[life, interrupted]

Let's face it. With the writer's strike, which has now ended, primaries are the most interesting thing to watch.

To start off, let me say that, although I cannot vote, I still have a valid opinion. I think that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be a president that will change the United States for the better.

The following may seem like an attack on Obama, but I really like him too.

I was talking to my brother the other day about politics and asked him why he likes Obama. Generally, I know people who like Obama better because they hate Clinton, and I expected my brother to have a real reason. And he did. He explained that Obama is hopeful and is less likely to manipulate the public. My brother is a firm believer in changing the world and he thinks Obama is the better candidate for that.

I think that Obama and Clinton will change the world about the same amount. We will have no way of confirming this, but since they have the same general ideas, it is a definitely possibility. At this point, since they are so similar, the primary has turned into a personality contest.

Really, correct me if I am wrong, but my brother's support for Obama confirms this. Sure, he later went into more detail about what he disagrees with about Clinton's heath care plan and such, but I had to ask him about it. Plus, he was looking at CNN when he was talking about it me. But I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just trying to make my point that this is a personality contest.

Obama will win this personality contest. Obama just seems like a nice guy. He has strong convictions and just overall seems more personable. He's just so hopeful!

I think Clinton is nice too. She is also strong, but she can is also considered, cold and distant because of her tenacity. She is also older and more cynical than Obama.

I would rather have a more cynical president than a hopeful one. I just think it would best to have a president to considers the worst situation as the most probably one. That way, the president would be better prepared to think of a solution.

For example, President Bush sent troops into Iraq hoping to find weapons of mass destruction and is now thought of as an idiot. Obviously, there was a great possibility of there not being any. If he weighed that more heavily, we may not have been in a pointless war.

I just don't want a president that will hope all the time and not be realistic. Obama and Clinton are not extremes of this situation; Obama is just less cynical than Clinton.

His message is change. His book is about hope. I would rather not have a Commander in Chief who hopes that change will happen. The worst possible thing could happen and I do not want someone who does not give this great consideration.