I do not agree that Obama is getting by on rhetoric alone. Here is a link to a very young voter responding to a question by a reporter as to why he is for Obama. It seems to me that if this young voter can be so well versed in each of the candidates platforms b/f the primary, so could other experienced voters, if they put in the effort.

<link>

I know the responses in the link are more about what Obama will do, which is actually a better question than what has he done. Note that Obama and HRC are both senators so their roles are very different now (legislators) than it will be if either are elected president (executive). As an executive, there is no true power (notwithstanding executive orders) to enact law, so it is extremely important to be able to rally congress (the full congress not just your party) around projects which help the country as a whole as opposed to smaller state or regional constitutencies. As for looking at what the candidates have done--sure looking at legislation passed shows some ability to pull together coalitions, but the type of legislation is more important. Did they pass laws to help small groups or did they pass laws to help the country as a whole and what was the impact of such legislation? The answers to the foregoing better demonstrate a candidate's skill in building consensus than the amount of legislation passed.

Congress knows their role in relation to the president, so for all the mudslinging that has occured and will occur, the eventual dem nominee will be able to patch up the party, b/c a divided party means that nothing will get done and each branches terms in power will be short lived.