After reading the many posts about how Obama is just “a bunch of pretty words” with no substance, and how his supporters continually bash Hillary because they simply can’t come up with anything positive to say about Obama, I thought I’d conduct a little survey of my own to see how that theory holds up.

Guess what, people? The Hill supporters are right. The question posed was: “Why do you support warm-and-fuzzy-speeches Obama when Hillary is so obviously the superior candidate?”

Here’s a random sampling of those I spoke to:

“Obama is talking about pulling the troops out of Iraq, ways to provide health insurance for more citizens, making college more affordable – gee, the list goes on and on. I’d have to say it’s his non-position on these issues that finally won me over.”

“I’m a little disappointed that despite being an exceptionally articulate speaker, he couldn’t come up with a really riveting tale about running for cover in the midst of sniper-fire in Bosnia. But that aside, he’s got my vote.”

“I think it’s his non-stance on the fact that the war in Iraq is illegal, immoral, and should never have been started in the first place. I appreciate his total silence on the topic.”

“His incredible ability to not encourage hope and optimism, along with not taking issue with the highly successful status-quo way of running the government, was a real eye-opener. This is just the kind of non-committal fence-sitter we need in the White House.”

“For me, it was the way he refused to take a stand when Reverend Wright was being vilified. I don’t know about the rest of the country, but that kind of ducking an issue spoke volumes about his inability to take a strong position in the face of opposition. The minute he chose to slink off with his tail between his legs rather than address the controversy, I knew we had a timid, weak-kneed winner on our hands!”

“More than anything else, it’s his stubborn refusal to point to the disastrous situation we find ourselves in as the obvious result of eight years of Bush’s failed policies – all of the times he has done so notwithstanding.”

“Not being willing to answer questions from regular American voters – yeah, that’s what did it for me. The way he stays aloof, adamantly refuses to get out there and talk to regular folk about their worries and woes – well, I’m not ashamed to admit it. This is just the kind of lack of substance I’ve been prayin’ for.”

“Well, truth be told, Obama’s got so much not going for him. Ahead in every poll, more delegates, more votes, more momentum. It’s these kind of negatives that drew me in, hook, line and sinker.”

“I’m almost ashamed to admit it, but I keep hearing substance in his speeches. As much as I try to ignore it, his policy positions keep comin’ at me, plain and simple. I suppose I’m just supporting him because I’m too stupid to hear what he’s not saying.”

“I just think the best way to solve our country’s problems right now is to elect the candidate with absolutely no ideas, no substance, and no ability to lead a nation. And bashing Hillary is much more important to me than getting a job, being able to afford to educate my children, and just generally having the better life she keeps promising.”

“I’m completely disgusted with what our country has become, thanks to the Republicans. That’s why millions of people who think the way I do are going to vote for the most unelectable Democrat this November. We’re in it to lose.”

There you have it, folks. When the majority of voters believe that a no-substance, pretty-words talker like Barack Obama is a better bet than the candidate who is losing by every possible measure, we’re in for a world of hurt – like winning the presidency in November.

I just hope you’re all happy now.