I keep wondering

[cali]

how much of Obama's support is for him and how much is a repudiation of the past. And I put it that way for a reason: I don't think people are repudiating Hillary so much as they are wanting to move beyond the past. Is this her fault? No. It's a natural enough response to the years of acrimony in Washington, which the Clintons were so much a part of, and which I believe was overwhelmingly not their fault. I think Obama is benefiting from this desire to move forward into a new era with new leadership. People don't perceive Senator Clinton as offering that.

[DemGa]

1. I certainly DO see moving into a new era with Clinton

Not sure if Obama's "unity" platitudes would make it past a first term. That would make for a true slide into the past.

[polpilot]

19. Clinton II, tough on terror, strong on defense, the war machine

cranks up, invasion of Iran, accelerate free trade, 'negogiate' with insurance companies for health care for somebody?, blah, blah, blah, ready...ready from Day 1,000...preparing to make change...later...real change..working 'hard' for health care for all...since 1992??? focused like a laser on change since 1985..change just around...

the corner...almost to change 2009...2010...2011...2012...REELECTION...2012 Clinton revolutionary (Almost) A New Era (Almost)...nearing change 2014....

Clinton...Almost the changer...Almost the one, maybe...a little more time...get the troops out (Later)

[DemGa]

24. You've got it down

Rinse and repeat...

Where's Obama's real change, hidden within a platitude?

[joshcryer]

2. The more research I do into this, though, the more I recognize that Obama isn't for change.

But I think I can agree with you. After all, this race is about *perceptions*, not about fact. And if Hillary is percieved as "the past" (which she most certainly is by quite a number of people), then the option is simple. Pick the other candidate.

But I don't know how much good will come of voters going on perceptions rather than verifiable observations.

The Harry and Louise ads cemented this for me. There's no real change here.

[cali]

3. yes, I'm talking about perception and the zeitgueist of the electorate

And it's my opinion that most voters do operate on "gut feelings" and perceptions when you sugar it all off. Particularly when you stand back and realize that policy wise, not a whole lot separates these two candidates.

[dailykoff]

5. IWR, Iran.

Big difference. Not cosmetic. People are not dumb.

[joshcryer]

8. Health care is my biggest concern.

Not IWR, or Iran, which both candidates have made similar promises on.

[dailykoff]

10. Legislative decision.

The president is the executive and commander in chief. Stopping the genocide is job one IMHO.

[joshcryer]

13. They're all for that and I trust them on that basis, so I don't doubt it'd happen.

However, I question the effectiveness of one candidate over the other at getting a universial health care system in place.

[dailykoff]

14. No, they are NOT all for that.

Clintonism is a continuation of the disastrous and criminal Bush-Cheney policy of genocide, occupation, covert action and the rest of the horror show. Obama has repeatedly rejected that crap, which takes COURAGE, something Hilly lacks.

[joshcryer]

16. Clinton and Obama both said they were withdrawing from Iraq in a significant capacity.

Clinton has said completely, Obama has said a small force will be in Iraq (both admitted a neighboring country).

You think Clinton is lying? I trust both candidates on this matter.

[dailykoff]

17. Yes, Clinton is lying.

She wants to keep bases there and Barak has said no bases. I'm not going dig up links right now because I have to get going. Were you around during the Clinton years? They bombed the shit out of whoever the MIC told them to.

[joshcryer]

21. You're lying, in the last debates with Edwards, both Edwards and Hillary attacked Obama...

...because he wouldn't refuse to remove forces from Iraq, unlike Hillary and Edwards.

Now you can say you don't trust her, but I could easily say I don't trust Obama. You could say you have reasons to not trust her, I could say I have reasons not to trust Obama.

The fact remains that both want to remove significant force from Iraq, leaving only a small policing force for the embassy and so on.

[dailykoff]

22. If you believe anything Hilly says in a debate

you're hopeless, gotta run, later.

[americathabeautiful]

12. Exactly. Who voted for the IWR? Hillary did.

[bigtree]

4. It's as if you think you can just discount all of the support she has so far

It's interesting how Hillary's support is marginalized by pundits. Many folks are very excited about the 'change' she'll bring to the White House and Washington. It's also not very accurate assume that Democrats, old and new, don't have enough of an agenda of 'change' to quench the desires of the electorate. And, I fully expect the nation to react to this election as they have others (and with the advancement of these two similar senators . . . favoring 'safe' candidates. Too much of an expectation of change from a candidate, especially one mostly unknown, may trigger a protective backlash from voters who tend to vote to the middle in the GE.

[cali]

7. I'm not discounting it. I thought Senator Clinton would walk away

with the nomination, and I was surprised by the democratic backlash to her candidacy. Some of it, I think, is sexism, but I believe a larger amount of it is this urge to move away from the past.

[bigtree]

18. I don't see a backlash, I see folks responding to a charismatic opponent

but, she has her own share of enthusiasts, because she also represents a historic choice for the office. Obama has his share of detractors as well.

[americathabeautiful]

6. Thing is. it's very ironic

As someone pointed out earlier, Hillary is funded by Federal Lobbyists and PAC money from insurance companies because she has virtually no small donations (i.e. from the people). Thus, she spends that money paying people and ads to lie about how she is going to take down insurance companies with her healthcare plan. Can she get any more disingenuous?

Does she think we forgot about her statement about federal lobbyists being "real americans too"?

[cali]

9. Actually, 14% of her funding comes from small donors

and though she takes quite a bit more corporate money, as well as lobbyist funding- something he doesn't take- his coporate donations are also sizable. And I don't think she's lying. I have no reason to believe she's anything but sincere regarding her desire to see all Americans covered.

[americathabeautiful]

11. Federal lobbyists are the ones that impact a government

They will be asking for favors down the road from clinton. BTW, Obamas funding is 90% from small donors. Hers is 14%. Who is truly representing America? FUNDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

[cali]

15. No it's not. Look, I support Obama but I support facts even more

32% of Obama's support comes from small donors- not 90%. He takes a lot of corporation connected money. That's just the truth, but the truth matters- at least to me.

[americathabeautiful]

20. Stop lying, even he said the majority of his funding is from small donors

[cali]

23. hey you, yeah you,

newbie. Don't fucking accuse me of lying. It's against DU rules, and it only highlights your ignorance.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/16/small_donors_give_big_to_obama.php