Yes, I do. I'll say it again - You mean to tell me, with all those years of experience, she didn't do much more than he did?

You know, I have to say that nothing has turned me off from Obama more than the Hillary bashing that has taken place here. Change? What change? It's the same old BS. It make me glad I voted for Clinton - even if it was a difficult decision. Now, I'm pretty happy with my choice.

I voted for Obama. However, I can't say I'm moved by the excited people behind him. Reminds me of the Ross Perot phenomenon. In general, there are too many people in this country who can't be "energized" to vote unless their candidate is "the next big thing" or they're being asked to "throw the bums out" in some term limits vote. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike, but there are meaningful differences. A Libertarian or a Green vote is just a lazy, whiny protest vote that, as we saw with Nader, can have damaging consequences.

Did you want to respond to the actual statistics I quoted, or did you want to repeat that you like Clinton? I already read that part a few posts ago. I fail to see how my post is bashing, I'm quoting statistics.

Wow. "Either yer Red or yer Blue, and if ya don't fit, yer a whiner and a troublemaker!" Oh yeah, Us vs. Them, that's always been the way to fixing things.

Purple and Proud

Neither.

Ok, 'splain yourself. I have to admit I didn't hear the speech.

So what exactly were you reacting to? Where's the bashing?

In his victory speech last night he made several statements against Obama but nothing against Clinton. So he was acting (or pretending to) on the assumption that Obama will be his opponent.

I am not concerned about how many bills were passed or cosponsored or whatever. I frankly don't understand why that's a measuring stick, but I prefer the mantra of that government is best that governs least.

I would argue that the candidacy of Perot had damaging consequences.

I tend to agree with McCain's assertion of "eloquent but empty". It's all hype and a packaged image designed, IMO, to hide his far left agenda and views. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of agenda. They'll go about it differently, but it's all the same in the end.

The sad reality is that it's every voter's duty to vote for the least worst candidate who stands a legitimate chance of winning. Voting for Perot in '92--which helped elect Clinton--was not a garbage vote the same way voting for Nader in 2000 or Perot in '96 was. It appeared for a while that Perot in '92 had, scarily, a chance to win.

Green and Libertarian candidates have effectively zero national profile. Nader, for all his good work, was a celebrity candidate. Unless someone who identifies as Green or Libertarian is willing to devote all their free time to building the profile of these parties in the public consciousness, simply pulling the lever for them every four years is whiny "throw the bums out" stuff and is no better than staying home.