[insert clever FAIL picture here]

as I recall.

My reason for loathing Hillary boils down to Video Games. Your turn!

This women is for Obama. I like a man who stands up for his wife.

It's really not that complicated. The present votes were part of a legislative strategy put together with Planned Parenthood. Repeating this discredited line of attack undermines your credibility.

"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."

Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_abor ti_1.html

Maybe He can CHARM us out of jams. Yes. He. Can.

But, remember, He is going to require sacrifice, devotion, and dedication; he's going to require us to work, to come out of our comfort zones; to shed our "cynicism!"

It's a new day in America under BarackO, Exalted Leader, who will lead us back to greatness under the banner of the Movement of New Democrats!

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." ~~ Barack Obama

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed." -- Michelle Obama

"For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side."

"It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers."

"Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on."

"Rezmar kept getting city and state funding, even as earlier projects fell into disrepair and financial troubles.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building."

http://www.suntimes.com:80/news/metro/35 3829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wp xs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

because all that would happen is that I would become enraged and at this point the best thing is to try to educate critics.  With that said, I would ask you to do some simple research starting with the local Chicago papers regarding Rezko and educate yourself on the procedures of voting present in Illinois. In addition, you might want to actually read his books instead of repeating the propaganda spouted by his haters.

Education is key.

Wrong Button:

That is true, but there's no indication it was anything but a mistake in haste.

Voting Present:

I'll let the campaign take this one. Remember the pro-choice issues, were planned out by Planned Parenthood.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche ck/2008/01/21/present_votes_are_an_accep ted.php

Voting to fund the war:

Obama has, like most everyone else, voted to fund the war. The reason is that Congress can't control military strategy, and voting against funding looks like Congress is "playing chicken with our troops."

Wright:

You really think he threw his grandmother under the bus? If he threw her under the bus, then how do you describe his condemnation of Wright after the media blitz? Rolling over him 100 times AFTER throwing him under the bus?

There are people in this country who retain racially biased attitudes, sometimes as a function of their age. However, accusing the government of spreading AIDS and using a racial epithet are VERY different to me. You may disagree.

Book:

You have the wrong information. All of this was mad clear in the original introduction. Check your facts next time.

Conviction:

He left Harvard law to run a voter registration drive. He left Columbia to be a community organizer. How do those show a lack of conviction? Explain more please.

"a politician who explained some votes by saying "I pushed the wrong button".

Wasn't that only 6 votes out of a total of more than 4000? So he pressed the wrong button about once per 700 votes? This doesn't seem so bad.

Were any of those votes crucial enough to change the outcome?

"How is one to view a man who is big on anti-war rhetoric and yet has repeatedly voted to fund the war. "

This argument also feels weak to me. Depriving ammunition and equipment from your soldiers isn't actually stopping any war or bringing the troops home, it's merely putting them in extra risk.

"No mention was made of this in the original version."

I think this is really at most a quibble, especially since it was clarified in the later edition. The things you complain about are standard practice in such works.

I don't think even FOX does.

You are a very sad and unhappy person, or you are really just a repug who is secretly on McBushes side.  If you were a democrat you would not be knocking down our democratic nominee.

BO is a dishonest opportunist. His supporters think he walks on water, but if he wins the nomination and IF he wins the White House, the honeymoon will be very short - it's easier to make speeches than to get things done.

BO knows all about organizing and campaigning, but I'm not sure if BO knows how the capital gains tax works, or what the Fed does.

Do you like McCain better? Because that's your choice. Maybe you should write a diary about why you like John McCain better than Barack Obama, but then, of course, that'd probably get you kicked off the site, so you do it this way.

Earlier I expanded on the qualities I like in Hillary. Now as a counterpoint I would like to discuss the character flaws I see in Barack Obama. First and foremost I find him a dissembler. He changed his story on Rezko several times. The amount Rezko had given has steadily increased each time he is pressed. The truth does not exist in increments!

This is essentially an accounting issue. Obama gave a best estimate early on, and continued to investigate. The difference between his initial number and the revised number was not particularly significant.

I am also troubled by a politician who has voted "present" on numerous occasions, often when the issue was controversial. Equally troubling is a politician who explained some votes by saying "I pushed the wrong button".

Almost every politician says they have periodically pushed the wrong button. Present votes in the Illinois legislature are often used when a legislator opposes the bill on constitutional grounds, or supports part of it but can't vote on other parts. For example, Obama voted present on an assault weapon ban, because part of the bill also allowed 13 year olds to be tried as adults, and he disagreed with that. His most famous "present" vote - the abortion related ones - were done with the knowledge, consent, and encouragement of Illinois Planned Parenthood.

How is one to view a man who is big on anti-war rhetoric and yet
has repeatedly voted to fund the war. Where is the courage of his convictions?

There's a huge difference between opposing a war before it is started, and wanting to exit Iraq after you've destroyed the power structure in the country and made it a focal point for terrorist recruiting. Obama isn't "anti-war", he was opposed to the Iraq war specifically because he had the foresight to anticipate the quagmire it would become.

We're there, and we have to deal with the reality of being there. As President, he won't have to try to engage in a dangerous game of chicken to withdraw the troops.

I also have trouble with his ability to put his head in the sand.
As the Jeremiah Wright debacle grew he was very slow to distance himself from this pariah. I also found that throwing his grandma under the bus in his defense of Wright was utterly appalling. Where is the loyalty for the woman that raised him? His handling of nuclear safety has shown to be just a run of the mill pol ready to take money wherever he could get it.

Obama tried to walk a line. Apparently Wright's more caustic views were rarely expressed, and his day to day ministry was more pragmatic. The whole Wright thing is clearly a cluster, but I genuinely think he was slow to burn that bridge because he thought Wright's more radical views were more shock-value suggestions that real convictions; Wright just went narcissistic lime-light whore, and was, I think, intentionally controversial.

Obama pushed the nuclear bill; the Republicans controlled the state congress, and he tried repeatedly to get versions of it through. He actually introduced the unwatered-down version first, which is not the action of someone kowtowing to the industry.

Now it turns out that numerous literary devices were used in Dreams of MY Father. Devices such as composite characters, imprecise dates and chronology. No mention was made of this in the original version. Funny lots of authors and journalists have been castigated for this form of dishonesty.

I don't know how egregious the alterations were, so no comment.

On a personal note I find him weak and short on conviction. He just doesn't strike me like the kind of commander in chief who will inspire confidence in our military or respect from our adversaries. Maybe he will talk us out of jams, but I doubt it.

Well, I'm sure he's looking forward to doing his best to win you over. ;)

reason 10: "no ovaries"

Not a Republican

I think you needed more time in troll school - you're attempting advanced trolling without the required training.  You see this is how it should be done:  you express admiration for Obama - thus initially attracting our interest, but then gently introduce us to your concerns (key word, must be used often) about electability, stressing that the GOP will attack him on Rezko, present votes etc.  Do you see how that would be better?  I will give you a B- today, but I expect you to put in more effort for your next diary.

Can someone post who rec'd this diary? Let's find out who the trolls really are on this site.

While I doubt anyone will be able to change your mind completely. I'd like to try and pull over just a bit.

The "Present" vote has been explained and discussed numerous times as it applies to to IL House. If you choose not to educate yourself on this, a long dissertation on my part is going to help. Simply though "present" vote is somewhat unique in IL and is used most often as strategic move. A little further reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol itics/20obama.html

I understand your concern about being for the war yet voting to fund. However, I am not sure how you can be for the troops and giving them the support and protection they need while in theater and cutting off funding to them squares either. Both Hillary and Barak have voted to continue funding in support of the troops.

Literary devices - Please read the entire Sunday NYT article around his writing. I think you will find the devices used were not dishonest and are common practice. However this is for you to judge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/pol itics/18memoirs.html?ref=politics

Weak and short on conviction. Since you honestly state this is merely a personal opinion. My only  response - I personally disagree.

The Rezko thing was an accounting thing. I suppose everything Rezko did kinda depends how ya look at it. I'm not a troll, whatever that is nor a Republican. I just like one candidate and her character and am suspect of the other. Don't like it, lump it!

You're entitled to your opinion. Obama doesn't need to be your ideal candidate. The main thing is that everyone here will support our nominee in November (apart from the McCain trolls).  

Rezko - I haven't paid much attention to Rezko during the primary because the Clintons have their own historical land deal and shady donor history, which didn't impact their ability to either get elected or govern efficiently. Personally, though, I was surprised at how inefficiently Clinton brought up the topic during the debate. Her introduction of him struck me as a "Hey, shiny object!" type of distraction at the time following a much more expertly executed Obama statement (I can't remember the exact statement though).

"Present" - Unfortunately, the present vote is going to be a problem. Not because the substance of voting present is controversial, but the emotion of hearing that he voted present is controversial. Being in the Midwest, with Chicago the closest urban hub, I've been deluded with "this is why people vote present" explanations. I know it's a standard practice, especially when you support the theory of the bill but not the actual bill itself.

Da War - It would be almost unconscionable for me to remove funding. Honestly, the troops are there. We broke the country, killed lots of people and suffered huge losses. Removing funding would only accomplish one thing: stranding the troops. I don't believe Bush would have ever removed the troops. He would've rather seen them stuck over there to prove a political point than ever pull them back. The Congress had the power to stop the war. Instead, they stood up and pushed it forward. Now that it has its own momentum, you can't just leave the people in its tracks to fend for themselves.

Wright - If one judges people by their pastors or the leaders of their congregation, I support hiding pedophiliacs. I'm not using hyperbole (if I went back, I could find a picture of myself with Bernard Law taken for my First Communion book). I was, converting for the age difference, in the pews for the same period of time as Obama. During that time period, I heard at some point or another that science was an affront to God, that the schools (my parents were teachers) were intentionally destroying America, etc. etc. etc. I'm currently a graduate student in the science with the hopes to eventually teach in one of those hotbeds of sin, universities. My religious experience in church doesn't define me.

If my former pastors and the nuns that taught me stayed in the shadows, no matter how many old YouTube clips were drudged up, I'd avoid harsh denouncements. It's impossible to tell what they believe today. They were also from another generation, another time with a different belief system. It'd be better to use their words to open a discussion on larger issues.

However, if they started parading around like an idiot, then I'd be a little more harsh. Because they'd be using their own controversial nature to stir up more controversy. No good can come of that.

Dreams of My Father - Haven't read it. No idea what's going on.

Weak and short on conviction - Weakness isn't talking. Weakness isn't trying to talk to the American people like they're adults and letting them know that the world is nuanced.

Strength of your convictions means standing up against cheap tricks and cheap tactics.

You want to know what the number one issue in Indiana was? I'm here, all that was on WNDU for a week straight was a Clinton ad about an idiotic gas tax holiday. It's a cheap trick. It's a cheap stunt. "I'm going to take money from people you don't like and give it to you! Who's going to vote for me now?"

It's one of those truthiness-style politics that I, in less than three decades of existence, have grown weary of. It sounds good. It sounds like it'd make my life easier. It's also completely irrelevant to solving the big picture and, at best, a marginal help within the standard fluctuation of the market. As I said at the time, dropping the price increases demand, raising the cost of the crude oil and giving a perfectly viable method to raise the price back up, giving more money to the people we don't like... Until the gas tax holiday expires and we're all paying 18 cents a gallon more again (of course, though the price only went down a few pennies initially, it will go up the full 18 cents on the other side).

It does take strength of conviction to look at someone who is clapping and saying "Will you give me money, too?" and tell them, no, sorry, that won't help solve the problem and we need those funds to keep your highways going.

I think the fundamental lesson of this diary and the election in general is that we see in our candidates what we want to see. Hillary's strong, brave, decisive and Obama's weak, short on conviction and long on talk.... Or Hillary's brash, insincere, pandering and Obama's thoughtful, measured and eloquent.

It's two sides of the same coin.

The title should be:

"It doesn't matter if I don't like Barack Obama as much as I like Hillary, but that I don't like John McCain as much as I like Barack Obama...

But I Like Hillary best, and don't you forget it!"

In Chicago the Rezko has been fully investigated my the local papers, and they found no wrongdoing.

Present votes are very common in the Illinois Senate.

Obama seems to have weathered the Wright story and shown his resilance as a politician.

Your diary smacks of divisiveness.....

But don't ask me to like him.