and Obama has continued to VOTE on funding the war.

So, what is the diff?

Sorry, but I just have to call you out on the fact that in response to what is a generally positive diary trying to point out some issues that would allow some to more appropriately direct anger that might currently be directed to Obama for reasons having nothing to do with this election or him personally, you have to go and make a personal attack on Hillary supporters by painting them all with some negative brush stroke.  While you might like to believe you have the perfect candidate, he is not perfect and there are many valid concerns with his potential win of the nomination...and some of us are trying to discuss those real issues.  You are doing nothing to assist in the unity process, and in fact are damaging the chances of unity, by your attitude--I'll simply ask that you keep that in mind going forward if you really want a Democrat in the White House.  

And by the way, I think the Democrats could stand to learn a thing or two about running a legitimate campaign that would also further make it feel like it's been a "fair election."      

ok, so you agree.  
Reactive accounts and privledges, word gets around.

Trolling will not be an issue anymore now that the Primary is over.

Trolls will be more aparent as there is no reason for a Democrat to do it anymore.

if she tells me that he's the change we can believe in and yes we can, then maybe i'll pull the lever for him after i take some dramamine.

i mean, WE DEMOCRATS accuse the republicans of scare tactics all the time. yet, the main argument for obama in novemeber seems to be that he's not mccain. mccain = evil. mccain = more bush years. mccain = torture and war. yes, we need change. but i also want a competent leader. if i have to wait another 4 years, fine.

i'm sorry. but try convincing middle america that a man who was a POW is evil. try convincing middle america that a man who has a son in iraq wants the very worst for our troops. to me, it looks like a november with the map soaked in red and the dems once again feeling the blues.

well this is one Illinoian who does!!  

Regarding your comment on Barack's subcommitte, I guess you're just silly enough then to believe that simply the title of something tells you everything there is to know about it?  So let me site for you, direct from the Senate's website at http://foreign.senate.gov/jurisdiction.h tml :

"SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
Barack Obama, Chairman
Jim DeMint, Ranking Member

Jurisdiction:
The subcommittee deals with all matters concerning U.S. relations with the countries on the continent of Europe (except the states of Central Asia that are within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs), and with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Matters relating to Greenland and the northern polar region are also the responsibility of this subcommittee.

This subcommittee's responsibilities include all matters within the geographic region relating to: (1) terrorism and non-proliferation; (2) crime and illicit narcotics; (3) U.S. foreign assistance programs; and (4) the promotion of U.S. trade and exports."

So when NATO is reporting that Germany and other European countries are not fulfilling their duties in Afghanistan that the U.S. and other countries are paying the price for in casualties, yes, that would certainly fall under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.  But I just cited many more articles downthread with references, so I'll leave it at that.  

With respect to your second comment, there's a difference between "not fully explaining" your opposition's position and deliberately misrepresenting it in print and on the stump (or misrepresenting your own for that matter).  

Regarding the Illinois voters, I'd have to agree with another commenter that I've heard and seen many comments by other Illinois voters that he doesn't exactly have their full support.  And so far (and I have looked fairly extensively), I'm afraid I've only seen an "urgency of now" as it relates to his own goals, rather than any evidence that shows why he felt he was apparently the only one able to provide what the country needs now.

I've already discussed the foreign policy endlessly all over this site...but I'll be succinct in saying that he's not convinced me "he's got a better handle on foreign policy than anyone else currently in the race"...quite the opposite. (And just a reminder, since he didn't have to actually place a vote on the Iraq war, and he's on record while supporting other cnadidates that voted for the war as having said he's not sure what he would have done had he had to vote, that it's again not as simply as saying he was "right on the Iraq war".)  

Honestly, you don't know me and I don't know you, but we have our differing opinions (although I feel I can stand fairly firmly on mine considering the thoroughly researched facts on which I've based them...still it comes down to what's important to me vs. what's important to you)--however, I can assure you I was simply trying to address the facts as I did as important issues to me without any "smack of window dressing for some other reason."  If and when I address other issues, I'll be very clear that I'm addressing those issues--but these are the issues that have been important to me. (If anything, those who've seen some of my frequent posts here have probably realized I'm fairly thorough in what I'm trying to say...perhaps to a fault...but I don't mince words, so please don't accuse me of any hidden agenda as there is not one.)

It was directed to you, and thanks for the response.  

I'm not interested in claiming anything like perfection for Obama.  Edwards was my candidate of choice, and I went for Obama only after some thought.  What I wanted to get at with this piece was some of the irrational criticism of Obama: he "kicked me to the curb," "told me to get out of the party," "called me (or my candidate) a racist," etc. Substantive criticism (such as yours) should always be welcome.  It would be nice if such criticism (on both sides) started to edge out the irrational bullshit.  

the fact that he voted FOR it - has hurt millions of people by costing consumers  millions of dollars - while the oil companies continue to make record profits.....

so you are wrong.