You claim to be asking for responses, yet you argue with every response. Several people have claimed that HRC would be more of _______. You then argue that Repubs are doing _______ too, so what's the problem? This argument from you misses the point of your own question. Apparently the only "honest thoughtful response" that you will accept is that HRC is OK.

So here's my response: If Guliani had won for the Repubs, I might have considered Obama, but never Clinton. Why? Well, it isn't my viscera, it's my memory. Whitewater. Travelgate. Making huge $$ on futures with a single trade. Trying to foist nationalized health care on us (as Bill's unelected personal rep), while telling us that our coverage wouldn't change and our health care costs would actually go down. Vehemently opposing any form of school choice, while sending her own daughter to the swankiest private schools she could find. Arguing that "it takes a village to raise a child" in order to support increased federal control over families. (A 300-million-person village?) "Standing by her man" repeatedly when she knew quite well he was a state/federal official committing perjury repeatedly. Then (when we all thought the Clinton nightmare was over) buying a house in NY so she could get elected on Bill's popularity. Voting for the Iraq war, but not having the balls to see it through, but then having the balls to claim it was Bush's war and that she was LIED TO (the irony is just too good), but then not having the balls to admit that things are improving lately. (Sexist slang unintentional.) I could go on for pages, but you get the point. Or if you don't, you never will.

To sum up: HRC has demonstrated repeatedly that she is a lying, scheming, hypocritical power-seeker. Obama has yet to demonstrate that. (Give him time.) And don't tell me how the Repubs are just as bad. That wasn't your question.