Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why I'm voting for Barack Obama
It’s been a tough choice to make because I think both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would make potentially great presidents. I’m excited at the prospect of endorsing an historically significant candidate, the first woman or the first African-American to be the nominee of a major party. I think both have run excellent campaigns with very different styles, Clinton showing her toughness and determination to win and Obama emphasizing his cerebral, cool, non-confrontational style.
Both policy differences and character differences between the two candidates have been a factor in my decision, but neither pushed me decidedly towards one candidate or the other.
First, policy positions. I’m solidly behind their policy positions and agenda for America, though Hillary Clinton has a definite edge. On the issue I care most about, bringing universal health care to America, Clinton’s policy proposal is more comprehensive, more progressive, and more transformative than Obama’s. Moreover, she is the most likely to have the expertise and credibility to actually get the legislation passed. Obama’s proposal is weaker and he has never quite convinced me that he’s going to make healthcare reform his top priority.
Second, character. Clinton’s greatest weakness as a candidate is that she has absorbed much of the broken Washington political culture into her bloodstream. Consequently, she is too often dishonest, calculating, and wavering in her positions. Her affinity for changing positions with the changing polls is noted. And on the important national security issues America faces, Clinton faces the challenge that she is seemingly deathly afraid of being painted as “soft on terror” because she’s a woman. I worry that Clinton may be too eager to embrace war over diplomacy in order to shore up her credibility with voters worried that she isn’t tough enough.
In contrast, Obama is a refreshing political personality who seems authentic, inspirational, optimistic, and pragmatic. Obama seems more honest than most politicians, and more willing to say uncomfortable truths in front of unfriendly audiences. He panders a little less, and speaks candidly about his own weaknesses. Unfortunately, too many Obama supporters have gotten carried away with their enthusiasm and have built up a puffed up image of the man as a sort of messiah figure. I try not to hold it against Obama that many of his vocal supporters on the Internet are some of the most irritating pontificators I’ve ever encountered. Obama can’t help it, though I do wonder what it is about the guy that seems to attract so many naïve, sheepish, small-minded followers.
If casting a vote for president were merely a matter of weighing a person’s character strengths with their vision for the country (e.g., policy positions), then I would have to say my decision would come down to an even tie. I find Clinton’s character’s not so weak – and Obama’s policy positions not so misguided – that my choice is clear. However, there is one thing that breaks the tie: electability.
At this time, it seems very likely that the Republican party will nominate John McCain. Although Mitt Romney is not yet out of the picture entirely, I think it is prudent for Democratic voters still contemplating their choice to consider carefully which of our candidates is more likely to beat McCain in November. Consider two recent polls. A Rasmussen Jan. 26 polls show Clinton at 47% and McCain at 45% in a match; and it shows Obama at 46% and McCain at 41%. A NBC/WSJ Jan. 24 poll shows Obama and McCain tying at 42% and McCain beating Clinton 46% to 44%. Much could be said about how seriously such polls can be taken this early in a presidential contest. I choose to give them a fair amount of credibility, especially regarding McCain and Clinton, since these are two politicians who have a significant amount of name recognition. (True, I’m sure Obama’s negative scores will poll much higher as the fall election nears; however, McCain is also untested enough as a national figure that his negatives could easily be driven up as well.)
Obama is the better contrast to McCain: youth versus age, inspiration versus fear, hope versus bleak straight-talk, the future versus the past, etc. McCain on the campaign trail often sounds tired, hopeless, and resigned (”There will be more wars.”) McCain’s greatest weakness is his commitment to keeping the US in Iraq for up to the next 100 years. Democrats will be eager to paint him as a cranky, anger-prone, vindictive warmonger who can’t be trusted in the White House. Obama is the better candidate to sell that message, since his own longstanding opposition to the war in Iraq allows him to take the moral high ground.
Also, the McCain campaign will be eager to cast McCain as a bipartisan statesman who can work with a Democratically-controlled Congress to keep them in check. If he runs against Clinton, he will no doubt attempt to portray her as a partisan, polarizing, and divisive figure who will contribute to deadlock in Washington. That might very well be a successful sales pitch. However, McCain will be hard pressed to portray Obama as a divisive figure. Instead, McCain’s attack will center on Obama’s inexperience. My guess is that by November a plurality (if not a majority) of Americans will be won over to Obama’s side enough so that they are willing to gamble with a politician who is relatively green. (True, McCain will also attack Obama on ideological grounds. But my hunch is that it’s McCain who is more susceptible to ideology-based smears than Obama, who is truly striving for a post-ideological campaign.)
One strength of McCain’s is his “media darling” status. The media fawns over him incessantly, which makes it really tough going up against him because you’re fighting the media the whole way. Obama also gets lots of (undeservedly) positive media coverage, so picking Obama would cancel out that unfair advantage. It seems very unfair to Clinton that she consistently receives far more negative press coverage than the other candidates, but sadly her inability to curry favor with the media means she brings a huge liability to the fall campaign.
And so the choice of Obama over Clinton ultimately comes down to a practical choice of casting a strategic vote for the candidate who I feel would be the most likely to win a general election in a very competitive race. Obama is not a saint, nor a savior, nor the second coming of JFK and MLK all rolled into one. I find myself extremely irritated at the holier-than-thou histrionics displayed by his most fawning supporters. I’m really worried that many Obama fanatics seem to cry “race-baiting” at the slighest, most dubious provocation (no, I don’t think Clinton’s run a campaign based on race) – a tendency that could be disasterous for Democrats and bad for American politics in general. I’m not convinced that Obama will really bring all that many independents or Republicans into some sort of “Reagan-like revolution”; in fact, I think that’s all hype. I don’t find myself particularly excited by Obama’s principle theme, which he seems to have stolen right out of George W. Bush’s playbook (“I’m a uniter, not a divider”), and I still have plenty of worries about his slender experience, policy weaknesses, campaigning abilities, and electability (especially his susceptibility to religious and racial smears based on foreign-sounding, Muslim middle and last names). But nevertheless, he’s my call. If he’s the nominee, I’m sure I will be far more excited about voting for him in the fall than I am now (still feeling remorse that Clinton is not a more electable candidate than she has proven herself to be). And so I plan to caucus for Obama in the Washington State caucus on February 9, 2008 and vote for him in our primary as well.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee instead, I will be far from upset. She’s another candidate with the potential to be a truly great president. And while she would face an uphill battle in a campaign against McCain, I’d still put my money on Clinton to win in a squeaker. My hope is that Clinton will select Obama as her vice-presidential running mate, and that he’ll accept. A Clinton-Obama ticket in ’08, however improbable as it may seem at this time, would be unbeatable.
Comments (25)
If the Democratic Party doesn't wake up, It looks like I’m finally going to have to vote for that yellow dog.
I am not sure what is going on with the Obama supporters, but their demeaning and insulting comments and their constant talk about "race" isn't doing their isn't showing their canadate in a good way. This is the kind of politics he joined the presidential race to stop. Well, he's stuck his foot in the bloody water, and it's too late now to get out now. He's just another pol who wants power. JFK. LOL. Let him fight a war and serve in Congress for 12 years - then I'll see some JFK in him. Right now he's just one of Daley's boys.
I will never vote for Obama. And Bill Clinton doesn't owe him or the black community a damn thing.
I'm a life long Democrat. I organize. I raise and give money. And I VOTE.
Obama brags that he was against the war from the beginning. So was I. We are both from the Chicago area. I marched. I went door to door. I went to the anti-war rallies. I didn’t see him. I didn’t hear him. I saw a lot of reverends and politicians - but not Obama. Jesse Jackson marched with us. Obama wasn’t around. What did he do to help stop the war when he was a State Senator? I know that since he’s been elected as an Illinois Senator, he's voted to fund the war, not end it. He's also becme very chummy with Senator Lieberman.
Bill Clinton was right about Obama. His anti-war record is a fairy tale.
It’s always easy to say you wouldn’t have voted for or aganst something, when you weren’t asked for to vote.
If Obama he wins the nomination. I will vote for Nader. Ralph Nader has spent his life fighting for justice for the lower and middle classes. He’s done many good things to help the poor, and he works very hard to help the unions. He’s a better man than Obama
If Obama is nominated for anything, I will not work for the party or donate to it. I will work against the nominee.
Obama - blah. He’s a mile wide and an inch deep.
I’d cut off my hand before I voted Republian, so I guess Mr. Nader will end up with at least one vote Cook County.
The fact that one of my heros, Ted Kennedy, is supporting him makes me feel as if he brothers were killed for nothing. Obama is no MLK. He’s not even Muhammed Ali.
This is the only song Democrats need to know and remember if they want to win in 2008. People have been beating up on Bill Clinton for weeks, without reading what he atually said. It's time to set things straight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSs5DZEdgdE
February 3, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Clinton twice, and admire him lots. Brilliant, and decently productive against an uncooperative Congress. Of course, there are those unfortunate items, NAFTA and Telecom deregulation, along with welfare reform. I would vote for him again, lacking other choices.
But others are deeply resentful of his (to them) betrayal of progressive principles. These folks can't accept any compromise. Some here talk exactly the same way about Hillary---they'll vote for Nader or McCain before her.
Fatuous idiocy. If you don't want more GOP damage, you have to suck it up and vote for the Dem. Perhaps you are afraid to admit voting for someone that then does something you don't like. Then you can say "I voted for Nader."
Nader voters may not have lost the 2000 election, but they sure didn't win it. I voted for Gore, and Kerry, although I was not in love with either.
February 3, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're crazy if you think Obama is the one "constantly" talking about race.
February 6, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, he NEVER talks about race. His toadies, however, twist the words of the Clintons and go to their plentiful friend ins the press to complain about "Clinton playing the race card." And every Obama supporter proclaiming themselves upset about the awful man, even if he didn't say what they and the press are reporting.
Race came into this for the first time right after the mainstream media got burned by going with Obamamania and believing those wacky polls. (Same margin of error in California. Same in South Carolina, the other way. Same-sized error for McCain in 2000 in New Hampshire. The polls in primaries are very often wrong.) And Matthews was faced to eat crow for being a sexist pig. Next day, coincidentally, with Obama (first heard the RFK line from him, and Obama people ought to be ashamed of that one) needing South Carolina, Matthews and company start saying that Hillary's voters must have been racist -- no evidence, just "they must be." Then, coincidentally, these mysterious, never-before-sighted instances of Clinton "race baiting" just pop out there. Short quote, but now, you listen to the full thing and say, "What the hell are they talking about?" It's racist to compare Obama to JFK and Clinton to LBJ. Or to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson.
That's how Obama's people brought race in. Really smart. Just the same way they convinced a sizable percentage of voters that Gore was crazy, madly ambitious, would say anything to get elected, made no sense, had to hire a woman to tell him how to be a man, etc. They knew that the Washington Insiders in the press hated Clinton. What better way for a supposed "outsider" (he tells us so!) to come to power than to provide raw meat for the insiders who are deciding this election?
February 10, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your wonderful post. :)
February 3, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh, please do support Hillary who voted for this war in 2002 and continued to support it until FINALLY implying that Bush was incompetent and then has said "I'll get us out as fast as possible". Go ahead and trust this person with war decisions again.
I certainly won't. Vote Obama.
February 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are worried about McCain being a media darling, aren't you worried that since Obama is the current Democratic media darling that once the media can only have one media darling that they will choose McCain?
Obama's lack of experience will not stand up to McCain's record. Obama will be vetted for the first time and it won't be pretty. You can already see the vetting begin -- Rezko, Exelon Corporation, he will be portrayed as a flip-flopper "I was against the war before I voted for every funding measure for the war and said my positions are in line with Bush's."
February 3, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
MOOaCOW,
Very interesting. My position is polar opposite. I am an Obama supporter and have always been a Democrat. I will never vote for Clinton. Never. I will give money to McCain if that is what it takes to defeat her.
I used to care about "the issues." Today the only issue for me is integrity. Hillary has none. Hell, even Huckabee is better - he is insane but at least he is honest.
February 3, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a very insightful post. I have been absolutely wringing my hands over the decision between Hillary and Obama. Your post sums up *exactly* where I am today.
(An aside: because I couldn't decide between the two frontrunners, I probably would have voted Edwards on Feb. 5 to give symbolic support to the candidate who best represents my views. But that was Tuesday!)
As you say, they're both good choices, with clear positives and negatives. And so the bottom line must be electability. I agree that Obama has the edge against McCain. Even if the poll numbers don't provide overwhelming evidence for this now, I think ultimately the juxtaposition of the very old, curmudgeony McCain against the fresh-faced, inspiring Obama will prove you right. IF Obama does become the nominee, that is.
Thanks again. I love reading stuff that articulates what I am thinking so well!!!
February 3, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really enjoyed reading this post to the point that I'm a first time responder. I experienced exactly what you wrote about while campaigning door to door in a rundown neighborhood in NJ today. People weighing exactly these issues against their intuitions. The audacity of hope won through loud and clear. People who probably don't read these blogs, deciding that Barack is the one to vote for, was inspirational and made me believe "yes we can!".
February 3, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
JP, this is really an interesting and well thought-out post. But I can't understand why you discount what to me is one of the strongest, and best documented, arguments in Obama's favor. You write:
"I’m not convinced that Obama will really bring all that many independents or Republicans into some sort of “Reagan-like revolution”; in fact, I think that’s all hype."
Certainly, there's nothing clearer - in the polls, the actual primary and caucus results, and the overwhelming weight of anecdotal evidence - than that Obama has much greater appeal to independents than Clinton. Why don't you believe it? The independents are going to vote for someone. They won't vote on party lines - that's the whole point of being an independent! They'll choose between, say, McCain and the democratic nominee. Isn't it important that Obama is likely to hold more appeal for them?
As far as a "Reagan revolution" - sure, no one can predict a revolution. But look at younger voters. Their preference for Obama is not only clear, but astoundingly large. (Best exit poll stat of the campaign: Obama won 50% of white voters under 30 in S. Carolina.) Surely the best chance to build a working majority for Democrats for the long term is to pull in those voters now. Again, isn't this kind of important? And, is there any chance that Hillary can do this?
February 4, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam from Illinois:
"As far as a "Reagan revolution" - sure, no one can predict a revolution. But look at younger voters. Their preference for Obama is not only clear, but astoundingly large. (Best exit poll stat of the campaign: Obama won 50% of white voters under 30 in S. Carolina.) Surely the best chance to build a working majority for Democrats for the long term is to pull in those voters now."
I do think that's a fair point in Obama's favor. Independents favor Obama. Youth favor Obama. Add two points to the electability column.
I'm only saying that the conservative pundits who see Obama as the Democratic party's Reagan are way premature. Such speculations may have some credence, but I think it's far too early to say. It's just as possible (though I don't think likely) that Obama will end up a one-term "failure" like Carter as he proves to reshape American electoral politics as Reagan did. I would rather base my vote on more concrete and verifiable factors rather than wild speculation.
And if you're bringing up the long-term relationship between the Democratic party and youth voters, then I would submit that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be the ideal choice: 8 years of Clinton followed by 8 years of Obama would build a bridge to the future quite nicely. I think and hope Obama will one day be president. I just wish it were more obvious that the timing is best in '08. I'm willing to roll the dice, though.
February 5, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it difficult to vote for someone that I feel will be more acceptable to the Right Wing Hate Machine. That is what many people are doing when they say that they feel Obama would fare better in the election than Clinton. Lets vote on who is the better candidate. Period. Clearly this is Senator Clinton. I love all of the platitudes in a good speech as much as anyone (think Marion Cuomo) but I want a wonk in office after 8 years of the current nitwit. I want someone who I know will read the memos. I want someone that I know everything about, even the bile that the RWHM makes up, it is all old news now. Other than the 'hope' that the Senator speaks of, when you put them side by side, and listen to their answers to questions, it is clear who is on top of the issues. Remember, bringing the Republicans to the table is a nice sentiment but I dont think they want to come to the table.
February 5, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately Hillary did not read the most important memo of her career - The October, 2002 NIE estimate on Iraq.
See, "Hillary's War" from the NYTimes Magazine on June 3, 2007 (sorry, I can't seem to make a link work in the comments section).
February 6, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To JP and Sam from Illinois: Your very civil post and comment inspired me to comment for the first time on this site. Just from personal experience, Obama's cross-over appeal exists. I come from a very large, religiously conservative family in West Michigan; my grandmother is/was a Fox News Republican and staunch supporter of George W. Bush, but she just LOVES Obama. (She read both Dreams from My Father and Audacity of Hope.) Not only her...I have spoken to several aunts and uncles, Bush supporters all, who voted for Obama in the Michigan primary. I'm not sure what this means, but from anecdotal evidence I don't think it's isolated.
February 5, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason I'm voting for Obama was clearly visible again last night. While Hillary read a speech that had been written for her by someone else from a pile of cue cards, Obama stood up and spoke words from his own heart. No cue cards necessary.
Obama is the real deal. He's not gaming anyone. When he calls himself "an imperfect vessel for all your hopes and dreams" he is simultaneously acknowledging the impossible position his supporters have placed him in while humbly accepting the job. If you don't know the man, you really should introduce yourself.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803?printable=true¤tPage=all
February 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
MOOaCOW,
I found your post fascinating, if a bit frightening. You say Obama didn’t protest against the war in Iraq because YOU marched and didn’t see him? Sounds like something Nader said in 2000—that Gore was the same as Bush where the environment is concerned because then-VP Gore didn’t attend a symposium Nader held that year. Nader is an egocentric leader who harbors no remorse that he helped get W elected, and you are following in his footsteps.
Jesse Jackson marched against the Iraq war? So what? What else does he have to do? He’s another egomaniac who has used his position to enrich himself, at great cost to the people he says he represents. And I have become disgusted with Bill Clinton, not because I think he is racist or owes Obama something, but because his outbursts show that he wants to be in the White House again no matter the cost. If it isn’t him or his wife, it may as well be a Republican. Another egocentric position.
February 6, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Clinton Obama ticket is nigh-on impossible. He undermines his entire campaign by doing that -- he has said she is not a "true change", so by hitching his wagon to hers, he fatally undermines his main message. Accepting a VP role would be a disastrous mistake for Obama.
February 6, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why I WONT VOTE FOR OBAMA
For those of you who support Barack Obama, PLEASE go to
www:freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
These are his own words from his book, friends and family. He was right when he said that no politician is clean. He is just as dirty if not more so than the rest. Some new change. He is not an outsider he's in the Senate. Why did he go along with supporting the war once he had the power to vote against it? What a hypocrite. I feel sorry for those who were taken in by him.
He has taken the great words of JFK and MLK and used them for his own. What a fraud. Yes the U.S. desperately wants change. They want change from George W Bush and it doesn't matter who it is. Obama wants you to believe in the words that he says but it's not what he believes in his heart.
February 8, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
jennie3233 has flooded TPM with the same crack-pot post. She obviously believes everything she reads on the internet. Hillary killed Vince Foster. Elvis was abducted by aliens. What other crackpot theories are you into jennie3233?
February 8, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
novaseeker:
I disagree. First, I think Obama stands a good chance at winning. But if Clinton wins the nomination, I hope she offers him the vice presidential spot. If she does, I think he should and will very likely accept.
Firstly, you should remember that the top and bottom of the ticket never agree 100% on everything, yet they agree to run together to foster party unity (and for their own advancement). What's amazing is that Clinton and Obama agree on largely the same "change" agenda. Obama thinks he's the best vehicle for change, certainly, but if the voters elect Hillary then he will have lost that argument.
Secondly, you forget that the essence of Obama's message is that people who disagree need to come together across divisive lines, and across partisan squabbles. For Obama to reject an offer of running on the Democratic ticket would run exactly counter to his message. I realize some of his most adoring supporters would want him to decline the vp spot out of a desire for "purity" and "integrity" and so forth, but Obama himself if he is true to his message would need to signal that he is more than just talk on unity, and that he's willing to back his unity talk with action.
Finally, if you are implying that Obama's self-interest is served best by declining the vp spot, I disagree. What you forget is that the presidential nominee is the leader of the Democratic party, and if she were to ask Obama to join her on the ticket saying "no" would be a terrible act of party disloyalty. If she lost the election, esp. if it were because Obama's core supporters (youth, African Americans, etc.) weren't energized, there would be many Democrats who would blame Obama for the loss. The anti-Obama resentment would be an albatross around his neck for the rest of his career. The pressure that would be brought to bear upon him by all the Democratic party leadership to accept the vp slot would be enormous, and he would make many enemies if he turned it down.
February 9, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a few big problems with Obama.. One big one is where the personal and the political intersect..
That he would have a financial mentor (and personal?) who is a slum lord. One who stole money from the Federal government for low incone housing and maintained slum conditions in Obama's own district. Obama went on to get the slum lord's wife to buy a piece of property for his benefit.
I have a big problem with Michelle Obama.. to go on national television and state that she is not sure if she will support Hillary.. should Hillary get the nomination is the height of arrogance. You might not like the old politics but the democratic party existed long before the Obama's and this comment shows immense arrogance
On the policy level.. Obama's distain for mandates is one of the many factors that tells me that his know little knowledge of genesis of social programs that have benefited us all.
This and other comments suggest that he is very ignorant about economics and is not aware of how ignorant he is.. That is most scary..
particularly at this time
February 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. I vote for policy. Barack Obama + cowardly health care proposal + Ben Nelson ≠ change.
I don't care, frankly, that Hillary voted for the authorization to use force. She wouldn't now, and she wouldn't have by the fall of 2004, if you check her statements. Some people are using her vote at that point as some kind of original sin, whereas Obama was honest and pure. If so, why did he move to the right and vote with Hillary almost all the time? Why didn't he join the Out of Iraq Caucus with the REAL antiwar congresspeople? Why? Because he's after the main chance, that's why. You don't get to his position as the front runner without trimming your sails a little. How well is the presidential campaign of the members of the Out of Iraq Coalition doing? Oh, wait a minute. They don't have one. But Kucinich has been against the war from the beginning! He must be in the lead! Why no, he's out, having gotten votes in the lower single digits.
But there's one thing that being virginal on the war is good for: trashing an opponent who was there in the cockpit. No politics there.
February 10, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Where you call Obama supporters naive, sheepish etc. -- I think you are forgetting something. Here where I live, people (especially young people) have gotten involved in a way I haven't seen in a very long time. If there are folks who don't express themselves as well as some, bear in mind that some of this is likely due to the fact that many are young, and some are new at "this" (expressing opinions in writing on blogs, comment sections, etc.). I respectfully suggest that your the attitude suggested by your comment reveals some arrogance. Not everyone is a professional writer.
But when I see people who are so preoccupied with just surviving (our middle class here has been decimated by plant closings) that they aren't as informed as they should be about current affairs, suddenly get interested, get excited, register to vote, etc., the potential power of this is remarkable. Inspiring people isn't just words, when they get off their butts and register to vote. Inspiring people -- persuading them -- is a huge part of leadership. People are starving for that. Obviously it can't stop there, and it can be misleading (how many charismatic leaders have revealed their true leanings once in office?). But if inspiring words lead someone to take an interest, who didn't before, I find this very exciting, and that is happening here where I live.
If annoying at times, just move on to the next post, and know you just read something from a person who is going to vote. You don't have to have dinner with them, but you'll be glad to see them at your polling place.
February 13, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a life long Democrat who has always bitten my tongue and supported the party's nominee.
Not this time.
Edwards was my guy, at least he talked the talk about taking care of the poor and middle class.
And yes, I have a masters in Social Work from Washington University thank you very much!
I am singularly unimpressed by Obama and fail completely to see his appeal. I'm sorry , it escapes me. He is wishy-washy, voted "present" 129 times? What's up with that?
If Obama is the party's nominee I predict he will lose by a landslide!
Not since George McGovern's loss will we have seen anything like it.
Obama , in his much touted book be-littles "New Deal Democrats" and "Great Society Democrats". These were the very things that attracted me to the Party in the first place so...
If the Party deserts me on the kitchen table issues that keep the middle class afloat then the least I can do is return the favor.
I won't vote McCain but I won't vote Obama either! I'll probably write in Edwards or maybe vote Green Party. My Vote, My Voice , Right?
February 28, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment