On Feb 13, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Kristyne McDaniel wrote:

> You didn't present any other arguments. Could you tell me what your

> other

> reasons are for preferring Obama? So far I'm just hearing that you

> like

> inspiration but don't need perspiration from your candidate.

>

> Even Edison said results are 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I

> see you

> focusing on the 1% and losing sight of the 99%.

>

> Frankly, I'm surprised that you would fall for that. Falling for the

> 1%

> inspiration is something a young, inexperienced person would be more

> prone

> to do.

It's hard to answer when you frame the discussion in terms of

"falling for". Talk about loaded verbiage.

Obama and Clinton do not vary wildly in their positions. They both

share a vision that is very close to my own. They both have ties to

the current sewer system that is political funding, but that's a given

- no one can get that far without such ties unless they are a Perot or

Bloomberg.

I find Obama to be a much more believable person. Hillary strikes me

as a more calculated persona; I automatically find myself discounting

her words as being poll-driven. But these are both acts, as are all

public faces of politicians.

What tipped the balance for me was the vision of 4 or 8 more years of

Limbaugh-esque levels of discourse in this country. Hillary is such a

third rail for these brainless but vocal goons that my fear is that no

amount of good intentions and hard work will overcome the mud being

constantly heaped upon her. While I don't think that Obama will get a

free pass on this front, I don't see the levels as being anywhere near

what Hillary (and thus the enitire country) will have to endure.

And don't discount the charisma factor. Look what it did for Reagan

and Bill Clinton.

-- Ed Leafe