Barack Obama has missed 196 votes (40.6%) during the current
Congress. (Democrat who is second to only Tim Johnson the SD Democratic Senator who suffered a brain hemorrage)

Hillary Clinton has missed 141 votes (29.2%) during the current
Congress.

Sources:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/

Some responses that I have received have started regurgitating that infamous "Barack was a community organizer with vast International Relations experience. This is my response to such comments:

It's great that Obama worked as a community organizer. I think
that has been regurgitated enough. Hillary worked to develop the
Children's Defense Fund, pass S-chip, worked to develop micro credit
programs for women in developing countries around the world.

IF Obama had this vast experience in International Relations then his
IR advisor should and could have cited any experience on the BBC news
the other night. Her only response was that he had "run things."
Again, this is just another example of how the Obama campaign refuses
to be pinned down to anything. His vast inexperience is shown in the
following remark on Good Morning America:

Roberts: "You're calling for a slight withdrawal of troops and I need
to ask you this -- are you concerned that your lack of experience,
when it comes to foreign policy, may hurt your chances in the run for
the White House?" [Note Robin's apologetic "I need to ask you."]

Obama: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably
more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has
actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored
in international relations.

Actually the truth is, he majored in political science with an
emphasis in International Relations.

An "emphasis" is a word that an individual chooses to put on a
resume. It's not even the same thing as a concentration and does not
carry the weight, class load or experience of a concentration let
alone the major that Obama claimed to have.

All he can do is brag over and over about living overseas. His only
real overseas living experience was when he was between the ages of 6-
10. So, I'll go back to my original statement that for him to
indicate that he had the ability at even 10 years old to prepare for
his future presidency, represents the height of arrogance and an
arrogant president is NOT what we need.

Lastly, on his war ending; You do realize, that it isn't just over
the first day of anyone's presidency? Why? Because it's going to
require intense organization to get the troops, equipment, and on-the-
ground allies of the United States out peacefully.

We cannot leave the allies there as Obama indicates on his own
website.

His "plan" on his website is more regurgitation of "I was right when
I made a speech." His only plan is to begin withdrawing troops
immediately but it will still be long and drawn out. He doesn't
really have a plan, just a speech. He also has left himself some
loophole provisions in which to keep some troops over there for the
long term.

If he were to say, "I do not have a specific plan," that would be far
better for him as a candidate. If he were to say: (on almost every
issue) these are my ideas but I will also be surrounding myself with
specific people who will provide me with the details and information
that I need to make the best decision for the United States, the
people of the U.S. and the interaction of the U.S. with the world,
then we would at least recognize that he is learning and will allow
himself to be open to (negative or bad) information that these people
may have to give him. Instead, he continues to talk about his great
oration of the past with very little substance for the future. This
is dangerous for our party and our country.

I want to thank the people who responded to me directly via my email burst last week. I know some of you are reading here as well. IF you would like to post this information in other places please just contact me first. More than likely, I will let you do it.

I'm in the process of writing a series of blogs on the superdelegates that everyone is talking about. However, while I do that, I want to give you something else to think about. It's this delegate lead that Obama has. Do you think that the elected delegates exactly represent the proportion of the vote that voted for each candidate? Do you think, for example, that if your district has 4 delegates that each one of them represents 25% of the vote? Well guess what, it doesn't work that way either. I came to this conclusion when I was analyzing my own district, the second congressional district in Tennessee. We voted greater than 50% for Hillary and somewhat less than 50% for Obama. However, we split the elected voting delegates at two each. This is the problem because each vote is represented by a single person. So, you can't split an individual delegate vote to accurately represent the popular vote. Why should Obama be represented with 50% of the vote when he clearly didn't have 50% of the vote in the second congressional district of Tennessee?

This exact situation was explained on the national blog, My Direct Democracy, better than I can explain it here. So, in the interest of avoiding plagiarism, I'm going to refer to this website called

"Candidates to split delegates (+ case study of TN)"

You all need to seriously question the "lead" that Obama is bragging about. He doesn't have as big of a lead as you might think and his lead is actually an overcompensation because the small delegate numbers within the individual congressional districts cannot be divided accurately to represent the vote.

For all you Edwards supporters out there who may have voted Edwards in the Tennessee primary, you would be interested in this as well.

So, please check out this website. If I recieve permission to copy the article here I will do it.

I am for progressive values and ideals. I am for bringing people together to create a better future. But, I am NOT for Obama. I do not support someone whose entire campaign has been based on a speech they made as a state Senator in the comforts of their chambers. A speech is not a vote. Obama never even cast a vote on the resolution and if he had been in the Senate, his current voting record suggests that he would have voted "present." I do not see him having the courage of Kucinich or Feingold. I highly doubt that his squeaky clean rhetoric that was spouted in Illinois would be so bold if he had REALLY been an elected member of the Senate.

I DO NOT support a man who talks about race in the most subtle and unsubtle ways in order to drum up votes. He does this when he specifically refers to race in his speeches. "This is not about being black or white" is specifically using race and it makes him the black candidate or "the one" (quote from Oprah) rather than a well grounded candidate reaching out to people. His cadence in his speeches, especially in high minority areas and ESPECIALLY in the South is that of a southern black preacher. It is so pronounced and obvious that he's trying to be the "black" candidate that he goes so far as to mispronounce America! However when he's interviewed this "accent" or cadence completely disappears. I believe this is just more of the facade of Obama.

I feel it is extremely unfortunate and disgusting that Obama has chosen to sink to these lows especially after we just had a minority candidate emulate how to run for a national office as a real uniter rather than this psuedo uniter that Barack Obama is. The best example of this minority candidate was Harold Ford Jr. His campaign was about platform and ideas. He ran without EVER talking about race and without ever talking about NOT talking about race. Obama has not done this. I find it disgusting and painful that Obama continues to trump around "race" within his speeches. His own actions have caused the divisiveness in the campaign. It's time for him to get over his own racial issues and run as a grounded candidate with a platform rather than the African American political messiah!

I further do not support a candidate who cannot present specific ideas on any issue. This is dangerous to the country. We, the voters, do not know what to hold Obama accountable for when he only stands for "change". Guess what, we will have change no matter who wins the election. What type of change we want, how we want that change, and when we want the change should be the dictating factors of selecting a nominee; not that the nominee will bring about change.

I do not support a candidate who uses living in Indonesia for four years as a child as a base for having the best international relations policies. He specifically stated this on November 19, 2007 at a speech in Iowa. Personally, after I traveled over seas to two different countries and hosted international camp counselors from literally all over the world, I find it insulting that Obama assumes to have a complete worldview understanding based on his experiences as a 6-10 year old boy! He would have done better to claim that he has limited international experience or to point to something, anything that he has done as an adult, espeically as an elected officer. But, to reach so far as to insinuate that he had the skills as a baby to internalize his experiences for his future presidency represents the height of arrogance and an arrogant president is NOT what this country needs in the next term!

I am not for a candidate who has so little to stand on that they give any progressive ideals away by claiming that they will include all Republicans. This is naive of Obama. Does he actually believe that without a veto-proof legislative majority that the Republicans actually want to work with him? He is not a political god and the Republicans actually have very little motivation to meet his goals because he's already said that he's basically willing to go meet theirs. This is not acceptable out of a candidate who is seeking the Democratic Party nomination.

Lastly, I, as a registered Young Democrat am sickened and insulted by Obama's comment that "I know that if I get the nomination her people would support me because I'm the Democrat, but I don't think that I can say that my supporters could support her should she be the nominee." That was said on the same day that Michelle Obama said on Good Morning America that she just didn't know if she could support Hillary should she get the nomination. This type of rhetoric and attitude is actually dividing our party and will be the same kind of attitude to divide this country.

It's time to STOP giving Obama a free pass because people either want to feel like they're on a perpetual feel-good honeymoon or because they feel that it's wrong or not politically correct to question the African American candidate. Obama needs to answer questions, take a real stand, stop using the race card, stop trying to channel the cadences of previous black leaders like MLK, stop using the party as his personal vehicle for divisiveness while running for the party's nomination, stop talking about how bad superdelegates are in public while viciously "working" them in private (especially the black superdelegates), and to stop giving away any progressive position by saying that he will work with any and all Republicans anywhere at any time.

Well, I have decided to start a blog. I actually decided as I was watching the election returns and candidate speeches from Tuesday. So, I started posting my thoughts in the typical social networking sites. I also knew about this site and have decided to post here.

I hope some DEMOCRATS come here and read. I hope that they REALLY think about the future of our party and our country. So, before I dive into my random political thoughts, I want you to really know where I am coming from, politically and what I hope to accomplish here.

Yes, I'm going to take the plunge and dive into National Politics. I know there are probably hundreds of blogs on the subject but I haven't found any DEMOCRATS who are seriously questioning Barack Obama as a candidate for the Democratic Nomination. I know, I can't be the only DEMOCRAT who has serious questions and serious problems with Obama. I think it's time that Democrats who want to raise these issues about this candidate take a stand.

I am NOT an independent. I am NOT a republican. I AM A DEMOCRAT. I am also one of those illustrious YOUNG Democrats that the media can't seem to stop talking about. I have voted Democratic, given time to the party and money to the party, and helped out Democratic Candidates up and down our ballot. There are people who post regularly here who can attest to that.

Why am I doing this? I am doing this because I believe that I am not the only DEMOCRAT out there who has been insulted and angered by Barack Obama and who feels that he is using our party as a divisive tool for his own political gain while simultaneously seeking our party's nomination. I further feel that long-term damage of our party has been done both directly and indirectly because of his campaign.

I will give you reasons in my next blog about why I don't support Obama. Afterwards, I'm going to address the issue of the media so-called superdelegate system and I'm going to give you ideas and thoughts about how Obama's call for a "winner take all" of the superdelegates is actually a complete break from the Democratic Nominating Process.

I plan to comment on a regular basis about the Democratic Campaign, overall.

If you want to take issue with me about Barack Obama, I will welcome that. But, I will not respond to you if you tell me he's the first black....(whatever), he was a community organizer, he "voted" (but not really) against the war, he's for change, you're just inspired but don't know any real reason why, or that Bill Clinton is a racist. If that's all an Obama supporter can say to me then I don't have time for you and you would be the very type of person that has helped create this political hijacking of the Democratic Party!