If Obama failed to win the nomination, I would do what I could to back Hillary in 2008. I seriously doubt this will happen.

Time and again, my support of a candidate has been dismissed as wild-eyed, kool-aid drinking, naive, gullible, deluded, and other things much less flattering.

SO let me go on record here as saying that these descriptiors are unmitigated horse manure, biorne from small-spirited bitterness, or some other psychological aberration on the part of the name callers.

I am not insensitive to McCains occasional virtues, and I see Ms. Clintons several advantages.

I have selected Mister Obama as my enthusiastic choice for specific reasons: he demonstrates industry, a competent management style, a greater willingness to communicate openly and frankly than other candidates, a demonstrated preference for honesty over manipulation, a higher level of intelligence and a stronger sense of ethics than other candidates, in my assessment.

I do not agree with every proposal he has made, but what is far more important is that he has demonstrated that he thinks before he nmakes them. He is canny enough to survive in the mad world of politics, but is constantly, it seems to me, seekign to minimize the impact this has on his integrity.

For the most part his platform and his vision are appealing, but far more important is his track record in getting things done in a transpartisan manner.   

There are several other reasons I support him. But the point I want to emphasize is that none of them have to do with being a true believer, a lack of analysis, or turning a blind eye to his flaws. They do not rest on hypnotic obsession, as some have implied, nor on adulation, nor on blind optimism.

I just think he's a better choice, for good and sufficient reason.

That's all there is to it.

Snarky cynical, passive-aggressive, snide or apathetic insinuations to the contrary are directed to the door on the right which leads to the Self-Fucking workroom.


A