What bothers me about Obama is not just his ties with the dirty landlord (yes, he got his hands dirty), but the number of 'present' votes he used instead of voting for or against a bill. His outnumber most others anywhere. Either he wasn't doing his job studying the bills or he avoided taking a stance for political reasons.

I actually agreed with some of Edward's positions on the issues before this run for President. Since then, he too has changed position too many times to be commfortable.

I, for one, admired Hillary only for her refusal to apologize for her position on the war early on. I never felt anyone who supported the war in the early stages should apologize for making a decision and taking a stance based on the information at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, given what we know now, many would not have voted as they did. However, no one knew what we now know and they based their decisions on the information at the time. No apology necessary. You do the best you can do at the time based on the information you have. Others should be apologizing, not those who voted as they did.

In some ways I see her as a better leader. Some of positions I agreed with as well, although she doesn't hold the same view anymore (or maybe she's switched back again, it's hard to keep up). It's everything else about her that I can't stand to think may be sitting in the top seat of this country.



>I know you are mainly talking about Edwards, not Obama, but as you can tell i am stuck on Obama ;-) The "inexperienced" label still dogs him, and there is a certain amount of truth to it. Two observations. One, as you point out, years of experience in Washington is not necessarily a good thing. Two, did you know Obama is older and has more legislative experience than JFK did when he was elected President? He also spent years as a community organizer, which not many of the others (if any) have gotten their hands dirty doing.
>
>What I like most about Obama is he seems genuinely to be a conciliator and a fairly normal guy. Obviously anyone who runs for President has a certain amount of ego and ambition, but given that he does not seem full of himself. His likability and avoidance of nastiness seem to offer a real chance of moving beyond the debilitating partisan politics we have had for the past 16 years. (I see the same thing in McCain, although his positions may be more polarizing). If Hillary is elected we will clearly have more of the same. I think the same is true of Huckabee and Romney. We have got to get beyond all this nastiness somehow. There will always be different views and efforts by both parties to implement their policies. But the viciousness of the partisanship in recent years is not constructive, especially at a time when we have a lot of problems that need to be addressed. It makes it just about impossible to get anything done. Which is mostly what is getting done, nothing.
>
>His remarks have gotten a little sharper recently but AFAIK they have all been in response to the desperate-seeming attacks from the Clinton machine. His staff has been after him for months to go on the attack. So far he has refused. There was one slimy ad or leak (I forget the details) that was traced back to the Obama campaign and he reamed out the whole staff over it. He said if any of you is even tempted to do something like this again you better talk to me first. His belief in the possibility of politics as something other than warfare seems genuine.
>
>
>>I think Canada is just as influenced by the media as those in the U.S. are. Your views on Edwards alone show that. The 'other half' of this country lives right near him and he never bothers to do a thing for them and never has. He did almost nothing for North Carolina while he was a Senator here. All talk and no play.
>>
>>Here is how much North Carolinians think of Edwards:
>>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/11/edwards-slips-to-third-in_n_81113.html
>>
>>The problem is not that Edwards is so bad, he really is no different than any of the others. He may have high ideals and great ideas but he never accomplished much here. Is he the best of the bunch or just a great stump speaker? He and Obama are similar in that both are aiming high with very little experience and time spent in the pits. The lack of experience for both concerns me but then that is also time not spent currying favors and getting enmeshed in the system. Clinton on the other hand is a great manipulator and may accomplish alot but what she will try to accomplish is impossible to foresee because her position on many issues has changed so much. She has a great disdain for those 'below her' and doesn't hesitate to show it and that concerns me.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I contend that the media's influence is far far greater than you assess. To the point that most of you cannot even recognize it, it being so engrained in the culture.