I have a slightly different perspective. When people talk about change, I think they are talking about the political “tone” in Washington.

The main reason I am voting Obama: maybe, if he is elected, people could go back to talking to each other about things that matter; and it might even be socially acceptable for people to change their mind after thinking about it.

The pugilistic brand of politics practiced by the Clintons where it is important to kick someone in the nuts (and do it again when that person is down) is a constant turn-off. Her unprecedented double-teaming of Barack in South Carolina only serves to highlight the fact that she is a world-class, mean street-fighter when threatened. In word and deeds, she and Bill have shown that they will do and say anything to gain access to the White House.

In other words, watch what they do, and not what they say. South Carolina was the turning point for a lot of people, and rightfully so.

Politics is a bloodsport, but it does not need to be so needlessly hyperpartisan where the goal is the destruction of the other person. We have a lot more in common than differences, and I think that is what Obama is getting at and that is why I will vote for him.

Finally, there is a question of how much trust you give to someone’s common sense judgment. Hillary failed it, in my view, abjectly when she derailed the 1993 health care reform initiative through her secretiveness and refusal to compromise. She again failed when she voted in favor of the Iraq war without reading the national intelligence estimate. (In contrast, the lone Democratic senator, Bob Graham of Florida, who did read it, voted against.) To me, this raises a whole series of questions about Hillary’s judgment.

It is time for a change and Hillary isn’t it.

For your information, Obama for America Disability Policy Committee will host a National Disability Policy Conference Call TODAY at 5pm EST to discuss Senator Obama’s plan to empower Americans with Disabilities and other issues of concern to the disability community.

Here’s how: (1) dial (712) 432-5555, (2) press “2″ when prompted, (3) press “1″ when prompted, and (4) enter the code 2336083. Live captioning will be available on the campaign web site’s disabilities issues page: http://www.BarackObama.com/issues/disabilities.

This is where you can ask your QUESTION. :)

Thank u… I need that cuz I am supporting Hillary! =-)

Change? Schmange. Great, thoroughly objective blog, Swetha. Smart of you to recognize the mass marketing hypnosis of “Change” as a propaganda mean to pull the wools over people’s eyes without ever asking or understanding exactly what kind of change Obama is promoting. Change to what? Boxers or briefs in Washington, DC?

Have you maybe thought about the possibility that people are voting for Obama not necessarily because they look forward to whatever platform he unveils, but more rather because they genuinely like him as a person? His track history shows an heightened ability to cross political lines, and even all his “present” votes were made for legitimate (or so it seemed to him — do you or I really know the full story behind each one?) reasons.

I’ve always staunchly voted Republican (yes, including Bush), but not this time. And believe me, I didn’t make my decision blindly. As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I try to take great care in not passing judgment on those who do — their reasons for liking Hillary Clinton are just as valid; our life experiences just happen to be different. This blog of yours makes me hope that you’re also doing your best not to chastise those who vote for Obama simply because their line of reasoning doesn’t jibe with yours.

Obama would take the opposite tack as a freshman. When Democrats began agitating for lobbying reform in 2006, it was Obama who agreed to be their lead negotiator with Republicans. In a chamber as sensitive to the flow of cash as the Senate, stepping between lobbyists and your colleagues is a bit like cutting off your frat brothers when they’ve had too much to drink: Everyone concedes it must be done, but nobody is lining up to do it. But Obama co-authored several of the provisions, like restrictions on lobbyist-funded meals, that eventually became law. “Could you go to Hillary? Sure,” said a Senate aide when I asked why Clinton wasn’t enlisted. “But we would probably think that, if she wants to get involved in something, she’s going to get involved in something [herself].”

http://www.tnr.com/politics/st.....e37b2e2653

If you’re looking for a bare-knuckles ‘I’ll hit the other guy until he submits’ sort of leader and think the main problem with the Democratic party is that they’re not as good at being rat-bastards as the Republicans are, you’re probably a Clinton supporter. If you’re looking for someone who can fix the dysfunctional mess our government is in and inspire the country to do better, you’re probably an Obama supporter. If you think everything is fine and we just need to keep out the browner people, welcome to the Republican party.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is a triangulator.

Focus groups, polls tell her what she should be saying to attract the maximum number of votes in order to win. When she speaks, I do not get the sense that she is speaking from her heart. She tries to tell us what she thinks we want to hear.

Jane Fernandes did the same thing with us. We knew intuitively that what she was saying was not ringing true, and we rejected all her attempts to quell the protest by that method of communication.

I would love a female president, but I am looking for a leader, not a triangulating politican.

Obama was ridiculed as “inexperienced” for daring to say what he actually thought sometimes, rather than giving the standard safe politician answer.

We have had eight years of Clinton and twelve years of Bush. So are we to have four or eight more years of Clinton? It would be a change to break this.

Most of the Clinton campaign contributions are coming from the corporations, those who donate the maximum $2,300. The Clintons have unfortunately become out of touch with the rest of the nation.

I personally am not voting Obama, because I am someone who recognizes that life is *NOT* a one-size-fits-all thing.

There are people who are different and make different choices in their lives that do not interfere in the lives of others, yet we railroad them because we are afraid of their difference.

So while I do not support all of Ron Paul’s positions, the one position that he holds is what I want to vote for him for; the right of those who are different to live their lives as they see fit as long as they are not in violation of others. It is a libertarian and fiscally conservative viewpoint.

I’d love to see how that “how they see fit as long as they are not in violation of others” work with Ron Paul. I love the idea of it, but there are people who make it their business to let others know how they feel or simply out of ignorance (roe v wade, some states allowing pharmacists not to give birth control even if prescribed, large group of people wearing placards walking around in DC every January, a noose hanging on a professor’s door, some hearing folks denying deaf folks to information, and many more).

I’m not sure what Obama’s message about change is either, but it’s kind of refreshing to see a new face. Some days I’m half leaning towards Hillary Clinton (bill really mucked it up for her in SC because he hates being left out of a political race) because of her experience, she knows other leaders, and the political game on the Hill. But - another 4 or 8 years of the Clinton family, nothing new and exciting anymore. We’d be no better teasing the Bush men as I and II.

I initially supported Bill Richardson because he’s experienced in DC ways, a governor in the Southwest - a new perspective, and already has an international reputation as a former UN ambassador. And he’s half Mexican. But he’s out. :(

Next 10 months of this between Clinton and Obama - oy vey!

Maybe this link will help you to understand what are Obama’s plan for change.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf.....Change.pdf

One thing that really stands out compared to other candidates is that Obama does not accept contributions from federal lobbyists, corporations or PACs. Obama really despite the corporate lobbyists. I think this is what we need to create a more progressive America.

Obama does have a platform - in fact, all the candidates in the Democratic Party have the same policy proposals except for minor differences. Regardless of what happens, either one would pursue the Democratic Party platform which is already written in stone.

This is more about “Who can get it done?”. In my view, it comes to integrity, values, character, and ability to get things done. Hillary has lost that battle. The endorsements from Congress and red state democrats clearly tells me who can get the job done. The high turnout in all the primaries including NEW voters (converts from Republicans and independents) are due to Obama’s candidacy, not Hillary.

Yes I am clear about my support for Obama. He’s not “poetic” as the media has painted him, he’s a man of substance.

I am still begging someone to explain:

How does Hillary have 35 yrs experience?
How does being First Lady count for anything?
Would she have been elected Senator if she didn’t move to NY?
Would she be in this race if not for Bill?
Would you have even HEARD of her if not for Bill?

I dare any of you to answer these questions.

what’s your take on Huck a Bee?

“It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....ma_clinton

January 30, 2008 — Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.

Obama represents a fresh start.

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

Does America really want to go through all that once again?

It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.

That much has become painfully apparent.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfri.....813218.htm

The real change is Ron Paul.

Here’s another good example why change is necessary…

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=123090

Vote for Obama!

The choice between Hillary and Barack Obama is a tough decision, but in my not-so-humble opinion: Since both Clinton and Obama are almost equally new to the U.S. Senate (and since Obama’s numerous years of experience as an Illinois state senator are arguably as substantive as — or more sunstantive than — Clinton’s role as an unelected spouse of the former president), the Democratic primary process comes down to six issues things for me.

1) In 2003 Clinton voted to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq, which for me counts as very poor judgement. While Obama wasn’t in the U.S. Senate yet when that vote took place, he was speaking out very publicly against it at the time (even though it was not a popular position then), which to me shows good judgement.

2) While John Edwards admitted that his Iraq war vote was a mistake, Clinton refuses to admit that her vote for authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq was wrong. To me (and several analysts on the Democrats’ side) this suggests that she has a problem admitting when she is wrong, and we’ve already had 7 years of a president who can’t seem to admit when he’s wrong or correct mistakes (look where it got us).

3) Clinton’s health care plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance, even if they cannot afford it, and would pubish those that do not buy insurance. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Obama’s health care plan is very similar to Clinton’s except for one major difference: he would not require individuals to purchase insurance or penalize those who don’t buy insurance.

4) Clinton knows the issues a well as Obama, but she is a polarizing figure that many Republicans hate, and she will not be able to beat John McCain; Obama on the other hand appeals to the same independent voters that McCain appeals to, and most analysts (MSNBC, CNN, Fox News) agree that Obama and McCain would split the independent vote (and current polls show that Obama would beat McCain, while Clinton would lose to McCain).

5) Clinton is widely accused of using win-at-all-costs tactics in her campaign against Obama - tactics that are almost shamelessly divisive (for example, she has been accused of sending out materials misleading voters to believe Obama is a Muslim, even though he is a Christian. Also, in the the last debate she was accused by liberals of unconstructively trying to stir up black voters’ fears of Latinos and drive a wedge between blacks and Latinos to benefit politically). Meanwhile Obama, while he has counter-attacked Clinton following attacks by Bill Clinton, he has arguably stayed above the fray to a greater extent than Clinton, and he is seen as a much more unifying force by the electorate in general (according to polls).

6) A Hillary presidency would leave Bill in the White House with nothing to do, and we saw where that led (Bill’s impeachment). After seven years with a largely unaccountable Vice President (Dick Cheney) running the country, I would not prefer to have Bill filling a similarly unaccountable role in the White House, perhaps pulling the strings from behind Hillary and using the White House to settle scores with his Republican opponents from his days as president. To me it seems that Obama would be the more democratic figure, offering more transparency in governance.

Women who are for Hillary:

Most Republicans would consider voting for Obama but NEVER for Clinton. Here’s an interesting question: will you vote for her even if it’s suicidal for democrats?

I was a strong Hillary supporter until that CBS News interviewed her with one simple question and I was astonished to read what she said. Katie Couric asked Hillary, “Besides the bible, which book or any reading material, you must have with you? Hillary said, “I must have the Federalist Society (FS) ’s Federalist Papers since this helps me to understand how the government should operate.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

Anyone who supports Federalist Papers will never get my support since it is their goal to “transform the American legal system by developing and promoting conservative positions and influencing who will become judges, top government officials, and decision-makers.” It is their goal to make sure non-conservative folks will have no voices or right to make or amend any political policies in this country. It sounds like communist party and smells likes communist party.

Go Obama!