Submitted by Patrick Ela, Feb 14, 2008 12:17

Michelle Obama once commented words to the effect that "She might or might not vote for Hillary if she were the Democratic nominee--She'd have to see how she felt about her "tone."" Similarly, many Hillary Clinton supporters are not impressed with Obama. I,for one, think he lacks substance, experience and knowledge about how to get things done. He reminds me, in this sense of Dubbya in 2000, and, in point of fact he's already using some ads showing cross-party support to show that like George W. Bush he's a "uniter not a divider." We've heard that before. We don't need another president with broad ideas, and no specifics who then relies on everyone else to implement them. We have had an inept and reckless government in Washington for the past 7 years. I don't want that again for the next four. Obama's anti war argument with Clinton is bogus. He wasn't a Senator at the time. He wasn't fully informed; to utilize fact that "he was against the war from the beginning" is disingenuous. I was against the war against the beginning too--I wrote to my congressional representatives urging that they vote against it. They didn't listen. They were wrong, I was right. So what? When I hear Hillary's logic for why she voted to support the concept of the use of force and realize how Dubbya abused and twisted the mandate, it find little sympathy for Obama's comment. The fact that Obama was against the war at the beginning is a slender hook on which to hand ones presidential credentials. It's just not enough to justify his election. The point of all this is that many Democrats, like Michell Obama vis-a-vis Hillary, would have to think long and hard about supporting Obama, if he were the nominee. I know I would, and I'm a life-long Democrat. This is a fact that should be taken into consideration by voters and pollsters alike.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.