for the record, obama hasn't much record, either nationally, or even as a state senator. last time i checked, foreign policy creds aren't a staple of state legislators.

whether you agree with her or not, sen. clinton's adult professional and personal experience, in the national arena, far outweigh sen. obama's. thanks, i'll go with the surgeon who's actually performed more than one operation.

my brother lives in chicago, and has for many years, during the time obama was a state senator. my bro was, um, underwhelmed by sen. obama's performance in the IL legislature.

interestingly, obama's approach to all elective office campaigns seems consistent: offer platitudes without substance. i don't know if that's because he thinks so little of his constituent's ability to understand substance, or that he knows so little about the issues that he's unable to formulate actual coherent plans. in either event, i want details, as do most thinking people.

ms. winfrey is a very successful entertainer, no question about that. however, that's all she is. she has no special insight into the issues facing us as a nation, nor any particular analytical expertise that she brings to the table.

she tends to appeal (whether intentionally or not) to a class of women who seem to be guided more by emotion than logic. there's nothing wrong with emotion, it's a wonderful thing, but it also gave us ronald reagan and junior bush. thanks a lot.

i would have been a lot more impressed had both the obama's and ms. winfrey told these women what, in their mind, were the important issues, and urged them to independently research them. it's not like the election is next month or anything.

but no, they just dumped a big, hot, steaming pile o' "he's wonderful, vote for him" on them.

And damn Jeralyn, it's like you just don't get it, either that or you're so in love with the idea of Hillary Clinton becoming president, that you're willing to give her a pass on all the SELLING-OUT that she's done since she became a senator, and during this campaign, far more than Barack Obama, if you want to compare records, especially on some of the most important big national issues, especially from the most progressive perspective.

You think she'll have us out of Iraq before her first term ends?  Well the military-industrial complex in this country surely doesn't think so, and their donations to her campaign reflect their confidence.

As I've said in the past your espousing of the left-leaning progressive agenda certainly comes into conflict with your support of Clinton, but I have the intellectual honesty to concede that compromises must be made in politics, that's what politics is all about.  But when it comes to supporting Clinton, you seem to be able to take this to the nth degree. I certainly don't see Clinton as more left-leaning than Obama, not when it comes to the deeper more substantive issues.  Rhetorically perhaps but in no other way.  The fact is Clinton is the Democratic corporate candidate, and she worked for many years to get herself in good with the establishment, because she knew how important their support was.  To the point where it's almost impossible for her to sell herself to the American people as the reform candidate.  That's a trick that only Bill could pull off.

Hillary like Edwards is part of the elite in this country, just as you, a lawyer are part of that privileged elite.  Perhaps you recall Edwards saying on more than one occasion, that regardless of whether he gets the nomination or not, he'll be just fine, unlike the rest of America.  This was an amazing statement, which apparently none of his advisers had the presence of mind to tell him was not a good thing to keep repeating.  The American people who are struggling and suffering under this administration, certainly don't want to hear how the elites in this country will be just fine, regardless of who is elected.  But I think this is indicative of Edwards mindset, and why he is failing with his message.  And Clinton's problems mirror his, both of them need an attitude adjustment, because I believe they've lost touch with the people, the average everyday people who still have a say in who runs this country.

And who else but a lawyer would be cynical enough to refer to hope, change and optimism as "platitudes", especially in a country that is desperately in need of the candidate who offers at least the possibility of change, hope and optimism.  Obama doesn't just throw these terms out as rhetorical devices, he conveys a sincerity when when using these terms, a sincerity that people respond to and appreciate.  Perhaps you should think about why Hillary does not engender hope and optimism or the prospect of change for many Americans.

 I will concede that in comparison to George W. Bush, Hillary seems a welcome relief, but I believe that most Americans want more than  just relief from the constant pain this administration has inflicted upon us, we want to be proud of our country again, we want the majority of Americans, a majority of more than 51% to be able to get behind a new leader, and help us silence the ugly vicious contemptible elements in this country, who will surely find new voice and power as a direct result of  their opposition to another Clinton presidency which will surely help to unify them once again.  Though they are fractured now, doubtless there agenda will be reinvigorated, simply by virtue of of having a Clinton in the White House.  And I suspect they will begin making progress once again in their efforts to manipulate the American people with Hillary as president.  

I realize why you continue to post about Obama in this way, you really don't have anything to say about Clinton, nothing of substance anyway, because she's not willing to tell us anything of substance, knowing that if she does it will damage her position with the people who are filling her coffers, and with the support she's getting from the Beltway, and with the national media, all of which have agendas that don't necessarily coincide with that of the majority of the American people, or the best interests of this nation.

And claiming that you prefer Clinton's approach to health care, over Obama's rings very hollow to my ears, since even those who have evaluated these rather broad plans don't understand how they would be implemented, or how mandates will be enforced, or how we'll get private insurers to actually pay for people's health care, once the people are sufficiently motivated to fork over their hard-earned dollars to the private insurance industry.  

Here's an article from the weekly standard, that might help you with your anti-Obama rhetoric.

Saint Barack of Iowa

They subtly slight Obama, but are careful not to come down too hard on him because they like the idea of him doing damage to Clinton, who they see as the most dangerous threat to the Republican candidates.  They figure that if Obama wins the nomination, it won't be a problem defeating him because they can play the ni--er card, which I'm sure they believe will trump all other considerations in much of red and racist America. I think they underestimate the American people, and have been doing so for some time, and I really want them to play that race card in the national election, because that's what America needs to finally clean out the pipes and move forward into a new day in America.

Instead of just being a cheerleader for Clinton, and failing rhetorically, which I imagine your hit numbers are beginning to reflect, perhaps you should have the courage to take a stand behind your candidate and start evaluating her weaknesses which have endangered the Clinton machine's acquisition of the Democratic nomination.  Here's an article that will help you in this regard.  Hillary had better take a page from her husband and learn how to adapt, because if she can't do it up against Obama, she will surely fail against the Republican nominee, who won't be nearly as kind or gentlemanly.

Tension in Hillaryland Grows as Plan Goes Awry

[Obama, they worried, can't win the nomination; voters aren't ready for an African-American president (a point expressed most directly by the two black women participants), and he may not be sufficiently experienced.
A couple of victories in Iowa and New Hampshire would cure most of those problems.

The concerns about Clinton, 60, a New York senator, are that she is devious, calculating and, fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics.

Those are a lot tougher to overcome. ]

[Plan A Failing

The Clinton organization had a clear plan A: It envisioned the candidate, as the choice of the party establishment and natural heir to the presidency, to so dominate 2007 that she would be able to corner, not have to capture, the nomination. It worked perfectly for most of the year.

The strategy has imploded. In a similar situation, Bill Clinton would have changed plans on a dime -- he could have gone from B to E during a rest stop.

Hillary has all the strengths cited by those Philadelphia Democrats and much more discipline than her husband. If she can't adjust and rise to this challenge, however, she may well finish third in the Iowa caucuses and lose to Obama in New Hampshire. In the past 30 years, no candidate has lost both these tests and won the nomination.]  

As I said some months ago here and elsewhere, and was pooh-poohed by many, the people prefer Obama.