Can anyone give one FACT, not opinion, why someone shouldn't support Obama over Clinton?...

[WA98070]

Experience, debatable; friends, irrelevant.

They are two peas, different pods. Too much alike, that's why she's gone personal (which he won't). She panders, he won't.

The only thing is, he is an unknown. He might bring about change.

Bill Clinton did---NAFTA, FCC, Pharmaceutical rules, ...

I hope, believe, Obama wants to make change for the good. He's just not sure Americans can handle the change we need. And he's smart enough not to get very specific because Corporate America would use to destroy him.

[BklynChick]

1. I'm an Obama fan, but their health care plans are slightly difference so one might prefer hers..

that's all I got.

[berni_mccoy]

77. Her plan is not Healthcare: It's Mandatory Health Insurance.

[WA98296]

2. crickets....otherwise, howdy neighbor ( WA)

[dchill]

3. Well. You know what? That's a good question.

:shrug:

[shraby]

4. Here's one very good reason to support

Obama over Clinton....she LIES. Bosnia is a case in point. I can't trust her.

[WA98070]

14. My feeling about Bosnia was it was a "fish story" but then she lied about that...

If she had said it was a fish story I can except that...

Did George Washington chop down that cherry tree? Did Abe Lincoln ever tell a lie?

Even Jesus spoke in parables.

There is a lot about Hillary I admire but her handlers suck...

James Carville is one I find abrasive but he wins.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Such a thing does not and cannot exist.

What's relevant or irrelevant to you or anyone else is all a matter of opinion. There is no such fact-based argument for why someone would or should support one candidate over another, unless you have some mutually agreed upon, but wholly arbitrary framework for such a discussion (such as, deciding which issues are most important and what stance someone should take on said issues), but even then, since said framework would be based upon opinions, it wouldn't get you very far either. What your asking for can never exist.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. It's handy to ask for nigh-impossible "proof", isn't it?

It furthers the appearance to the already convinced or the facile that no possible refutation of the champion is possible.

This just continues the "fluff equals substance" tack taken by many Obama supporters. He's better because he says he is. He'd definitely do these grandiose and ill-defined acts of greatness because he says so. Who are we to dispute his good word? Just because he says diametrically opposed things and habitually ducks any stances that could come back to bite him doesn't mean a thing. Just because he votes to appease corporatists (against capping credit card interest, for instance) or runs for cover completely (the Iran Sense of the Senate vote, numerous "present" votes) doesn't mean anything; he's POSITIONING himself for that moment when he steps into the phone booth, dons his "Super Obama" tights and emerges to fight the good fight. We know because he tells us so.

If his supporters dare anyone to disprove the undisprovable, it simply proves his provenness, doesn't it? How could it be clearer? Truly, he IS god: he created himself and he's created all else, too; that which contradicts is wrong, and since it comes from the big bad baddies, it's yet further proof that it's bad. What pure-hearted soul could deny these truths?

[GCP]

85. .

:thumbsup:

[Umbram]

97. While your analysis of the illogic of the OP's question is spot on...

one wonders why you bothered to follow it up with nothing but drivel.

Logic is rare here in GD:P. The fact that one sides uses fallacious reasoning more frequently here than the other is not a testament to the relative merits of each side's critical thinking abilities so much as it is a reflection of the fact that there is disproportionately more Obama supporters here (GD:P not the country or even DU as a whole) than there are Clinton supporters.

Given that neither side has any monopoly on critical reasoning, it's no wonder that more BS comes out of team Obama on DU than team Clinton - there is simply more bulls doing the S'ing.

[Redbear]

6. Most of the people I know who support Clinton

say they KNOW she will fight for their issues.

They don't know Obama well enough to know whether he will fight for them.

Most of the time I talk to them about voting for Obama they say they think his admin would end up like Jimmy Carter (a wonderful man who was swallowed up by the DC machine).

I doe have to disagree with you about pandering. They both do plenty of it.

[Hestia]

9. I don't think so this time - President Carter didn't want to trod on

anyone's toes and was too much of a consensus taker (no big deal in ordinary life, but not a good trait Presidentially). I personally think that Senator Obama Will Fight and not back down. He's already told us that he'll take the fight straight to us and it is up to US to contact Congress and get good laws passed. The onus is on the population - we can sit back and watch from the sidelines or get personally involved. Will be ugly and a mudfest - yes. Are we grown ups and can take it - yes. Is it time to put our big boy and girl undies on and act like adults - yes.

All of us who voted in President Carter had no idea what neo-conservatives were like and didn't KNOW how to fight back. Now we do. Different times and circumstances. I for one Will Stand Up and be counted on good legislation. I do hope everyone else will too.

We are the people we have been waiting for.

[emilyg]

34. I agree.

[frickaline]

7. Her healthcare is more comprehensive

I want healthcare that covers the unemployed, not just children.

[Justitia]

10. How will the unemployed pay for her mandatory insurance?

Her mandatory insurance requirement is not waived if you don't have a job.

[frickaline]

13. I'm assuming this would come into play:

"Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income:
The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans. "

[Justitia]

19. Tax credits are not cash to pay premiums due monthly. They offset your annual taxes on paper.

Tax credits do NOTHING to help anyone pay their monthly insurance bills.

[frickaline]

21. no, that is what savings and unemployment insurance is for

This just offsets the cost of your annual health care bills. And its far more comprehensive of an approach than Obama's plan.

I'm not saying its ideal, just better.

[Justitia]

23. But you said you wanted coverage for the unemployed & seemed to imply she would provide it

Her plan makes it MANDATORY for you to purchase insurance from a private company, without regulating the price or quality of it. Or taking into consideration who can or cannot afford it.

That is not progressive or comprehensive.

What other private product does the government force you to buy?

[frickaline]

24. but the price is regulated, so I don't follow what you are arguing

[Justitia]

26. How is the price regulated? I see no regulation of what private companies can charge. -eom

[frickaline]

27. lets try this again

"Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income:
The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans. "

If the payments I make are capped by my income, how is this not regulated?

[Justitia]

30. There is no federally regulated cap on premiums - you are reading into that.

Read the section very carefully:

..."Tax credit will be designed...."

When I saw Hillary speak on this issue, she said they she would be in favor of creating new tax laws to create credits with the intention that they should somewhat match up to approximately what the national average would be to most families.

You are reading into it that each citizen will have an individually tailored, indexed to income, personally regulated insurance premium - and that is definitely not what she is proposing.

She proposes no direct regulation of premiums like Medicare.

[frickaline]

41. Well I hope that's not the case

Honestly, I hope you are wrong about that but I don't claim to be an expert on deciphering political spin.

[Justitia]

56. Just read her health plan with those points in mind. I think you'll see the same deficiencies.

The major difference between the 2 plans is the insurance mandate.

Forcing people to buy insurance doesn't provide them healthcare, it simply enriches health insurance companies.

In fact, it hurts them because if they don't buy insurance they are penalized and criminalized.
It's like forcing the homeless to buy a house to cure homelessness.
You can see where that idea doesn't fix the problem of homelessness, I'm sure.

This type of mandate is currently in place in Massachusetts and it's been a disaster.
People who can't afford the premiums are still not buying the insurance and now they will face even further financial ruin, courtesy of the state government.

We need to find ways to open up access to healthcare. That is very different than forcing people to buy a private product by federal edict.

Mandates are a very bad idea from people w/good intentions.

[frickaline]

65. I'll read it again with your comments in mind, thx for your insight.

[Justitia]

68. Thanks for taking the time to be thorough & open-minded. We ALL want the same thing in healthcare.

More access for everybody.

I really think if we think about the ideas together (apart from any candidate), and we have a Dem president and Dem congress, we can make progress.

It won't be full coverage and it won't be overnight, but like all healthcare legislation, we can make concrete steps.

[Exilednight]

32. Let's put this another way. You still have to pay what ever the insurance company tells you........

and at the end of the year you get a tax credit. In the meantime, if the insurance company tells you to pay $1200 a month, you're going to pay $1200 a month.

[frickaline]

43. that's not Justitia's point tho, and besides, the market regulates that well enough to

make it through until tax time for more people.

[Exilednight]

54. The market regulates it? One of the biggest complaints from employers .....

is that health insurance costs have skyrocketed over the past 8 years. In some cases it has more than doubled.

How is it fair to a family to pay $1200 a month in insurance costs if they have a monthly income of $2000? You want to leave them with $800 a month to live off of until tax time when they can finally claim their tax credit? What happens then? They pay off the debt the accumulated from living off of $800 a month for the past year and find themselves right back in the same boat?

[frickaline]

59. First, you still have a choice in which provider to choose

Second you can always choose to file your taxes quarterly, and I am assuming that would apply here.

[Exilednight]

71. So you suggest that they take a subpar plan to save money? n/t

[frickaline]

74. yes, I do, its not ideal, but its better than no coverage

[Exilednight]

80. It's exactly the same as no coverage. When you can't afford the deductable, what's the point of ...

having insurance that you can't afford to use?

[frickaline]

83. I think that the people you are refering to

would be using Medicare. I don't believe that is obsoleted as part of this plan, is it?

[Exilednight]

92. No, it would not be obsolete. The point I am making is that people are going to slip through ......

the cracks. Romney pushed through a very similar plan in Mass, but somehow 20% of the states population fell through the cracks are still uninsured.

[frickaline]

94. Well I'm sure release 1.0 of any plan will be far from perfect, but to me it seems better than nada

My problem with Obama's plans is he has no coverage offering for adults at all.

Just to be clear, I am not firmly planted in either camp. Every day I am newly accused of being in a different 'camp', the variety of which I cherish. But honestly, Obama's healthcare plans aren't offering me anything for my selfish, self-centered needs. Yes its true, I'm thinking of the big *me* here.

I don't have kids, and while I do want all children to be insured, I'd like all us adults to be insured too. I don't want to get laid off because of reasons outside my control, unable to find a job, and then find myself needing a major medical procedure. And if I look back toward those families with kids, if their parents get laid off and they need medical attention, what does that bode for those kids?

Someone explain to me how does Obama help here? It seems to me at least Hillary is thinking about this even if she came up with 2+2=5.

[frickaline]

98. So is the answer here that Obama has no help for people in this situation?

I'm assuming so given the crickets I'm sitting next to. :)

Feel free to correct that assumption, I'd like to know.

[Exilednight]

99. He offers the same solution, but doesn't make it mandatory. His theory is ........

why penalize someone for something they can't afford in the first place. People do not sit around say "I really want health insurance, and I can afford it, but I don't want to pay for it."

[frickaline]

101. can you direct me to information pertaining to his coverage of adults?

I'd appreciate it. thx.

[Exilednight]

102. Here you go.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Also, google "barack obama blueprint for change" There's more information in there.

[frickaline]

105. tyvm.

[rinsd]

15. How will the unemployed insure their children as part of Obama's mandate?

[Justitia]

18. S-Chip

[frickaline]

28. this program is not available in every state and benefits vary state to state.

not to mention the fact that in several states where it does exist, its facing funding shortfalls. There needs to be a better answer than this in the long haul.

[Justitia]

33. Exactly right. Which is why BOTH Clinton & Obama support expanding S--CHIP.

As do many republicans.

The difference is, if health insurance is federally mandated for children, S-CHIP will be required to pay the premiums, much like Medicaid is required to pay Medicare premiums for the medically indigent.

BTW - before you knock it, both candidates support this.

The difference lies in making ALL adult citizens purchase insurance as a federal mandate.
That is where the candidates differ.

[frickaline]

46. the problem is this still won't help the unemployed

people who get laid off and then get sick are in for a world of hurt under our current schemes.

[Justitia]

61. I totally agree w/you. Let's not put them in an even bigger financial hole, adding to their burden.

We need to find ways to open access to healthcare.

We shouldn't do that by forcing people to buy a product that is unaffordable and in reality, doesn't provide them much to any benefit at all (i.e., high deductibles, co-pays, etc).

[Exilednight]

35. S- Chip is available in every state, but you're right on the fact that ........

vary state to state. The shortfalls in funding can be overcome with a Democrat in office.

[frickaline]

44. its only in 47 states atm, thats most, but not all

[Exilednight]

70. It's in all 50 states and the District of Colombia.. Here's a list of each states plan.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/lowcosthealthinsfamchild/schipaspi/list.asp?intNumPerPage=all&submit.x=9&submit.y=5&submit=Submit

[frickaline]

82. well that was news to me, I didn't know they fixed this finally.

[rinsd]

87. Good. Someone knows about the expansion of public health in both candidate's plans.

[Justitia]

90. Yup. Something, as Democrats, we can ALL rally behind - yay! -eom

[WA98070]

58. What is Ted Kennedy's Health Care Plan? He'll decide what the Senate does.

[berni_mccoy]

78. Her plan is not Healthcare: It's Mandatory Health Insurance.

[LVjinx]

8. His campaign cries racism too often - that kind of politics just won't fly anymore

[Hestia]

12. But it only seems the media is crying racism - I personally don't hear

about down here in where I am (Miss. Delta, large unemployment). I heard President Clinton bitch about it, but that is all. I personally think that is more media whoring for their corporate masters and trying to *tell*
us Senator Obama is unelectable. How funny, as if someone could actually tell us who to vote for.
All they can do is tell who NOT to vote for.

[washingdem]

25. Please give several examples of when Obama's campaign - his CAMPAIGN - has cried racism. Thanks.

[DMorgan]

47. CRICKETS !!

[VotesForWomen]

96. well, his supporters and surrogates sure do it a lot. nt

[washingdem]

106. No, no no - the poster said his CAMPAIGN. Yeah, didn't think so.

[archiemo]

48. Please cite an example of this...

I asked this in an earlier post as well. Can some Hillary supporter please cite an example of the Obama campaign playing the race card???????????????

[Enrique]

11. no

people should vote for Obama if they prefer him.

[rinsd]

16. Hillary has been fighting for ground zero rescue workers. That is why I support her.

Though I find it odd that you demand facts for not supporting Obama then you personally offer up opinion; he doesn't pander which is not true, that he will change the country for good, that's he smarter than Corp America etc.

[DMorgan]

49. Examples of Obama's "pandering"? Please? n/t

[rinsd]

93. Si Se Pueda?

Mother Jones has a few examples as well - http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/03/7450_obama_pandering.html

He's a politician. He panders. BFD.

This would not be an issue if people talked about the actual candidate vs the ideal candidate they have replaced him with.

Obama the non pandering, special interest free, anti war, populist, unassailable candidate does not exist.

There are a great many things about Obama that are worthy of praise. But the above is why some get annoyed with Obama supporters.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Obama does not support universal health coverage (or care). n/t

[Exilednight]

37. Neither does Hillary. Universal is single payer, anything else is not universal. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. Sure she does. There are multiple paths to universal care.

[Arkansas Granny]

20. Four years ago I had never even heard of Barack Obama. His national

political experience is less than one full term in office. Politics on the state level doesn't compare to politics on the national level. By that criteria alone, Hillary has more experience.

I really appreciate Hillary's understanding of the issues and the problems facing us at this time. She knows the details and is able to explain her positions in a clear and concise manner. While Obama's speeches may be inspirational and make people feel optimistic about the future, I don't find the same level of attention to detail on the issues.

I admire Hillary's strength and willingness to fight. I know that she can and will stand up to the RW smear machine. I don't know how Obama is going to handle that. So far, they have barely scratched the surface.

And then I have to consider the electoral vote projections that I have seen for 2008 which show Hillary garnering more electoral votes against McCain that Obama does. After November, it won't matter who our candidate was if McCain wins the GE.

All that being said, the Democratic nominee will have my support and my vote for the GE.

[Justitia]

22. Obama has held elected office longer than Hillary. -eom

[Arkansas Granny]

29. There is a great deal of difference in the office of Senator on the state and national level.

Hillary has held office at the national level longer than Obama. I also consider her years in the White House as part of her experience. She might not have had a direct role in legislation, but she knew the key players, nationally and internationally.

[Justitia]

40. You certainly can consider her yrs as a spouse, but with the good comes the bad.

And all that baggage that it implies.

It's certainly your choice. However, I don't think my husband's company would give me the CEO job just because I was married to him if he left.

I sure as heck would never consider Laura Bush fit for the job because she's hanging around the White House either.

[Obamanaut]

50. I served aboard aircraft carriers as a maintenance chief in

aviation squadrons. I knew several key squadron commanders as well as the carrier commanding officer. I was never ready to be put in charge of enough firepower to destroy a nation as those men were.

Watching and doing are not the same thing, and should not be counted in the same experience column.

[TheDudeAbides]

38. and accomplished far less n/t

[Justitia]

42. Really? What are Hillary's main legislative accomplishments?

And I'm not talking "supported". I'm talking sponsored and passed.

[DMorgan]

51. More Crickets !!

[Tyler Durden]

62. "Crickets" from a newbie (or sock puppet) are another reason.

One of the main reasons I have over 250 posters on my ignore list is Rudeness.

I didn't expect a debating society when I got here over 7 years ago, but this primary has taken it far past the limit.

[TheDudeAbides]

60. If you really want to know.....

I got to meet with a group of community leaders from Upstate New York recently
who had worked directly with Senator Clinton. They told me that when she first
took office, she visited every county in NY. They'd never never seen
a Senator do this. She met with local leaders and asked them about their
challenges and what they needed. She created a HUGE bound notebook documenting
these issues. Then, she took care of every single one of those problem/issues/requests.
These people looked me right in the eye and said "This women gets shit done."
These were real, down the earth people. They told me other stories that blew me away.

I've been around other women like this in the corporate world. I'd like to see
Hillary in the White House. It will be good for this country, and it will be good
for our culture as we still have a ways to go in terms of sexism, etc.

Now, is Senator Obama a doer? Believe me, I was an Obama supporter at first, but my research
turned up little in the way of concrete accomplishments. I came to the conclusion
that he's just not ready yet.

[Justitia]

64. Like a good lawyer, I wouldn't have asked if I didn't know the answer.

You can say you simply like her better and there is no arguing with that.

But please, do not postulate that she has accomplished more than he legislatively as it simply is not true.

[TheDudeAbides]

72. We can play semantics...or we can have an honest discussion

I understand your semantics game with "legislative". That's a fun and useful little game.

I'm in search of knowledge here...not games. I shared with you some information that
I found interesting. Would you like to reciprocate? What did Obama do to improve his district in Chicago?
I'm not playing a rhetorical game; I'm all ears and hoping you can help me feel better
about Obama because chances are...he's going to be my party's candidate.
I'm all ears. Does he get stuff done?

[Justitia]

76. Who's playing? You said he has accomplished "far less". I said "like how"?

They are legislators. Their job is to legislate.

I asked you to explain exactly how she has accomplished more in this position than he has, as you stated he has accomplished "far less".

I'm still waiting.

[TheDudeAbides]

86. I'm waiting too...I asked...Is Obama a doer?

I'd love to learn about Senator Obama's great accomplishments.
I've been trying to learn about things he did for his district in Chicago.
Please educate me.

You are a lawyer and a little scary. Is this a work-related post? Or
are we having a friendly discussion?

[Justitia]

91. Of course he is, but I didn't make the assertion he has "accomplished far less", you did.

I asked you to support the assertion, yet you have not.

I don't really feel responsible for your edification.

Seriously, both of their legislative histories are out there for all to see, if you are so inclined to do the research. I could certainly give you a list, but really, what's the point?
I suspect you just like Hillary better and threw out that "less accomplished" nugget without really knowing better. I could give you lists and issue positions all day long - but is it going to change your mind? I doubt it, so why bother?

Don't expect to throw that kind of stuff out there and not be challenged on the facts of it.

[Exilednight]

45. If it weren't for Bill Clinton you would have never heard of Hillary. Obama has more time in ......

elected office than Hillary does.

I would also argue that understanding issues on the local level is something that many politicians who have spent too many years on the federal level have seem to have forgotten.

Hillary says that Obama is out of touch with the average American, but I wonder; when was the last time that Hillary rolled up her sleeves and spent time working on a local issue that didn't further her political future.

[pdx_prog]

31. Obama has proven that he is a fighter for the little guy

Clinton has proven over and over again that she is not. Clinton is the elitist here, not Obama. You cannot solve a problems with the same thinking used to create them, and Clinton had a hand in creating them. We know what we will get with Clinton....more of the same......Obama deserves a chance.....WE deserve a chance at something better instead of the same old-same old.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Here's a "fact": Republicans traditionally attack patriotism

He has far more points of vulnerability here than she does, and whether fair or not, they'll be used.

Wait 'til you start hearing the name Nadhmi Auchi a bit...

[WA98070]

Hillary doesn't wear a flag pin and Bill is taking lots of money from UAE among others...

so they'll both be attacked on patriotism. I hope Barrack will say "NOT THIS TIME."

[Independent-Voter]

52. Obama doesn't have major mood swings OR wear pantsuits. Can't go for that sort of levelheadedness.

Sarcasm, folks. No way in hell am I voting for Veruca.

[Maribelle]

53. These are merely my top two:

Hillary's health plan will bring desperately needed relief to the emergency rooms in my area. By mandating health insurance for everyone we will witness a dramatic change in the way the uninsured are clogging the emergency rooms, actually putting other's lives in danger. They will be able to stop using these hugely-expensive facilities as their primary care providers. Thus, the cost of the overuse of these expensive facilities will not be spread to my insurance premium and to the insurance premiums of other's in my area. Saving lives, reducing the expensive burdens to those struggling to afford their own insurance, providing affordable insurance to those that cannot currently afford it, are vital reasons to prefer Hillary's plan over McCain's and Obama's.


Hillary wants to throw out NCLB, and implement education plans that actually work. NCLB is a detriment to the education of our children in various ways. Most visibly, teachers forsake vital teaching methodologies to simple teach to the test, depriving our children of scientifically-proven learning techniques. Additionally, NCLB is draining school-district budgets all across Florida where precious education dollars are diverted into the development and implementation of better ways for teachers to teach to the test under the guise of "School Improvement Plans", a misnomer flying in the face of the way NCLB is not hardly improving education, but is rather ruining publican education. Obama has stated he wants to revise NCLB. All voters concerned with the education of our children should be screaming: NO REVISIONS - THROW NCLB IN THE TRASH CAN.

[WA98070]

63. Thank you. Trashing NCLB is important but so is trashing NAFTA. And neither has...

said they'd truly trash it.

As I said above, I hope Congress comes up with a better plan than either of these two. We need to get the profit out of insurance.....all insurance.

[Maribelle]

75. 'As President, I will work with Congress to end the No Child Left Behind Act, and put in its place a

more sensible law that stops micromanaging our schools from the federal level and provides real support to struggling schools.'

[Tyler Durden]

55. I'm too old to buy "Hope" instead of details.

But I will say this: it would have been easier for Senator Obama to convince me of his qualifications for the job IF he had stuck to his guns when he voiced his opinion that he was in favor of Single Payer Health Care.

There are other reasons, but that's a good one; but I will also say the fanaticism of his followers here and in the Real World to the point that his gaffes are throw offs, but Senator Clinton's are mortal sins is extremely disturbing.

There are true reasons why no matter what is said, Senator Obama's candidacy and subsequent elections are long shots: the refusal to see them is also very disturbing.

[nomaco-10]

57. BECAUSE they are just recently, in the last 20 years....

getting immersed into the culture of thinking for themselves and sorting out what the democratic party really stands for. And that means growing up, going off to college, standing up to their parents and the influence of small town usa. It's the advent of the internet and cable news, it's exchanging ideas with people that you thought you had nothing in common with.

[suston96]

66. Obama has won a bunch of small red states which will stay red in November....

Hillary has won most of the big blue states which will stay blue in November.

[WA98070]

67. Maybe, maybe not. Hillary won blue states that he'll also win in November.

[suston96]

73. So now subtract those red states he won't win in November....now what?

[dsc]

69. His health care plan is very different, and worse, than hers

He refuses to treat gays like other constituencies.

[Justitia]

84. WTF?

Truly a bizarre comment.

[Seabiscuit]

79. She never set foot in Jeremiah Wright's "church".

[Justitia]

88. You REALLY want to do guilt-by-association? That is way too easy w/the Clintons.

First of all, they are still related to each other.

[TheDonkey]

81. McGURKINSSZ!

am I really the first?
:rofl:

[Umbram]

89. Can anyone give me one FACT, not opinion, why pickles taste better than olives?

What a trip...

You are asking someone to give you a fact which can then only be weighed by one's belief system which is nothing more than a collection of opinions.

Please tell me, what machine are you inputing these "facts" into in order to calculate and prioritize which candidate should ultimately be "support"?

[VotesForWomen]

95. you won't really accept any answer to this, will you? anyhoo, i trust Hill more on the economy. nt

[WA98296]

100. Trust HRC with the economy...that's laughable. Thanks Clintons for NAFTA and the consolidated media.

[Two Americas]

104. oh nonsense

NAFTA and consolidating the media had broad support from Democrats. Until recently, being opposed to NAFTA was often an embattled minority opinion around here.

[Two Americas]

103. of course not

People base their support for a candidate on their opinions - their interpretation of the "facts," their assessment as to which "facts" are relevant and important.

There is no such thing as what you are asking for here.

If "he is an unknown" is a "fact" that leads one to support Obama, could not "he is an unknown" also be a "fact" that would lead people to be suspicious and cautious as well with equal validity?

Could it not be that it is not so much "change" that "Americans can't handle" but rather they are resistant to embracing change merely for the sake of change, and are unclear from what Obama says just what the nature of this change would be?

We have had too much "change" in my opinion. We have seen years now of the most radical "change" administration in history, and we have watched everything be changed. "Change" is not self-evidently a good thing.

"He is smart enough to not be too specific" you say. Well, cannot some of us be too smart to fall for that? Maybe rather than being too smart to reveal his plans because "Corporate America would use to destroy him" perhaps he is too smart to reveal his plans because the people might see through him? I don't know which it is, but it is ironic that you are demanding "facts" from your opponents and then sailing off into fantasy land yourself about your candidate - suppositions, inferences, guesses, intuition, vague hopes.