Why, you ask? Well ...

First, today's New York Times titled "New and Not Improved" is a scathing evaluation of Obama's decisions, remarks, votes since becoming the presumptive Democratic Presidential Candidate. Of particular interest is the following passage:

"The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be/"

Read it all: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html?hp

And this from CNN/Opinion Research Poll: "43% of Democrats still say they want Clinton as the party's nominee."

The piece goes on at some length on recent polling and elaborates the dilemma:

"... But most political observers agree the prospects of an Obama-Clinton ticket are dim, most notably because Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics and Obama's message of change threatens to be muddled by the 16 years Clinton has spent in Washington.

"But the question remains whether Obama can win enough Democrats without Clinton as his No. 2."

Read it all: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/clinton.poll/index.html

Positively,
Carolan