First, what are the doubts you have about him? Let's start there.

Have you read his issue statement from his website? It's a lengthy read, but worthwhile. I'd love to convince you, but if you're anything like most of us, you need to be convinced yourself.

People who looked at Clinton and saw a "great President" probably are never going to see Obama as a "great President." And vice versa. They're very different.

Clinton is a Hawk. I can understand that some people think that a great President must be hawkish, and look at Clinton's votes for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman, and her (pre-campaign) rhetoric about the war on terror, etc., and are reassured. If you think that such a strongly hawkish leaning is a good thing in a President, you aren't going to like Obama. He's not a pacifist, he's not opposed to all wars, but he's not a hawk in anything like the way Hillary is a hawk.

Clinton actually has little relevant experience, and what she has she exaggerates. The teapot story in Ireland is a prime example. She doesn't make the claim outright, and most of her supporters don't either, but implicit in a lot of her arguments is that what she brings to the table is Bill. If getting Bill Clinton into the White House is what appeals to a Hillary supporter, then Obama doesn't have that to offer.

Clinton's style of politics is down and dirty. A lot of her supporters see her endorsing McCain, exaggerating her own experience, equivocating on whether Obama is Muslim, running a fear-mongering commercial like the 3AM ad, talking about "turning" pledged candidates, talking about winning the nomination by getting super-dels to override the primary voters and caucus goers, etc., etc., etc., etc., and they don't see these things as negatives. They see her willingness to stoop to these levels as a big positive. They see politics in purely polarized terms, and so a polarizing candidate is what they want. They don't see the moderate/indpendent voters as relevant, it's all either loyal Democrats or wingnuts who are irrational and unreachable. And so they want someone who will fight dirty. They aren't likely to see that in Obama.

A person who thinks that Hillary is likely to be a "good President" obviously doesn't put much weight on organization skills, or planning. Hillary's campaign has been characterized by poor planning. Getting caught flat footed when she didn't win decisively early on. Not even having looked ahead far enough to know how some of the complicated primary/caucus rules worked. Making claims about her experience, without being prepared to cite any specifics at all. Obama has run a much more disciplined, prepared and well-planned campaign. To me that's significant, but someone who doesn't see Hillary's poor campaign planning as a flaw isn't likely to see Obama's organization and planning skills as a big plus, either.

You might look at both candidates and see the policy similarities, which far outnumber the policy differences, and on that basis think that either would be okay. But other than that, if you look at the reasons that enthusiastic Hillary supporters cite for supporting Hillary, and the Hillary weaknesses that don't bother enthusiastic Hillary supporters, you're not going to find the kind of reasoning that would easily transfer to enthusiastic support for Obama.

Read the current issue of Rollingstone Magazine. It has good articles on both Obama and Clinton. But you have to do your own homework. Get off your azz and research the issues. hint, you're on the right site to start with.

For me, it came down to foreign policy. I believe Obama is more likely to embrace a non-traditional, less militarist foreign policy, promoting the use of soft-power and diplomacy, using intelligence and long-term approaches (such as reining in loose nukes) than the out-moded, Scoop Jackson-Joe Lieberman 'we're tuff too!' approach that I see in Hillary Clinton, that I believe is equal parts political calculation and conviction.

Also, if you look at the state-by-state polls, I think Obama has a better chance of beating McCain.

I will tell you why I chose Obama and why I think he would make a great President.

I do so as a life-long Democrat so I have some biases in that direction that may not appeal to an independent, or (gasp) a Republican.

1. First of all, Obama has committed to the 50-state strategy for the Democratic Party. This means Democrats will not concede states at the Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, legislative, or local level. Our party was increasingly becoming a two-coast party - Northeast and West Coast with a sprinkling of Northern industrial midwest states. A party must be strong nationally and in all areas possible. We were letting Presidential campaign strategies - gain 12-15 states for the electoral vote needed - drive our strategy at all levels. Obama will have coattails in many of these states that will help democrats downticket and he will support the 50-state strategy. Clinton will not. The 50 state strategy is in fact a direct rebuke to the Clinton policies that they took the party in, including under the leadership of McAulliffe and Clinton's campaign approach makes clear they still believe in a 12 state strategy.

2. Bringing new voters and reducing cynicism. Obama has invigorated the next generation and brough back in voters who were jaded and tired of the process. We have had declining turnout for decades and increasing cynicism about politics. No, he is not a savior but he recognizes our future as a democracy depends on an invigorated populace. How can you fight special interests, bureaucracy if the citizens cede their role? I have seen no such committment from the CLinton campaign.

3. His campaign and legislation speaks to the candidate most committed to transparency in government and public life. He released his tax returns, he would not accept donations from registered lobbyists, he gathered more than 1 million donors, he successfully sponsored ethics reform in the Senate, he successfully sponsored e-government law to allow internet access to USG contracting. Our government has been increasingly secretive and dismissive of citizens' right to know what their government is doing while at same time allowing lobbyists to write laws for them. He is the candidate that speaks to me on this issue with his words and actions.

4. Policies - he has sound and thoughtful policies, grounded in reality. I want universal healthcare, I want a clean environment, I want taxes to be fair, etc. While it has been said he and Hillary do not disagree on much in policy, I think he adopts the more practical approach. There is no evidence the country is ready for a mandated health coverage plan, for instance. And anyways how would you get this through - by getting a larger majority in Congress (see 50-state strategy above).

5. Electability. Obama is more electable in my opinion. Hillary has entrenched negatives at 47-49% which gives her little margin for error. She energizes the base of the other party. She and McCain come out of the same old school political approach and in many ways speak the same language (not on policy of course). Obama will be distinct from McCain. Obama has experience that is relevant and saleable - 20 years of experience - what Bill Clinton had and more than GWBush had.

6. Leadership - what is a President. I pondered what I want in a President and decided I want a leader not an administrator. I want a president who can mobilize the population, ask us as citizens to get involved, and who can develop a strategy and bring along the population and congress. I see him as this person. Clinton has an administrative approach to the presidency - she is going through a "job interview" as she has said. But I for one do not think it is an administrative job - it is a leadership post of the greatest nation on earth. If that is your style, then Obama is not for you.

SOMEONE ASKED WHY VOTE FOR OBAMA? EIGHTTEEN QUICK REASONS

1.Obama, all-tolled, has even more legislative experience than Hillary. (10 years vs 6 years)
2.Obama opposed the war, Hillary authorized it. (Now 70 percent of Americans want the war ended.)
3.He opposed NAFTA, she supported it. The aftermath of which was 3 MILLION American manufacturing jobs lost.
4.He is respected and endorsed by senior Democratic Congressmen who have worked both with Hillary and Obama (Kennedy, Dodd, Kerry) and have clearly chosen to endorse him over her.
5.Obama is far more authentic than Hillary, who seems, at times, disingenuous. (she will shake hands one day, attack the next)
6.Hillary is beholdened to Lobbyists and Special Interest groups. She takes more money than ANY other candidate in the race, Rep. or Dem. And this indicates who's interests she will prioritize and serve while in office.
7.Hillary has a lot of baggage, including allowing corruption to reign in her own marriage and her shady and questionable involvement in Whitewater. How will her government be immune from corruption? It won't.
8.Hillary has more pork, Earmarks, in her budget (360 MILLION DOLLARS) than almost any other congressperson.
9.Hillary, unfortunately, will have Bill Clinton as her de facto VP.
10.Obama does NOT engage in smear campaign tactics (even when attacked) that serve to reduce and divide the entire party, as Hillary has, does and is doing. Many of these belittling and spurious attacks shed more light on Hillary, than they do her opponent. Just imagine if Hillary was the man, and Obama the woman. People would be in an UPROAR.
11.Obama is even tempered, Hillary, unfortunately, is not. She is prone to outbursts.
12.Obama has run a far more efficient campaign, Hillary's has been a financial disaster. Hillary started with 170 MILLION DOLLARS, and went broke.
13.Obama inspires people with optimism ("From the bottom up; activate the American populace") ", Hillary motivates people out of fear. (3AM advertisements for egs)
14.Obama is inclusive of the American people and their aspirations (yes WE CAN) , Hillary tends to be divisive and exclusive. ("Well those states just don't matter")
15.Obama can work with Republicans (who happen to despise Hillary) The result of which? Obama can get legislation PASSED!
16. In almost every major poll, Obama beats McCain time and time again, while Hillary gets defeated time and time again.
17. Obama won the last debate according to a survey taken by MSNBC on their website. (60 percent Obama, 20 percent Clinton, rest undecided) And really, Obama has won the last THREE debates.
18 Hillary Clinton, according to Rollingstone Magazine, takes more money from drug companies than any other member in Congress.

As to Obama's foreign policy (leaving aside Obama's glowing endousement of Lieberman in the CT primary) here's neocon Robert Kagan's take on that:

Robert Kagan is enthusiastic about "Obama the Interventionist".
America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.(...)To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. "We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy." The "security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." Realists, call your doctors. Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to terrorism. Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism. He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world." Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened." Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort? Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.

As to who would win most easily in the GE: Clinton keeps almost all the traditional Democratic voters, Obama does not -- about 1 in 5 Clinton voters would rather vote for McCain. The Obama voters have been saying that they are less committed to him -- I had assumed that this meant they were more willing to vote for Hillary but it may mean that more of Obama's voter are independents and Republicans with less loyalty to their choice and hence more of a risk to depend on in the GE. (courtesy of David Seaton)

Most of them just can't help but bash Hillary as a reason to vote for Obama. Sad.

Here are my Obama-focused reasons for supporting him.

Foreign policy 1: His presence as president will bring a cooling energy to the aggravated Middle East. His color and name will have an instant effect on the "white crusader" identity the U.S. is currently labeled with, and he will back that up with an air of goodwill & reparations through speeches and policy.

Foreign Policy 2: He will bring a much-needed diplomatic edge to Iraq, and at the same time draw down forces there quickly and rationally.

Foreign Policy 3: He hints at it without saying it (which is smart), but he will slow down and even reverse the growth of the military industrial complex over an 8-year presidency.

Domestic Policy 1: He is a charismatic personality and inspiring speaker that will continue galvanize many people to patriotism and active civic involvement. The more people involved in government, the less it is an "us vs. them" battle for policy.

Domestic 2: He will do what he can to slow down and even reverse the strength of lobbyist power in Washington. A second term would have the potential for real campaign finance reform.

Domestic 3: He will support and open civil dialogues on energy & healthcare, and it is our responsibility to convince him away from Nuclear, Clean Coal, and any medical system that isn't single-payer.

Domestic four: his policy will redistribute wealth to the middle class and bring funding to scientific research and education that will end the trends of the last 7 years.

General: He's a smart, clean (not corrupt), little-guy-oriented, visionary, natural leader. He has the capacity to show real strength and real compassion. He comes from a modest, community activist background. He is a model for the modern , socially conscious American citizen. He has a genuine, improvisational character that is refreshing to see in the "image" business. He seems to be able to remain very calm and cool under pressure.

Good luck in your decision-making.

I had a very favorable view of the entire Dem. field when this thing started.

Clinton was a tenacious health care advocate who had been treated so very unfairly by the right-wing machine. Edwards positioned himself as the populist hero and brought poverty front and center in the debates. Obama was the inspiring up-and-comer who showed real political courage and who was bringing new dems into the fold.

In the end, I was drawn to Obama for many lesser reasons (which I won't get into here), all of which seemed to inform a single powerful argument:

Obama is the vessel through which Dems. can achieve a significant majority to affect REAL change.

Republicans have thrived on obstructionism and subverting the issues. Right now they are demoralized (and, well, they should be). Obama is someone who has and will continue to show many independents and conservatives how they've been misled; that so called 'liberal' issues actually make sense. Sadly, many of these people have been poisoned against Hillary Clinton (often enough through no fault of her own). And she represents, fairly or unfairly, a lifeline for republicans this November and beyond.

Two months ago I thought Obama and only Obama offered the prospect of a filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2010. I still put it at better than 50/50 if he gets the nod. I just don't see that ever happening if Clinton wins, even discounting the fact that, at this point, she'd probably have to cripple the party to get the nomination.

Just keeping visiting this site until you understand:

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

First reason, for anyone with sense, to support the Democratic candidate, whether Obama or Clinton, is John McCain (notwithstanding David Seaton's mania).

But specifying Obama implies the contrast with Clinton. Can't be otherwise, so not-Hillary issues are positive reasons to support the other.

How about this simple positive point---Obama threw volunteers into a race against Denny Hastert's successor, and it went Democratic. Obama will deliver.

I find it best to decide for yourself from the man himself.

Two things will convince you -
Read his books:
Audacity of Hope and Dreams of my Father

Read the article he wrote for Foreign Affairs Magazine:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Before you interview a candidate, decide what you need and what you want and where your requirements lie on the spectrum of the candidates' positions. Do you think the world is a dangerous, hostile place that requires an agressive leader to promote America's interests above all others, forcing them down the throats of anyone who resists? Or do you think we've been missing out on critical and lucrative opportunities to exploit radical and rapid changes in the world's financial markets, political fluidity, and information flow?

Read Obama's website; his positions are right out there. On paper they're extremely similar to Clinton's. The differences are subtle, and mostly ones of tone and strategy. Health care? Start with children, which congress can agree on easily. Move to cost controls so you can then set up affordable plans. Clinton claims she can require insurance for everyone right away. It looks like Obama's plan, but the strategy is literally incredible. The pattern holds for most of their positions.

Most of us have gotten so emotionally entangled with our candidates that we can't even express anymore why we love them so. But, in case you're interested, here's my core belief:

I hate fear. I fear fear. I've lived in fear ever since Reagan was elected and he held the bomb over our head for eight years. And noone can think clearly when they're afraid. In my view, Obama isn't about some abstract hope. He's about poast-boomer, post-cold war, post-racist, post-feminist, even post-liberal hope. He wants to redefine America in ways that just seem to make sense, making alliances in Asia, the Middle East, and (oh by the way) Europe that'll make Al Qaeda irrelevant. IMHO, if we don't redefine America, America will soon be defined out of its position as a leader. Obama's about sacrificing ourselves for future peace and prosperity. Clinton seems to be about hanging on to the past glories for dear life. Clinton keeps reminding me of fear, and I won't go there anymore.

"Forget it. If they don't have the courage to do it on their own, I'm bloody well not gonna lead 'em on by the hand."

- Joe Strummer

I think that there have been quite a few well reasoned posts on this issue so I won't belabor them.

But I think that the most fundamental reason why I am an ardent supporter of Barak Obama can be found in his Wisconsin victory speech when Obama stated the following:

"The change we seek is still months and miles away, and we need the good people of Texas to help us get there.

We will need you to fight for every delegate it takes to win this nomination. And if we win the nomination, if we are blessed and honored to win the nomination, then we're going to need your help to win the election in November.

And if we win that election in November, then we are going to need your help and your time, your energy, your enthusiasm, your mobilization, your organization, and your voices to help us change America over the next four years.

Because understand this, Houston: As wonderful as this gathering is, as exciting as these enormous crowds and this enormous energy may be, what we're trying to do here is not easy, and it will not happen overnight.

It is going to take more than big rallies. It's going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and Web sites. It is going to require something more, because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die...

... because lobbyists crush them with their money and their influence, because politicians spend too much time trying to score political points and not enough time trying to bridge their differences so we can get something done.

The problem is that we haven't had leaders who can inspire the American people to rally behind a common purpose and a higher purpose. And this is what we need to change today. This is what's hard, and we know this."

This is an manifesto as profound as any given or made in the American body politic in the last 48 years. Obama is calling for the American people to take back their government, to be involved, engaged and active participants, to be "We the People."

Why Obama?

(1) start with reading the Oct 2002 speech
It is not just anti Iraq war - it is prescient in what was going to happen
(2) Sr thesis at Columbia on the dangers of nuclear non proliferation and a dogged path to try and tie up loose nukes. This culminated in the Obama-Lugar Non proliferation bill passed in Congress last year
(3) As an Illinois State Senator led the effort to reform the death penalty which led to a moratorium on the Death Penalty in Illinois - where the Innocense Project originates from (following a year when 7 or 8 later proved innocent men were killed by the state)
(4) Bringing new people into the system. As the mother of a teenager - who will be voting for the first time in NOv 2008; I watched my daughter and her friends so disgusted and turned off by politics as they watched their parents fight with friends, arguments about the war, George Bush etc

Suddenly there is a Barack Obama - don't tell me Hope isn't appealing. Suddenly my daughter and her friends see government as part of their lives and their responsbility. Unlike my generation who had to be involved because of Viet Nam and the draft - until Obama the majority of this generation was "sitting it out" - not interested in government and its divisiveness

My daughter and friends went to SCarolina and canvassed and worked for Obama - they met and spoke to people their own age who they never would have had the opportunity to talk to --all joined by the common goal to support Barack Obama.

(5) Growing up in NY I was a "kid for Kennedy" too young to vote but worked for Bobby Kennedy as he ran for Senate. And waited 10 hours in line as his body laid in state at Saint Patricks Cathedral. I still view this as one of the most defining moments in my life.
Barack Obama has the magic Bobby Kennedy had to lead and inspire. To want you to do better. To care for others. To speak plainly and simply and stir your soul.

---
I can give more reasons -- but these are five pretty compelling ones to me

Why Support Obama?

I'd have to admit that for me, a big part of what makes Obama compelling is a Generation X sensibility that simply resonates with me as the future.

In part it consists in a genuinely post-racial, post- identity politics vision (that goes beyond the liberal but race-conscious 60s generation like the Clintons); also a civil libertarian ethos of individual freedom and responsibility (i.e. bottom-up political power only works when citizens take personal responsibility) where in contrast I think Hillary Clinton retains more of a top-down vision of government power.

I think David Brooks, in his op-ed on March 4th, accurately distills something of the Gen X sensibility in the movement for Obama:

Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: “And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!”

For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.

Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning.

But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.

Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There’s only one politics, and, tragically, it’s the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices.

Hillary Clinton has fought on with amazing resilience since then, and Tuesday night may well bring another surprise, but she’s always been the moon to his sun. That night in November, he defined the campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I saw this post and I had to laugh, if these are the Obama talking points I dont know what is. I had to address this:

SOMEONE ASKED WHY VOTE FOR OBAMA? EIGHTTEEN QUICK REASONS

1.Obama, all-tolled, has even more legislative experience than Hillary. (10 years vs 6 years)

LOL, well so does Leiberman but I think you would be hard pressed to say he is the person to represent the party in a general election.

2.Obama opposed the war, Hillary authorized it. (Now 70 percent of Americans want the war ended.)

At the time he opposed it he didnt have the full weight of the responsibility of the vote on his shoulders. Funny thing how a bit of responsibility and accountability can change one. Obama has sine coming to the senate vote the exact same way as Hillary Clinton on the war.

3.He opposed NAFTA, she supported it. The aftermath of which was 3 MILLION American manufacturing jobs lost.

He opposed nafta but supported Peru becoming a member of it. Another Go Figure moment.

4.He is respected and endorsed by senior Democratic Congressmen who have worked both with Hillary and Obama (Kennedy, Dodd, Kerry) and have clearly chosen to endorse him over her.

Ok this is not saying much to me given the fact kennedy owed his re-election the clintons helped him in his state when he was being challenged by Romney and Romney was winning. John Kerry? LOL I know you didnt GO THERE! this man wouldnt stand for the party in 04...he simply folded!

5.Obama is far more authentic than Hillary, who seems, at times, disingenuous. (she will shake hands one day, attack the next)

Spin. Yes he was very authentic when he said he would not have lobbyists working in high positions in his campaign. I guess he was right there is a big difference between a "state" lobbyist and a "federal" lobbyist.

6.Hillary is beholdened to Lobbyists and Special Interest groups. She takes more money than ANY other candidate in the race, Rep. or Dem. And this indicates who's interests she will prioritize and serve while in office.

ROTFL Obama is taking the same money only he takes it from individuals who WORK for the Lobby group so he can say with a straight face I dont take money from lobbyist. Oh did I mention he is good at taking it from their 3 yr olds as well.

7.Hillary has a lot of baggage, including allowing corruption to reign in her own marriage and her shady and questionable involvement in Whitewater. How will her government be immune from corruption? It won't.

Is this not a republican talking point or what? if this were the case she would not be a twice elected Senator.

8.Hillary has more pork, Earmarks, in her budget (360 MILLION DOLLARS) than almost any other congressperson.

OMG...Hmmmm shame on her New york would be a shamed their senator bringing money back to them. By the way Mccain received even less that mean you are voting for him?

9.Hillary, unfortunately, will have Bill Clinton as her de facto VP.

Hmmm is that a bad thing? 22 million new jobs, peace and Prosperity....Lord why would we ever want that again?

10.Obama does NOT engage in smear campaign tactics (even when attacked) that serve to reduce and divide the entire party, as Hillary has, does and is doing. Many of these belittling and spurious attacks shed more light on Hillary, than they do her opponent. Just imagine if Hillary was the man, and Obama the woman. People would be in an UPROAR.

OMG I really had to laugh at this one. When you say someone is sneaky and cant be trusted that is a smear campaign. not to mention that mess you sent out in Ohio which thank goodness was uncovered and made Obama look weak and petty.

11.Obama is even tempered, Hillary, unfortunately, is not. She is prone to outbursts.

I dont think anyone can say what anyone is unless we live with them. i did like how he cracked when he got a little press in the lead up to Ohio. Who isnt prone to outburst?

12.Obama has run a far more efficient campaign, Hillary's has been a financial disaster. Hillary started with 170 MILLION DOLLARS, and went broke.

Oh please given she has less to work with and is less than 200 delegates behind is a testament to how good of a campaign she has run.

13.Obama inspires people with optimism ("From the bottom up; activate the American populace") ", Hillary motivates people out of fear. (3AM advertisements for egs)

Hitler, Jim Jones, Charles Manson and Marilyn Mason inspired people as well, i dont think I would care to vote for them.

14.Obama is inclusive of the American people and their aspirations (yes WE CAN) , Hillary tends to be divisive and exclusive. ("Well those states just don't matter")

LOL Apparently not if he has a problem getting Reagan Dems, women and Hispanics to come out for him in battle ground states.

15.Obama can work with Republicans (who happen to despise Hillary) The result of which? Obama can get legislation PASSED!

Based on what? There is nothing in his voting record that pops out saying he is willing to cross the aisle. Hillary on the other hand has been called a Neo Con for it. Go Figure.

16. In almost every major poll, Obama beats McCain time and time again, while Hillary gets defeated time and time again.

What state does a major poll vote in? A national poll might be good for predicting the over all popular vote but surely you know the electoral college is what determines who will be president.

17. Obama won the last debate according to a survey taken by MSNBC on their website. (60 percent Obama, 20 percent Clinton, rest undecided) And really, Obama has won the last THREE debates.

LOL More OPINION! MSNBC has become the Generic version Fox News of media. i wouldnt believe a single thing they had to say.

18 Hillary Clinton, according to Rollingstone Magazine, takes more money from drug companies than any other member in Congress.

As i said before you can take money from indivduals in a lobbying firm and claim with a straight face that you dont take money from lobby GROUPS. By the way i went to open secrets the difference in money Hillary received vs Obama 12,473 bucks ....ROTFL Wow i dont think i need to say more.

He's not Clinton or McCain.

I would think Americans have had enough of being perceived by other countries as being bullied and lied to by their President. Hillary just offers more of the same.
Obama is a gentleman and a diplomat. His wisdom and judgement pervades!