My original choices are all out (in order: Kucinich, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd), and I am only left with Obama and Clinton.

Oy vey.

I was undecided about both for a bit (even leaning toward HRC), but was gradually shown the light over time by my wife and others about Obama.

I have read his position papers, watched the debates, thought about it, and come to the conclusion that Obama is the more sound decision.

Here are what I believe are HRC's issues:

1) She and her supporters generally seem to have a smug sense of entitlement. Very irritating.

2) There is too much baggage. She has a great asset: Bill Clinton (a person who was only a fair President, and a bit too conservative for me; he was deeply flawed in many ways, both personal and policy-wise). But, like a Greek tragedy, he is also her worst liability. Do we need more Whitewater? More Starr report reminders? More rumors about Bill and fill-in-the-blank? He will always upstage her: he has more charisma.

3) She is too experienced/polished in the political arena: she's not genuine. At times she's hypocritical.

4) She represents the past; a past that needs to stay there. Everyone's tired of old and white, irrespective of gender. On to the new, the open, the original.

5) She is no more qualified to run the country than Obama: being First Lady is not an elected position. It does not count in this contest.

6) She is too conservative. Her fear-mongering is a very Republican tactic. Her backhanded endorsement of McCain is disturbing; her conviviality with Rove is revolting. What's next? Hanging with Rush?

7) This election is about more that the ego of one person: it is about the future of the Democratic Party, the country and the world.

8) She is negative. She is in league with too many lobbyists and corporations (Wal-Mart: need I say more?).

9) Nothing will happen: Republicans will stymie everything she does; Obama seems able to cope better and bring consensus. I want what's best for the U.S. and the world: yes, even for the Republicans, a few of which are my friends.

10) With their ideas being pretty similar, why not go with the new, the dynamic, the optimistic?

One more thing: anytime that someone is advocated by the Republicans it should raise a red flag. Right-wingers crossing over to vote for her to be sure that she gets the nomination is underhanded and should be illegal (and the reverse should be on the Democratic side, as well). They would much rather run against her than Obama. I am not sure that she could unite the Party and win: she is very divisive.

Think about this for both parties: when was the last time there was a terrorist strike at three A.M.? Those idiots want the daylight: they want to send a message, be seen, get press. That being the case, I feel that most people would be pretty alert and ready to respond. HRC never had to register for Selective Service, nor was she a member of the Armed Forces: how is she a more qualified expert on such matters, therefore?

Sometimes, the devil you don't know is better -- and better for the times -- than the one you do.

--JB

And no: no Obama/Clinton ticket. The Clinton's (and the Bush's for that matter) need to be put out to pasture for good. They've all outlived their political usefulness. This is not a theocratic plutocracy. Privatization is a failure, as is NAFTA and so on: Reagan is dead. It's over. It was attempted, and failed.