A frequent line used by Hillary and her supporters is that Hillary's years in the US Senate make her an expert in all matters government.

If this were the case, then why would Ted Kennedy--the Senate's second longest serving member--choose Obama over Hillary?

It may not have meant a lot at the time when he announced his support, but given his impending retirement from the senate, it may be worth noting that, in his experience, Obama was the more qualified of the two.

Another silly thing is how Obama's Senate career always gets referred to as incomplete. Well, Hillary assumed her NY seat on January 3, 2001. To date, that translates into 7 years and change.

Barack Obama assumed his Senate seat on January 4, 2005. To date that translates to 3 years and change.

However, Obama was a state senator from January 8, 1997 through November 4, 2004. So, in truth, Obama has three _more_ years working as a legislator than Hillary.

Are Hillary's supporters so blind that they wish to equate her years as a partner in the Rose Law firm as rising to the level of running the Southern Poverty Law Center? Do they really buy the tripe that Hillary's been "fighting for the little guy" since forever?

The nasty Obama bashing has to stop. How can anyone defend www.mccainb4obama.com?