power corrupts far too easily. I think Obama is far more likely to succumb to that than Clinton. Which is why I think Clinton is the marginally better choice.

I admire your intense conscience, lady. My thought on the same question is that Clinton has already succumbed to the corruption of power, and has more to hide than Obama does. Power corrupts easily. Yet, we must have someone in power, clearly, under the present scheme. What's the antidote to corruption? Self knowledge, character, and an understanding of the insane consequences that stem from insane acts.

IF those are the antidotes, seems to me Obama is better supplied with the anti-venom than Hillary is, especially because she has Bill the deal maker riding on her long coattails.

This is not to say Obama is golden or bulletproof or saintly. I am sure he is none of those. But he strikes me as a person who values honesty, while Hillary, Bill and Bush all share (in my view) the sense of expedience as the senior good, a principle that leads to disaster and breeds blind spots like maggots on a dead civil-rights worker.

A

A