I agree with jdw.
The other difference is that our candidate has a path to the nomination, whereas your's does not.

I will not have political relations with that woman.

I'm for Obama's health plan over Clinton's because I think it could actually be passed and that a plan that mandates that adults purchase health insurance for themselves would face the same fate it always has, failure.
I'm for Obama's foreign policy over Clinton's because I agree with his premise that talking with our enemies doesn't make us weaker and disagree with Clinton that such talks would give despots legitimacy. Saying you will talk with your enemies doesn't require you not to make it clear they are a despt.
I'm for Obama's domestic policies over Clinton's because they are more about getting things done than simply scoring political points.
I'm for Obama over Hillary because his character, trustworthiness and integrity are significantly greater than hers.
I'm for Obama over Clinton because I don't think our country has only two families with the ability to lead us.
I could go on but hopefully you get the point. I'm for Obama over Hillary because I've studied their positions, and their character, and find him to be far superior to her on almost every measure out there.

I'll admit I'm on the fence about nuclear. And I have read the article about Exelon previously. The point is, as others have noted, is that Obama, Clinton, and McCain, as human beings, are all flawed (just as we all are.). I do not agree with any of them on every single detail of their policies, positions, etc. But I'm not sure I've ever agreed with any candidate on every single issue, or anyone for that matter.

I make it a point to read articles arguing on all sides. I find that it is usually the columns with which I disagree most that provoke the most thought.

With regards to the economic policy, I have read Krugman's piece. I have also read other pieces refuting his column. Either way, it should be noted that these columns are all opinions.

And with regards to health care, yes, he is further right than her. To be sure, his position is still certainly to the left of center. One point that should be made is that it is highly likely that neither of their proposals on health care will make it through without serious chopping. And a second point that should be made is that some actually do like his plan better. That also, of course, is a matter of opinion.

And I could tell you why I think he would make a great President, but I'm not really sure you're interested in hearing. Shall I?

I support Obama, would gladly voter for Clinton over McCain, and haven't visited Daily Kos for well over a year and a half, as I find it too shrill and tit-for-tatty for my taste.

I support Obama because he is not pursuing the unsuccessful DLC inspired campaign we have seen from democrats during the last 25 years, which counsels that candidates should assume positions on issues based upon what republicans might have to say about those positions. The electorate(not to mention the world) has changed in the last 25 years, a fact that apparently escapes those who continue to hew to DLC orthodoxy (Clinton, Bayh, and etc.).

I support Obama as he has attracted legions of young folks into the process and because he is way more likely to say things we need to hear not what we want to hear. For example, telling automakers that CAFE standards must be strengthened and including advocacy of equal rights for gays in his standard stump speech, and not just to pander to gay audiences. I support Obama because he promises to talk to other nations, rather than engaging in hyperbolic threats of "obliterating" their countries.

I support Obama because he advocates an end to the ridiculous 45 year Cuba travel and trade bans which have done nothing at all for the Cuban people, and has done so at the risk of alienating the Cuban oligarch exiles who, through their financial generosity, enjoy inordinate political influence in FL and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in NJ. To his non-DLC, "fifty state" campaign, winning FL is not crucial. (Remember Gore would have won the electoral vote if he had won another state with only 3 electoral college votes.)

I believe Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq adventure, for Kyl-Lieberman, against prohibiting the sales of cluster bombs, and etc., in accordance with DLC orthodoxy, to preempt republican charges of being soft on military and defense matters. Further, her vote to ban flag burning, after the Supreme Court (including Ghengis Scalia) had already ruled such unconstitutional, was nothing but bare pandering to the most retrogressive amongst us.

Finally, don't presume to tell me why I support Obama.

I think those who find it necessary to place folks into tidy little categories, in this case all Obama supporters, do so to conserve space in their small minds which are unable to contend with the many shades of gray of which the world and its people and their ideas are composed.

if you're voting on a single, highly debatable issue....

you're an idiot.

there are many very strong, clear reasons why Obama is the best candidate in this election, or even in a generation. these reasons are easily found and considered by anyone willing to read articles about Obama in newspapers or blogs with anything resembling an objective frame of reference.

Krugman has degenerated into inanity when he talks about politics. his columns are painfully predictable and he's lost a great deal of respect.

I tried to post a link, but couldn't.

Read David Sirota's blog at Huffpo from yesterday.

Schumer and another Clinton supporter (Meeks?) basicallly said that Health Care wouldn't be on the table ince there was no money for it.

A lot of this problem is because most human decision making occurs on the right (non-verbal) side of the brain and is a little difficult to articulate. Drew Westen's The Political Brain(6/07) addressed this. Unfortunately, after the Dems went overboard with George Lakof's linguistic concepts in '04 - that were far short - they paid far too little attention to Westen. I actually thought Obama had been consulting with him. Turns out he is one of those people who uses the concepts intuitively (and therefore is not as consistant). It explains why he is able to 'connect' with many voters, not to mention people all over the world who are also excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency. (http://www.theworldwantsobama.org)

The campaign has several aspects that are interwoven.

-The increasing awareness by a critical mass that we have reached a period in history that does not simply need change. It needs transformational change. The old ways haven't worked and aren't going to magically start working now.

-An intuitive or evidence based understanding that the root causes are well below the surface. The amount of lobbyist influence on legislation, the inability of Congress to accomplish much because of that, and the ultimate power behind it all. $$$ The nuclear bill is an excellent example. My ex is an environmental engineer. He was in charge of Alaska's Dept of Env Eng hazardous waste management. Worked with the oil companies. Obama's bill, in the reality we think of as government, was about as good as you can get - on a first try. To do more, you need a regulatory agency that is staffed to do it's job, and a Congressional majority that is willing to buck the establishment power brokers. (Try The Broken Branch to get a handle on the disempowerment of Congress)

-An understanding and constantly emphasized agreement that this is not just about what Obama can do. It is about what We the People can do from the bottom, if we have an Obama that is willing to listen and lead from the top. I simply cannot emphasize how important this is. See the Obama ads at MoveOn. It is a reality that too many voters and politicians have simply ignored or avoided for decades. To keep a Republic, the people MUST be involved in governing. The responsibility does not stop when you exit the voting booth. The fact that the changes are so deep and extensive just adds to it.

-Rev Wright said something that added another piece for me, especially when I listened to an Obama speech last night from MLKs church just before the Holiday. Politicians say things the way they have to say them - in order to politically survive and succeed. You can't be too obvious about what you might be willing to consider if it will unleash a concerted effort to stop you - from the invested power brokers. You also can't be too specific or grandiose in laying out any plans because you and everyone who is grounded in reality knows that any plans a President has will get turned over to Congress to be made into legislation. This is appropriate, it just tends to get left out of the candidate selection process. We talk like we think the individual is going to do something they actually can't. Mostly because the WH has a lot of power the Constitution actually doesn't give it. It can be used constructively or not. It is highly limited without a Congress that is willing to cooperate.

- The increase in Congressional majorities will play a big role in what can and can't be done. Saw a headline yesterday (I ended up not getting to read the article) about how members of Congress are saying that health care reform will be limited due to money and complexity. We know from polls and the endorsements of red and purple state politicians, especially governors, Obama will help the down ticket races a lot more than Hillary.

In listening to that speech I picked up some key words on health care that told me Obama is aware of where we need to go in health care.(I don't buy Krugman's opinion, much as I generally respect him. Been in health care 31 years, the plan is not out there yet). Getting there is going to be a huge battle and on a simply practical level, has to be incremental. Don't get off on secret agendas. Nothing can be done with out massive support from the public, and massive work by Congress and HHS.

I suspect Obama supporters are all in the state of mind that we have too much to do, too much to lose if we don't get started ASAP. Hillary thinks she will be ready to hit the ground running on day one. My problem is she won't be running in the right direction. Is Obama a risk? No shtuff. And I doubt you will find many casual gamblers in his supporters. Just people who know that at this point we've been off track so long we need someone who has the best chance of finding the right one. Because he is very willing to pay attention to the people.

After all the years of Dems wanting a candidate who connects and articulates well, who is a real progressive; it is hard to understand why so many cling to the past. In comparison to the GOP presidencies that we have had since '80, Clinton was very good. But some of what he succeeded at was due to very different circumstances. We were not at war in two countries, the national fiscal situation was nowhere near as bad, and the causes of some of our problems are what he did during his administration. Will Obama make mistakes. Absolutely. But he has no emotional investment in sustaining the Clinton errors.

Now when I first saw the video on this, it struck me as another unfounded attack. Then I came across this information. Methinks we don't need a candidate with this kind of legal activity going on. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/what-hillary-clinton-and-the-m-1.php

For people who bitch about nuclear power plants, have you even been inside one? Do you guys even know the science and the engineering? We could have a 3 Mile incident every year and it would still be less environmentally damaging than coal plants.