I think Obama COULD be simply unprepared emotionally for a long, hard race where he's under the microscope.  However, as president, he'd have more control over the agenda.  His petulance, which is so obvious now, would not be such a big factor if he had position power.

On the con side?  He'd be less transparent than he promises.  That one is now a given.

Obama will NOT be one to push policy changes.  He's not even really interested.  Therefore, some of his policy stances that I don't particularly like are probably a non-issue.  He's not interested in specifics.  He won't balk over a more moderate agenda set by Dems.  It could be a blessing that he's not detail-oriented and fairly uninterested in his own platform on various issues.  He'll go with the flow.  That would be preferable to me.  I hated his position on taxes.  NEVER!

Obama will not be stupid enough to push his radical ideas on the International Front.  He'd get swatted down and humiliated so fast that his head would spin.  The SNL skit recently on how he calls Hillary at 3 AM about foreign policy wasn't far off the mark.  This guy is a placater, so one smack-down will be quite enough.

Obama will not divide the country racially.  He rarely even campaigns in his AA neighborhoods.  He's got them locked up.  He never made any promises.  So they will be irrelevant once he's elected.  I have no fear that the race divide will continue if he's elected.

Obama would bring warm and fuzzy to many white liberals who feel guilty over not much.  But....nothing wrong with warm and fuzzy.

Obama would continue to not add up.  This may not sound like a positive, but it can be.  Therefore, everyone would get to interpret him the way they like best.  That's his chief asset.  He's the blank slate.  Write in your own "what he meant."  People love to guess.  He'd not shake their faith in their own mind-reading abilities.

Obama would focus on International only.  It will be one long travelogue with photo ops.

Maybe the country needs 4 years of not much.

I'm a "fixer."  I prefer a "fixer" right now.

But....there's something to be said for presidents who do not rock the boat and who just don't do much.  We all need a breather after Bush.

A President is more than policies -- he's the leader of our country.

I have NEVER voted for a Republican.  So, (at this point) if I vote for him, I'll be voting for the "D" after his name.  But I just don't know.

I hope he doesn't win the nomination.  I'll be much less emotionally invested in him if he does.  Too ground for me, as that's never been a problem before.  Maybe that will change.

Obama didn't do that. He bought that house with Rezko after being electing to the US senate. What kind of moron DEMOCRATIC US senator (and I'm sorry, but it was a really moronic thing to do) considering running for the presidency of the United States, invites a mob affiliate under investigation by a federal prosecutor to do him a personal favor to the tune of $625k? Since the home purchase, Rezko has been indicted for bribing state officials. If he's convicted of bribery, that land purchase is, quite reasonably, going to look like a bribe in the making to an awful lot of American citizens.

And Wright - why hang on to him? Why not find some quiet African Methodist church with a brilliant Ivy League pastor and maybe use that to move the discussion about race in this country quite a bit further down the road - something Wright, with is plentiful misogynist invective and questionably race boggled bible stories - cannot do.

I think Obama wants to be Bill Clinton - though he would never, ever admit that. I think he looks at the scandals of the 90s and doesn't understand that Clinton cleaned his issues that could have turned into genuine scandals up before he ran for office. The fact that the GOP went after him anyway, shouldn't be construed as a reason to not get rid of questionable issues in one's past.

Everything else, even his pandering to the right, as destructive as I think that is, I could get over.  Hey, I'm not looking forward to Jimmy Carter 2.0, but it beats George W. Bush 3.0.  

With no idea how much of a majority we will have - assuming we hold onto and gain seats in the next Congress - I am especially concerned that an Obama presidency that bogs down in the paralysis of endless compromise will set the stage for a significant setback in that majority, possibly sending us back to the minority.

In the face of two years of an Obama presidency accompanied by a GOP Congress, I fear that he will end up being much more "their" president than "ours."  Those who worry about the Supreme Court ought to consider how a prone-to-compromise-when-compromise-is-wrong Obama would approach SC nominations that would have to go through a GOP Senate.

All told, I think that sets the stage for a GOP president in 2012, and worse, could impact all of us for a generation.  Game, set, match.

Is it possible that Hillary as president could also end up with a GOP Congress in 2010 - sure.  But the difference is that I don't see her rolling over and playing dead, nor do I see her climbing into bed with the GOP and locking the Dems out of the bedroom, so to speak.

At first I thought he would just pass her bills, so his Republican energy policy hidden behind his global warming talk didn't bother me, but I see now how stubbornly her clings to his Libertarian/Republican 'just kill healthcare' policy, and I think he will likewise cling to his ethanol, nukes and 'clean coal' policy the same way.  I think he is a puppet of Republican policy thinktanks, thats why the media is pushing him as the least worst Democrat.

Link

Read the whole thing.

What's the point.  You have to decide where Obama's coming from.  He's an Ivy Leaguer so I have to assume he knows JFK criticized face to face meetings without preconditions.  Or would he know that?  Perhaps you can get through Harvard and not understand such a basic fact.  I don't know.

So either he knows better or he gives answers that he knows will please voters, even though he knows he won't govern the way he says.

Or he really doesn't have any idea what he's talking about half the time.

This is one of the few times I have criticized the Clinton campaign.  Clinton did not need to unload both barrells and say he was being "naive and irresponsible."  Although I understand where she was coming from, a better thing to have said at that point might be more wonky, but to just say what I said.

"I don't know why he gave that answer because surely Obama must know that JFK and Ronald Reagan never met with other World Leaders without preconditions.  Or if they did it was a disaster."

Anyway, that was the first point at which I started to know more about the candidate other than his speech in 2004.

Since then, I feel he's polarized the party, he's forced onto the party a choice that will create a net negative.  The choice is between the future of the party and the Clinton legacy.

My dislike of the candidate at that point is of course a product of my loyalty to the Clintons, those are glimpses into the candidate's character.

But before that, there were glimpses into the candidate's intellect.

Is he really that smart?

Does he know what he's doing?

Just because someone has the right objectives does not mean they will do less harm than someone who has the wrong objectives, but knows what he's doing.

Is there a reason to like Obama.

is a Democrat, and America works better socially and economically for more of our citizens and the rest of the world when a Democrat is in the White House.

Agreed as to the latter part of your statement, not so sure about the first.

He has an amazing gift for political rhetoric, using soaring, poetical images in his speeches that resonate with so many people. Imagine how useful that skill would be to a President trying to earn support for a new program or legislation!

Yes, he can give a good speech.  What I fail to see is the application of those gifts in his current position as United States Senator (or in his community organizing or the state legislature prior to the US Sentate); seems like he's had the opportunity to poetically advocate for the last three years - the question is, why hasn't he?

He has demonstrated that he can get massive, heartfelt support from widely disparate groups of people, and get them to unite for his cause.

That you would refer to this as "his" cause is telling - what I have yet to see is interest in gathering that support for "our" cause.

Obama has motivated young adults to get registered and vote, to work for his campaign, to identify with and advocate for Democrats. When I was in college in the 90s, voting wasn't cool; now it is.

I agree he has had a great GOTV organization, but not all young adults are voting Obama; and I think his efforts have less to do with the glories of the democratic process and a whole lot to do with garnering votes for himself.  Nothing wrong with that, per se, but let's not make it more than what it is, and let's not discount the effect of young people seeing friends and family going off to war, the dwindling job prospects for young people as motivations for registering to vote.

I want to see this gorgeous family walk down Pennsylvania Avenue together on Inauguration Day, waving and smiling, representing America to the world for the next eight years. Just the thought of it makes me tear up.

Hallmark commercials have been known to make me do the same thing, so at best, all I can say is, whatever.

Michelle Obama would be fascinating to follow as a First Lady. What causes would she take up? How would she balance raising her family, supporting her husband's work, and performing her own duties while still maintaining her identity as a strong, independent woman? I like her and would be a big cheerleader for her every day.

Call me shallow, but I do not like this woman, and I have no interest in how she balances all the aspects of her life, because millions of women have been engaged in that process for years, with many having a much harder time, and  have been and continue to do it with much less in the way of resources.

Obama has shown us that he takes good advice (like not voting for Roberts), and he'd have the backing of many prominent Democrats to help him navigate his first year in office.

You assume he only takes the good advice, but his history suggests he also takes some bad advice - or turns away good advice to follow his own judgment.  See Rezko, Ayers, Auchi, etc.

His policies aren't clear to me, but they're in the right ballpark. And I do feel certain that he'll get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. If he can work with Congress to get positive, Democratic policies into law, America would be a stronger, better country than she is today.

His policies aren't clear to you?  Why is that - because you don't care to understand them, or because he hasn't addressed them?

As for his working with Congress, I have less confidence than you do that his interest lies in strong, Democratic policy; he will, on the other hand, be a boon to the Blue Dog Democrats, and will fit right in with the Reid/Pelosi strategy of barking loud and caving quietly.

I loved his speech at the 2004 DNC. I loved it so much that it made me both laugh and cry. If he still truly believes in those words, then I really love that about him. I've had my doubts about that since that time, though.

I think he is smart and also thoughtful at times.

He seems like a dedicated husband and father.

He has a good sense of humor.

so has she, frankly.  :-)

And now watch the weaseling he does to avoid a real debate -- he's going to make Hillary look ever more like the 'fighter' and he's on the way down if you ask me.

For the record, my R status is tenuous, in practice.  In my high school the teacher made the class stand up with Rs on one side and Ds on the other.  I was the only R.  And, I've always been a very vocal R with friends and family.  But, I have a policy of always voting for women even if they're Ds, so I've voted for a lot of Ds, because a lot of women run in my area (e.g. in my old county the three Commissioners were all women, and our Governor and US Senators were all women.)  And, I'm not an idiot, i.e. I voted against Bush both times (although I was a campaigner for McCain in the 2000 primary.)

• is a Democrat, and America works better socially and economically for more of our citizens and the rest of the world when a Democrat is in the White House.

• He has an amazing gift for political rhetoric, using soaring, poetical images in his speeches that resonate with so many people. Imagine how useful that skill would be to a President trying to earn support for a new program or legislation!

• He has demonstrated that he can get massive, heartfelt support from widely disparate groups of people, and get them to unite for his cause.

• Obama has motivated young adults to get registered and vote, to work for his campaign, to identify with and advocate for Democrats. When I was in college in the 90s, voting wasn't cool; now it is.

• I want to see this gorgeous family walk down Pennsylvania Avenue together on Inauguration Day, waving and smiling, representing America to the world for the next eight years. Just the thought of it makes me tear up.

• Michelle Obama would be fascinating to follow as a First Lady. What causes would she take up? How would she balance raising her family, supporting her husband's work, and performing her own duties while still maintaining her identity as a strong, independent woman? I like her and would be a big cheerleader for her every day.

• Obama has shown us that he takes good advice (like not voting for Roberts), and he'd have the backing of many prominent Democrats to help him navigate his first year in office.

• His policies aren't clear to me, but they're in the right ballpark. And I do feel certain that he'll get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. If he can work with Congress to get positive, Democratic policies into law, America would be a stronger, better country than she is today.

Here's something interesting; you write:

McCain presents no position I can support. Obama has made it clear that he is not interested in my vote and I find a lot of his positions unacceptable. And for those I would find acceptable, from what I have seen, he would not have the strength or backbone to push them through if faced with opposition.

And you conclude:

HRC > JMcC = BO

Unfortunately, even with this absurd loading of the deck, your conclusion still doesn't follow. What follows (assuming you don't attribute yourself omniscience and hold beliefs probabilistically) is that Obama > McCain, but only marginally. Even so, the premises are just blatantly false. If you find many of Obama's positions unacceptable, you find many of Clinton's positions unacceptable. You don't find many of Clinton's positions unacceptable. Therefore you don't find Obama's positions unacceptable.

(There is a de re/de dicto ambiguity that your argument exploits. You believe (de dicto) the proposition that many of Obama's positions are unacceptable to you. You believe (de re) of Obama's positions that they are acceptable to you, because you believe that of Clinton's positions and their positions are almost uniformly the same. This having been pointed out to you, you should reflect on the de dicto belief and amend it.)

The argument you make, as presented, together with evident background facts, results in an obvious contradiction.

Now I confess to having no clue about how to argue with irrationality and contradictory reasoning. Literally anything follows from it. You might as well just accept my points, since by the lights of your own argument, you have no more or less warrant to accept my claims than to maintain your own.

My guess is that all this nonsense will evaporate once there's a Democratic nominee; if it doesn't we're screwed anyway.

To the commenter who suggested you could set up a preference structure that would read Clinton > McCain > Obama without violating any rational choice axioms; yes that's true, but it would be utterly unmotivated. I'm trying to give Clinton supporters more credit than that.

There is reason to be optimistic that when the fog of uncertainty is gone and it's one Democrat against John McCain, all this nonsense will evaporate. If not, we're likely already screwed either way.

Nothing wrong with seeking political office but if you planned very carefully on how to  fool the people in who you really are then that is wrong and you were misrepresenting you campaign of hope.  If you did that then  you were  only seeking the office of the presidency not to do good for the American people but to satisfy your own ego.

What galvanized my thinking that they colluded  in this way was when Obama lost Massachusetts.  Why did he lose it and why did he lose it by double digits.   He had Ted Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, Kerry, and Gov Patrick endorsing him.  How could you lose with that backing.  After the Massachusetts primary I called the Boston papers and several of them told me that it was not so much a vote for Hilary as it was a vote against Gov Patrick.  Apparently, Gov Patrick wasn't doing so good on his campaign promises before he got elected. Plus he already had some scandals on his new job.  He requested a Cadillac instead of the Ford they had for the Gov personal use.  Then he ran up a bill on changing the curtains in his Gov mansion.  The people of Massachusetts said we saw the pretty rhetoric  of Patrick and we were swayed by it and so we voted for him but now  we know who he really is and we feel Obama is just a clone of Patrick.  Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me twice than shame on me