I’m just guessing, but it appears you may think Obama is one of those who is “beholden more to the people than to private interests.” Well, if you read the article cited and linked above, you’ll see that Obama’s voting record is surprisingly regular-people-unfriendly.

I get the feeling that many of Obama’s followers don’t know much about him beyond that he is a good speech giver. He is also worse than the “usual politicians” he disingenuously denigrates: he is as much down in the mud as any other politician, but he uses the Rovian tactic of SAYING he’s above all that. So it’s worse, cuz he’s essentially lying.

What, exactly, do you know about Clinton that makes her a better candidate? You show no evidence. You site no source. You assume the veracity of the statements of pundits. Your zealotry and cynicism leads us to believe you incapable of objectivity, the very thing you are criticising. You offend us john. You mistake volume for credibility.

We hate no-one
We merely prefer a candidate beholden more to the people than to private interests. If you cannot get past this; the office of ‘president’ might just as well mean ‘dictator’. And then, the point will be moot.

We leave you we the party line:
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
-Orwell;1984

Hillary gets the higher marks, because she’s the better candidate.

This shows the appalling stupidity of the people that hold our national fate in their hands, and preselect and prefavor a candidate before we know anything about him. Can someone explain to me, how this can be? How can you preselect a candidate, based on ignorance of who and what he is, and force a whole nation to accept your presumption, arrogance, and cavalier disregard for their best interests.