I'll try and be more clear.

It seems apparent, as is the case with most candidates for higher office, that there are promises being made that can't be believed.

Of course this is not uncommon.

But is this really "change we can believe in?"

As was pointed out on the NAFTA thread, if a candidate publicly opposes something, it's hard to understand why he is being advised by someone who favors it, and vice-versa.  This cannot just be explained away by saying - as I expect we will be hearing in the next few days - that it is always good to have diverse points of view to encourage open discussion.

Yes, it is good to encourage people to speak their minds, to be able to say they agree or disagree without fear for their jobs, but this thing is still in the sales stage - we haven't gotten to the governing stage yet - and it's looking more and more like he is selling himself as one person, while fully intending to be something somewhat different - how different, we have no way to know.

His voting record on Iraq, otherwise, is the exact same as Clinton's.  We already knew this.

Does the same apply to Clinton?  Should we assume that Clinton will pass legislation to make it easier to bust unions because Mark Penn is he chief strategist?

The way I see it, only 1 person can be president.  They can both get really ugly with the campaign and still only 1 of them will win.  Or they can stop.  Still, just 1 will win.

But if they keep fighting, my fear is that the 1 who will win is McCain.  The serious level of divisiveness forming among supporters of both our candidates is going to make it very difficult for our nominee to win in November.

And let's face it.  We've all said on MANY occasions that the candidates are basically the same on most issues.  They both say some things but will do others.  That's the way it works.

So why are we fighting with each other?

Maybe we should demand that our candidates turn their big guns at McCain.  Together.  Let's have them show us what they have at another debate.  But instead of disagreeing with each other on things, let's have them unite and attack McCain.  Answer every question by contrasting ourselves against McCain.  Then let's choose our candidate based on the one who does the most damage to McCain, not to the other democrat.

If it comes down to super delegates deciding this thing, isn't it better that they choose based on the one who has demonstrated they can throw the biggest punches at the other side, not who throws the biggest at our own side?

We're going to loose this thing in November if we don't stop the internal fight and start hitting McCain.

This thing can go all the way to the convention without any harm to the Democrats, if Hillary and Barak let loose together on McCain, not each other.  It'll show party unity and why Americans should vote democrat in November - for president, congress, governors, judges, school boards.....

I'm so glad I'm not an original Obama supporter, but a BT-convinced Dodd supporter, so what I say is not because I am defensive of Obama. I say what I say because it may personally help the people who read this. The Head Clinton herself has suggested that we don't know what we are getting with Obama, because he's a cipher like Bush. Fact is, neither Obama nor Bush was ever a cipher, and they are worlds apart; Bush was easily known to be a complete slimeball of stunning incompetence at everything, and Obama was easily determined to be at worst a typical 2008 Democrat. Hillary Clinton was lying by omission, and okay, a person can support such a liar--I wouldn't be stopped by that much of a lie--but I wouldn't stoop so low as to commit the same lie myself.

When the FISA with telecom immunity bill was voted on, Obama voted against it and Clinton didn't show up.

"The campaign's advisers reflect a broad spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party," countered Clinton national security guru Lee Feinstein. "The candidate makes her own decisions about her foreign policy positions."

Of course Iraq is trivial compared to telecom immunity. (More on their foreign police advisors here)

In fact I think it is generally good that both of them have advisors with varying views. I would not criticize Hillary for it nor would I criticize Obama.  We have a guy who surrounds himself with Yes Men in the White House now.  Not going so well.