brucemaples dot com

Well, for what it's worth, here's my 2 cents on the matter....

I was a Dean supporter, too. But this election isn't about Howard Dean.
This election isn't about Bill Clinton, either.

Unfortunately, my favorite candidate, John Edwards, dropped out of the race. When Edwards suspended his campaign, that effectively, for me anyway, left only two viable candidates: Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I had been leaning toward Obama; he had been my second choice after Edwards. But I guess I thought I'd never have to make that choice, because when Edwards dropped out, I just didn't feel comfortable supporting Obama, which to me, meant that I didn't know enough about him. So, to be fair, I set about scrutinizing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I have to be honest that before Edwards dropped out, I spoke out against Hillary Clinton on several websites. In all fairness to me, when compared with John Edwards, I still feel justified in my accusations. But she's no longer competing with John Edwards; she's competing with Barack Obama. And Barack Obama is not John Edwards.

So, as I said, it became my mission to try to find out as much as I could about both candidates and their views on the issues. I began watching every debate, if not live, then on youtube via You Decide 2008 (God Bless them!). I watched every speech, every interview, ever forum, every townhall event, that I could get my hands on. And I also visited both of their websites.

I also visited www.vote-smart.org, www.senate.gov, and http://thomas.loc.gov/ to look up bills. I was particularly interested in their voting records, for obvious reasons.

Because I am skeptical by nature and a scientist by profession, the "hard, cold" facts are what interest me the most. Data must be gathered, confounding variables accounted for and/or removed, and only then can analysis begin. Most important, one must always go into these things with an open mind; one has to be willing to be proven wrong, so it's always best to just search for the truth, not merely proof of your "rightness."

I have to say that what I found surprised me. I expected that I would find allegations by Clinton about Obama to be false - specifically that accusation that he doesn't vote much of the time.

Well, that's actually true, and it did throw me for a loop. Obama hasn't voted on quite a bit of legislation. He didn't even vote to extend the Education Act of 1965 when it came up for renewal! You can check out his record at www.senate.gov. Just go to the search box on the upper right and type in "obama's voting record."

What I also found is that Obama isn't really very liberal. In fact, he didn't vote as liberally as Hillary Clinton on most pieces of legislation. And, also on the senate website, I found this interesting article from 2005. http://obama.senate.gov/news/051217-obama_shuns_lim/

Basically, it says that Obama is a moderate. But wait a minute, isn't that why people today are shunning Hillary Clinton in favor of Obama? Because she's too moderate and he's perceived as more liberal?

YOU'D BE WRONG TO ASSUME THAT. Yep, I never thought I'd say this, but there is a pattern to Obama's voting record that I have grown not only to dislike, but to distrust.

He doesn't seem to like to vote on controversial issues. Scrutizing his voting record, I get the sense that he likes to play the middle of the road, aka "sitting on the fence." That way, I reason, he doesn't piss anybody off too much?

Obama appears to me to be very thoughtful. And very calculating, in the sense that he wants to keep those "bridges" intact, instead of burning them. I very much sense that Barack Obama is much more of a "politician's politician" than even Hillary Clinton.

Which now brings me to their issues. I must give credit where it is due, and that goes to Hillary Clinton for her very detail-specific plans, not just on WHAT she'll do, but HOW. I expected to find the same thing from Obama.

I DIDN'T.

Obama is neither detailed nor specific regarding his plans. It appears to me that Obama relies more and more on his inspirational and motivational speeches to gain votes. I like the fact that Obama is inspriational and motivational...but he lacks substance, and that I don't like.

I also find him to be disingenuous and somewhat arrogant. I don't like that, either. I have an old email response from him regarding getting out of Iraq, in which he very thoughtfully explained to me that it was not "achievable" at that time (this was a few years ago), and that he felt that leaving Iraq prematurely was not a good idea. This contrasts sharply with what he now touts as his "one and only" response to Iraq - that he didn't and doesn't support it.

Clinton recently alleged that Obama, Chair of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommttee, hasn't called even one meeting since his appt. in early 2007. That is true. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/379/ The point is not lost on me that it is a Republican that came to Obama's defense.

You might have also seen Hillary's most recent ad regarding this allegation. It is a very salient point, and one which I think deserves closer scrutiny. If Obama is too busy with his campaign to call an oversight meeting on this committee, what happens when it's his third year of his first term, and he starts campaigning for a second term? Is he going to abdicate his presidential responsibilities in favor of his campaign duties? I think it's something we should think about.

Last but not least, apparently the American people have a very short and selective memory. In 2000, G. W. Bush campaigned on THE VERY SAME THEME AS OBAMA - CHANGE, HOPE, AND UNITY. And "W" wasn't substantive, either....

You can check out Hillary's voting record at the same sites I listed for Obama. I was surprised at the number of committees she serves on that are dedicated to human, civil, and women's rights. I think Hillary Clinton deserves a chance. She is tough, decisive, and tenacious.

When you consider the pattern of indecision and avoidance in casting votes, his calculation regarding cultivating political allies, his insubstantive oratories that sound good but say nothing - I have grave doubts about Obama's ability to lead this country out of the abyss.

Obama's main allegation against Clinton is his non-vote against the war. And that is precisely what would kill his electability in a general election against McCain. Incidentally, Clinton's vote FOR the war would be a strong point against McCain, even while stating that she wished she could rescind her vote. She could much more easily be seen as the stronger, wiser world leader on that point, since McCain seems to want to pull a Johnson in Iraq. Obama would appear weak against McCain; Clinton would appear strong.

That's a huge point, and one we would be foolish to neglect.

I believe the media, now owned by a handful of individuals loyal to the GOP, have effectively shaped this election from the get-go. They blackballed Edwards by simply not covering him and by concentrating on both Clinton and Obama.

When it came down to just the two of them, the media focused on Obama and turned on Clinton like so many ravenous dogs. One has to wonder why. I personally think it is because the GOP-owned-and-operated media want McCain to go up against Obama.

I also have to wonder why G. W. Bush endorsed McCain instead of say, Huckabee, who has the fundamentalist Christian vote, which figured so prominently in the past two s-elections.... I also have to consider the change McCain has undergone from standing up to Bush on certain things and now supporting him - almost as though he has finally drunk the koolaid (Invasion of the Body Snatchers comes to mind).

What kind of "deal with the devil" did McCain make with W in order to get his endorsement and effectively seal his nomination? Could it possibly be that McCain agreed to name Jeb Bush as his running mate? (Jeb is the smart Bush, and the most dangerous one. If anything, he's even more conservative than W, and he is much more focused. We should be very afraid if, or when, he throws his hat into a bid for the White House.)

I cannot imagine a more horrible scenario than Barack Hussein Obama going up against John McCain, a POW that spent 5 freakin' years in BOX in a pow camp, and Jeb Bush.

McCain would chew Obama up and spit him out forthwith.

As far as the Obama momentum goes, there's no guarantee that the primary translates to the general election.

There is one thing I can say for sure about Hillary Clinton. She's been attacked by the GOP for years, and she's withstood the pressure. I've no doubt she will let their attacks roll off her back like water on a duck.

It wouldn't be that way with Obama. He has too much baggage that's NOT been addressed - from his association with a church whose preacher likes Farakkon, to Rezko, to his penchant for not voting or taking sides on serious issues, to his complete naivete. And lets not even address his wife's virtually racist graduate thesis.

What else are they going to throw against Hillary Clinton that hasn't already been talked about to death? Her life, as I said, is an open book.

So, I never thought I'd say this, but I've thrown my support to Hillary Clinton. At least with her, I know exactly what I'm getting. No surprises. She's tough, she knows her way around the political world, and she's tenacious. I believe she will make good on her campaign promises. I don't trust Obama's because first, he really hasn't promised anything but change (same as George W. Bush), hope (ditto), and unity (ditto again).

I just think Americans should think very long and very hard about where to place their confidence in this election, or we just might "get fooled again."

Can Obama pull the wool over the eyes of Americans, just as George W. Bush did in 2000? Will Americans buy the farm all over again?

Apparently so. Will we never learn?

Great response post, Kentucky Woman. You've given me some good stuff to think about, and some stuff to go research for myself.

I continue to worry a great deal about Obama, for some of the same reasons you've listed. I'm worried that we elect a vision, and then live with the reality. The Clintons get accused of triangulation, but Obama looks IN PRACTICE like even more of a Rodney King politician.

Ohio, it appears, has given us some room to do the research. Thanks for the post -- I will follow up.