Not many people seem to be reading this article anymore, but I have one more thought. The last seven years have all but destroyed the US's reputation around the world. As someone with many friends in other countries, I know how popular Obama is in other countries, especially in Africa and southeast Asia. That's not to say that we should let foreigners dictate the leaders of our government, but the fact that Obama has personal ties to Indonesia and Kenya will go a long way toward helping foreigners understand that the US is not an ignorant bully, and repairing the damage that has been done by Bush.

cat: Glad to hear back from you. The bill Obama sponsored prohibiting dinners from lobbyists was certainly a step in the right direction. I'm not sure why there would be a distinction between standing up and sitting down, but suffice to say I'm sure he's not the only one who had input in the writing of the bill. I would argue that what this country needs now is a president like John F. Kennedy who can inspire the nation to be proud of itself again, and direct us to great things. I see this in Obama. I hate it that Hillary is comparing him to Bush. As far as personality and character, they couldn't be more different.

You say Hillary has 7 years in the senate, and Obama has only 2. Did it occur to you that Hillary was elected in 2000, and Obama in 2004? That's 4 years difference, not 5. Somehow you are using different criteria to determine how long each of them has been in the senate. And in the nature of your candidate, you say this immediately after admonishing someone else for "distorting the facts."

Anyway, I think Obama's time in the Illinois state senate has to count for something.

John McCain could beat Hillary. No question. To be fair, all of the Democratic candidates would do similar things while in the white house, as far as policy goes. But Hillary Clinton, mostly to no fault of her own, is loathed by Republicans, and she would have a much harder time getting anything done.

John Edwards appeals to emotions far more than the other two. I don't want to be motivated by anger or fear. Plus, Edwards has even less experience in politics than Obama.

Anyway, the other candidates seem to be underestimating the value of the president's ability to motivate people. JFK and FDR were great presidents precisely because they had those qualities.

Darryl: Would Hillary Clinton ever have voted "present" had she had the option? Would John Edwards? No one can say for sure, but I think they would have. Senate politics require that sort of action, where senators help each other with the ultimate goal of achieving their own agendas, whether at the state or national level. Obama is the first to admit that he's had to do things he didn't want to do in order to be a competitive politician, and any politician who says otherwise is either lying or an inextricable part of the system.

Anthony: You're confusing Executive Officers and Operating Officers. Operating Officers are in charge of the details, while Executive Officers are in charge of the big picture. Clearly the President is more concerned with the big picture, and Obama's admission that the details are not his strong suit is refreshingly honest.

Obama does understand what would be facing him as president. Saying he doesn't have a clue is dishonest. I take it you've never read his books.

cat: I'm just baffled by the idea that people actually think Hillary Clinton is the best our nation has to offer. The main thing she has going for her is name recognition, which admittedly is disproportionately important in American politics. (Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't win based on his political record) The only real power she had under the Clinton administration was organizing health care in 1993, which failed miserably. As a senator, she was ok. Not spectacular, but not terrible. She voted for many good things, and a few bad ones, like the Iraq War and the bankruptcy bill. I live in New York and I didn't vote for her because of the war, among other things. She hasn't been honest, and has disseminated a lot of half-truths and ad hominem attacks during her campaign. She's also accepted money from a lot of questionable sources. True, nobody is perfect, but seriously, can't we do better than her?

It's no surprise Hillary Clinton is leading among less educated voters. Take for instance, a comment posted by one of these uneducated voters:

"IM A UNION MEMBER,AND IM VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON.SHE HAS THE GUTS TO VOTE YES OR NO.OBAMA VOTES PRESENT MOST OF THE TIME." (jfnikki)

During the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton was accusing Obama of not taking a stand on issues, and often voting "present" in the Illinois state senate. Never mind that this is a very common tactic in Illinois politics, and only 130 of Obama's 4000+ votes were "present". Unfortunately, many uneducated voters only remember short snippets of the facts, and distort them into meaning something else. Hillary Clinton knows this and deliberately targets these voters with half-truths. In 2000, McCain was the honest candidate and lost to Bush's smear tactics. So did Gore. So did Kerry in 2004. This time around, we need an honest president.

It seems strange to me that nobody has realized what a bad idea it would be to freeze interest rates on mortgages, as Clinton suggested. Those mortgages have been bundled and sold, and the financial organizations that bought them would really take a hit from frozen interest rates, at no fault of their own. That would create instability and be very bad for the economy. Edwards didn't really answer that question, and just repeated the same things he always says, but Obama was the only one that hit the nail on the head, and said there needs to be greater oversight of the mortgage industry. As someone who works with the mortgage industry, I can't believe no one else has realized this and called her on it.