This is spin doctory. Clinton betrayed progressives and many stayed home on election day 1994, with distastrous consequences that lasted at least 12 years.

And Clinton's balancing of the budget is the FIRST thing that W wrecked on coming into office, so all that was left was the sacrifice of progressives, the promotion of McGlobalization and strategic megadeficits -- as well as an eviscerated welfare state in a period of stagnation where it has been felt more.

No -- it isn't some delicate 'tipping' situation for me. My own inclination was to back Kucinich, for whom I voted in 04, but figured we would be better off with the BEST possible nominee, both as a candidate (which Kerry was supposed to be but -- betrayed again, wasn't) and as a president.

I would add that if you compare a Democratic Party in defeat under Obama's stewardship vs under Hillary Clinton (as with Dean v Kerry), having Obama at the helm would be the more palatable of THAT choice as well.

Remember, a vote against Hillary is a vote against Jeb Bush.....

You've got to know the Bushies are dying to trot that SOB out there. Wasn't he the good son that Poppy and the Swine before pearl-wearing First Lady always thought would be President?

If Hillary's in the White House in 2011 it sets up Act V of this tragedy. Not so much with Obama.

Actually, I'm still on the fence. Or in keeping with the Big Tent analogy. I'm sitting on the center pole. Sure it's painful, but in a politically-pleasurable, Tim Russert kind of way.

I think I'm going into the booth tomorrow and vote for Obama, but I'm not going to like it.

I mean, he's OK. He's not calling for doubling Guantanamo or saying that we'll be in Iraq for another hundred years. But for someone who's supposed to be The Great Non-White Hope, he's just not far enough in front of anything that I care about to inspire me. If, for instance, he had stood up with Chris Dodd in the early innings to say that telecom immunity is just plain wrong, I'd love to vote for him. Instead he's at the back of the hall with everyone else, tut-tutting at those naughty telephone companies now that it has been established that it's not an automatic career-killer.

The main reason I'll probably vote for him tomorrow is that, now that Edwards is out of the race, he's more likely to beat McCain than Clinton. It's very simple: the MSM love McCain, they loathe the Clintons, and they like Obama. I don't want to spend every day between now and Election Day watching CNN, MSNBC, the big three networks, along with the major newspapers and newsweeklies, rehash every Scaife-funded talking point while McCain gets a free pass.

It totally sucks, but I have to vote the way I do because of what an ass like Chris Matthews thinks.

I understand that many staunch members of the democratic party want orthodoxy. I get it. I really do.

However, in the Rovian game of 50% +1 electoral politics, maybe you should ask yourselves, how much should we consider the left leaning and moderate independent vote? In that world, a 52% to 48% vote is a landslide. This is important, because one has to wonder what a presidential election will look like if even 1 in 50 people who would be inclined to vote democratic in the presidential election decide to either stay at home or vote for McCain if Sen Clinton is the candidate.

The reality is that most of the American public is not as overtly partisan as the people, like me and you, who feel the need to read and post on political blogs. They just aren't. Considering that Sen McCain will be the likely Republican candidate, how many people in the self-categorized 'independent' sphere do you think will pull the lever for Sen Clinton in the fall? How many do you think will stop to consider and think about things such as Sen McCain's actual voting record or his likely picks, if they should occur, to the Supreme Court? How many of the latino voters, specifically male latino voters, that may be supporting the Clinton campaign now would vote for Sen McCain, a man who has shown at least a partially reasonable stance on immigration, would end up voting for McCain?

A few percentage points of latino voters here or there; A certain amount of the base African-American American constituency staying home because they thought that they were marginalized during the primary; A certain portion of the youth vote stays at home because they feel that their vote wasn't heard; A small percentage of the white male vote that won't vote for Sen Clinton for various reasons, good through bad; A small percentage of folks who by into the whole McCain as Maverick mystique...

Right, wrong or indifferent, this seems to be the reality to me. Energize the base of the Republican party on top of losing some of the Democratic coalition by nominating the very qualified and competent Sen Clinton seems to equal an electoral landslide for Sen McCain. The same fate may apply to a nomination for Sen Obama, but that would be for different reasons.

I only ask that people look at the bigger picture here. If large turnouts favor the Democratic party, who would likely bring out such a turnout? If so-called 'Independents' swing presidential races, who would bring more to the Democratic column? In a race that will likely evolve into a discussion about the economy and the war/occupation, even though the exit polls so far seem to suggest that there is a disconnect between the economy and the war, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a candidate whose position was clear in the first place?

All I am asking is that people think about these things. Vote with your heart... And to the winner, may she or he destroy the 'Straight Talk Express' in November... Because, after all is said and done, Supreme Court Nominees can only be selected by the winner of a general campaign, not the primary.

Peace be with you all.

My 68-year old, white, feminist mother from Massachusetts wrote this:

I made up my mind to vote for Barack Obama at a rally for him in New Hampshire, which we attended with our daughter and her young children. Previously, I had said that my heart wanted to vote for the transformative Obama, but I wasn’t sure about his electability. I had considered, as a woman, supporting Hillary Clinton, even though I didn’t feel compelled by her candidacy, personally. I felt most aligned with the policies of John Edwards.

On a sunny day in New Hampshire, following a huge snowstorm, we stood in line with thousands of others, waiting to get into the gym at Concord High School. We had been early, so were relatively near the front of the line. The crowd grew and the line snaked to a continually receding point far away, This was a civic coming together that I had not experienced since the days of civil rights, peace and anti-nuclear rallies years ago. It felt as if people—these mannerly New Hampshire voters of all ages—had, like us, been watching the events of recent years with quiet desperation at our seeming inability to effect change in the policies of our government, and had finally sensed a way to say we are a better people and a better country than we have seemed to be.

Inside, amidst the signs, the Secret Service, the cameras, the managers, the roped off pathways, and the buoyant crowd, anticipation grew. We were happy to share so colorful an event, especially one that is part of the nation’s political process, with our granddaughters. And then Barack Obama began to speak, urging us to overcome the naysayers, to vote as our best selves, to move toward the future as we wish it to be. Looking over, I saw that my husband had tears running down his cheeks. “Why is Grampa crying?” asked one of our granddaughters. “Because this is the way it’s supposed to be and what we wish for you”, I said. And that is when I made up my mind.