I'd always thought of the shortness of life as an incentive towards radicalism, myself. And the fragility of life as the incentive towards moderation and incrementalism.

Anyway, yeah, I'm pulling the lever for Obama tomorrow, for pretty much the same reasons as you.

Also, he's actually committed to pulling the troops out of Iraq right away, while Clinton's just said that she plans to have some people draw up a plan. And he's signed the American Freedom Pledge.

The only thing I worry about is the press. Obama has yet to see just how crazy (the word I really want to use here is evil) things can get. The media is going to unleash full on ugliness.

The "big ticket" issues aren't as big a concern to me, since frankly they're politicians and are going to spin it however gets them better numbers. It's the smaller issues, and how they vote on THEM that concerns me.

For me, that means I'd rather Obama over Clinton, any day. Of course, it doesn't really matter: the state I'm in does partisan primaries, and for religious reasons, I can't declare a party, so I'm sort of shut out of the primaries.

Oh, and that Washington Post story Hilzoy linked to. I see that as a sign not only that Obama's an effective politician, but also that he might be willing and able to rein in the torture state.

Sounds right on to me.

If he wins, we'll get no vacation from the need for constant scrutiny and organized pressure to do the right thing. But that's true of every candidate with any prospect of winning, so it tips the balance in no particular direction. What does tip it for me is the willingness to respect hope and confidence.

I agree. My contribution posted just this evening.

In a nutshell, I think Obama can be something other that the game of inches that has defined politics recently.

I agree with you on this one, especially about how the fervor of the anti-Clinton brigades make me more supportive of her.

But the words that sum it up for me are, "Because when I watch him speak, I see fearful people becoming brave." Nicely said. I sincerely hope that you're foreshadowing accurately.

Brenda @ 2 - I think the press will go easier on Obama than they would on Clinton. It won't be pretty, but it's a lot harder these days for the media to use racist code words, whereas sexist code words remain rampant. Plus he's not married to Bill.

From Eric's post, a lovely bit:

Obama knows what is in the Constitution. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He agrees that the current administration has been overstepping its bounds. And he knows what a bubble sort is and when not to use it. That's as good as playing the sax for geeks.

Also, from the Rude Pundit, as you'd expect: the profane, obscene, definitely NSFW truth.

nabil at 3 - can you what those religious reasons are?

Good lord, in the media coverage I had seen on him so far, I never once saw it mentioned that he had taught at the University of Chicago. My experience there was deeply fucked up in a number of ways (while very positive in a number of others) but I do know one thing: they don't tolerate stupid people there, least of all among the faculty.

David Rees, of Get Your War On, a comic strip not known for its gentleness toward triangulation. In favor of Obama.

Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

[...]

Is Senator Obama perfect? Of course not. Nobody who voted for 2005's wack-ass energy bill is perfect. Nobody who voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act is perfect.

But of the two remaining Democratic candidates, one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.

I'm 35 years old, and over the years, I've had two experiences in the voting booth: I've voted for politicians I really respected, who I knew could never win. And I've voted for politicians I didn't really respect, because I knew they could win.

Tomorrow, I'm going to vote for a politician I really respect, who I know can win.

I have at least one relative in the U.S. who also supports Obama. And I'm not discouraging her... ;)

John McCain, a man whose basic foreign policy position is War With Everyone, Forever

With that opinion, you'll love this political cartoon: http://cagle.com/working/080131/luckovich.gif

Put me down for Obama for King, too. Same reasons as PNH.

Your stance, with very slight inversions, is why I am pulling for Hillary today (basically, my preference for the professionals standing behind and around her). My choice was made on a slight preference, and the preference remains slight -- she nearly lost me a couple of times, but not quite.

I am very happy with either as the nominee.

It's SO nice to be on my way to vote for someone I actually kinda sorta like (Obama), over someone I also kinda sorta like (Clinton). That's never happened to me before.

Around the issue of energy, Obama makes me a little nervous. He seems to some of the wrong instincts when it comes to new energy solutions. (Clean coal, coal to liquid, etc.) That said, he's certainly been willing to listen to those who've objected to his missteps.

Bruce @5:

I couldn't agree more, and I'm proud to work for one of the organizations that will be doing that watchdogging, no matter who the nominee is. What's exciting, though is the possibility of a President who, instead of being jawboned into not opposing progressive change, could be convinced to become a champion for it. I think Obama is more likely to be that person than any of the other candidates. (With the possible exception of dear, departed John Edwards.)

Of course, I'm also biased. I went to the University of Chicago. Obama was my state senator. I'm still kicking myself for not running out and registering to vote when some of my friends were telling me that this really awesome Law School prof was a long-shot, anti-machine candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

After a lot of thinking, I've come down in favor of Obama because of the charisma factor. I think it could count for a whole lot, because quite a lot of politics hinges on falling in line behind a leader. We've not had many Democratic candidates with a big charisma factor for a while, and Hillary seems just one more of the same, an able politician who does not set fire to much beyond an intellectual fondness, whereas Obama grabs you by the gut and then has the smarts to actually be leading in the right direction (unlike, say, Reagan).

At first I was inclined to distrust him because of the charisma, because of Reagan and far too many others who have used their charm to bad effect, but I think he is the best candidate in the race to LEAD this country in a healing direction. And we badly need not only competency, but leadership to make it happen.

If only I could vote in your Imperial Plebiscites, I wouldn't vote for Hillary. Hillary is doomed to the same sort of treatment Gore got: the press hates her for being "robotic" (and you can only cry once without looking a bit fake) and progressives don't really get energized by a corporate lawyer (and on the Wal-Mart board, of all places!). She would lose the general election, concede with grace, then take a deep breath, relax, and start touring and lobbying for her pet cause, now looking like a fantastic advocate exactly because she doesn't try to be a candidate any more.

Meanwhile, the world would be stuck with another 4 years of Republican incompetence, another gerontocrat in charge (after puppetmaster Dick Cheney), and no chance to fight the forthcoming recession.

#15: Yikes, president, sure. King? Not so much.

I'll be happy with either Obama, or Clinton. However, right now, my sympathies are with Clinton, in part because I want the sure thing. Four or eight years of Clinton will definitely be a game of inches. With Obama, either he changes the game, or bright, articulate, but inexperienced people, fail execute. The potential is a lot of positive change, or nothing. I don't see anything in the middle yet. (A friend of mine compared Obama both favorably and unfavorably to the current Duval Patrick administration here in MA. I think the analogy is apt. For the record, I voted for Duval Patrick, and still think he's better than the alternative.) My ideal scenario is 4 or 8 years of Clinton to stabilize the country, followed by 8 years of Obama.

Also, Clinton is totally electable because she's endured over a decade of nasty attacks and yet she still polls well. The numbers we see for her are more or less post-Swift Boat numbers. Now, Obama has teflon so I'm sure he'll survive a general election well too. However, I don't buy the "we shouldn't nominate Clinton because the Republicans will beat up on her" argument. Is anyone seriously suggesting that they won't beat up on Obama just as hard? (Also, that argument is an implicit slam of Obama. Obama is totally worth voting for in his own right, regardless of how anyone feels about Clinton.)

Like I said, I'll be thrilled with either candidate. Change under Clinton will be, at best, incremental, but I think it will definitely happen. Change under Obama will likely be more satisfying, but, for me, it's less certain to happen at all. We all seem to agree on the "roll of the dice" metaphor. I guess I don't actually want to roll the dice unless I absolutely have to.

(I should point out that I would be thrilled with a President Obama, just as I would be thrilled with a President Hillary Clinton. I'm still trying to deal with the notion that there are two candidates that I would be happy with. It's actually a shame that one of them has to lose.)

If pressed between Obama and Hillary, I have marginally fewer dislikes and marginally more to like about Obama. However, with voting the way it is in NY, I got to vote with a cherry on top: I pulled the lever directly for Edwards, who is still on the ballot (showing the continued support), and also for the delegates committed to Obama (thus making that choice, which was forced).

It comes down to what sports types (and fantasy sports types, like me) call "upside"; while Obama hasn't yet had terrific results at the highest levels, he has the potential to do more good and maybe even less harm than Hillary (especially with a Senate Democratic majority that doesn't rest on the slimy shoulders of Holy Joe Lieberman). At least I'm convinced that he knows what's in the Constitution, whether or not he'd fight hard enough for it.

But, as with so many people, there's no question that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for her over any and all of the Republican field.

John Chu #21: Oh jeez, my lack of clarity has caused you to interpret me almost exactly backwards. I was responding to the aristocrat-peasant imagery in PNH's original post, and to things like Bernard Chazelle's...er..., endorsement, I guess, of Obama on A Tiny Revolution.

It's not what I want, by a longshot so long it circles the globe and hits me in the back of the head, but of the remotely possible options, he seems to be the best.

The charisma factor is what turns me off Obama, myself (not that my opinion as a foreigner counts for much). Over here in the UK we had a charismatic leader for a bunch of years, and he turned out to be almost nothing but charisma. Manipulative, possibly corrupt in the financial sense, wholly morally dubious. But who knew, back in 1997, that he'd drag us into a war and then try to bluster away all responsibility for it? I can't say that Obama is that kind of politician, but I can't see around the glare of his charisma at the moment.

#2 ::: Brenda von Ahsen:

The thing I worry about is Obama getting assassinated. I'm still supporting him, but it's a non-trivial risk, and a much more serious problem than him losing.

For what it's worth, when I've mentioned this to my friends, the most common reaction seems to add up to "Why are you worried about such an odd thing?".

They get convinced I have a point when I say Obama got secret service protection much earlier than the other proto-candidates because he was getting threats.

The good news is that violent racists are so far out of the mainstream that most people have forgotten they exist. The bad news is that they're still around.

In non-news, the PA primary is in March, so I'm just watching the rest of you guys vote.

Came over by way of the Scalziblog/Whatever.

I suppose I'm one of those young people that the media keeps saying has been galvanized by Obama - I pay attention to the primaries, listen to the speeches the candidates make, read their books. Never used to, wasn't real thrilled at Bush v. Kerry, and at the start of this election cycle really wished that Gore would come back and run. Then Obama happened.

It's definitely true that nothing is certain with an Obama presidency, that Hilary is more likely to hit the ground running and deliver small gains - but that sort of belief is anathema to how I believe democracy should work. We shouldn't vote for the candidate that's likely to take small steps in our direction, but rather the candidate that believes as we do and may take big risks.

Furthermore, Obama's name doesn't cause certain elements of the population to hiss, unlike Hillary.

I'm for Obama as well, and I hope he does well today. (Unfortunately, by the time Pennsylvania's primary comes around in April, the race will probably be decided already.)

If Clinton wins the nomination, I will probably vote for her, but for me, and for many other pro-life-Democrat types, the Supreme Court factor tends to be a minus, rather than a plus, for the usual D presidential nominee. (That political combination may be unpopular in forums like this one, and may not be all that common nationally, but it's a definite factor in Pennsylvania. I don't know enough about the climate of other swing states to say how much of a factor it is elsewhere.)

I'm not expecting or asking Clinton or her supporters to change her Supreme Court position for political expediency; clearly that issue is something that's very important for her and many of her supporters. But I would hope, if she wins the nomination, that her campaign also puts forth clear and convincing *other* reasons for swing voters to choose her over her opponent. (And no, "My opponent wants our troops to fight in the Middle East indefinitely, and I, well, maybe, maybe not," is not particularly compelling.)

Patrick encapsulates above much of what I've been thinking over the past few weeks. Obama is not everything I'd want in a president -- no one would be likely to be short of the second coming of Eleanor Roosevelt or Martin Luther King -- but he stands for what is decent and just, and decency and justice are what we need to get things moving in the right direction.

I have a lot of British friends who, like NelC, see Obama's soaring rhetoric and charisma and are reminded, not pleasantly, of Tony Blair, who ascended to office on a wave of idealism and proceeded to systematically betray everything progressives believe in. (Yes, I know "progressive" isn't a term much used in British politics, but I need a word that refers to that particular superset of political strains.)

I understand why they feel that way--from here, it looks like a symptom of political PTST, and I mean that with all due sympathy--but there's just no serious similarity between the community-organizing background of Barack Obama and the lifelong greasy-pole-ascending of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. They're both deeply ambitious men, but the comparison ends there. Obama's life story, and the kinds of accomplishments he can point to even before he began his career in electoral politics, couldn't be more different. And as elected politicians, Obama's record is one of convincing conservatives to support progressive initiatives, while Blair's record is one of moving his entire party to the right wholesale.

Not being registered to a party, I can't vote in the New York primary, and I wish Edwards had fared better, but given the options, I'd go with Obama over Clinton.

However, my confidence that either can beat the Republican nominee is not that high; the institutional barriers against it are enormous, and Clinton only won because Perot took significant percentages of the vote in both '92 and '96.

All things considered, it probably is the Democrats' election to lose, but they have a real talent for doing just that.

I have to vote sometime in the next ten hours, and I'm still wavering. I call my friends who vote today, and they are still wavering also. My mother isn't voting and in any case is a registered Republican, but is supporting Clinton. My stepfather is supporting Obama. My college-age crowd is going for Obama. Robin Morgan writes powerfully supporting Clinton.

In a moment of incipient psychosis, I considered praying for guidance.

This was all much simpler when I wasn't party-registered.

Nancy #25: (We discussed the same things on Dar Kush awhile back; I'm more or less repeating myself here.)

I worry about that, too. Colin Powell famously didn't run for president because of worries (I think largely from his wife) about a serious black presidential candidate being a huge assassination target. Now, I don't feel like I have any good sense of how much bigger the risk is for a black candidate than a white one, but given his military background, I have to guess that Powell both:

a. Had some idea of the kind of risk he faced, some idea of what vulnerabilities he faced, etc.

b. Wasn't enormously freaked out by physical danger.

So the fact that he didn't run makes me suspect that those risks are significant. (He clearly had enough ambition to come back to a very powerful government post, though I don't think it turned out very well for him in the end.)

On the other hand, it seems like any candidate is potentially a magnet for violent crazies. Is Hillary more or less likely to be targeted by one of those than Obama? I have no idea. A lot of folks on the Right have invested a *lot* of effort in making Hillary a target of fear and loathing. (I'm not sure how much of an impact this has, though.)

Obama, for Patrick's reasons. Not that it matters at the moment since I'm in Wisconsin.

I'm with Patrick on the Obama/Blair distinction. Blair had charisma, but it was pretty clear from the start that he was also trying to sell you a bill of goods. Obama, I don't think is. If anything, he seems to me to be more like John Smith (whose death was an enormous tragedy for UK politics) - closer to the right than I would like on some issues, but as best as can be discerned a genuinely decent and intelligent human being. On the one hand, I don't want to get swept up too much by the Obama charisma, but on the other, I think that you have to recognize (as Patrick says) that it is a potent force that can really change people's sense of what is politically possible and what isn't. I hope that Obama has both the political intelligence and moral center to use this in the right way - he may not, but I think it's a gamble well worth taking.

You mention Lessig, briefly, in your main post, Patrick, but it reminds me of something I saw yesterday. A mostly reasonable discussion of the issues at hand, and insightful posts of how the candidates each might address them. That's a remarkable thing almost anywhere, these days, but it's damn near a miracle at any time on Slashdot. It stands in sharp contrast to the ugly mire of a thread on Republican candidates next door, but I digress.

The topic of those discussions (for those who followed /. tradition about RTFA) was which candidate has the best record on technology and the issues of intellectual property that concern so many of us in technology fields, and the runaway winner, as I read the thread, was Obama. It may sound strange, but it was learning people like Lessig support him, and learning more about his technology platform (i.e.: that he has one, and actually seems to understand it to a degree) that finally tipped me from sort of vaguely rooting for him to considering myself a supporter.

Yes, I'm a nerd. But now, I guess, I'm a Nerd for Obama, and that doesn't sound bad at all when I say it in my head.

I would have preferred to touch the screen for Edwards, but since he's out of the race I voted for Obama this morning even though Edwards is still on the ballot here in Ga. I don't trust Mrs. Clinton and I hope I don't have to vote for her in November (but I will if I have to).

Well, it's conceivable this might have convinced me had I read it last night, before voting, instead of just now (after). I voted on my way to work this morning, without turning on the computer.

I voted for Hillary. Fundamentally, I think the only person who can begin to repair the damage to America's reputation abroad that eight years of Skrulls has done is Bill Clinton, and I can't see him having a part in an Obama administration. As First Gentleman he would (and I hope will) be an effective goodwill ambassador; he's already known and widely liked across the world.

In addition, though Hillary has wisely stopped talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," I believe there is one—not so much against her and her husband per se—though it certainly was organized against them (as a subagenda of a longer plan) during the Clinton years—as against religious freedom, racial equality, and economic justice.

I believe there are people in America who, if they had their way, would put me in a concentration camp. I do not believe these people all have red necks covered by white hoods; I believe many of them have nice homes in the suburbs, and volunteer for organizations with the word 'Family' in the name, and will bring you a casserole if a family member dies. I believe they will be perfectly polite, even sweet to me now, and if they take power will bring their kids and a picnic basket to my lynching.

I, you see, am an idolater (images of Ganesha, Anubis, Isis, and many others in my living room), a "terrorist sympathizer" (there's a copy of the Qur'an somewhere in my apartment), a pervert (gay porn and (gasp) restraints in my bedroom), a commie (my DSA card is...somewhere), a "race traitor" (I've dated people of all colors, and my family taints me too: none of my sibs is married to a Caucasian) and a chocolatier. OK, they probably won't lynch me for being a chocolatier, but that wouldn't be any more reasonable in my view than lynching me for any of the other things.

I believe these people are steadily gaining power.

The people who hiss at the name of Hillary are my enemies. I want them to be defeated, not brought into the fold. I think Hillary will fight them; I think Obama will try to conciliate them. We don't need a conciliator IMO. We need a fighter. They'll nod and smile at Obama and he'll believe they like him, and they'll keep pulling the same dirty tricks they've been pulling for the past 20 or 30 years, and Obama will keep making compromises that let the country slip further and further down a road that makes me literally afraid for my life.

Obama's rhetoric on the Religious Right sounds an awful lot like Peace in Our Time to me. I not only don't think he can stop them; I don't think he understands why he should try.

I think Hillary knows they're a threat, and will at least make an attempt to stop them. And while I haven't heard either candidate speaking to gay groups this election cycle, and both oppose same-sex marriage (limiting my enthusiasm for either) Hillary did (just before kicking off her first Senate campaign) have a gay chorus sing at her birthday party. I know because I was there, singing for her. I would be very surprised to hear of Obama doing the same.

So, Patrick, while I certainly respect you and like you, I'm afraid Obama can still kiss MY ass, even if not yours.

Beautifully put, Xopher! Though as a married straight female, I may have less to fear from the Evil Right, I'd still consider fleeing the country if McCain got elected. And to me, Hilary's version of "experience" seems better suited for down-and-dirty politics (is there really any other kind?) than Obama's charisma and intelligent idealism.

Naturally, I'll vote for whichever Dem wins the nomination, then hunker down and hope for the best on Election Day and the months following. But I still fear that America hasn't broken free enough of the 20th century to elect a president for the 21st* and allow him to have his way.

* assuming things ever get more enlightened, in these parts

despite the deluge here I went and exercised my franchise, mostly because later in the day it all may freeze and turn into automotive ice skating. I just hope it doesn't hurt turnout.

Since Edwards dropped out, I'm supporting Obama.

All the Republicans who have been in the hunt in this cycle have each in their own special way creeped me out. For some I can tell you exactly what bothers me, for others it's just a feeling.

But then I also vote as a Democrat, and have even when I lived in Kansas (where it's a moot point, the Republicans run that state, period).

Patrick, I'll take a Clinton Restoration over the Bush Restoration any day.

That said: What you said. (Scott Dennis seemed confident at COSine this weekend that Obama could usher in a sea change in American politics comparable to the FDR interregnum, but I'm more of a wait-and-see type.)

Also, that said: #12, as if I needed any more qualms about old warmonger, Hilary.

Hillary doesn't talk like a woman who will be both shield and sword against the worst enthusiasms of the American right wing. To me she sounds like a distaff version of Bob Dole: frayed, thwarted, too exhausted by the burden of wanting something to remember why other people might want her to have it. Obama at least talks like the inspirer that some people take him for, suggesting that his supporters see and hear their candidate more clearly.

Also keep in mind what will happen if Obama doesn't win.

"Fundamentally, I think the only person who can begin to repair the damage to America's reputation abroad that eight years of Skrulls has done is Bill Clinton"

Xopher, I like you, and you know perfectly well that I'm not a Clinton-hater.

But honestly, that's just about the silliest thing I've ever heard you say. The only person? Really? You mean, if Bill Clinton walks in front of a careening beer truck, the game is up, American progress is over, and we should all just go home?

Honestly. No supporter of any candidate in this thread has made such an extraordinary claim, until now. Do you suppose you could think over a moment whether you really mean to claim that William Jefferson Clinton has superpowers unavailable to anyone else?

One of the things I like best about Obama's rhetorical approach is the way he hands the power and responsibility back to his supporters. As Maria Shriver said in her remarkably good endorsement speech, "we are the ones we have been waiting for." That's a world away from claims that only one guy can save us.

Thanks Patrick.

You encouraged, and inspired me, to write my own endorsement.

I just got a robocall from -- Stevie Wonder, who asked me to vote for Barack Obama; which I have, though not because he asked me to.

One of the things I like best about Obama's rhetorical approach is the way he hands the power and responsibility back to his supporters.

Yes.

I’ll be happy with either candidate, and I was still making up my mind on my way to the voting booth this morning. But distilled into its simplest form, what made up my mind is this:

I want Obama so he can lead and inspire a new direction for the country.
I want Hillary so she can fight the GOP tooth and nail.

And I think Hillary can lead that fight just as well – if not better - from the U.S. Senate, ideally as the Senate Majority Leader. She’ll have subpoenas and investigations and the legislative maneuvering she’s so good at.

Obama’s inspiring rhetoric won’t even be heard if he doesn’t have the bully pulpit to speak from - he’d just be another Senator

I would love to see Obama get the nomination. (Shamefully, I'm a registered republican from the good ole days when that meant small government, not crazy religious people.) I want to live in a world where we can elect someone on a platform of idealism.

If he doesn't -- if Hillary wins -- at least she's smart. At this point, I almost don't care as long as our president is someone who can string two sentences together.

My meaningless vote will be for Edwards. But if the nomination still hasn't been decided...I will have had another three weeks to think about it, because I just don't know. I'm leaning toward Obama, except for the part of me that's wanted to vote for a woman since I was very little.

I really wish Clinton would take the VP slot. That's the best anti-assassination insurance Obama could ask for.

I'm starting to hear the "if it's a choice between Clinton and McCain, I might go with McCain" stuff on my friendslist. Can someone please point me to a couple of good resources with which to convince people to rethink McCain?

Patrick 43: OK, OK! He's the only single person with the international reputation, the charm, the skills, and the vigor to take on that task from Day One (or Day Two, if you count Jan 20, 2009 as Day One (but actually he'll probably start right after his wife gets elected)).

There really is NO ONE else with that combination of traits. Of course that doesn't mean the task can't be accomplished. It just means that without Bill taking part it will take a lot longer and require a lot more people. And we don't have a lot of time, methinks.

I've racked my brains trying to think of anyone who would be anywhere near as good a goodwill ambassador. If you can think of any, I'd be delighted.

As for careening beer trucks...I'm not entirely convinced it isn't too late anyway. Bush has dug us a very deep hole. But talk to me on a better day and I'll be more hopeful.

I've taken a different route, and voted for Edwards. I do not call it a meaningless vote, and here's why: The delegates in the Dem primary are going to be allocated proportionately. Every delegate given to John Edwards is a bargaining chip. A small lever that Edwards can use to move Clinton or Obama a little closer to Progressive positions.

I'll happily support whoever the Democratic nominee is. The idea of a McCain presidency is a nightmare. But I want to give Edwards some chips to bring to the table.

TexAnne 48: Obama has said that certainly Hill would be on "anyone's short list." She said she might consider him too.

If you're most concerned with defeating McCain, the polls I've seen take two positions: Obama and Clinton do equally poorly, or Obama does better. Yes, the election is a long way away, but that small difference settles it for me.

I like that Obama's edge is for an issue that matters greatly: Clinton looks like a flipflopper on Iraq, but Obama does not.

#43: Patrick, I definitely agree. That's why statements along the lines of what Avram linked to in #42 worry me. (Yes, I know it's a joke. But would the have been drawn at all if there weren't already some attempt to portray Obama as the Saviour Of Us All?)

It runs counter to Obama's own rhetoric. It's not productive in the long run.

#48: I really wish either one of them would consider the VP slot. The two of them on the same ticket, in any order, would be terrific (assuming hybrid vigor takes hold). I don't think they are as far apart on the issues as they keep wanting us to think.

While I come to a different conclusion than Xopher, I think he's right about the key issue: the US cannot depend solely on hard power in this world. We've had that proven (all too well) over the past few years.

IMO, Obama is the candidate most suited to bring American soft power back; electing him is the best way of convincing the world that we aren't the same USA that managed to piss away the largest outpouring of international support ever seen (post September 11) in such a short time and such a complete fashion.

#49 ::: Lee, both Limbaugh and Coulter have said they would rather have Clinton than McCain. Trying to figure out why makes my head hurt.

TexAnne and beth, simply adding to the turnout makes a statement.

*wistful* I still want to vote for Dodd, but I think that goes under "copout" rather than "statement" at this point. I dither, I blither, I read comparisons of the candidates, I read everyone else's opinions, and I still can't make up my mind.

I still think both Clinton & Obama are corporate-approved flavors. I don't vote until April, and when I do it will be for Edwards. He can still pick up delegates. It's his platform I want heard at the convention.

all: I live in Texas. Horserace or not, I doubt that there will be two candidates after today. So: my March vote is meaningless.

hummm...

While I'm still a registered Republican (more because Independents don't get to vote for anyone in the two "Important" parties in NY, and I'd rather spoil a Giuliani (or worse) than vote for someone I'm only nominally supporting), were I a Democrat...

...last night, I drove through Twelve Corners, on my way to a Simcon meeting.* There was a support Obama rally going on. With a couple-three hundred people.

In Rochester.

In February. At night.

Now, it's unseasonably warm out right now (47 Fahrenheit). But last night it was ten-fifteen degrees colder, and moist. And there were whole bunches of people out there. Many of them college age, some older, and kids as well.

Obama inspires people. He's getting people interested in politics.

That's good.

*well, actually an URSGA meeting, but I spent more time doing SIMCON fu than URSGA stuff.

I'm getting unreasonably stressed out about my vote today. I still don't know who to support and I expect I won't decide until I'm in the booth. I dislike and distrust both candidates approximately equally, for different reasons (Xopher @37 nailed my feelings on Obama pretty well), and I'm at a loss. Since I fully expect Clinton will pretty much sweep New York, I could vote for Obama because he's the underdog. Or I could vote for Clinton because, hey, what's one more vote?

I'll support whichever Democrat wins the nomination, of course, because I still vividly remember crying myself to sleep around 4AM back in November '04 after spending hours watching the results come in, and I don't think I can face that again. Since I'll never have the perfect candidate, I don't know which compromise to make, and I just don't know which vote is the best way to ensure that '04 election night sobfest doesn't happen again.

Susan, take a look at this: Barack Obama Tours With Anti-Gay Singer

Joining him on the tour is gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, an ex-gay and notorious homophobe who performed at the Republican National Convention in 2004. McClurkin has vowed to battle "the curse of homosexuality," and believes that gays can be turned straight with religious intervention.

In a statement on his website, Obama said he disagrees with McClurkin's views on homosexuality, but he did not cancel the appearance.

I don't know if that makes it harder or easier for you. If Obama gets the nod, I'm going to have to hold my nose when I vote for him in November—which I certainly will, but not with any enthusiasm that he understands or cares about my interests.

TexAnne 59: You may be right, but since many of the Dem primaries aren't winner-take-all, you could be wrong. The press makes up this crap about "winning states" and "momentum," but what matters is delegate count, and it's very possible that neither of them will have a lock on the nomination by March. Some are saying it could go to the convention, but most don't seem to think so.

Xopher.. We're all going to hold our noses. ("Get your hand off my nose. I can't breathe. Use your own nose!")

Xopher, this is a year old, but possibily still of interest. In Clinton, Obama: Homosexuality 'Not Immoral'. Obama said, "I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral." Clinton ducked the issue by saying, "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude."

I had a rather frightening moment this morning when a co-worker said that if the Democratic nominee turned out to be Clinton, she'd end up voting for the Republican ("unless it's Romney").

Luckily, thanks in no small part to talking points I picked up here, I managed to convince her that was a bad idea, particularly if the Republican nominee ends up being McCain.

(Personally, with Edwards gone I opted for Obama, though Edwards was still on the ballot. I liked Clinton a lot more ten years ago than I do now, but she's still a better choice than any of the Republicans.)

xopher @ #37, "I think Hillary will fight them; I think Obama will try to conciliate them.

Amen, brother. I said much the same here a week or so ago:

We need somebody who'll use the White House megaphone to point the finger directly at the Republican Senators and say "These people are keeping us from doing good things for America." I just don't see a President Obama doing that.

TexAnne@59, the latest thought is that you could be dead wrong.

Which is kind of exciting, because I've never voted in an election where I had a non-zero chance of actually selecting the person that won my voting precinct, before, much less had any potential to actually matter on a larger scale!

I lived in the midwest for eleven years, in both red and blue states. I don't think people from the coasts understand how deeply embedded the anti-Clinton story is out here.

In all honesty, I have trouble believing that Bill Clinton could be The Man Who anymore. In particular, he's the guy on whose watch we started extraordinary rendition and ramped up the hellacious sanctions on Iraq - if you're looking for American authority that isn't connected to the current occupation disaster, he's just not it, any more than he can be a voice against the excesses justified by "free trade", without a whole lot of backtracking. It's not like Bush needed precedent for anything evil, but Clinton provided it in too many instances.

By the way, people wondering about the substance of Obama's efforts in the Senate should go see the Hilzoy post Patrick linked to up at the top. There's good stuff there.

Serge -
Xopher.. We're all going to hold our noses. ("Get your hand off my nose. I can't breathe. Use your own nose!")

Yup. Pretty much.

There is no candidate - in either party - that I'm going to agree 100% with. And the ones who are available tend to be "B, C, C-, A, F, D, B-, C-, C, D-" at best. (and Fs are serious "hold nose" for me - I don't care if your averaged grade is a B-, an F on any topic that is important to me is bad juju).*

So come November, I'll be voting against the Republicans again, and hoping that whomever ends up in office will be so busy with the things I (basically) agree with, or (mostly) don't care about to go screwing up the things that I'd rather they not screw with.

*I could have voted for Dodd with mostly clear nostrils, I think, but I was pretty sure from the beginning that while I might like him, he wasn't going to win.

Scott 71: I just said this to someone about to vote in a take-all state:

We're not picking a flawless person here. We're picking the dirty conniving bastard who's better able to serve our interests than the other dirty conniving bastards.

Donald @ 69

We hear it too.
I got the 'Obama isn't a Christian (because he lived in Indonesia)' line this morning from a co-worker.

Xopher @ #62:
Oh, yes, I remember that the McClurkin thing. On the other hand, he put the line "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them" into his speech at Ebenezer, which takes at least a little guts, and appears to support a more complete repeal of DOMA than Clinton does. I've got a cute Obama canvasser who dances very well pointing this out to me right now and would so love to ask if this is an issue of personal concern for her, except that the 20-year age gap makes me go hrm.

It's not an easy choice on ANY issue for me.

Here's Obama at Ebenezer Baptist Church:

“If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean,” Obama said to applause. “If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

“We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them,” he continued. “The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.”

Pretty gutsy of him, considering the amount of homophobia in the black churches.

Xopher @ 72
We're not picking a flawless person here. We're picking the dirty conniving bastard who's better able to serve our interests than the other dirty conniving bastards.

Or, in my case, better able to jack up the dirty conniving bastard I'm voting against because the damn fool is going to (further) ruin my beloved Republic, but the sentiment is there, yeah.

At #60 Scott: Hey! URSGA! I used to be a member of that, back when they were all crazy. Taught me how to invert any wish and play Settlers & D&D! Do they still have the office in the rafters of Wilson?

Member 2001-2002, although I wasn't on their staff.

Scott Taylor @ 71... I could have voted for Dodd with mostly clear nostrils

Combine that with candidate-picking and you get...

Formatting correction for the Obama quote @#75:

“If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean,” Obama said to applause. “If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

“We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them,” he continued. “The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.”

Blockquote tags just cover one paragraph rather covering all the way to the close tag.

OK, some of my points have been refuted, others cast into doubt. If we'd had this conversation yesterday, it might have made a difference to my vote. But walking into the booth this morning, I pressed the button for Hillary without a qualm or second thought, confident that I was making the right choice at the right time.

Me second-guessing that now won't help me or anyone else. And I'm not convinced enough that YOUR dirty conniving bastard is better than MY dirty conniving bastard to tell anyone ELSE to vote for him instead of her.

Oh well. Sucks to be me. :-)

Arg. . . I had a real, on topic point for posting as well, but I forgot it during the rush of UR recollections.

Patrick, can I ask what made you change your mind from your "Kiss My Ass" post, or do you still think that Obama isn't for a clear separation between church and state? Are you endorsing him despite his views, or do you have a different perspective on those quotes now?

Spherical Time @ 77
At #60 Scott: Hey! URSGA! I used to be a member of that, back when they were all crazy. Taught me how to invert any wish and play Settlers & D&D! Do they still have the office in the rafters of Wilson?

When they were all crazy? What makes you think they stopped? :-D

Yup, the office is still in 504 - they share it with the jugglers now (which is all sorts of... interesting, since the jugglers have nowhere else to store their props - including the large plastic balancing balls that they never actually use).

(Simcon is thirty years old this year. Hard to believe...).

Member 2001-2002, although I wasn't on their staff.

Heh. I'm half-convinced people don't actually ever leave URSGA - they just stop coming to meetings...

I'm glad a few people here still remember Dodd, and that he stood out among the field a bit. I really badly wanted him to do a sudden "OMFG, Who is THAT GUY" surge before the primaries started in earnest, but I knew it wouldn't happen.

I honestly think the flop that was the Dodd campaign is a pretty clear parable of what is wrong with our current campaign/funding system. Most of the time when I said "I'm supporting Dodd," people would have no idea who he was... then when I explained, and talked about his experience and policies they usually said "huh. that sounds like the kind of candidate I would like, actually."

But he didn't have the money or profile, and got forgotten. I sort of resented Edwards a bit I think, as he was occupying the "hey there's a competent elder statesmen type candidate here, who knows what they're doing" slot, and Dodd was trying to occupy the same slot, only more politely and with less money.

Anyway, I like both Clinton and Obama and, like many here, I can't really make the decision between them.

I have been thinking a lot about a conversation I had in class, either in middle school or high school. It was during the wide open part of some primary, and we had been in social studies. There had been a lesson about voting rights, and the old 'who is more discriminated against - minorities or women' argument had come up.

Anyway, in the end, someone suggested that the argument would eventually be settled by which of those groups got the first president. It was a joke at the time, but not entirely... that's always seemed as good a way of keeping score as anything else (note: currently 43 - nil - nil). This idea has always sort of stuck with me and in some way, whoever wins this... will put a tic in that column, and win or lose a decade old bet buried deep in my brain.

I had always hoped that we'd get a black woman president first, and screw up all the scorekeeping. That's just the rebel in me, though.

Xopher (#80): I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm neither second-guessing you nor asking you to second-guess yourself.

You thought about people, and policies, and what mattered to you; then you voted based on your thinking. To me, that's what matters.

#82 Scott: When they were all crazy? What makes you think they stopped? :-D

Oooooh, that's a valid point. You might have been impressed with exactly how crazy our fearless URSGA leaders were though. Sometimes I couldn't tell when they were jokingly crazy or not.

Yup, the office is still in 504 - they share it with the jugglers now (which is all sorts of... interesting, since the jugglers have nowhere else to store their props - including the large plastic balancing balls that they never actually use).

That sucks. Jugglers had one of the downstairs offices when I was there. I can't imagine how crowded it is up there. We used to just hang out in the office, and I was always impressed by how many people we could jam in there.

Then again, I lived on Wilder 9 (MIF), and we excelled at stuffing people into small containers.

Heh. I'm half-convinced people don't actually ever leave URSGA - they just stop coming to meetings...

I'd probably still be dropping by on occasion if I didn't live 2000 miles away. Anyway, nice to hear that they're still going strong up there!

I woke up this morning, still not knowing who to vote for today. Your post and many of the comments here swayed me from Clinton to Obama.

I'm not too worried about the more bizarre slimings of Obama going around. I think the people who uncritically believe stuff like that weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

I also don't believe Clinton is unelectable, as so many seem to assume. The vitriol of the Clinton-haters has always been disproportionate to their number.

Leah Miller #83: It seems to me that the primary reason no one knew about Dodd (who was also my candidate) was that no one in the MSM ever mentioned him, for any reason...even when the various rounds of FISA filibustering were going on, it was very difficult to find even a brief mention of it anywhere, despite how vitally important that stuff was (and continues to be).

I thought I had made it clear that I went out and read a lot more about the guy, and that doing so gave me a much more nuanced (and favorable) view.

I don't mean to get all G*r* F*rb*r, but some of you are displaying a startling ignorance of well-known and well-covered facts, and I don't just mean people who happen to disagree with me. For instance, there was at least one commenter who seemed to think that NY's primary is winner-take-all.

Democracy does require that you RTFM once in a while. Or at least review the FAQ.

I agree with that too, ethan @88.

I really don't know what to do about 'the problem with the media.' We can't forbid the media from reporting on political subjects. Neither can we 'force' them to give equal coverage in any meaningful way I can think of. The state of the media and current journalism is one of the more depressing things out there, to me.

On the other media hand - I have been constantly amused by Stephen Colbert's repeated slimings of Obama by spreading the vicious rumor that he fathered a black baby. It works on so many levels, especially with McCain being the front runner in the other party.

Interesting anecdote on the "conservatives hate Hillary too much to ever vote for her" theory:

A co-worker just came by to say that a friend's parents in rural Georgia who are staunch life-long Republicans and have sworn they'd never vote for a Democrat because of the g*n c*ntr*l issue called her friend to let him know that they'd voted for Clinton today.* Why? Because their other son had just lost his job and the grandkids needed healthcare.

Single data point, yes, but still.

* Open primary.

Xopher, figure that at the very worst, you voted for the second-best of the viable candidates. :)

#89 PNH: I suppose I missed the "incrementalist" line originally and after I read the KMA post I was wondering if I'd missed some major component that had reversed your position on his separation of church and state policy, etc.

I just wanted to clarify that you still had the same issues and that I wasn't missing a large piece of the picture.

If it's any consolation, PA's primary is so late I'll have more information and make less difference. It's rather Heisenbergian.

will shetterly @#65: as I read that article, both Clinton and Obama initially ducked the question, and when pressed about it later, both of them said "not immoral." So their positions and their answers were fundamentally the same. You're comparing Clinton's initial statement to Obama's followup statement - apples & oranges.

#80 ::: Xopher, no big. Nearly half the Dems who vote today will end up supporting the candidate they didn't choose. This way, you'll feel better if Obama gets the nod.

#87 ::: Scraps, the polls disagree with you, as I understand 'em, but there's time to change that, especially if she puts together the Dream Team.

#89 ::: Patrick, we need a simpler manual. My latest democratic obsession: Election Day Registration. Which will go nowhere under Republicans, and is under attack by them in Wisconsin.

#95 ::: Mary, oops, thanks for catching that! So this is another issue where they're essentially identical.

Just got in from voting and I was stunned by the turn out. I waited forty minutes to vote, and the lines were longer when I left then when I entered. When I voted in the primary in 2004 it was an echoing cavern filled with two elderly ladies manning the lists and me.

Democrats are energized. We've got a lot of work to do to clean up the past seven (soon to be eight) years, but it seems like the passion has returned, and we're ready to try and make a difference.

Melinda Snodgrass @ 97... My wife voted this morning at a school near Copper & Tramway. Apparently there was only one person to look thru all the voter lists. That meant loooong waiting lines, but that's fine by me if that means people are taking this VERY seriously.

Xopher, so you'll feel better about your vote, Clinton offers unequivocal support for the LGBT community here.

Minnesota does caucuses, so I have to wait until 7:00 to vote. They're doing it differently this year. The presidential vote is not going to be a caucus but a straw vote. I haven't seen anything to explain how that will work with the system of conventions that follows. With other things, such as senators, you caucus for the senator of your choice, and the result of the caucus determines the number of delegates that go on to the county convention. (Then there's the Congressional District Conventions, that get their delegates from the County Convention...)

So I'm not happy about not knowing exactly what the straw poll will mean. I think they're doing it so that people can vote and leave, and not have to stay for the whole caucus -- which they appear to think will run about an hour. This seems optimistic to me. I'm going to stay for the caucus because I want to caucus for Al Franken for senator. Bad stand up comedian, but I think he'll be a good senator. And I think he'll do better against Norm Coleman than the alternative, who's just kind of a party hack, nothing to get excited about.

Obama gets my vote for the charisma, and the fact that he seems to poll a little better against McCain than Hillary does. But I do keep on worrying, when I see him make speeches, that there's somebody in the crowd with a gun. I'm not old enough for this, I don't remember the assassinations of MLK, JFK, RFK, and Malcolm X. But still I worry.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for President, I will vote for her in November, without question. The country cannot take another Republican in the White House. CANNOT. (Sorry, didn't mean to raise my voice...) Whichever wins (and that isn't going to be decided today), whether it's Obama or Clinton, I will spend the months until November working on voter registration for the Democratic party in California. I hope that everyone who takes this moment and decision seriously will do the same in their own state. I want more Democrats! I want the Democratic candidate in November elected in a blow-out, and I want the Senate and House to go solidly blue; I want the Republicans back to being the minority party, and I want it to be a teeny tiny minority. We have a lot of repair work to do.

Had a (middle-aged, black) woman in the library today who was excited about Obama, but worried that he'd be assassinated. It's definitely on (some) people's minds.

#100 ::: Lydy, it's not exactly consolation, but if Clinton's elected, there'll be nuts gunning for her, too. When I'm worried about Clinton, I think of Maggie Thatcher. When I'm worried for her, I think of Benazir Bhutto.

I just read a statement from James Dobson (it's up at DailyKos) in which he says if McCain and Clinton or Obama are the candidates for President, he won't vote at all in the Presidential election.

Works for me!

FWIW, I voted for Obama because I wanted to choose inspiration over pragmatism. Xopher, I deeply respect your fears and understand why you are voting as you are. For myself, I am of the belief that it *is* possible to protect you and others with similar concerns from the evil that has permeated our society under the guise of "family values" without needing to resort to open assault -- but that is my personal belief.

I think Mark Schmitt is very convincing on Obama here. For the first time I'm thinking of Obama as a first choice, and not a second choice after Edwards. I've always kind of suspected that there might be a wily rhetorical cooptation of right-wing language going on in Obama's rhetoric, and as a Red State resident I know we desperately need some rhetorical skills in a candidate. Hillary, bless her heart, doesn't have the potential to move voters here where I live. It's a deep cultural difference in the kinds of cues people respond to. Rhetoric and style are important, and they are the main reason Obama might be that game-changing re-alignment candidate.

Then there is the wonky policy stuff. Obama's looking good there, the more I read. I'm better at analyzing rhetoric though, so I guesstimate that an inspirational president with coattails and okay policies will do more good than a nose-to-the-grindstone president with no coattails and good policies.

Just lost the post where I explained my extremely valuable opinions.

Anyway, the real thing I have to say is to recommend this article by Mark Schmitt. I think it's convincing.