I have to say that there is a lot of truth in this. Attitude alone will not create the change, but it certainly helps grease the skids quite a bit.

So, the Obama = good vs Clinton = bitch is different how?

Interesting....I don't know how many are as old as I (I think I'm significantly older than GD and CP, but NA has me by quite a bit :D ), but it seems then that a lot of the excitement over Obama is pretty much the same as the excitement over Reagan in 1980.

A president is only as good as the team they assemble. Despite what Gore may think, you can't micromanage an entire country. You HAVE to have a team, and you have to be able to lead that team. In the end, the TEAM is going to make or break the administration.

Hillary, well, we have a pretty good idea of the team she's likely to assemble because she's (kinda) been there before. And that's fine if we want same old, same old. But that's the "same old same old" that led to the tech bubble, which caused the current leader**** to try and recover the economy through housing, thus in a roundabout way leading to the current economic crisis.

OR,

We can go for someone who has proven himself to be a very charismatic leader - enough that several ex-republicans on this board are jumping on his bandwagon - and hope (yeah, hope) that he can assemble a different team, who will take the country in a different direction than before.

(And yes, I know the danger of charisma, let's not invoke Godwin's Law just to beat a dead horse)

I didn't use that word, so I won't defend it. But I will say that I don't really understand the comparison you're trying to draw. Liking one individual politician over another does not equate to partisanship. It si not the wholelsale dismisal of opposing ideas based on nothing but political affiliation. It's making a value judgement based on an individual's qualities, and it's an inherent necessity of electing an indivudal to office.

Hmm... that starred word was supposed to say leadership... I'm guessing there was a (rather apropos) typo

There have been several examples in this thread of a a division within the Democratic party over how wonderful Obama is at the expense of Clinton. It's the same divisiveness that has been inherent in politics for a good long time and it doesn't represent ANY type of the change and good that it seems Obama is touting. It's the same old thing with new names.

At this point, with a race too close to call, ANY person who doesn't want McCain in office better start seeing the positive points of BOTH Clinton and Obama because it could easily be either one of them prepreseting the Dems in the election.

The Clinton bashing is just more of the same BS and doesn't represent any type of change that it seems Obama supporters are so excited about.

But there's something to be said, in that vein, about electability.

I *won't* be voting for Clinton if she wins. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to turn around and vote for McCain, I'm totally undecided on that front right now, might vote for the Libertarian candidate just to make a point. But if Clinton is the nominee, this is one less swing voter to vote Dem. OTOH, I've decided if Obama gets the nod, I'll vote for him.

If Obama can pick up non-democrats, AND he can get the democrat vote, then he's more electable than Hillary.

Yes, but he has to be elected within his own party first. At this point, it isn't a done deal. And, continued bashing of Clinton isn't going to make it so without disgusting others.

I have two separate opinions:

1. Hillary Clinton would be a bad leader of this country
2. Barrack Obama might be a good leader of the country

Neither is dependent on the other: it is not a "Vs." thing for me.