Hm...why would I have this thought in my head?

I supported Hillary in 2008 going back to 2005. Towards the end of last year I decided, though, that I'd vote Obama in the Virginia primary.

Of course, to many here, now would be the point to insert a comment about drinking the koolaid, or being brainwashed, whatever, etc.

But my thinking is that judgement is far more important than agenda.

You say 'ask [Obama] what he intends to do.', but what a President wants to do as a candidate seldom has much resemblance to what he actually does.

Partly because of Congress and political opposition, but mostly because of nothing more than the events of the day.

Abe Lincoln certainly didn't campaign on winning a Civil War and emancipating blacks! His agenda as an abolitionist was to phase it in over decades.

Bill Clinton talked about dramatic increases in education spending and entitlement reform. He managed to accomplish a very fair portion of his initial agenda, but much of it was at a high cost of quid pro quo w/ the Republican congress.

Neither Bush nor Gore mentioned the word "terrorist" more than a handful of times on the campaign trial. Nobody talked about readiness for dramatic natural disasters and devastating terrorism and wars abroad, one necessary, one not.

And in this campaign I've found myself with times I've questioned the judgment of all the major candidates. But by and large, I trust Obama's more often than not. The conduct of the campaigns themselves has played a large part of my decision. Between December and March it seemed that Camp Clinton was entirely adrift without direction or focus. Hillary has been a fantastic candidate but her campaign has failed her and Hillary is the Chairman of the Board of her campaign (so to speak) and just as it would in the White House, the buck stops on her desk.

It seemed like every week there was a new message. Every other day Mark Penn said something horrific, Bill Clinton stepped in a pile of doggy doo and then drug it all over the news cycle.

And even if the media coverage was truly unfair (and I have no real opinion on that point) it really doesn't matter: Senator and President Clinton have a lot of experience with a hostile press. They can do things to mitigate it.

Anyway.. my point is that I'm convinced the Clintons both place a high value on loyalty, more so than I feel comfortable with. This is something we see in Bush and it's what's led to Brownie and Rumsfeld and the list could go on.

I mean, if Mark Penn was the Director of FEMA, how much life-endangering incompetence would be accepted before a President Hillary stepped on? One month? Two? Fourteen?

Then there's the opposition to the war, the common-sense argument about Pakistan (that if they wouldn't act to take our Bin Laden in their country, we would without their permission), on down to willingness to say "look, the gas rebate is good politics but bad policy, and here's why."

But mostly it's been the way they've handled the obstacles they've faced in the last 1.5 years.

My outrage is the exact same as it was when people were attacking a teenaged Chlesea Clinton because they hated her parents.

Hillary is closer to my generation than some of you all are.  And the men of my generation were not considered well suited to being house-husband and full-time parent.  (For those of you men who are doing that, know that I admire you!)