A nice compare/contrast piece on Obama vs. Clinton
From her votes on Iraq and then on Iran - essentially giving Bush free rein to wage war yet a second time - Clinton seems to have embraced entirely the Republican saber-rattling posture. This makes her more like Senator McCain than like Senator Obama when it comes to using diplomacy. Her response to the opening question about whether she would talk to Raul Castro made it clear: she wants our adversaries to prove to us that they want to change before talking to them. This is cold-war liberalism morphed into modern day neo-con thinking replete with tough talk preceding genuine dialogue.
Senator Obama is not similarly crippled. He believes that we can talk to people with whom we disagree and that we can change our own diplomatic approach without insisting that our adversaries change first. Obama attracts young people who don't relate to all the posturing and tough talk. Even though they all felt the tragedy of 9/11, they think knee-jerk bombing of Iraq isn't the answer. Others who are older are attracted to Obama because they are sick not only of living in fear but also of living inside a unilateral and ultimately a superior approach to other nations. They think that talking allows space for thinking - on both sides. This is something that is refreshingly appealing about Mr. Obama.
I had seen some of the "generation gap" between Obama and Clinton, but had not been able to put my finger on an explanation. Justin Frank explains it quite well.
I really enjoy his articles for HuffPo, probably because he comes from a psychological angle. Figuring out why someone says/does/believes something gives insight into predicting future behavior.
Those of us who approach things from the psych standpoint are the ones who predicted exactly what Bush was going to do to this country 8 years ago. (I miss you, Molly Ivins.)