The public, and younger voters in particular, seem to want an end to partisanship and conflictual politics, and an administration that came in with that premise (an option not available to Senator Clinton), would have a tremendous advantage, at least for a moment.

The problem is, and this is what most will not face, is that "change" has two sides. Good and bad. Running merely "on change" is meaningless unless the change is connected to a definite statement of what is to be changed and a stated plan on how the change the candidate wants is to be accomplished. In that OHB appears to be sorely lacking in these details, it is not possible to evaluate him. This is made much worse because of his inexperience and exposure.

So it may be that his "change" would be unacceptable to a majority of the electorate, or it may be that he just doesn't know, preferring to use it only as an election tool.

Either answer should scare any serious person, Demo, Repub or Independent.

The Senate passed legislation Thursday night that would create a massive, Google-like searchable database to track federal spending.

The legislation (S 2590), which aims to create more transparency in exactly who gets how much federal money, passed by a voice vote after both Republican and Democratic senators dropped their objections to it.

Passed from the minority during the Bush presidency.

Lugar-Obama, S.2566:

The first part of the Lugar-Obama legislation would energize the U.S. program against unsecured lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons. There may be as many as 750,000 man-portable air defense systems in arsenals worldwide, and the State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. In addition, loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and provide the means for attacks on peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize war-torn societies. In Iraq, unsecured stockpiles of artillery shells and ammunition have been reconfigured into improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have become the insurgents' most effective weapon.

The second part of Lugar-Obama would strengthen the ability of America's allies to detect and interdict illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction. U.S. security depends not just on the willingness of other nations to help; it depends on whether they have the capabilities to be effective. The State Department engages in several related anti-terrorism and export control assistance programs. But these programs are focused on other stages of the threat, not on detection and interdiction, and create a gap in our defenses that needs to be filled.

Died in committee but would pass in an Obama presidency.

Obama-Brownback, S.2125, A bill concerning the DR Congo:

Nicholas Kristoff, NYT: "On this ''win a trip'' journey through central Africa with a teacher and a student, we're visiting the forgotten war inside Congo. The death toll has already reached four million, making this the most lethal conflict since World War II.[...]

This war staggers on in part because the suffering here hasn't registered on the international conscience, and because it has been allowed to fester and continue. Barack Obama and Sam Brownback are among the few prominent American politicians who have focused on the war here.

Passed in the Senate and signed by President Bush.

Via Mark Halperin, a recent Obama Campaign Memo states:

Right now groups supporting Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are flooding Iowa and the other early states with millions of dollars in paid ads, phone calls, and mailings.

Some of it is negative and even deceptive, and a lot of it is paid for by huge, unregulated contributions from special interests.

Taking on these groups isn't just a matter of setting the record straight about me or my positions.

It's about proving that a new kind of campaign -- funded by ordinary people who want something better for all of us -- can defeat the same tired, old political textbook that so many Americans just don't trust anymore.

According to Halperin, here are the awful groups undermining democracy in Iowa:

For Hillary Clinton
AFSCME: $907,177.24
AFT: $635,822.19
Emily's List: $297,806.69

Total: $1,840,426.12

For John Edwards

Working for Working Americans/Carpenters: $516,216.51
Alliance for a New America (SEIU): $760,801.00
Total: $1,277,017.51

Bipartisanship is a stillborn idea devoid of context, ignoring the last 30 years and forgetting the right wing. You want to vote for it - be my guest, but don't pretend that it's going to work.

Hope is a beautiful word, but again it's taken out of context. The election for president are not about hope, they are about choosing a candidate who can stick with the constitution, have enough courage to face tough issues (not just be present when they happen) and the leadership to start on new ways. Hope is about "I hope to get there on time." It's not about "if I vote for Obama I hope he'll finally stop voting present."

What we need now is not a voting calculus. We need a candidate that tells us what he thinks about certain issues. We don't need someone that is a closet progressive, we someone who is progressive.

the entire republican party marches in lock-step, going wherever the leadership takes it. to think otherwise is merely another display of naivete'. again, this has been evident, since the newt gingrich days in congress. nothing that happens in 2008 will change that.

had sen. obama come out and said "well, i want to work together with my republican colleagues. i believe there are many issues we can agree on, and solve in a bipartisan manner. however, should they refuse, i'll not be averse to running over them, to accomplish my party's goals.", then by golly, he might have had me there. he didn't.

If you are going to properly analyze this you must understand and deal with the historical perspective. Refusing to deal with the obvious, doesn't help your argument. It just shows it to be weak.

Following the logic of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, it would make more sense for Saddam to decide WE were his friends. Of course that didn't happen, any more then the evidence lacking theory you espouse.

I hate to say it, but you are as looney as Bill Kristol. This is not a good thing.

Again, Carter was a conservative. Not a leftist. Remember he was opposed by the liberal left. Again, some knowledge of history helps. It also helps to be able to compare and contrast. That way one understand how situations are like and how they differ. That way you would you have a basis for determining what is a Munich, and who is a Churchill.

As it is you are just mouthing off (and repeating over and over) a lot of incoherent illogical blather. Repeating a bogus fact does not make it true. Repeating facts out of context makes you intellectually dishonest, not correct.  Repetition is for propagandists not historians.