Obama scares me. All he talks about is change, change, change. Change just for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing. And charisma alone is not enough to unite Congress, as partisan as it has become these last few years. Besides, we all know what happened with the last person who said, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

I don't think that Obama is advocating for change, "just for the sake of change." In fact, there are many reasons why we need change in this country. We spend $275 million per day on the war in Iraq. That is the equivalent of $4,100 per household. That is a lot of money, especially considering that the majority of Americans were against the war from the beginning. So the gov't has spent our money on a war that the majority of Americans don't support. Imagine if we used this money for education or healthcare.

This is just one of many reasons why we need a major change in thinking in this nation. Our priorities (the priorities of our government) are way out of whack.

Obama has more than charisma, by the way. He is level-headed, intelligent, inspirational, honest and he cares about the people of this nation, unlike the current president.

I don't dislike Hillary, but many people do. She has proven herself to be a divider. Barack on the other hand has support from small towns and big cities across the map. He has the support of whites, black, old, young, men & women. He has the support of Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike.

I strongly believe that he will be our next president.

In this case, change for change's sake is good enough. Change away Bush/Cheney means voting Democratic in November. Any D nominee will do.

Hillary is certainly disliked but the GOP will find plenty of dislike for Obama in the general election, too.

Yesterday's results show that Obama has a better chance in November. Hillary's big wins are in states like California and NY, while Obama's wins are near landslides in a number of states that don't typically vote Democrat.

The Democrats need states like Colorado, Minnesota, Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri in the fall if they want to win. The fact is that Hillary did so poorly in these states it doesn't bode well for her performance in the national election. States that she won (California, NY, NJ, and Mass) are all states that are guaranteed democrat in the election. Obama will win them regardless.

It looks like the Hillary hate has really gotten to people (especially in the middle states), so vote Obama if you want a Democratic victory.

simon you're wrong. Obama is a uniter in the sense that he isn't rabidly Democratic. Hillary is. She represents the Democratic party of the 90's just as Pelosi does. Hillary will lose a McCain fight because of her inability to bring the parties closer. Obama and McCain do not have that problem.

Clinton is the old. Obama is the new. That's about it for me.

Plus she voted for the war. What a carpetbagger.

Simon- Before you start questioning the basis of other comments, try doing some actual research yourself. Head-to-head polling consistently shows Obama out-performing Clinton in a matchup with...every possible GOP nominee (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html). Including McCain.

Also: the "Obama as radical leftist" garbage simply doesn't wash. Just because the Clintons have dragged their party right into traditional Republican territory doesn't make Obama a pinko. His policy stances are ceter/left, plain and simple. If you're going to use empty rhetoric, you could at least keep it current--the red scare BS is soooo 20th century. Try this one out: "If the Democrats nominate Obama, the terrorists will have won!" Way hipper.

"That is a lot of money, especially considering that the majority of Americans were against the war from the beginning."

You make some good points but this is factually incorrect. A majority of Americans are now against the war, but in March 2003, only ~30% were against.

"What else can the republicans dig up on Hillary? She's an open book, theres no other dirt there."

I don't think this is a sound point. The GOPists used 30-year old attack lines on Kerry, and it was enough to keep Bush in the WH.

"Yesterday's results show that Obama has a better chance in November. Hillary's big wins are in states like California and NY, while Obama's wins are near landslides in a number of states that don't typically vote Democrat."

The data does not support your conclusion. Primary elections do not provide any insight to the general election.

"The country just will not go for a radical leftist as much as you may hope."

Is someone afraid of Barack?

carpetbagger, that's hot. a great word from the history books. and who better to use it on than hilary?

new york and california, give those to clinton, where they already locked up the old friends' network.

obama, better than nothing, or way better than the other garbage.

Proposals? I've seen more hot air from him than actual detailed proposals.

"If only the media would have gotten by the only candidate with true vision John Edwards. I can't get excited by a woman who stood by a cheat and a man with limited experience."

I don't think that Edwards' and Obama's experience is all that different.. but to you Edwards has a 'true vision' and Obama has 'limited experience'. Sounds like the media shapes not only elections, but also your opinion.

"yes, yes, yes, obama's a uniter, he's the next jfk, he's the next best thing to sliced bread. LOL. what people base this on, i'm not quite sure given his track record or lack thereof"

Interesting you bring up JFK, since his political record before becoming President is not very different from Obama's.

"I've seen more hot air from him than actual detailed proposals."

True, and this does concern me, but very few, if any, candidates offer 'actual detailed proposals'.

BALLOT ON THE MOUNT

Who would Jesus vote for?

One of his own, no doubt:

"Joe Lieberman's the mensch

Who'll chase the Philistines out."