David - Regardless of whether you go for Hillary or Barak (or even one of the Rebublicans - hey, everyone's entitled to an opinion) what has ME feeling hopeful this time around is the number of those "dis-engaged" voters who seem to be involved this time around.

I heard last night on Larry King that there were around 72 MILLION voters in 2004 who were eligible to vote and didn't, many of them younger people. It sounds and looks like many of those voters are engaged this time around, and that can only be a good thing, regardless of who they vote for.

This election could end up being historic, and it will almost certainly be fascinating to watch.

Agreed, Kristen. And it waren't Hillary Clinton who stirred most of those 72 million souls.

It was Obama.

And, of course, Bush.

My problem this time around is that there's no real choice at all. Not even between Democrats and Republicans. I'm talking about principles of governance, period--not communication ability, not emotionality, not whether people are falling in love with the person as if he or she were some movie star.

IN THEORY, I would be very proud of my country for electing either a woman or a black man president. However, both Obama and Hillary are at the top of the most-liberal-ever list of Senators--they're nearly identical in votes to build the size of government to fix all problems. McCain--while he is undoubtedly a courageous man and would be tough on terrorists, which is critical--is a liberal Democrat in almost every other way. Fred Thompson provided a real difference--his voting record has been steadfast--but Whoop! There he goes. So there's Romney: he has a spectacular business and economic record but the other parts of his portfolio aren't so transparent.

For liberal Democrats, this election must be like a day at Disneyland: The Happiest Place on Earth; no candidate is a bad candidate. But for people who want tough measures to keep us safe in our own country; who believe that our health care system can certainly be improved but even in its current state is light years ahead of any other system in the world; and who believe that under the Constitution, government's job is to keep us safe and protect our liberties, and that it mostly creates black holes for our money to fall into when it sticks its nose into other parts of our lives--for those people, this election is a wasteland.

"its current state is light years ahead of any other system in the world"

Jane, all due respect, but just coming out of a job in healthcare for the last ten years, I totally disagree with this statement. And when more and more people can't afford insurance and companies can no longer afford to provide it and break even simultaneously, I don't know how it can't change drastically.

Don't feel bad, Jane: on my end of the continuum there's lots of people who also feel there's no choice: All the candidates are beholden to corporations and other dirty money, and none are calling for drastic enough measures in health care, education, economy, etc.

You liked Thompson and feel screwed. Those who liked Kucinich feel screwed too.

Although the left probably feels a little less screwed this election year, I guess, than usual.

Eileen, of course it needs to improve. But all the countries that I see thrown up as "models" have systems that are even more screwed up than ours: longer waits, less choice, more difficulty getting coverage for less-than-routine procedures, dirtier facilities, substandard docs. Why is it that people from around the world spend the money to come to the U.S. when they run out of options where they live? It's because we can help their illness and we're not (yet) bureaucratized into stupefaction.

Jane - But right now I have an acquaintance who needs surgery on two discs in his back. No one in the U.S. can do the surgery at the same time, which requires two surgeries, two bills, and two recoveries. However, he can go to three different countries and have it done for a fraction of the cost.

My question remains: Is it still good if you can get the procedure even if the procedure breaks your bank as well as the collective "banks" of employers?

Eileen, I'm happy your acquaintance found a solution somewhere. I believe the lengths to which he had to go, however, are the exception rather than the rule. For every story like this, I believe there are hundreds about people who, for a variety of reasons, couldn't get what they needed in their country and came here to get it. If I'm wrong, show me how. I want to know.

>

Jane, I appreciate your comment but feel compelled to share my experience of this election as one of those liberal Democrats.

How best to put it?

In the 4th grade, we took a field trip to Seldom Seen Valley Coal Mine--a deep mine turned tourist trap (it's Pennsylvania, folks, that's what we do). This election, for me, has brought that experience to mind: a slow and terrible decent into blind disorientation.

To give you an indication of my politics, I want to sleep with Dennis Kucinich. This guy represents everything I believe this country could be, should be. Of course, he had no chance but he inspired me and awakened a sense of promise I've never felt in my adult life. His little story includes its own series of heartaches including repeated and suspicious exclusions from the debates. But the time would come and it did: he dropped out.

The next obvious choice for me: Edwards.

Fast forward a few weeks, Edwards bails.

And now I am left with the single most difficult election decision I've ever faced in my life: Obama vs Clinton.

I'm a political geek, I guess. I find my ballot online, print it out ahead of time, research endorsements, do lots of homework and mark the whole thing up so I can take it with me to the booth as a cheat sheet.

Would you believe that until yesterday I had the entire ballot marked with my choices--except for the first section?

I decided yesterday morning to go with Obama. My reasons are flimsy and sad.

I much prefer Clinton's mental acuity. I am moved by her steely tenacity. And I believe her experience is significant enough to matter in the long run.

But I feel I have to defer to the greater issue of that which ails this country: polarization.

I've reluctantly medidated on all of this. Asked myself the question: "Who is most likely to bridge this divide?" Not "Whose policies move me?" Not "Whose voting records have stood the test of time?" Rather, "Who is best suited to lasso these disparate parts into one?"

I voted this morning. And once again filled in the whole of the ballot, leaving the first part blank. Giving myself a last chance to change my mind.

I came very close to voting for Clinton. But in the end I do fear that she will not be able to warm the masses the way Obama might.

And so, once and for all, the top part of my ballot was completed.

I voted for Obama today.

But when I walked away from the booth, it wasn't like getting off a ride at Disneyland.

In fact, as I left the church basement on Leavitt, I had to fight the urge to cry.

I feel your pain, Suki. But Edwards is a hypocrite of the first order. Everything he likes to scold the rest of us about, he does himself, up there in his big energy-eating mansion asking staffers to help him get to the front of the line to buy a Playstation 3. Oops! A staffer called the Antichrist (a/k/a WalMart) and the rest is history. Two Americas? Yes, one for him and one for the rest of us. If one more candidate shakes his or her finger in my face (the face of the rest of us, the face of the public) and says, "Shame on you!" for things that that candidate does a thousand times a day, I'm going to punch a hole in the wall, along with my friends Jim (Beam) and Jack (Daniels).

Ah, now we're getting to the real crux of the matter. Politics will always drive you to want a drink.

Jane, I understand and agree. I did not happily embrace Edwards by any means. (My problem with him were his inconsistencies in what he represented and what he lived. But with him, I could glom on to what he represented--at the very, very least.)

I was merely trying to illustrate the fact that as the election unfolded my options became less and less appetizing. Like sitting at a banquet table, watching the dishes being pulled away. And in the end asked to pick between Alpo and Alpo.

And now we fan the flames of hope--hope that all Americans can be united, as Jane and Suki have, in our shared despair.

It's pathetic, isn't it? We all deserve better. And the saddest part is, I can't think of a name that I'd want to insert in the question, "Where is ____ when we need him/her?"

Suki, let's start a new party: the Network Party. Slogan: "We're mad as hell, and we're not gonna takt it any more!"

Yes. The deed has been done. (I forgot to mention that I slept horribly last night. Tossed and turned for 7 hours--dreaming about Clinton and Obama. Sad, so sad, but scout's honor: true.)

Anyway, onward.

After today, I will consciously choose to make the election up until this point irrevelant.

And will merge with the frantic hordes so desperately clinging to hope.

Yes, Jane, it is pathetic.

And I like your idea for a new party.

God bless America.

To David's original point about some suggesting that Obama is a lightweight because he is a good communicator, I think it's also worth acknowledging that just because he is a good communictor doesn't make him a heavyweight either (and I know you were not suggesting that it does, David).

Being able to connect with the people can be hugely important for a president. There will be times in a presidency when that ability can define the nation's path forward. But there will also be times, particularly behind closed doors when the business of governing is more important than the business of politics, when a good speech will not be enough (although it always seemed enough on The West Wing - man I miss that show!)

Being a good communicator absolutely does not make a candidate a lightweight. But Obama, like any candidate, needs to offer more than that to go from being a good politician to being a great president. I honestly don't know if he does or doesn't have that something more. I'd like to think he does. Like so many, I'd like to hope he does.

But then again, I'm Canadian so it doesn't matter what I think. I do love being a spectator though, especially this time around.

Another interesting perspective on this question, from another Ragan blog:

http://blog.ragan.com/speechblog/

I had a tough time following all this after reading that one of you wants to sleep with Dennis Kucinich.

Will

Frankly, I'm jealous of all of you who had (or will have) a choice of who to vote for in the primaries/caucuses, and that your vote counted.

Why do I say that? Because I live in Michigan, and because our wise party leaders decided to move the primary to early January - breaking party rules - the national party took away all of our delgates. So it didn't matter who I voted for - it didn't count.

When I heard about this, my first thought was “How could they (the state party) let this happen?” and then “How could they do this to us?” The rules may be unfair, but they are THE RULES. So while I do think the rules should change, I put the blame for this squarely in the lap of the Michigan dems.

Boy, I'm getting steamed again just thinking about this!

Don't worry, Andrea, you've got a lot of company in Florida. Same thing happened there with the moving of the Dem primary date.

After the last seven-plus years, it will be refreshing to have a president who's a good speaker, no matter how he or she runs the country.

Hey, Greg: Adolf Hitler was a GREAT speaker....

This whole thread has led me to think about why I did not participate in Alaska's "super Tuesday," which was actually a pretty big deal up here, because up to now we've relegated our presidential primary opportunities to our regular August primary election cycle. So this was huge for both the major parties, and participation was high.

I am registered non-partisan. Both parties touted the opportunity to reregister on the spot in order to participate in the primary. And I could have done that--switched to one of the parties for the day, then switched back to non-partisan. But I didn't.

My experience of party politics, at least in this state, has been that it's little more than a stage for large egos to develop. Big frogs in small ponds. My observation of political parties generally is that it's a breeding ground for extremists. And I'm one of what I consider to be that vast majority in the unrepresented middle. I have leanings, depending on the issue; but I just can't swallow the whole cloth of a party platform.

I know that my resistance leads simply to self-imposed marginalization when it comes to this pre-selection of our president. It bums me out; but I just could not bring myself to affiliate myself with a party, even for a day.

Am I all alone in this?

Joan, you are not alone. What I hear you longing for is someone who acts according to good principles, consistently, regardless of the situation and regardless of polls. We who share your longing are legion.

But what to do? It requires that those of us who feel this way get verbal, write letters to editors, and challenge our friends who say they like a candidate because he or she will "bring change" or "appeal to young people" or "work well with both parties." We need to DEMAND candidates who can verbalize what they stand for--not what they would do for health care, or defense, or immigration, but what they STAND FOR. The big principles. And then they need to prove that they've acted in accordance with those principles.

It's a huge job, and sometimes I'm just too tired to do it. But then we have the so-called "Super Tuesday" in North Dakota and I get inspired all over again....

The fallacy behind Hillary Clinton's candidacy and the magic behind Obama's comes down to one basic thing--as the US becomes less able to control economic or political outcomes in the world, America's ability to have influence will depend on its ability to lead as opposed to its willingness to legislate. Hillary Clinton loves government and thinks it can solve all problems. Barack Obama thinks the solutions and coalitions will need to grow beyond government. He gets what this century is all about.