what accomplishments, Jesus had? or Lenin?
Or Adolf? or Joan D’Ark ?.
When people are sick and tired by 8 years of Bush’s administration  radicalism, unjust and uncalled for interventionism, lies and misrepresentation of Utopists.fantasists called neoconservatives, they people are hungry for a hero to lead them to the better future.
And the republicans can only blame themselves for that.
If we had decent real politic republican president, like they used to have years ago, Obama phenomenon would have never happenned…

A simple text search at Thomas(Congressional records) using candidates last name and introduced yields some interesting results:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html

1000 Bills from the 110th Congress ranked by relevance on "introduced+clinton ".
       0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
       164 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
       205 bills containing all your search words but not near each other.
       631 bills containing one or more of your search words.

1000 Bills from the 110th Congress ranked by relevance on "introduced+obama ".
       0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
       114 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
       131 bills containing all your search words but not near each other.
       755 bills containing one or more of your search words.

1000 Bills from the 110th Congress ranked by relevance on "introduced+mccain ".
       0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
       36 bills containing all your search words near each other in any order.
       52 bills containing all your search words but not near each other.
       912 bills containing one or more of your search words.

For what it’s worth, seems Billary was busy, while McCain wasn’t too busy. To be honest, alot of this is fluff(and includes links to her husband), but what is McCain really doing? A search using the previous 109 Congress shows McCain a little busier, but not to the level of Clinton or Billary.

Yeah, again, this is a media narrative being written here.  The messaging comes right from Hillary HQ. 

Michael, without digging it up, could you name me a couple of Senator Clinton’s legislative achievements?  What would you say is the biggest thing she has done since entering the senate?

I can tell you what your typical Obama supporter would say–he worked on the ethics reform bill.  I’m not saying that’s his best, but it’s an answer that even a silly college kid with an Obama sticker would provide.  It’s more, I find, than your typical Clinton supporter can give.  They usually rely on her time as first lady, and all that work she did to get us national health care.

Oh, wait…

I can tell you what your typical Obama supporter would say–he worked on the ethics reform bill.  I’m not saying that’s his best, but it’s an answer that even a silly college kid with an Obama sticker would provide.

As a silly college professor, I prefer to point to Obama’s work on expanding Cooperative Threat Reduction (a bipartisan program).

Chris Matthews should absolutely ashamed of himself and his on-air harassment of Kirk Watson, the Texas State Senator, last evening concerning Barack Obama’s accomplishments.

Its no secret that Chris Matthews has a big thing for Hillary Clinton, but I would have thought that as a newsman he would have at least the professional courtesy to move on after the Texas could not answer his question. Repeatedly badgering his guest is rude and offensive. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Clinton supporter was not asked about Clinton’s voting record and if she was asked about Clinton’s voting record she probably would have been rendered speechless as well.

Many people are not aware of Obama’s legislative achievements because the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama’s bills and the effort required to pass them.

Here’s a few examples for you Chris, since your assistant’s can’t seem to help you with your research:

U.S. Senate:

    * Introduced a bill (S.1194) directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish guidelines for tracking spent fuel rods.
    * Introduced a bill (S.1426) extending provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act that relate to preventing and detecting contamination.
    * Introduced a bill (S.1920) amending the Clean Air Act to establish a renewable diesel standard.
    * Introduced a bill (S.3988) improving benefits and services for members of the armed forces and veterans.

Here Chris, go here and see what Senator Obama has done:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Senator Obama’s intelligence, courage, passion, vision, authenticity and ability to communicate in a clear and powerful way to a wide range of people is why people are voting for him.

Chris Matthews owes Senator Watson, Senator Obama and the American people an apology.

Embarrassing a guest is unprofessional and we don’t need to watch this behavior on television.

He’s not runnning for legislator.  He’s running for executive.

C Stanley I disagree to a degree. I think that the insinuation IS in fact that Obama lacks a record, and that’s why he’s not running on it. I don’t agree that this is the case. I do think that it’s correct to hold Obama’s surrogates to account for his record, and on that count Watson is lacking to a degree that seems astonishing considering he’s a bloody senator!

I, as an Obama supporter, am worried about the lack of knowledge, and what’s worse, lack of interest, some of my fellow supporters show for actual facts. Granted, I understand that on policy, Clinton and Obama aren’t all that different, so that style of rule becomes more important, but I still think knowing the basics of your candidates policy positions is important, especially if you are inclined to convince others. I actually am fairly sure that the bulk of supporters on EITHER side are capable of little more than vague appeals (he’ll bring change! She’s ready on day 1!) but being an Obama supporter, I’m more inclined to worry about it on the side of his supporters.

Claudia, that’s not the only possible inference about his record though, and perhaps you have to be a conservative to see it the way I do. What I see is that there’s been little attention to either candidates’ record on the Dem side, partly as you mention because there’s not that much difference between them on policy (so the differences being highlighted are mainly quantitative- experience vs. freshness.) But also, it’s partly because from the conservative standpoint, they’re both pushing liberal policies that are likely to be seen as typical big government, tax and spend policies by those on the right and center right. This is just beginning to come out- I heard some talking heads discussing Obama’s speech last night, for example, in the context of how it will be received in the general election. We’re just moving to that phase of the election where it’s no longer just about appealing to your base- and it seems to me that the two leading Dems have both tried to appeal to their base with emotional appeals instead of substantive ones, partly to avoid highlighting some things that are not going to play well in the general election.

You’re right to worry about whether or not Obama’s supporters are informed about the issues, and here’s why- with his type of leadership, having a vast array of people who are led by him but who all favor different policies is a recipe for disaster. As soon as the rubber meets the road, that kind of coalition quickly disintegrates and instead of a more unified country, we’ll have bitter fighting among the various coalitions who all thought that Obama was going to bring the kind of change that they favored, not the change that those guys favored.

Christine, I’m really kind of troubled by the standard you’re setting for voters in this election.  I would absolutely love it if every single citizen got past Name ID, look, oraratory and an issue or two.  But in truth, this is how politics works.  Those of us who spend countless hours–every single darn day–on blogs, debating caveats in health policy and religious sects in Baluchistan are the freaks in this instance.  This isn’t normal behavior! 

The normal people get drawn in by far less, and yes, rhetoric is a part of this.  This was the draw to some of the titans of the 20th Century, like FDR and Reagan.  Unless, of course, you’re making the incredibly narcissistic argument that all of Reagan’s supporters were well informed on the issues.

C –

I actually started work on a blog post like that awhile back. I dug up some old Reagan speeches and they were almost completely devoid of policy specifics. They were all very general. And he didn’t even have a website, so I’m not sure how anyone really knew what he was proposing outside of "smaller government." That’s not to say he had no plans (CLEARLY he did). Just that he, like Obama, preferred to rouse people rather than detail his positions.

I never wrote the post because, having been only 6 in 1980, I couldn’t bring any historical context to the piece and ultimately decided my analysis was lacking. But speech-to-speech, it appears Reagan was about as detail-less as Obama.

What? Reagan had been a Governor, with a very clear record, he was active – and known – on a political level for years (speech at Goldwater’s nomination anyone?) and he was active for the acting union before that if I am not mistaken.

Reagan was a Democrat when he led the actors’ union.  And a speech is "just words", isn’t it?

An anti-Obama colleague pointed out a factoid that SHOULD be pertinent to Micheal if he wants to stick to his claim that Reagan had a longer record than Obama has:

Obama has spent more years in elected office than Hillary Clinton has.

Unless you want to make the argument that managing White House decor for eight years is relevant qualification for the Presidency, Michael, you have a contradiction running beneath your assessment of Reagan vs. Obama and your assessment of Obama vs. Hillary.

Personally, since I think that the whole “experience” meme is silly to begin with (where did we get the idea that legislative experience is in any way relevant to executive qualification? might it be silly Europeans with their parliamentary systems? ), I don’t have a dog in this fight, but Michael in particular seems very vested in it and I’d like to see him actually respond to the rebuttals that others raise for once.

Reagan’s rhetoric and Obama’s are night-and-day different. Reagan left no doubts that he wanted to reduce the size and role of government, reduce taxes, and strongly oppose communism. Those are 3 very substantive, though general, goals. In his speeches, he said "this (those 3 goals) is the direction I think America should take; elect me to lead you in that direction."

Beyond being nice to one another, in what direction does Sen. Obama propose to lead us? Beyond "be excellent to one another," what are his goals?

Please read this. I am now an OBAMA SUPPORTER http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

Pat, I have spent some of this morning preparing for the Friday BlogTalkRadio show where Michael and callers (hopefully, you will be among them) will grill me regarding my support for Obama. 

I have once again been impressed with the remarkable amount of policymaking detail on his campaign website.  There are many programs, many specifics, and an unusual amount of substantive conciliation towards the other side on many issues.

That said, I also reject the premise of your question in that I do not accept that a change in style is without substance.  Our political system is increasingly crippled by the politics of demonization, division, and name-calling.  Voters are increasingly asked to oppose candidates not because of specific policy debates, but because they are supposedly bad people or because bad people support those candidates.   Hillary Clinton over the last several weeks has reaffirmed her longstanding association with that brand of politics.  Barack Obama has made rejecting that model a major theme.  And no matter how much some people try to laugh it off, that remains a theme that is very important to some of us.

Michael, I think your memory of the Clinton administration is flawed. After the 1993 health care debacle, Hillary had no significant involvement in policymaking. She was in large part treated as politically radioactive for much of the remaining 7 years of the Clinton administration. Her only primary role that I can recall was to headline the "war room" that coordinated the personal attacks on Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey and to put a brave but supportive face on the Lewinsky scandal.

I would also question the relevance of any distinction between the "national level" and lesser levels, especially since you invoked lesser levels (state government and actors’ union) on behalf of Reagan. Your standards of evaluation do not appear logically consistent.

Lastly, I would ask to you to clarify WHY you believe that "experience" matters? I think we’ve all been asked to just assume that it does, but no one has yet provided a reason that we should accept that assumption. I am perfectly happy to provide an explanation on why I think rhetoric matters (as I am certain you will ask such a question on Friday).

P.S. I also continue to reject your claim that Obama has no significant experience. I think you undermine your case when you dramatically overstate your argument. I think you could make a much better argument by acknowledging and dealing with counter-evidence rather than perpetually denying its existence.

Rudi: Yes, I get your point and certainly agree on the ‘quantity vs. quality’ distinction. Although as I looked at the link to the obsidian wings post that Pat provided, I’m impressed with the number of post offices that have been named by Senator Clinton. I think Obama had one or two as well. Perhaps this is the change we’re supposed to be itching for? As a conservative, I can only hope that they’re policies will be as harmless…

As another example, let’s look at Senator Obama’s statement on the FISA bill: "Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. … No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people."

If President Bush said that Senator Obama and the Democrats were more concerned with protecting the rights of terrorists than preventing the next 9/11, Senator Obama would be the first to say that Bush was being "divisive" and "demonizing" him by suggesting that he wants the terrorists to succeed. Yet he feels no compunction to declare, flatly, that the President desires to violate our "basic civil liberties."

No message that this is a difficult issue, that it’s a technically complex issue, that precisely where we draw the line between protecting our citizens from government intrusion and protecting our citizens from being harmed by terrorists is ultimately at least a bit arbitrary, and reasonable people can disagree on where to draw that line.

No, he claims that passing the President’s proposal would absoultely infringe our basic civil liberties. That’s just the plain old-fashioned politics favored by the Kossacks and Firedoglakers.

My general impression on the difference between Reagan’s type of ‘hope and change’ rhetoric and Obama’s is that both use positive, inspirational messaging and both give some details of what they hope to accomplish. But what Reagan had (and Obama lacks in my opinion) is the connection between the two steps on each end of the process: there’s inspiration and rhetoric which brings people together for a common cause, and there’s the end result you want to achieve- but in the middle is that actual process. Reagan had that because he very specifically explained what his broader philosophies were (and how those philosophies translated into policy.)  Read the speech that Michael referenced earlier, for example, the "Time for Change" speech at Goldwater’s nomination. In one of the first few paragraphs, he immediately got into the concept of smaller govt and less taxation being better for progress, and throughout the speech he makes the argument of why we aren’t better off when Washington tries to solve our problems.

Presumably Obama is trying to make the argument that we are, and that if someone who can inspire the people in Washington to work together they’ll all start solving the problems again. Obviously that argument ought not to go very far with anyone who isn’t already left of center on the political spectrum.

And note that I do say that I presume that’s Obama’s philosophy, because between his record and his rhetoric it just isn’t possible to do anything other than to presume it. I think the article Michael quoted in another thread is on target: the idea that Obama’s really using his campaign as a metaphor, that once America comes together to elect a black president, then we know we can come together on everything else. That ignores the fact that one doesn’t follow (at all, really) logically from the other, plus it ignores that our racial tensions have begun to heal because the issues have been hard fought by both sides, not because everyone simply agrees to come together. If he’s elected, it’s a historic moment but one that follows all that came before and is the result of what came before, not just the result of his inspirational rhetoric and calls for unity.

I missed this earlier, Jason:

People are attracted to him STRICTLY for his charismatic oratorical abilities

That is a tremendous over-generalization, Christine. You’re usually the one cautioning the rest of us against these.

Of course it’s an overgeneralization, but it was intentional; I was just pointing out that this is the meme that’s being supported by this one piece of evidence (Watson, a state senator who’s endorsing Obama- not just an average uninformed voter) can’t even name his accomplishments- so obviously in that case it’s true that he’s choosing style over substance. His explanations of why he supports Obama support that as well. So perhaps I worded my comment poorly, because I didn’t actually mean that I believe the overgeneralized version where EVERYONE who supports Obama does so for that reason, but I was saying that this is a real negative perception of him which has some basis, and that’s why this interview is harmful to him.

Now, on this:

I believe more in McCain’s ability to reach across the aisle because he’s demonstrated it.

Odd.  I keep looking at the Lugar-Obama bill and noting (1) it is not overly "liberal" (whatever that means) and (2) it is a demonstrated example of reaching across the aisle.

I’d say that #1 somewhat negates #2. In other words, it wasn’t a very far reach across the aisle on that issue, was it? I know you don’t want to get sidetracked to discussion of McCain, but my point here is that McCain has reached across when it could (and has) hurt him politically, on issues where it was much harder to find the common ground or to go against the base of his own party. I guess if anything, Obama-Lugar proves that Obama can find some of the low hanging fruit on bipartisan policy, and that’s not a bad thing- but it doesn’t prove that he can forge bipartisan coalitions on the harder issues.

I’d say that #1 somewhat negates #2. In other words, it wasn’t a very far reach across the aisle on that issue, was it?

Christine, now you are only highlighting the contradiction in the anti-Obama critique even further. The claim that he is this dangerou out-of-control liberal is undermined if you shift to the claim that his major legislative action wasn’t very liberal at all.

And reaching across the aisle ALWAYS involves finding points of agreement. I don’t see how it undermines his claim to be an unifier to note that he, um, actually did it.

Of course, harder issues will involve harder political negotiations. As I kept telling Abrisaham before he got himself banned, negotiation and compromise does not necessitate sacrifice of principles. But Obama has shown a willingness to try, even if only on so-called “low-hanging fruit”. Where was Clinton?

Pat, I don’t think that ANY of the candidates have met the rather unusual requirement you spell out.  I don’t think anyone did in 2004 or in 2000 either, unless "compassionate conservatism" is somehow a specific direction.  Also, 1996 had no unifying direction and 1992 was just "it’s the economy, stupid".  And 1988 was mostly about Dukakis in a tank, 1984 was "morning in America" unless you count Mondale’s raising taxes promise.

So doesn’t your argument really boil down to saying that the last good candidate platform was Walter Mondale (who lost 49 states and won only 13 electoral votes)?

C,

You clipped my words out of context there. I was saying that’s what Obama supporters believe — I was not saying I believe it. So, yeah, I see the difference in sheparding a flock and preaching to the choir. That’s why I’m a McCain supporter. Somehow I always end up defending Obama in these discussions. I guess that’s because I find it ultimately useless to get all bent out of shape because people are rallying around a guy who’s lacking  (or not communicating) a clear direction for the nation outside of "unity." So what? Most presidential candidates lack that kind of clarity. Obama is a liberal so we have to assume he’s following a liberal vision. I don’t see why we should expect him to suddenly become a visionary before agreeing that supporting him does not have to be some act of blind submission to empty rhetoric but can be a reasoned choice.

I guess that’s because I find it ultimately useless to get all bent out of shape because people are rallying around a guy who’s lacking  (or not communicating) a clear direction for the nation outside of "unity." So what? Most presidential candidates lack that kind of clarity. Obama is a liberal so we have to assume he’s following a liberal vision.

I don’t want to get bent out of shape over it either, ASC, but the problem with not engaging in this kind of argument is that a lot of people who define themselves as centrists apparently don’t see Obama as the liberal that you and I see him as. As you mentioned, it’s quite amazing that people see the same person so differently.

I’m not bent out of shape because ultimately I have confidence in our system of govt- if Obama’s elected and proves to be a) more liberal than many people think he is and/or b) less uniting than people think he is, then I know that our Republic will still survive. In fact excesses in those two areas will lead to a greater GOP majority in Congress, so he’ll be kept in check. I’d prefer that to be plan B though, and since we are just now getting to the general election, I will plan to use this time to persuade as many people as possible to see McCain as a more credible centrist than is Obama.

What Pat said, plus….

I think that anyone who is liberal or left of center in their philosophy should have no problem embracing Obama for all the right reasons: he’s obviously your guy. If you favor very liberal policies, there’s probably a bit of that although it’s likely he won’t be a radical lefty president (but you’ve probably already conceded the fact that Dennis Kucinich won’t ever be president, so you have to take what you can get   .) If you’re a moderate lefty, there’s good reason to think that Obama will push through some programs you favor and have the kind of foreign policy where the State Dept takes precedence over the DOD.

But the people I have a complaint with are those who believe in policies that do not lie to the left of the political spectrum, but who believe that Obama will reliably accommodate those policies in addition to some that are more leftist oriented.  I’m just not seeing that at all, and I do believe that some people are deluding themselves to see something they wish to see. That’s not to say that such people are irrational, but that the choice itself (IMO) is somewhat irrational.

Of course one explanation I can see is that not all policies are on the left-right spectrum, and for some people the most important issues of the day are those that aren’t so closely entwined with either a conservative or liberal viewpoint. From what I can tell, that seems to be the case for Jason, but I do wish that he and others like him would address their viewpoints on the big govt/spending issues. Even if those aren’t the most important issues to a particular voter, I don’t see how they can be brushed aside.

I agree with that, of course, Michael, but I can’t help but ask: do you think you are similarly honest about Hillary? Because although she’s not as liberal as Rush Limbaugh’s fans think she is, she’s still no centrist.

He’s, quite clearly, not a centrist nor a moderate. That’s not a problem, but why not be honest bout it?

Because it is not dishonesty, it is disagreement, Michael.  I (and others) simply do not accept your dictates about how moderation and/or centrism should be defined and measured.  That doesn’t mean we are dishonest any more than it means YOU are dishonest when you don’t accept our premises or definitions.

Pat seems willing to accept the possibility of a principled disagreement.  Want to sign on to that possibility, Michael?

What I object to is the characterization of Sen. Obama as some sort of great unifying visionary.

Let’s see: That would be a characterization that has been made by….NONE of the Obama supporters around here. It’s not like Alan or myself or Justin are like Voldemort’s spammers singing the praises of our candidate as some kind of savior.

OK, so although I know you don’t want to debate Obama vs. McCain right now, I hope you’ll be prepared at some point to explain why you don’t think that McCain has a ‘decent record for fiscal responsibility.’ He’s been a stalwart deficit hawk, so I don’t get that at all.

Barack has held elected office for twelve years.
During the first eight years, sponsored over 820 bills, including 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, fifteen gun control bills, six bills regarding veterans’ affairs, and many others.
In his first year in the U.S. Senate, Barack authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These bills
included:
1. The Government Transparency Act (became law)
2. The Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law)
3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate)
4. The Government Ethics Bill (became law)
5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (now in committee), and many more.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/barack-obama-101/

Well, Christine, maybe so many of my posts are in defense of Obama because Obama is the one that is perpetually under attack around here. It isn’t like there are a whole host of critical posts about McCain that I am ignoring. When someone criticized McCain’s military record, I about took their head off for it, though. I even posted a post critical of Obama myself. That gesture was ignored by anti-Obama critics, who continued their one-sided pattern unrelenting.

For whatever reason, Michael has made it his personal quest lately to slam Obama as many times per day as possible. I mean, for example, look at what Michael did with the “plagiarism” talking point. It was a point initiated specifically BY the Clinton campaign and which distorted the truth in multiple ways. Michael wrote more than one post on it and persistently refused to even acknowledge responses and rebuttals, even when specifically asked to do so by me. That seems unfair to me.

So I’ve started posting defensive pro-Obama posts because it is the only way I can think of to provide what I perceive as necessary balance to the debate. I have tried to do so with civility and even, at times, a good humor that is unusual for me and I think I have largely succeeded in that. I even warned Justin when he kept crossing over into personal attacks against Michael. I also deleted pro-Obama spam just like I deleted pro-Voldemort spam. I’m not the tool of his campaign, I’m a supporter. And I have submitted myself for cross-examination for a full hour on the radio show this week. I “honestly” think I am doing my part here.

But it is awfully easy for a pro-Obama person around here to feel under siege, especially when we keep getting snide comments about our “prejudices” and “emotions” and whatnot.

Jason, I understand that and I agree about the need for balance (though I seem to remember posts by other bloggers here that have been pro Obama, so other than Michael I don’t know where the ‘attacks’ on Obama are coming from. And for the record, I agree that Michael’s postings have been biased but it appears to me more that he feels the need to voice a strong negative opinion about this particular candidate because he thinks people have the wrong perception of him. And no, Justin, that isn’t necessarily intellectually dishonest (in fact Michael obviously thinks that people on the other side of this debate are themselves being intellectually dishonest in not acknowledging the evidence that shows Obama being more liberal rather than moderate.)

Anyway, FWIW I think the site would be a lot better if Michael would focus more on issue based arguments and if those who feel he isn’t doing so would just post their rebuttal to the more frivolous arguments and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

Exactly, Christine. It’s more effective, in my opinion, to respond to bias or flaws or "intellectual dishonesty" by a blogger by demonstrating the flaws in their arguments than by denouncing that blogger’s perceived immoderation, bias, or refusal to answer questions. Rather than attacking Michael for anti-Obama bias, just post a comment refuting (for example) his characterization of the "plagiarism" charges as "stealing." If a post really is absurd, that’s generally easy and simple to do, and then the general public doesn’t read a bunch of bickering over who is or isn’t intellectually honest. Instead, they’ll quickly see which side is winning the argument.

Man, I go pick up the kid and there’s 20+ more comments. Whether or not Michael is being too hard on Obama, you gotta appreciate anyone who facilitates this degree of debate and doesn’t erase the comments of those who harshly criticize him.

Now, as for the point at hand — when I was looking at the possibility of a McCain/Obama contest awhile back, I concluded it would divide centrists/independents in half and make us all wonder what we had in common to begin with. I made this prediction based on my experiences with defining "centrist." A lot of people calling themselves centrists are just independents in search of a new approach — they’ll happily take it whether it comes from a mainstream liberal like Obama or an out-there libertarian like Ron Paul.

We can argue whether Obama will really use a new approach but we won’t be able to conclude anything unless/until he takes office. But for those centrists/independents who do see him as something new on the political landscape, they’re not going to change their opinion without concrete proof that Obama’s a fraud.

For those who see Obama as just a standard liberal, we’re left concerned that others are missing the obvious. But without proof that he really doesn’t care about the views of those to his right, all we can do is try to read between the lines.

I don’t see this debate ending anytime soon. In fact, I see it continuing right through the general election. Of course, if we have two candidate who can each capture a large portion of centrists/independents, I guess we’re not doing so bad.

Sorry, Christine, but that has not been my experience. My experience has been that when a rebuttal gets ignored in the blogosphere, it is quickly buried and forgotten and the target of that rebuttal tends to, as Michael did, persist with the original argument without restraint or loss of credibility. This is especially true when the poster can just create a new post with the exact same theme, thus avoiding readers’ seeing the ignored rebuttal unless it too is reposted (only to be ignored again and a new post made — round and round we go).

And frankly, if my points are just going to be ignored and my underlying viewpoints represented as being nothing but “prejudices”, why should I bother posting them? Try to see how it looks from my side.

Michael- I get that you’re busy and may not have time to respond to this, but I can’t help but note that you do often repeat that this is your opinion of Clinton but I don’t remember anything that substantiates the idea that she ‘works with Republicans’. I mean, she hasn’t been as demonizing and divisive with her rhetoric as some of the other prominent Dem senators have been, but I really don’t recall any substantial bipartisan legislation that she’s worked on (that’s not to say there isn’t any- but to prove your point you’d have to show that there is.)

I guess my impression is that you judge her quite a bit by her husband’s record, but even with Bill it was mostly a matter of moving toward the middle out of necessity when there was a strong mandate for that in the midterm election-and strong leadership in the Congress that resulted from that election.

I wouldn’t say that Hillary has been a radical leftie, but she’s firmly in the mainstream of the Dem party (perhaps around the center point of that party, not the center of the country- which I realize isn’t what you’re arguing anyway.) But when you add to that the whole ‘politics of personal destruction’ meme, a phrase which she coined which seems like a bad case of projection when you learn about the memos on how she and her team worked for healthcare reform by going after their opponents personally, then I don’t see how you can make much of a case for her representing a candidate who’ll work well with Republicans.

Justin, there’s a little saying about removing the plank from your own eye that you might want to keep in mind, as I see that several commenters at your site are repeatedly questioning your pro-Obama bias. Maybe you could explain what it is you feel you do to counteract your bias in that regard? Do you in fact believe that you’re holding yourself to this higher standard that you’re advocating? Do you really feel that your coverage of Hillary and Obama are completely impartial? Really?

Well lets see if you were a soldier wouldn’t you like to know that your commanding officer had some expierence. You see accomplishments mean expierence they go hand in hand you can have a bad expierence and get accomplisment out of if nothing but to say I learned from it. But if you look at the two canidates and measure them by this you will see that there are more in one category than the other. I do feel that we as a society have let the media tell us what to do here and we have not researched it ourselves. These are the things that should stand out.

If you look at it the people who gained from fannie mae and freddy mac are the same people that think that we should pull out of Iraq and let that country rott.

I look at the war this way if you were standing on your block or you appt complex and some one was beating and rapeing a lady and her kids. I hope you as a human would help. Well regardless if Sadam had wepons of mass destruction persay he did have chemical ones and used them on is own people. He was a tyrant and needed to be stopped. Now I don’t always agree with the president but I respect the office enough that no matter who is there I will respect there judgement.

Ronald Regan respected it so much that while he was president he never took off his coat in the oval office for nothing, said he wanted to look his best for the office he held, We as Americans have lost all respect for anything much less the president.  When we look at the whole picture Barak Obama don’t respect the position at all. His experience and the people he has associated with show us that. I am not saying I agree with John Mcain all the way but I will say this would you want to go to war with someone who has never been to war or someone who has.

If you were to go to a job interview and have that question asked and you gave the same answer as Sen Watson you probably would not get the job.

If we listen to people who say Obama did nothing while as Commumity Organizer or Senator then it means that them people will surely deny the requirements of the vision of the forefathers that anyone can strive to be President of USA.
The janitor, the plomero (joe the plumber), tito the alleged citizen (that is to show they use the playbook) and builder can become President of USA.
If they claim Obama is not a true American then the illegal can surely aspire to the Presidency ad no one will ask for ID. Sound familiar!
god bless USA