I just don't get Obama

I'm sorry, but what's so special about this guy? He has next to no experience, hasn't done anything extraordinary in the past, and offers no great ideas or roadmap to solve the problems that face us. I just can't shake the feeling when I see him that he's all hype and pretty low grade on substance.

Am I alone?

and who I and many Obama supporters think are dead wrong.

...and I think he would be a good president, what I don't understand is why he attracts people who are so quick to lash out at others. 3/4 of the stinkbomb threads on this board are started by Obama supporters, and for all the attacking they do, they implode at the slightest criticism of their candidate. Perhaps is it because freepers on this board use him as a vehicle to attack Hillary, whom they have been irrationally obsessed with for 15 years? And whats with the Obama supporters using right wing talking points? This also leads me to believe that there are more than a few freepers among them.

What are you hearing that I am not? To me, he just sounds like every other phony, two bit politician.

Are you too lazy to do that? :shrug: If you want to be informed, self-help doesn't hurt.

From Obama's own campaign website, which I presume leaves no "groundbreaking accomplishment" unturned:

"Toured Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian territories, he told
Palestinian Authority Abbas that US would never recognize
Hamas leaders until they renounced mission to attack Israel.
In Africa, publicly took AIDS test as example of responsibility"

Now refer back to what I said, he sounds like every other two bit politician out there, renouncing democratically elected leaders in order to kow-tow to the APAC lobby and touting a meaningless photo op gesture as a "groundbreaking accomplishment."

I mean seriously, when you read Obama refer to a public AIDS test as a "groundbreaking accomplishment" how can you NOT just write him off on the spot?

with their relevant experience

Obama likes to make nice with the kooks.

I think Obama is a terrific public speaker, thinks on his feet pretty well, looks good and will represent a lot (not all, but a lot) of worthwhile progressive ideas if he's elected President.

Maybe I'm just worn out from a lot of these Presidential cycles, but that's good enough for me.

is that Obama really hasn't showed us much of anything.

Now on to some of your other points.

- You say he's a "terrific public speaker." He can be at times (with the exception of instances when he's a stuttering idiot like he was on Wolf Blitzer the other day, when Blitzer asked him about Daivd Axelrod's comments.) But the question is not just how well he talks. I want to know: What is it that he's really saying when he talks? That's more important to me: what he's saying, not just how he says it.

- You say he "thinks on his feet pretty well." One of the problems I have with Obama is that he doesn't appear to think things through very well. He seems to just shoot from the hip without thinking about what he's really saying. We need a President who knows how to think through all the various sides of complicated issues. We don't need a President who'll just talk without thinking first. We need a serious President who knows the issues, and knows how to think through all sides of an issue before just talking.

Lastly, what's up with your comment about he "looks good." Who cares about his looks? I thought we were trying to elect a President here, not the posterboy for G.Q. magazine. What does his looks have to do with anything? Just seems like a really shallow comment to me.

He's clean! He's articulate! no, wait...

seriously, if I didn't care about looks, then I'd be more bullish about the rather-overweight Richardson or the 7/8-scale Kucinich (please don't flame me--these are intentionally shallow descriptions of decent men I deeply respect, 'k?).

But I do care about looks, and sounds for that matter, because our candidate has to lead, and in order to lead today, you have to look good on the TeeVee. Even a hetero guy like me knows that Barak looks good. With some work on the ears he could be a damn movie star if he wanted to.

It's not all that important, but it can be a disqualifier, and since he's arguably the most telegenic of the Democratic candidates, I thought it worth mentioning.

(Edwards is, of course, a good looking guy, but I think his Southren accent mitigates it just a tad. It's ok to my ears, but I think Barak's speaking voice lends itself better to stirring rhetoric.)

Not to slight your other two points, but I don't take huge issue with what you've written. Yes, he's shot from the hip a bit at times--that might be a hindrance, but sometimes you gotta say "WTF," to quote from that stupid Tom Cruise movie.

As for the content of his speeches--yeah, I listened to him last night on C-SPAN, and it's not necessarily all that great on paper, but it does work and I think he connects with a good range of voters. And I can't really argue with most of what he says.

(once I couldn't have Gore) and started with the same impression of Obama...speaks well, so what?

I have to say I find it odd that our top candidates are the least experienced but so it is.

I ended up so impressed with Obama's past...really a picture of someone who put service and people ahead of glory or financial gain. Sounds corny but from the time he graduated from college that was the choice he always made. He was briefly a financial writer for some international firm after college but left when he got a low paying position as a community organizer in Chicago. He left a lasting impression on so many people. He didn't just get things changed, he empowered the people to make change happen, to get their voice heard. They learned the skills and gaied the confidence so that they'd be able to continue making a difference.

When he left for law school he said he'd be back but people didn't expect it...especially when he was elected Harvard Law Review president (first black thus elected btw). That is so prestigious it opens the door to everything though it was assumed he'd take a Supreme Court clerkship. Really all the best law firms would snap up this person.
But he did return and took a position in a civil rights law firm. No glamor, no riches, important work. He did other community work at the same time. Again the impression he left on people made an impression on me.
When he was elected to the congress there he still did work for the firm on summer recess, no pay.
He also taught constitutional law for 10 years. To continue once in Congress he held his classes at unpopular times...late Fridays and early Mondays. Always full. The local paper read through his evaluations...2nd highest rated of all and so well regarded. He had a different way of teaching, not just talking at them but listening, making them think, drawing them out. Empowering them.

I keep mentioning what people said about him but it was some time ago I read them so I'll give more my impressions. He worked very hard but didn't try to star, he lifted up others...empowered is a good word. Honesty, integrity, dedication...doing things differently. I mean he took the work seriously and it was about getting things done, the money to the right places used most effectively.
I couldn't find any negative reactions to him in those years and I really looked. That doesn't mean much although you can find negatives on the others. He just seemed so highly regarded that even those you'd expect to criticize had good things to say.

He is also the least wealthy candidate in either party which perhaps impreses me even more that he didn't go for te big bucks that were so available to him.

He doesn't have a lot of international experience or Washington experience or domestic policy experience. But this man is so smart, he LISTENS so well, find ways to get things done...ad is so about the greater good that I have no doubt his decisions will be sound.

You say we need "a serious President who knows the issues, and knows how to think through all sides of an issue before just talking" and that's just what he seems to offer. In fact he was often described as very serious.

Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience but was bright and curious and that is clearly part of Obama.

I am not easily impressed and as I said wasn't an early fan of his beyond his pleasant surface. In the end I was wowed.

These aren't the best links I read but I recently looked for some that described some of his early experience.

An article (from 95) that describes much of his community activist work
What Makes Obama Run?

About his legal work
Obama got start in civil rights practice

teaching
Professor Obama was a listener, students say
Law students gave Obama big thumbs-up

I hope this at least helps you see what people might see in him.

I really think he has tremendous possible potential but I also think he was pushed into this race far too quickly. I would be much more inclined to vote for him in another few years after he spends some time proving himself versus riding the wave of being a media creation with little history to back him up.

Once again, I don't dislike him, I just don't feel there's anything there that would suggest I vote for him at this point. My personal hope is that Edwards wins the nomination and brings Obama in as VP. That would give him more experience and allow the public to get a better sense of where he stands for 2016.

by the corporate media to act as a foil to split the anti Hillary vote. If he wasn't in the race, it would already be a one way race and Edwards would be a foregone conclusion, IMHO.

Yes, I am a cynical :tinfoilhat: wearer

I just think he was pushed in before he was ready and unfortunately, that could hurt him in future elections. Of course that's what I thought about Edwards last time around and yet I'm supporting him now.

I agree.

Plus, I don't think he's ready at this point to clean up the mess left by the Bush administration. It's going to take a strong fighter. I too am voting for Edwards because he's proven that he has what it's going to take to stand up and fight for change.

more experience. Being second to Edwards wouldn't be bad but he could also fill a cabinet position. All of the Democratic candidates have strong points, most stronger than Obama's. A few years more and he'll be ready for the job.

I will admit, I loved his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. I even had the words "audacity of hope" taped to my desk at work.

But he's been a huge disappointment for me since his arrival in the Senate. One of the first things he did as a new member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was to vote to send Condi Rice's nomination to the full Senate. I was so disappointed in him for that. I felt like she never understood her role as National Security Adviser, and didn't deserve to be promoted to SoS.

I've also been disappointed in his not even bothering to vote on some issues. For example, he didn't even bother to vote yes or no on whether the Senate should hold a no-confidence vote against Alberto Gonzales. Here we had the most corrupt Attorney General of our time. And Obama, as a U.S. Senator, won't even vote yes or no on whether the Senate should have a no-confidence vote against that A.G.

And then, I've been disappointed in the way he's conducted his Presidential campaign, using the Tom Joyner Morning Show to try to get Black America to engage in group think and vote for his simply because he's Black. I'm also disappointed in some of his talking points in his stump speech, such as his "I don't want to re-fight the battles of the 90's." In other words, I guess he thinks that Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich's hatred of Hillary Clinton, should disqualify her from being President. Blame the victim here.

Honestly, if Obama is the nominee next November, I will either 1) stay home, 2) vote for the Republican nominee or 3) write someone else's name in.

that convinced you that he was trying "to get Black America to engage in group think and vote for him simply because he's Black? I think he was attempting to appeal to african-american voters, just like other candidates do. What's wrong with that? Bizarre reason to "either 1) stay home or 2) vote for the Republican nominee" IMO.

Tom Joyner Morning Show, which is a radio program.

And, as an African-American, I just have a problem with the way his campaign appears to have used the TJMS to get we as African-Americans to engage in group think and simply get behind the African-American candidate.

- For example, when Obama was on the TJMS, he said "this is a once in a lifetime opportunity." Meaning, he seems to believe that from now until eternity, he will be the only via African-American candidate for President. So we better elect him now. Tom Joyner has sadly echoed those sentiments.

- During one of Michelle Obama's many appearances on the TJMS, Tom Joyner asked her "What is up with Black women?" Meaning, he thinks there is something wrong with every Black woman out there (that would include me) who doesn't support Obama's candidacy.

- When Tom Joyner had Rep. Kendrid Meek of Florida (who is supporting Sen. Clinton) on his show, he asked him "There is a perfectly qualifed Black man running for President. Why aren't you supporting Sen. Obama?"

I was also disappointed in something Barack Obama said when he was on Tavis Smiley's radio show. Tavis Smiley asked Barack Obama about the notion that some in the Black community apparently have, that if Barack Obama received as much support from the Black community as Jesse Jackson did when he ran, then in Tavis' words Sen. Clinton would "have to go home right now." Barack Obama agreed with that, saying "There's no doubt that if we consolidate the Black vote, that would have a profound shift in the national polls." I just flipped when he said "consolidate the Black vote." In other words, he's suggesting we vote in lock step. I thought the appropriate answer, would have been for him to say something like 'Well Tavis, I don't want anyone voting for me simply because of my race. I want them to vote for me because they believe I represent their interests and values.'

I find it interesting that no one says a word when white people sit around on television and radio and analyze black candidates and voters, yet when black people do it, they're "trying to get Black America to engage in group think."

People vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons. Because they like the way they talk, because they agree with them on the issues because they're from the South or from somewhere near where they're from, etc. One reason - and I say only ONE, not the only reason - to vote for someone is because of their race. Lots of people see the fact that Obama is black as an exciting component of who he is - and what his presidency could say about this country - just like a woman president at this time in our history would be interesting, compelling and exciting.

And as an African-American, I think it does a great disserivce to our community. We face some important issues. As an example, there's a disconnect between the overall unemployment rate, and the African-American unemployment rate.

And I just think it does a disservice to our community, for Tom Joyner's show (which has a huge audience) to be used to get us to engage in group think and simply follow behind the Black candidate. That's what Tom Joyner has done, and the Obama campaign has been complicit in that.

It troubles me that while pimping for Obama, Tom Joyner has never held a serious policy discussion with him. Every time Barack Obama comes on the Tom Joyner Show, there's this lighthearted banter "How are Michelle and the kids" and things of that nature. There's no serious policy discussion.

Yet, when Sen. Clinton came on there, Tom Joyner berated her about her health care plan, asking her why wasn't it FREE health care for Americans. But she was a trooper, giving him very specific details about her plan. She wasn't afraid to talk policy.

He never has had that type of conversation (at least on his show) with Obama.

And that, for me, speaks volumes.

?????

Hillary's campaign has sought out the women's vote and been very upfront about this. Some of her endorsements have come from people who are supporting her because she is a woman.

It's ok when she does it.

thing either. I don't think African-Americans should support Obama just because he's Black. And I don't think women should support Sen. Clinton because she's a woman.

I do think that sometimes the Clinton camp has over-reached a little in terms of hyping up the first woman President thing.

However, to their credit, they have never suggested that all women get behind the woman candidate. They've never made a statement like "There's no doubt that if we consolidate the woman vote, it would have a profound shift in the polls." Contrast that to Obama's statement on Tavis Smiley's program about consolidating the Black vote.

I listen to Tom Joyner also and did hear that exchange. I saw it as talking in the hypothetical. I've also heard him say on Tom Joyner's show that people shouldn't vote for him just because he's black.

But as I pointed out, he's made distressing (at least for me) comments on Tom Joyner's show too.

One time, Tom Joyner said something to Barack Obama that if every Black person currently supporting Sen. Clinton would support Obama instead, the race would change. Barack Obama concurred, saying her lead would virtually be gone. I do not think that as an appropriate response. Right then, he should have said he didn't want people getting behind him just beecause he's black.

I am well aware of his answers to this question. Again, I only see it as hypothetical answers.

And I have heard Obama say on Tom's show that he doesn't want people or expect people to vote for him just because he's black.

deeper issues. I like the guy - but I don't think he's ready to be President. I'd like to see an Edwards/Obama ticket.

But if Obama got the nomination, I'd work my ASS off to help him - and any DEM - WIN.

represents my interests and values. I used to look for whoever had the "D" behind their name. But, I've learned that not all Democrats represent my interests and values. For example, although I love how John Edwards has focused on poverty, and helping the people still trying to recover from Hurricane Katrina, I cannot vote for him because he's not on the right side of THE most important issue to me right now- D.C. voting rights.

Never. I cannot believe any caring, thinking Democrat or Independent would say they'd stay home or vote Rethug, rather than vote Obama. It makes me wonder if you have some other issues here.

We're supposed to be on the same team.

In addition to co-sponsoring, Obama voted it Yes out of committee in June:




A month later when the Mayor of DC endorsed Obama, Obama said:




He also co-sponsored S.195 in 2005:



And stood to introduce it on the Senate floor:




Whatta guy!!

rights issue. That's great! But so is Sen. Clinton. And I'm in agreement with Sen. Clinton on many other issues where I have some heartburn with Obama.

So Sen. Clinton does it for me.

Supporting the candidate you believe in is what is most important.

the right side of the DC voting rights issue. I will defnitely give credit where it is due.

One of the reasons I can't support Edwards, is because of what he did in 2004.

During the 2004 Democratic primary, our local leaders here in DC wanted to spotlight the issue of DC voting rights. To do that, they decided to hold a (non-binding) first-in-the-nation primary. It was before Iowa and New Hampshire, and we had a non-binding presidential primary. We then had the regularly scheduled BINDING primary a few months later. But the whole point of the non-binding primary was to bring national attention to the issue of DC voting rights.

Anyway, 5 of the 9 Democrats running for President that year, wrote to the DC Board of Elections and Ethics, and asked to have their names removed from the ballot here. Apparently, they did not appreciate that we were holding a primary before Iowa and New Hampshire voted---even though again, it was non-binding.

I wrote to them and explained that they were putting tradition (Iowa and New Hampshire's first in the nation status) above the interests above DC residents who were being taxed without representation.

His wanting to have his name removed from the DC ballot, is a major reason why I can't support John Edwards.

that's all he wrote. There is no there there.

He did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Danged Pats.. :toast:

I hope Hillary gets the same kind of awesome run.

Happy New Year :party: :toast:

on BOTH counts. I did expect a blowout though so my team did me proud. Gongrats !!!

Happy New Year to you and yours and let's hope that this time next year it will be President-Elect Hillary.

:toast: :party:

:toast: :party: :hi:

2) vote for the Republican nominee

You do that.











Yes, Obama was campaigning during the cloture vote of the sense of the Senate resolution of no confidence in Gonzalez, as were candidates Biden and Dodd; however, Obama co-sponsored the no confidence legislation, as did Biden and Dodd. Does the fact of Obama's not voting for cloture accurately portray his record of fighting against Gonzalez? Not in the least. I've seen you do this before in trying to mislead DU readers - that time it was DC Voting Rights.

What's the difference when you're both just trying to drag someone else down?

:shrug:

Any evidence of my suppossed attacks will help.

n/t

I post positive things about my candidate, as I'm not really interested in posting anything about anybody else.

n/t

about me. Admit it: you know I don't post crap about other candidates.

:shrug:

You lied about me.

Of course this is how most of your posts go so there's no surprise.

It is easy to prove I'm a hypocrite- just find one post in which I'm smearing another candidate.

LOL

you couldn't back up your claim. :)

Take from that what you will.

And Happy New Year.

Obama obviously inspires a lot of people. That alone makes him special.

"Obama obviously inspires a lot of people. That alone makes him special."

and it was right on the money losers.

his moments. ? i'm still waiting. There is something to be said for newness, and i have to say his judgment was pretty good to stand up against the war, but other than that, he doesn't really get me going at all.

I'll K&R and say that he reminds me of the present occupant of the WH...an empty suit if you will. And we are all well aware of the disaster the Repukes "blessed" us with the last two presidential elections.

Didn't mean to post in a sub-thread

Happy New Year and Congrats to The Jayhawks on a great year. :applause: :toast:

Had to move the post, but thanks for the reply.

Will that be enough?

~

can guarantee...extremely Charismatic..:smoke:

To me, he seems like the most honest, optimistic, idealistic, forward thinking person running. He'll say unpopular things and stick by them. People that say he ran too early just want someone else to win instead. That is totally fine. But if he is so great, put him in office now! I do not buy this focus on experience at all. Bill Clinton was inexperienced. Obama is the one hope we have to make people like the president again. It does not have to be about war, and combat, among each other or overseas. There are a million things we could agree upon and do if we just break out a bit, and have some principled leadership in place.

If you are a democrat, why you must buy everything the dems say, and hate everything everyone else says, on all things? Isn't it just possible that McCain might have a point to make? about something? Same with the other side. Hate, concede nothing, not one thing. Score the zinger at the debate, head to spin room and sell it. I guess I am just tired of all the games. There is nobody out there who is perfect for me on all the issues. Fine, but Obama is the closest thing I have seen who can just break out of the mold a bit, and lead.

For me, to elect Obama president, would do so much for the African American Community (race is such a huge undiscussed pressure point in our country) as well. This is our chance to go with youth, diversity, optimism. Instead, people want some sort of battle royale to finally edge out conservatism forever. Hello out there...there will always be a right and left wing, and they will never come to agreement. It is the tension of a political opposition that keeps the minority from getting trampled. But it does not have to be war war war, all...the...time. Obama is not necessarily the solution to all this, but I would like the trajectory!

Sorry for the rant...

:shrug:

I don't dislike him, as a matter of fact, because of the IWR vote, he was my favorite for a long time. The way he handled Kyl-Lieberman gave me doubts, but Donnie McClurkin was the deal breaker. I don't believe he represents hope and change, because he's never defined how his changes would be significantly different from any other Democrat who happened to get elected.

~

I remember during the debates, it was reported that Obama and his campaign were studying Bill Clinton from the '92 debates. That's who they wanted to emulate. And why does Obama keep bringing up the number of people who served in Clinton's administration, who support him?

He's trying to have it both ways: 1) claim to be an agent of change, and making comments like "I dont' want to re-fight the battles of the '90s and 2) bragging about the number of former Clinton officials who support him.

Seems like double-talk to me.

it is now 15 years later, and Hillary/Bill want back in. Obama is trying to makes the case that he is now the one that can change. You might not agree with him, but it is not inconsistent. The fact that past advisers line up with him is to make the case that as new as he is to the process, he is making sense among people that have been around.

Their poor feelings have undoubtedly been hurt when they've been called haters and bigots. But now Obama has come along to comfort them, and explain to everyone that as long as you only hate gays and not some other group, and as long as you couch your hatred as a religious belief, you aren't a bigot at all. Thank you Jesus someone is finally coddling the precious homophobic population of Amerikkka!

Obama: "These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact:There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community."

http://www.queerty.com/obama-talks-gay-again-20071112/

I wouldn't say that political experience or accomplishment is a minus or a plus really. Honestly I think that some of my college professors would be better presidents than anybody standing on that stage. Political experience doesn't inherently make someone the best person for the job.

Obama has taken the shortest possible path to national recognition and honestly I have no problem with that because he's subverting a process that I think is complete bullshit. If I had my way, you wouldn't have to spend any length of time in elected office to become president.

The arguments that the other candidates have "put in their time" or they have "earned it" and Obama hasn't don't hold any water with me. The presidency is something you win, not something you earn.

That isn't why I'm voting for Obama, but that is the reason I look past his "inexperience". I'm voting for Obama because I believe that he is open minded enough that he is willing to start to make steps on some of our bullshit policies like the Cuban Embargo and the Drug War. I know that Hillary won't touch policies because she has pretty much said that she won't. That troubles me considering that anybody with a brain can't possibly believe that there are good arguments to support those policies, other than political reasons.

Lifting the Cuban Embargo and changing drug policies are "liberal" they are common sense. Obama seems like he is willing to listen to common sense and come around. Hillary knows exactly what she is going to do in office and nobody is going to change her mind.

I simply said experience or accomplishment. Period.

Obama's position on the Cuba embargo and drug war are simply mainstream at this point. He is, as I have said, a mainstream politician that sounds pretty much like any other politician looking for which way the wind blows.

He has already made some strides, supporting loosening the restrictions of Cuban Americans to travel back home to see family. And on the drug war I think that given his background, he will make the issue a priority.

Obama was a community organizer and taught constitutional law before going into politics and frankly that's a good enough resume for me. I'm not saying that every community organizer can be president, but I'm saying that I'm not really all that concerned about resume.

I'm with you, Hippo_Tron. I think his 11 years of legislative experience is all well and good, but it's his real world experience that means more to me, and combined it's certainly sufficient experience. Law-making is great and it has to be done, but it's not the be all and end all for the presidency. If he's less of a politician than he need be to some people, it's all the better to me.

He practiced law for all of 3 years before going to the state legislature. A lawyer with that little experience knows almost nothing about practicing law and can hardly made an impact at all.

Checking him out on Pacer shows that his name appears on all of about 5 federal lawsuits during that period of time. He was not lead attorney on those cases. They were not all civil rights cases.

This was not exactly Clarence Darrow.

Don't get fooled by labels. There's a lot of money to be made in doing publicly funded real estate deals, which is apparently something that Obama's law firm did a lot of.

From what I can tell, his legal "career" was pretty much a big pumpkin.

I simply added a point to what Hippo_Tron was saying.

I care more about choices made. He could have gone with a big Wall Street firm and made a fortune. He could have clerked on the Supreme Court; he was asked. He chose to go with a civil rights firm. He worked on behalf of ACORN with other groups like Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the League of Women Voters over the Motor Voter law. He built a case for a whistle blower. He worked on a lawsuit against Citibank over redlined mortgages to blacks and other residents of minority neighborhoods. When he went into the Illinois Senate, after three years with the firm, the law firm wanted him to keep taking a salary and open a branch office for them. He went of counsel instead for eight years and on to the job he was elected to do. Now, I don't claim, and Obama doesn't claim, that he did the star turn in the courtroom. He was a backgrounder, doing research, writing briefs, and prepping depositions; probably like a lot of three year associates. Just about every case, about 30 cases, he worked on won. Nobody says he did it himself, though. And nobody's saying he's Clarence Darrow. What I will say is his law career fits into his 20 years of public service.

Had No intetion on running UNTIL somebody said YOU should run for POUS...AND to show you how dedicated this person REALLY IS...IF he does NOT get the nomination...HIS wife has informed him, he will never run again...so much for CHANGE AND HOPE!THIS IS IT PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE ONE NOW....HE IS ONLY GOING TO COMMITT TO HELPING YOU IN 2008 NOW OR NEVER...(sounds like bush...you are either against us or for us...):evilgrin:

I feel the same.

Obama does "nothing" for me. I don't get the hype either.

:shrug:

I feel the same about edwards when I see them both I keep wondering what are these people seeing that I am not. I have taken second, third and fourth looks and I just don't see it.

the other candidates, he did not inspire me in any way. In fact, I wanted to watch to see if I could get "hyped" about him, but he came off as kind of dull! Maybe I should say low-key instead, but I wasn't very impressed. Even Clinton has more spunk, and she's LAST on my list!

But, she WAS once first!

of "rising star" than defensive front runner.

I'm glad Obama peaked in late November/early December.

If I had not seen this "ugly front runner" side of Obama, I might still count him as my second choice.

Six weeks ago, I would have done anything for his campaign, but now I'm done with him. If he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him but nothing more.

Obama just doesn't energize or inspire me.