This paragraph at The Corner from Rich Lowryon how he is torn between Clinton and Obama is perfect:
"I really don’t know who to root for in the Democratic race. I’m obviously with all those complaining about Obama’s messianism. And I agree with my friend Peter Feld who had this excellent piece in the New York Post yesterday pointing out how candidates elected on soaring, unrealistic promises of change usually have trouble governing once they are in office (e.g. Deval Patrick, Jimmy Carter). There is a grounding and a realism to Hillary that I have found appealing. I still remember what she said in reply to Obama in some debate long ago: the day after the election later this year, everyone is going to still believe everything they did they day before, i.e. everyone isn’t suddenly going to agree with Obama’s liberalism. That’s exactly right. Plus, I sympathize with Hillary’s lunch-bucket constituency (former constituency?) more than Obama’s upscale liberals. Yet the Clintons have been simply repellent on the campaign trail, and Obama has run an honorable campaign and is a genuinely likable and talented guy. So I was delighted as Obama’s lead grew and grew to 17 points last night, at the same time I was cheered back in January by Hillary’s puncturing of the insufferable Obama hype in New Hampshire. At this point, I guess I could welcome anything: an Obama steam-roller through Texas and Ohio that ends the House of Clinton with a bang, or a Hillary comeback that pricks the ridiculous Obama bubble and draws out the race. There’s nothing to do but sit back and enjoy."
Some good points, but I don't think we can "sit back and enjoy." If Hillary doesn't burst the Obama bubble, he will be problematic in the general election. He is left wing and inexperienced ... but you certainly can't rely on the media to talk about either of those facts. If Obama mania makes it through the primary unscathed, we will hear glowing reviews for the next 9 months about his "optimism" and "likability," and nothing about the issues that should matter. That should make Lowry, and the rest of us, very nervous.
I think the closeness of the race will give us two for the price of one--a deflated O'Bama and a disgraced Billary.
My opinion is that neither candidate has the experience to serve as Commander-in-Chief. The President is the very top of the military, and as such would probably make a better Leader with some military experience, especially in today's world.
McCain, of course, has that experience.
Now, if I were to choose the "lesser of the evils," so to speak, I would choose Clinton to be the nominee, simply on the basis that I think she is beatable. Americans will, in the end, rally around a Commander-in-Chief who has a more likable personality than Hillary's. Obama vs McCain would be a hard-fought battle for the former Navy aviator. However, Clinton vs McCain would be a much easier battle to win.
Obama, without a doubt, has a more likable personality than Clinton. However, from a foreign policy perspective, I do not want that man as Commander-in-Chief. He would downsize the military and ruin what we have attempted to rebuild during the fiasco of the Bill Clinton years (in terms of how the military was weakened considerably).