I think my favorite ringtone is the 2004 DNC Alternative.

I see you've brought that annoying music back again, Brian.

I've waffled back and forth between Obama and McCain for weeks now. Of course it depends on how the final Democratic primaries go, but I think with either candidate it's a win-win. (Note: If Hillary wins it, I might vote for McCain.)

However, my heart tells me to go with Obama because I think this country needs a fresh start. One question I would have for McCain is how many of the old Bush cronies would still be retained in his administration?

I also feel an Obama administration would be the best for tackling two issues that are important to me: global warming and real reform of No Child Left Behind.

But McCain is a good man and I am dismayed to see what the NY TImes is doing to him right now. This is why people get turned off on politics.

Last summer I was having trouble deciding between the two moderates in my party - McCain and Giuliani. I heard them both speak at the convention in New York and they stood out by far over any other potential contender I heard that week. My first choice was McCain (has been since 2000), but his campaign was falling apart last summer (he was trying too hard to fit into the "Bush" campaign mold) so I leaned towards Giuliani - hoping he could make it through the conservative gauntlet. When Giuliani's campaign did not catch on my hopes and support have behind McCain ever since and happy that he was able to rise again.

I believe Giuliani lost favor with the voters for two reasons - 1) he miscalculated and did not compete in early primaries and as a result the voters felt he didn't care about the people, he just cared about the delegates, and 2) his personal life - not the fact that he had affairs in his past, but because it appeared he abused his mayoral office security detail to facilitate it.

I think in general people are willing to forgive affairs, or youthful drug experimentation and other mistakes - as long as the person is honest about it and takes responsibility. It would be hypocritical at this point for either major party to point fingers and look for the a-HA! moment to take out the other candidate.

Anyway, back to your question Brian - I have supported McCain since his run in 2000, reinforced by seeing him speak in 2004 and fortunately again in 2008.

I've supported Obama since... well, before he announced his candidacy. After hearing him speak at the last convention I made a point of finding out about him - and I've read both his books. He's also induced me to return to the party - I'd been an independent since the early '90s. I'm female, white and over 50 - if that means anything. I'm also very, very tired about the inexperienced crap. It's not like he's running after graduating from college. READ about his record and background. READ READ READ. For the first time in my life since I've been able to vote -and I've never missed an election of any kind - it feels tangible that the business of Washington may actually be able to be done differently. I'm so tired of government run by paid lobbyists.

Leslie,

What are your most important issues?

I'm curious, is anyone aware of any major policy differences between Obama and Clinton?

Brian:

As you know from our conversations through the past few years, I have the greatest respect for you and the efforts you have expended and continue to expend via this blog to encourage folks to express their diverse and different opinions freely, but respectfully.

And because of my respect for you, I will take you up on your offer to post a meaningful comment, in opposition to your choice, so as to give you an opportunity to state how you came to support Obama.

I ask you to consider an opposing point of view as expressed in Gabor Steingart's article in Der Spiegel International (an on-line version of a quite good German news magazine), entitled, "Change You Can't Believe In."

Gabor Steingart is Der Spiegel's Washington Correspondent and for the past several years he has written a wonderful column aptly entitled, "West Wing." In that column Steingart displays a marvelously insightful, provocative and contrarian view of the Obama-Clinton primary battles. The URL link to the article is supplied below.

(P.S. With Ralph Nader's recent announcement, I guess its only fair to add him to the mix now as well). By the way, which candidate will gain and suffer most from a Nader entry into the Presidental race. My view, Obama stands the most to loose due to the obvious pedalogical, ideological and demographic symmetry of his voter base to Nader's, and McCain has the most to gain. Remember Nader's victory margin in Florida in 2000 was many times larger than the vote difference between Gore and Bush, and the result contributed to Bush's ultimate victory in that State and thusly, in the Electoral College.

Brian, I happen to agree totally with Gabor Steingart's penetrating analysis of Obama's candidacy as outlined in his article. As he puts it, "Obamania," displays "..an alarming victory of style over substance." And, in my opinion, his comparison of Obama's campaign style as analogus to the dot-com hype is both mercilessly truthful and absolutely brilliant.

Obama has been referred to as an African-American Jack Kennedy. I fear he is more like an African-American Elmer Gantry.

There is no doubt from the size of his crowds and his recent record of ten straight victories (eleven, if you count Democrats abroad) that large segments of the American electorate are clearly susceptible to the narcotizing effect of Obama's charm and campaign rhetoric than Hillary Clinton's use of the cold, hard, language of real-politik, to explain the highly complex, difficult and gut-wrenching issues of the day. Remember, the attraction of campaign rhetoric, sound-bites and televangelizing campaign rallies spares us all the torture of thought.

But like all addictions, the eventual day of reckoning will come. The question is when. Before the Democratic Convention in August, or after? And if it does not happen until after he is elected, then President Obama will invariably dissappoint his supporters hugely. And when he does, it will be the "Mother of All Cold Turkey," disappointments for both his supporters and this country.

Obama, in a vainglorious attempt to display military muscle during the campaign season, has stated a reckless willingness to authorize military operations in Pakistan unilaterally, without the approval of United Nations.

As any serious student of Clausewitz, Kissinger and/or Einstein, not to mention Powell, Schwarzkopf and Petraeus will tell you, playing American Cowboy in a nuclear-armed Pakistian would be sheer lunacy. If President Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq has increased, not decreased the number, severity and reach of Al-Qaeda's terrorist operations worldwide, what do you think will happen if President Obama invades Pakistan??

Let us hope Obama's foolish campaign rhetoric never becomes offical American foreign and military policy. God help us all if it ever does!

Brian, I realize that my provocative posting may very well anger you, and/or other Obama supporters, but remember, democracy is dialogue and debate.

To all of you Obama supporters, in light of the recent spate of your candidate's caucus and primary victories, you may agree with him that his nomination is ".inevitable." And it may well be. He, you, and we all shall have to wait and see. But for me, I pray, hope and struggle to the best of my ability and talents to keep Obama's nomination from being inevitable without one hell of a fight!

NostraDEMUS

Barack Obama said he would attack if he actionable intelligence about OBL in Pakistan and their government refused to act.

Do you really want a POTUS to ask permission to track down OBL from a UN committee while OBL has a chance to get away? Would HRC or McCain wait to get an all clear from the UN to protect the USA?

Barack holds a common sense view on Pakistan and OBL if the narrow scenario he outlined came true.

Does any of this change your mind at all?

?

No it does not.

First of all, Pakistan, is a sovereign nation. Second, it unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, and for the moment, Iran, is a confirmed nuclear power. The harsh geopolitical and military calculus of nuclear power demands that the United States deal with nuclear states differently, regardless of the potential presence of "actionable intelligence," suggesting and/or confirming that OBL is in Pakistan.

If you don't understand this, then I strongly suggest you become educated on the horrible and devastating effects that a 100-kiloton device going off in downtown Los Angeles would have on Southern California.

Second, if you haven't noticed from the headlines lately, the political situation in Pakistan today is arguably the most volatile it has been since India was partitioned in 1947 to create what was then East and West Pakistan. Then, the unholy combination of ethnic, tribal, religious and political differences between Hindus and Muslims lead to what was then the greatest bi-directional migration of refugees in the history of Southwestern Asia, not to mention the slaughtering of scores of thousands of innocents, just because they were members of the wrong tribe, ethnic group and/or religious faith.

Given Pakistan's bloody history, the last thing that the world needs today is an inexperienced candidate for American President trying to "Out-Cowboy" George Bush by bragging that he would be tough enough to send American troops into Pakistan, where George Bush had not.

Thirdly, any student and/or practioner of intelligence, counter-insurgency and special operations will tell you that the key to getting OBL is to find that special weak link in his inner-circle, and then persuade, cajole, and or bribe that weak link into either abducting and/or assinating him.

So far, this has proven highly difficult and unsuccessful, for a variety of reasons, some commonly known and others known to only a select and shady few. But, regardless of past attempted failures, such covert or "black-operations" are best conducted directly by indigenous forces, motivated by money, tribal revenge, and/or ethnic hatred, not American boots on the ground.

Fifth, and finally, the time for preemptive American unilateralism in this region is over. I fail to see how Obama's macho-unilateralist political rhetoric would make the geopolitical situation in Pakistan and the region any better than George Bush's rush to invade Iraq before we had even completed the end of the beginning of military and civil reconstruction operations in Afghanistan. In fact, it would make it hugely worse.

Perhaps Obama should spend more time reading and internalizing George Santyanna's admonition that, "..Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.." God help us all if President Obama fails to head the harsh lessons of history in Pakistan.

NostraDEMUS

Obama is sounding more and more like a Democratic version of Bush II. He has shown a near ignorance of world affairs, explaining that while president he WOULD send troops to Iraq if there was evidence that AL Qaeda was setting up shop there?!?!?!?!?!? He'd have tea parties with any global despots that come knocking on the White House door?!?!?!?!?!? He'd go in with guns blazing if he thought our elusive enemies were hiding in Pakistan (or presumably any other country)?!?!?!?!?!? And his senior economic advisor has explained to his Canadian counterparts that Obama's bluster about fixing NAFTA is just campaign rhetoric and not to be taken literally?!?!?!?

Maybe all these things are just bluster and he really won't continue tossing blind punches like the punch drunk fighter we have sitting in the White House today. Maybe he's just been telling us what he thinks we want to hear...just to get elected.

So once again America is prepared to elect a "leader" who's shown no leadership abilities but who might be fun to have a beer with. Only this time its a Dem. God help us cause after four years of Obama's incompetence the NeoCons will be back with a passion.

GS

Well GS, with apologies to Aldous Huxley, Sinclair Lewis and George Orwell, welcome to the Brave New World of Obamania, where Peace is War and War is Peace, and solutions to the problems presented by the lack of an affordable health-care system and economic dislocations caused by globalization would be found in well orchestrated and broadly televised long-table summits, with President Obama, sitting in the biggest chair, presiding regally over all.. Admittedly, if you ask me, more like American Idol, than real American Democracy to me.

And to make matters worse, now comes Howard Dean, the vaunted Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, hubristically threatening that if Democratic primary voters don't decisively select the Party's nominee by Mid-March or April (right after the Pennslyvania Primary) he'll have to get Obama and Clinton into the room to make some kind of "arrangement," between them. See the URL link to the CNN story below.

Is this the same Howard Dean who supported the proportional selection of primary delegates by congressional district instead of the winner-take-all system?? Is this the same Howard Dean who urged Democratic voters to practice "internet politics," four years ago to ensure the survival of grass-roots democracy?? Is this the same Howard Dean who ran against the Democratic establishment with the catchy slogan, "..I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?" What a difference four-years and elevation to elite Chairmand status has made for Brother Dean!! What shameless hypocrisy!!!

If, next Wednesday, Senators Clinton and Obama awake with mixed victory results and near equivalent delegate counts, as is likely given the proportional delegate selection rules trumpeted so loudly by Dean and others, then like it or not, the only fair, honest and transparent thing to do is play this out until the last Democratic primary and caucus is over, and ALL Democratic primary voters have their say.. INCLUDING those in Florida and Michigan. After all, the last time I checked, their were 50 state stars on the U.S. Flag, not 48.

God help the Democrats if Howard Dean and his cronies personally select the nominee in a smoke-filled room (of course, in Dean's case, the smoke will be PC, carcinogen-free, and smell of Vermont maple syrup) BEFORE all the caucuses, primaries, super-delegate battles, and convention floor fights . If he does, then once again, my sad prediction is that the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November.

NostraDEMUS

How would you feel about Gore being tapped if the convention can't choose a nominee on the first or second ballot? If Ohio/Texas offer mixed results, that could be a possible scenario.

GS:

On the one hand, the "real-politik" side of me remembers that Al Gore failed to carry Tennessee, his home state in 2000, as well as West Virginia, a state carried by every Democratic candidate for President since JFK in 1960.

On the other hand, I have great personal and political respect for Al Gore and his visionary warnings regarding the penultimate impact on human history caused by global warming and environmental degradation, and would personally welcome this possibility as a far more credible alternative to a back-room deal brokered by Chairman ("I have a scream")Howard Dean.

Next Wednesday, we shall have to see if the electoral gods decry such a possible solution to our emerging Democratic dilemma. But harken to the Oracle's warning from Mount Olympus, to wit, "..Those whom the gods condemn, first are made mad!.."

NostraDEMUS

Hey, speak English, NostraDEMUS. The rest of us are doing our best.

Sounds like a lot of Democrats around here are really displeased with the idea of Barack as their candidate!

Jimmy Dean's Hot Dog:

Sorry if you can't understand my use of the Queen's English.. I guess that you and I are two people who remain separated by a common language. To that I say, "Cest la vie" and "Vive la difference.."

NostraDEMUS

Owen,

By every metric used Democrats are very pleased with their candidates. They have been showing up in record numbers and raising record levels of money. If you asked the average Democrat they would tell you either candidate is fine with them.

But if not McCain who would you support in the Republican Party?