And if Obama had been in the Oval Office with Monica--the mind boggles!

Nobody named Garance Franke-Ruta is allowed to make fun of other people.

I would hope that people in the Obama camp are listening: take the gloves off. You're gonna win the race, take her on.

Kevin-

Please go look at Obamas voting record in IL. He missed many important votes. Obama missed the MoveOn vote then the Kyl vote. It is easy now to say that he would not have voted for it but you can't guarantee that he won't either. Look up his record in IL. Now his campaign don't him to appear with other candidates only when they have to show up for debates.

He missed the vote because Reid tabled the vote on September 25th, saying it wouldn't be considered for the near future. The next day Obama goes to NH to campaign. Reid brings the measure back to the floor at or around noon on that day. The vote is held at 12:44 ET. He didn't miss the vote because he was ducking the issue. He (along with Senator McCain) missed it because of the scheduling. It happens.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/durbin-lieb-kyl-amdt/

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position

If this post comes up twice, I apologize. The first one was held for editorial approval.

Garance isn't the only one talking about this glaring fact, I assure you.

For what it's worth, I think it's time Senator Obama craft a speech along the lines of:

"Hillary Clinton would make a fine president, but I'll make a better one because..."

and then sit down and think deeply about exactly how he's different from Hillary.

It's time. They've pigeon-holed him into the purported catch-22 that he cannot continue with his "politics of hope" and still attack her. He needn't attack her. Instead he needs to turn the tables and politely and civilly describe why he'll be a better president. With the cadence of "Hillary would make a fine president, but I'll be better because..." The speech writes itself from there...

"... I have a clear sense of responsible foreign policy, hers is poll-tested to make her seem more belligerent than she truly is."
---some talk of the distortions the conventional wisdom causes if a leader lets it.

"... I've learned the reality of compromise in the Senate, but I also know the principles on which I will not compromise."
---Iran amendment. No Child Left Behind. Torture. Irresponsible tax cuts.

etc.

Catch line for a flack after the debut of the speech: "It's a tiny step from ceremonial centrism to Senator Liebermann. I don't believe the Senator from New York understands how brittle the ice is she's standing(posing?)on."

And I think it's about time he get out there and do it.

Best,

Brian

He shouldn't have missed the vote. But there's no excuse for Hillary voting (in effect) for a war on Iran.

GFR has been carrying water for HRC for almost a year now. We can never know with metaphysical certainty how Obama would have voted in 2002 but we know how Clinton voted - for the war.

So unless you are an Edwards fan, your choice comes down to someone who may have missed a vote now and then or someone with terrible judgment. I prefer the former when it comes to who will be the next president.

Excuse me, Conservative Scholar, but how and when did a non-binding Senate resolution morph into a declaration of war (in effect) on Iran? Did you read the text of the resolution in question?

GFR has been carrying water for HRC for almost a year now.

That's true. When it comes to the Dem primary, Garance is about as objective as Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, or Chelsea Clinton.

GFR has been carrying water for HRC for almost a year now.

This is about as unexpected as a Bill Kristol column circa 2004 attacking John Kerry.

The vote is held at 12:44 ET. He didn't miss the vote because he was ducking the issue. He (along with Senator McCain) missed it because of the scheduling. It happens.

It could also be that they both trusted Sen. Reid when he told them it wouldn't go to the floor anytime soon.
If the vote was announced even at 11, not 12, and was held at 12:44, it would still have been impossible for Sen. Obama to get to DC in time.
Even if he was allowed to take a supersonic fighter from Nashua Airport, and bail out to parachute onto the Capitol steps, no way.

I wonder if this is why Hillary Clinton has started to float some significant policy ideas. I think it makes Hillary appear to be more resolute versus Obama.

Throw in the fact that the Iraq liberation has as good a chance as any democratic movement and that Hillary has strongly supported it from the start. I think that her odds of winning the general election are increasing. She’s an adult in politics, who new.

"He missed the vote because Reid tabled the vote on September 25th, saying it wouldn't be considered for the near future. ...
Posted by: Keith"

There are these things called airplanes.

And the thinkprogess link you have posted in every comment section on the intertubes quotes Reid saying the vote is done for tonight we'll see about tommorrow. I guesss it depends on what the meaning of 'near future' is.

obama:
"This was a vote for war," he added. "You can't give this president a blank check and be surprised when he cashes it."

obama couldn't be bother to get on a plane and vote on something he now says was most important. Dodd, Biden and Clinton managed to make. obama? no.

Wipe the dew outta yer eyes and smell the coffee.

Kevin is correct about the 100% - Senator Peter Fitzgerald, Il-R, did make it into work that day. As one could possibly say, "I knew Peter Fitzgerald, and, you, sir, Senator Obama, are no Peter Fitzgerald" - Thank somewhere up there for that!

True enough he missed the vote, for whatever reason. That doesn't change the fact that Senator Clinton and other Democrats haven't learned anything in the last 6 years. Of course HRC doesn't believe that KLA gives the Bush Administration a blank check. No reasonable person would. Problem is we aren't talking about a reasonable person. We are talking about George Bush and Darth Vader. All indications are that they WANT to attack Iran. So why give them even a tiny amount of leeway? If nothing else, we should have learned that this administration can't be expected or trusted to the right thing.

Which I guess explains why HRC co-sponsored the Webb Amendment after the New Hampshire debate. Even she's recognized, however belatedly, that KLA ciuls be dangerous in this Administration's hands

Sorry, there is a typo in the last line of my previous post. It should read "that KLA COULD be dangerous...."

As I said, I like GFR when she's not pushing Clinton.

HadEnough, how does Barack Obama get to the airport, hop on a jet from New Hampshire and make it from National to the Capitol in time to vote within one hour? I'm wondering if Reid didn't arrange the vote this way as a favor to HRC so Obama could be haranged about it.

Donald, yes, it's a non-binding resolution. And she simply shouldn't have voted for it, knowing what we do about how we got into Iraq and what the Bush administration's plans for Iran are.

Obama is a senator only because his opponents in the primary and senate race self-destructed. Beyond that the lib media went apeshit as they do over anyone with dark skin. Just another Carole Mosely Braun hyped by the lib media. What a great senator she was after all the hype. As a resident of Mexinois, I must also apologize for Dick Durbin. The Mexicans are sending out radiation from their Univision and Telemundo TV stations that makes you love illegal aliens.

I seriously doubt he would've been absent for the 2002 vote, too.

But it takes a lot of nerve to criticize an opponent for her vote on a controversial item when you never even bothered to show up. Don't forget, he skipped the vote on MoveOn.org as well.

This strikes me as a variant of the "Obama thinks he is too good for the rest of us" meme. As other commenters point out, it's just stupid to consider a what-if ("he might have done" this") as a worse offense that what HRC actually did. Clinton has provided all sorts of clues that she will not be the president Americans want.

As for the suggestion that Obama should start an anti-HRC offense with "Hillary would make a fine president, but I'll be better because...," my 83-year old liberal mother was surprised by how hostile I am to HRC, arguing that "she has definitely looked the best in all the debates." But upon reflection, she allowed that "the only thing that troubles me is the idea of dynasty in the USA." I think Obama could start making more of the dynastic thing. I think it troubles many Americans, but Clinton's supporters are telling the electorate not to care, or even claiming that the dynasty thing is actually a good thing, not an abuse of power.

Lots of politicians waffle on a few inconvenient votes here and there, but there's simply no reason to suspect Obama would have missed the most important floor vote of the entire year if he'd been a senator in 2002.

Yeah, actually, there is. He personally characterized the 2007 vote on Iran, which he missed by choice, as a parallel to that vote in 2002. That is a pretty compelling reason to believe he would have missed the one in 2002, presuming only that he is being honest in his attack on Hillary now.

He's painted himself into a corner where the choice is to seem him as either dishonest or (and this is not an exclusive or, of course) cowardly.

OT (slightly) . . .

David Kurtz: The Language of Inevitability

Chris Bowers: It's unfortunate [Clinton] keep[s] on using that word. I do not think it means what [she] think it means. And if there is something that really is politics as usual, it is using the same line, again and again, no matter the context.

By all means, Democrats should choose a presidential nominee that's bad at successfully campaigning against their opponent, by using tried and true campaign tactics that are not illegal, immoral, or unethical!

That's a sure way for Democrats to win the presidency in 2008!

In news from the real world, Clinton has now increased her lead over both Guiliani and Thompson:

Rasmussen: Riding a crest in her political appeal, Senator Hillary Clinton now leads former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani 48% to 41%. She also claims a stunning double-digit lead of 52% to 37% over former Senator Fred Thompson.

Damn! She's doing everything wrong.

Doesn't she know it's more important to appease the looney tune Naderites and Obama sycophants than to beat the GOP nominee in 2008!

Foolish, foolish woman!

No difference between her and Guiliani.

NO DIFFERENCE YOU HEAR!

Well, at least according to various deranged commenters whose lust for ideological purity and perfect harmony with their own narrowly-focused priorities is more paramount than controlling both Congress and the White House in 2008.

(NOTE: Not suggesting that Kurtz shares Bowers opinion or that he is necessarily criticizing Clinton's tactics; Kurtz's post is referenced primarily for context.)

Your're right Paula, it does take a lot nerve. How dare he criticize HRC for believing that the Bush Administration won't use this vote as evidence that the Senate supports attacking Iran, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Who the hell does he think he is? Next thing you know he's going to say that her hasty decision to co-sponsor the Webb Amendment after the fact suggests that his criticism is spot on.

Good thing we got this vote dodger's number, otherwise we'd actually have to look at the substance of what he's saying. Hey, why isn't he wearing a flag lapel pin?!?!!?

Boy, she really lives up to her Good for Republicans tag.

mickslam: Boy, she really lives up to her Good for Republicans tag.

Reprise my 11:50 AM post.

KJ: How dare he criticize HRC for believing that the Bush Administration won't use this vote as evidence that the Senate supports attacking Iran, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

A perfectly appropriate and well-deserved criticism from anybody other than Obama.

If it is important enough to criticize, then it was important enough to be there and vote against it.

Obama and Nader supporters keep ranting that it is important to take a stand, even if it isn't a winning one in terms of actually getting elected or a law passed, but then let Obama off the hook for not taking the same type of stand they insist that Clinton and other Democrats take.

Make up your minds or find a new tune to sing.

If it is important enough to criticize, then it was important enough to be there and vote against it.

It's these types of disingenous statements that make it difficult for us to effect real change in America. Instead of dealing with the substance of the charge (HRC's judgment in trusting GWB and his adminstration to the right thing), we spend time contemplating why Senator Obama missed the vote. The facts are pretty clear on what happened, but it's better to speculate that he did it intentionally to avoid taking a stand. If we didn't do that, then we would be left looking at HRC and wondering, if she doesn't think KLA could be used by GWB and Darth to attack Iran, why did she quietly endorse the Webb Amendment after she took flak from Mike Gravel at the last debate? Or why she trusts GWB and Darth to do the right thing, when they misled her and the American public in the lead up to the war in Iraq?

I'm sure she has a valid explanation for all of this, but it doesn't matter--He missed the vote.

Obama is a senator only because his opponents in the primary and senate race self-destructed....Luther at 11:23 AM

Terrence Baga-Ruta of Blabbingheads interviews Carmela Hayersprai and Ann Altmouse about the situation in Myanmar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNnjmHGKTx8

KJ: It's these types of disingenous statements that make it difficult for us to effect real change in America.

If the vote wasn't important, then Clinton's choice of which way to vote wasn't important.

The only one being disingenuous is you, by pretending we should pay attention to the substance of Obama's criticism, no matter how minor the issue, and clearly it was minor for Obama since he didn't show.

What about that don't you get?

Obama criticizing Clinton for her vote on this measure is like Bush criticizing the UN for not doing enough about genocide in Darfur.

Others might have a right and reason to criticize the UN for its lack of vigorous action, but Bush does not.

Others might have a right and reason to criticize Clinton for her vote on the measure, but Obama does not.

And, yes, it matters as much as Clinton's vote that Obama is being a wussy on these votes and not stepping up to the plate so he can avoid having to explain why he voted one way or the other - he wants to have his cake and eat it to and HRC is going to take all of his cake away and pig out if Obama continues to duck votes on controversial legislation.

Not that I'm defending Obama on this one, but when did Obama and Nader become equivalent? Is it "Support Hillary all the way or we will call you a fringe lunatic" now? WTF is that?

I have to agree with the pov that Obama is trying to eat his cake and have it (which btw is the way the expression/quote actually works, for anyone can have their cake and eat it, the trying to have it both ways only works if you try to eat your cake and still have it...this is one of those mangled quotes that feels like fingernails down a blackboard for me whenever I encounter it) regarding using how he would vote on issues as proof of his better judgment to attack his opponent(s) while missing those described important/controversial votes. Whether it is fair or not it invites the kind of criticism seen in this thread and elsewhere regarding his calling/describing votes as being as important as the 2002 war authorization while not making sure he would be there to vote against it even if it cut into his campaigning time. Given that Obama's main line of attack is how his judgment is better this missing of votes he calls important is just begging for his being called a coward and/or hypocrite, indicating if nothing else a less than stellar political judgment by leaving such an easy opening for his political rivals/opponents.

It is also rather disingenuous to claim such and such a vote is so important that how your opponent voted is a major tell in their character/fitness for leadership when you didn't vote at all, especially if you have a record of missing (for whatever given reasons) of missing important/controversial votes, especially if you then later use the way your opponents voted as a line of attack. As has been noted by others this is just begging to be branded a hypocrite and/or coward and/or expediency first driven politics, all things Obama is trying to appear he is not. No, I think Obama is making a mistake with this line of attack given his own actions, for he invites this very type of attack and has little than can refute it given his limited record to compare against.

Remember folks, I am an outsider looking in; I have no dog in this fight. I am simply calling it as I see it without preference for who wins the Dem nomination, so long as the GOP is defeated is enough for me and that only because of how dangerous their policies (both international AND domestic because of how closely linked our economies and other institutions are) are to both my country and the planet we all live on. This comment is not motivated by anything resembling preference/partisanship and is simply an assessment of what I see here.

Centerfielder:

What's disingenous about your statement is that you are drawing a conclusion (he didn't think the vote was important) that isn't supported by the facts as we know them.

When the vote was originally scheduled, Obama was on the floor of the senate prepared to vote. Reid tabled it, saying that it would not be up for a vote in the near future. The next day it was brought up for a vote at noon (actual vote occurs at 12:44 ET). We don't know when Reid notify Senators about the vote, but both Obama and Senator McCain (both campaigning) missed the vote.

Those are the facts (the links supporting this information is at the top of the post if you want to confirm what I am saying). If you are privy to some additional facts that support your conclusions, by all means, share them so that we can view Senator Obama's comments in full context. But in the absence of those additional facts, it is disingenuous to conclude that he missed the vote because he didn't think it was important or that he was reluctant to step up to the plate.

All candidates have private planes. If Obama wanted to be there, he would have but he intentionally missed it knowwing it was a controversial vote. So stop the excuse about scheduling conflict.

Obama and Nader are not equivalent, this was neither expressly or implicitly stated, but the anti-Clinton hatred being spewed by their supporters is the same, as is both the reasoning and the tactics of those attacks.

And both engage in exaggerated offense at any suggestion that they aren't playing nice with others and hurting Democratic chances in 2008.

BTW, I favor Edwards, not Clinton, but am realistic enough to know that Clinton is better than Guiliani or any other Republican.

How about you?

KJ: What's disingenous about your statement is that you are drawing a conclusion (he didn't think the vote was important) that isn't supported by the facts as we know them.

The only fact that is relevant is that he didn't show and he didn't ensure he was present whenever that vote was held.

Remember, Obama and his supporters are effectively characterizing this vote as the most important vote held since the vote to authorize military action in Iraq (under certain conditions that Bush failed to abide by) and that the choice of vote on the measure is a critically important determinative of the candidate's character, values, and policy positions.

You simply don't miss a vote like that in favor of campaign activities.

At the very least, the criticism of Obama for missing the vote is every bit as valid as a criticism of how Clinton voted on it.

In any event, it is not a winning appeal by Obama, as it will appeal only to the ideologues in the party, failing to garner broader appeal by which to actually threaten HRC's lead, while potentially undermining her later chances of success against the GOP nominee.

Some attacks by party members against other party members are counterproductive and this is one of them.

I am simply calling it as I see it without preference for who wins the Dem nomination, so long as the GOP is defeated is enough for me ...

Posted by: Scotian

Right after reading the above, I read this in today's NYT:

"Kennedy is the lone surviving son in his storied political family. His eldest brother, Joseph, was killed in a World War II airplane crash; President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 and Robert was assassinated in 1968."

We all need to keep our eyes on the prize.

Obama and Nader are not equivalent, this was neither expressly or implicitly stated, but the anti-Clinton hatred being spewed by their supporters is the same, as is both the reasoning and the tactics of those attacks

I think not. With few exceptions, the general tone of criticism against HRC on this blog has been along the lines of: "She concedes way too much to the right; I'm not convinced that she's going to be serious about healthcare reform/ending the war; she is too pro-big business" and so forth, generally supported by specific and quite valid examples, drawn from HRC's own record, of why someone could hold such concerns.

This is almost always followed by "...but I will support her in the general if she's the candidate, because of course a GOP president would be worse." Only very rarely does someone supporting Obama (or Edwards, for that matter) threaten to withhold a vote from her in the general election if (when) their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination.

This is in stark contrast to the all-or-nothing attitude almost universally displayed by Nader supporters, who, as I shouldn't need to tell you, don't feel that Clinton would be superior to a Republican president.

It's unfortunate that HRC takes so much unjustified guff that many of her supporters now seem unable to distinguish between foolish vitriol and legitimate criticisms of actual HRC votes/speeches/policy proposals.

BTW, I favor Edwards, not Clinton, but am realistic enough to know that Clinton is better than Guiliani [sic] or any other Republican.

How about you?

Ah, reinforcing the "Are you going to assimilate or not?" tone of your previous posts. Nicely done with just the right hint of aggression.

See above--or you can do a search for my recent posts on this very topic.

By 'important votes' apparently people mean 'votes which wouldn't have changed the outcome either way'

Though for most of them, it's pretty obvious why he missed them - the Iran vote wasn't scheduled in advance, the Move On one didn't deserve a response, wouldn't have changed for voting against it anyhow...

shortstop: Ah, reinforcing the "Are you going to assimilate or not?" tone of your previous posts.

Ah, pretty much the tone of Nader supporters.

"I refuse to accept any nominee that is not Nader."

"I refuse to accept any nominee that is not Dean."

"I refuse to accept any nominee that is not Obama."

"I refuse to accept any nominee that is not [X]."

"I'd rather have a GOP president, see massive obstruction of justice, torture, economic inequality, and warmongering, than vote for Clinton/Gore/Kerry/[Y]."

Nicely done, with just the right hint of self-righteous arrogance.

Sorta like the tone coming from Obama himself.

For the record, it seems completely baseless to me. Lots of politicians waffle on a few inconvenient votes here and there, but there's simply no reason to suspect Obama would have missed the most important floor vote of the entire year if he'd been a senator in 2002. Considering that all 100 senators were there, he would have been rather conspicuous by his absence.
—Kevin Drum
=============================================================
Kevin, by picking fly shit out of the pepper, you are missing the point. Talk is cheap, & so far, all Obama has done is talk. There have been several controversial Senate votes in the past month that Obama chose to skip, taking the easy way out. That tells me that if he had been able to vote in 2002, he more likely would have ducked that controversy by voting with the mob, regardless of what he says now. Talk is cheap, & every day Obama turns me off a little more with his lack of confronting issues on the record. While I don't agree with some of Clinton's votes, at least she put herself on the record, which leaves me with more respect for her than for him.

That is a shame because I like his message. However, I want to know when he is going to show some guts.

It is hardly surprising that Clinton is engaged in political positioning (posturing?) that is much like her husband's. It is a prescription for political success. Her husband's two terms and her rising fortunes in the polls prove it. Of course, it is early and many things could happen to derail her candidacy, but people who are criticizing her apparently want to be losers again in 2008, wanting to embrace people with no political savvy and who can't win as long as they fail to embrace such tactics (which are not immoral, unethical, or illegal, no matter how distasteful liberal purists find them).

Here's a clue: Americans are not going to vote for someone perceived as too far to the left.

Four of our last five presidents have been southern white males and the fifth (Reagan) might as well have been, as he had all of the same characteristics, and all except Reagan campaigned on fairly moderate policies (although Bush 43 certainly didn't embrace the policies he campaigned on).

Gore, who actually won the popular vote, which makes his candidacy a pretty good weathervane for public opinion, was also a white southern male.

Edwards, despite consistently running third within Democrats, has until recently provided the best matchups against possible GOP opponents. Again, a southern white male.

Kerry, a northern white male, didn't do as well as Gore.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

That is no accident, this is reality, no matter how unfortunate.

Clinton has adopted a moderate tone to her campaign and in her votes and quite frankly her record looks pretty much like a southern white male Democrat's would and it is a successful strategy.

Obama has not and it's hurt him.

Clinton has shown she's an in-fighter and willing to both give and take as necessary to accomplish things in a divided government and appeal to the majority of Americans.

Obama has not shown these traits; instead, he's shown the type of self-righteous, pompous, arrogant, obsessive liberal ideological fundamentalism that Howard Dean and Ralph Nader embraced.

That's a losing proposition.

You don't win the presidency in 2008, you win nothing, you accomplish nothing.

All Obama supporters will be able to do is pat themselves on the back for backing the "right" horse, instead of the "winning" horse, just like Dean and Nader supporters did.

But you will still be losers.

If Obama wants to be elected, he'd better change tactics and start showing up for votes, no matter how good or lame his excuses are.

Just sayin'.

Weren't 99 Senators there for this vote?

Ah, pretty much the tone of Nader supporters.

"I refuse to accept any nominee that is not Nader."

"I refuse to accept any nominee that is not Dean."

"I refuse to accept any nominee that is not Obama."

"I refuse to accept any nominee that is not [X]."

"I'd rather have a GOP president, see massive obstruction of justice, torture, economic inequality, and warmongering, than vote for Clinton/Gore/Kerry/[Y]."

Uh, yeah. Except that, you know, I just observed that almost everyone criticizing Clinton here has not made any statement of the kind; with the exception of Nader supporters, which you inexplicably continue to lump in with anyone who criticizes Clinton or prefers another major candidate, nearly everyone has said they'll support her if she's the nominee.

Nice la-la-la-fingers-in-your-ears post, though. Keep this up and people will start to think you've got a beloved narrative you're compelled to repeat ad nauseam, regardless of what anyone else is actually saying.

Oops. Too late.

shortstop: "It's unfortunate that HRC takes so much unjustified guff that many of her supporters now seem unable to distinguish between foolish vitriol and legitimate criticisms of actual HRC votes/speeches/policy proposals."

You are making excellent points in this thread, national treasure. It just struck me that one could substitute GWB for HRC in this statement of yours, and it would be equally true. ("It's unfortunate that GWB takes so much unjustified guff that many of [his] supporters now seem unable to distinguish between foolish vitriol and legitimate criticisms of actual GWB votes/speeches/policy proposals.") It gives me chills to think that we are already seeing those patterns of total conformity to the Dear Leader, and she isn't even the Democratic nominee yet.

Those of us who really don't want to vote for HRC in Nov 2008 will still cast our votes for her if she is the Democratic candidate, but I, for one, will be angry about it. I don't think the Clinton juggernaut thinks past the triumph of winning in Nov 08. I suppose they figure that her brilliant success will cause all to be forgiven, but if she turns out to be a disappointment, what then?

Clinton 2008: Sure I vote the wrong way but at least I show up

pstt - did I mention Maggie Williams thinks Obama is goldbrickin'

Obama has not shown these traits; instead, he's shown the type of self-righteous, pompous, arrogant, obsessive liberal ideological fundamentalism that Howard Dean and Ralph Nader embraced.

So now Dean is the ideological equivalent of Nader as well?!? I'm sure you could get away with that at freerepublic but who do you think you are fooling here? Hey Gore endorsed Dean, maybe he's a Naderite too! And didn't Hillary's husband pick Gore as his VP for 8 years? Naderites, all of them!

I can see by your handle you consider yourself some sort of pragmatic, clear-eyed straight-talker, but your tendency to distort and generalize about other Democrats in the field demonstrates something else. I happen to think your point about Obama missing the vote might have some validity, it's a pity you've chosen to cloak it in alienating, dishonest rhetoric.

Should Hillary win the nomination, I hope she'll chose a different path.

When you're sick and tired of all the negatives Clinton and Obama bring, then look at Edwards. At long last look at Edwards. He can provide real leadership.

. . . but if she turns out to be a disappointment, what then?

Less disappointing than Gore, Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, Reid, Pelosi, Conyers, Nader, Obama, etc?

Those who desire perfection are forever doomed to be disappointed in all aspects of life, but particularly in politics.