Obama is. New voters, moderate Republicans, and independents are drawn to him. 50% of the population will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. --and that's not a made up, right-wing news statistic. I'm one of them, and know plenty.
I listen to Hillary and I reflect on the toll booth the Clintons installed when HE was President. I don't want to see more lobbyists - we need to get rid of them all. McCain is nothing more than the Bush machine and we see where that got us. I will vote for the candidate that tells me the truth - the lies that got us into war, the lives lost and the mutitude of injured that are forgotten and pushed aside are enough. We know the Clintons and yes we are small town "bitter" in Pennsylvania and proud of it! I believe in the honest moral values. Who am I going to vote for - it's a start to bring this country back to where it was - OBAMA.
i'm an independent, not a dem. i'm war-hesitant, and agree with dems more on tax policy. but i am not pro union all the time, nor is pro-choice something that blindly gets my vote. nor do i have much hope in any of the health care proposals, i would prefer free 'house insurance' by extending medi-ins with a huge deductable. i see two reasons for insurance. 1 to keep bankruptcy at bay. 2 to keep from getting raped because the system is setup to charge 5x the cost to people without insurance.
anyways, i don't line up with anyone's policies.
if mccain hadn't gone on his 100 years war kick i would have had an easy choice in a match vs clinton. integrity counts. as it is i have no idea, maybe i would consider a third party, go ron paul!
i would happily push the obama button.
If any of you are wondering how Obama can reach out to republicans without compromising our core values, there is a great vid out there where he explains his views on the role of religion in politics. I think it is the best way to show the common sense he has in dealing with very tricky and volitile issues. I am sure many Dems and Republicans will be nodding their heads in agreement. Something that seems almost impossible in this tense climate.
Not only is Obama more electable. But he's more likely to win by landslide, which is what he needs to get us back on track - so we're no longer the riches Third World Nation hated by the rest of the world.
of course, Obama will try anything and everything to be in the white house.he will denounce Farrakhan because that's good for his election. but do you know that the church he belong to gave an accolade to Farrakhan. that's speak volume. he needs to denounce his spiritual adviser too, Rev. Wright who espoused racism, anti-Semite , hatred for white people,etc. this is a serious matter. before you say something, read more. do not be mesmerized by his rhetorics. His not what he appears to be.
Senator Obama is a fraud and belongs to a racist church. Yet, if god forbid, Senator Clinton belonged to a church that has the same tenets that Obama's church has, she would be quickly labeled a racist and rightly so.
It is a double standard and sexism is acceptable in our society and media. The media is bias against Senator Clinton and treats Senator Obama with kid gloves. Senator Obama doesn't give specifics and just paraphrases Senator Clinton's answers in debates.
If truly Senator Obama wants to make history and wants to improve race relations, then let him be equally judged on his merits and not on the color of his skin. The fact is, he is not qualified to be president. All the inspirational speeches do not hide the fact, that he does not possess the leadership qualities to run our nation.
An substantiated opinion is one thing, but unsubstantiated inflammatory accusations are quite another. If you are a Democrat, I don't understand what purpose you hope to achieve by posting them, because it could well be that Obama gets the nomination. Will your comments have helped the Democrats win?
You claim that
Senator Obama [...] belongs to a racist church
This is not true. Obama does not belong to a racist church. The church obviously has its root in the black community but they do not in any way exclude other people. And if the church has developed a set of value guidelines to strengthen their own community and become "soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind", what's racist about that? All humankind pretty much includes everyone I'd say.
And if, for that community, they are devoted to "generat[ing] strength, stability and love" in the family and "reach[ing] out and expand[ing] that blessing to the less fortunate"; dedicated to the pursuit of excellence and education, a high work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect within that community, what is racist about that? All of America can only say 'thank you'. Any particular community would do well to emulate them.
I think your reading list should include Martin Marty's discussion of Reverend Wright's church
which is on the Net. Unlike any of us writing here he is both qualified to discuss religion and has known Wright for 40 years.And has attended his church often.
The reading list could also include Dreams from
My Father which seems to provide insight into Obama's thinking.
Whoa there!
What evidence do you provide for claiming that Obama doesn't mean what he says? None.
What evidence do you provide for your incendiary comments about Rev. Wright? None.
Maybe because it's not true??
You claim
that the church [Obama] belong[sic] to gave an accolade to Farrakhan
This isn't true. 'The accolade' was from a magazine formerly, but no longer, associated with the church Obama attends (The Trinity United Church of Christ. The comments were made by Rhoda McKinney Jones, managing editor of that magazine (Trumpet Newsmagazine) last November/December. The Washington Post and Tim Russert incorrectly attributed the statement to Rev. Wright, pastor emeritus of the church.
As for Obama, he provided an unambiguous statement on the issue:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
You can't get any clearer than that.
Don't elect Rev. Wright, then. Elect Obama instead. Sane people support Obama.
Both are abundantly qualified. Both are electable.
both are NOT abundantly qulaified. Barack lacks any credentials or solid IDEAS. I would not vote for him--neither would most of the folk I work with. They are not impressed by his limited record nor by his avoidance of taking an actual stand on issues (see his actual voting record).
We see him as some pied-piper charlatan who dances on stage, mouths slogans and words that people like to hear, and does not tax his supporters with having to think much about anything:
CHANGE! FRESH! YES WE CAN!
But WHAT change? Fresh meaning wihtout the connections. know-how, political clout, or backgrund to accomplish the political maneuverings necessary to get things done in DC? Can do WHAT? (beside get him elected so he can be even more puffed-up about himself).
Barack runs for president like my old high school classmates ran for class president: I am cool, I am popular, I look fly/phat, I make exciting speeches. Well, that's okay for the vapid job of class president, but it is nowhere near sufficient for runing a world power.
He is nothing more than a late-night TV infomercial--well, not really. At least the Oxy Clean guy SHOWS US how the product actually works.
I am one sister who sees nothing in this candidate worth voting for -- and I, for one, will NOT vote for him simply because our skin tones match. I am looking for experience and substance and found it in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!
Obama will be eaten alive by the republicans. He has Kerry's aloof, above it all quality. He is already being character-assasinated by the republicans so that they have defined him with thei voters, and he is not bothering to defend himself.
They have already succesfully convinced republicans (and even some dems!) that he is a muslim. YOU might know it is false, but the repubs are going to make sure that lots of people think it is true and that many others have their doubts.
Then there is the Che nonsense. After every right wing blog and pundit has been comparing the guy to Che Guevara nonstop, his houston office opens up with a fox news interview showing the che poster on the wall there. Just google Obama and Che and see how many times you see the pictures before you find any kind of defense or counterattack. How many times do you think we'll see those pictures in the general?
The point is not to spark a defense of Obama on these points, but to note that the R's are ALREADY defining him in ways that will really hurt him and he is not even in the fray to vote "present", much less to defend himself and hit back.
Contrast that with Hillary's recent MSNBC spats and see the diference. Hillary will throw elbows and attack the republicans. Obama wants to court them and stay above the fray.
I'm sure we will all be proud of the high minded campaign that Obama ran when we look back on it during McCain's presidency.
This is not to say that either of the above is true
Democratic voters should consider a class action lawsuit to end the process of super-delegates. A case can be made that the super-delegates degrade, and are intended to dilute, the weight of our votes to allow the party elites to determine who gets the nomination of the party. It doesn't matter whether Hillary or Obama gets the nomination, both will be great democratic leaders. However, the fact that super-delegates have the power to overrule the voters is against the concept of democracy, and harms the voters of this country. A single super-delegate vote can carry as much weight as 50,000 citizen votes.
Do not lose focus on this issue after the primaries are over. While it may turn out that this process does not override the American vote this year, the chances are there for the future. It is our rights as Democratic party members to have our votes count of equal value to the Washington insiders.
Legally this is a non issue. The supreme court has ruled several times that parties can choose their candidates just about anyway they want to. The only way to change this is for party members to pressure the party leaders to change it. I doubt that will happen with enough force to make changes.
To vote for Barak Hussein Obama(yes i dare say it)is like spitting on the foundation of what America stands for. This man is a racist who would say anything to progress his agenda.
Vote for Hillary, Macain or whom ever but vote for someone who is proud to be an American unlike this fake anti american wolf dressed in sheeps clothing!!
Obama. Hands down.
As a former Edwards supporter, I am leaning to Clinton simply because Obama supporters are trying to bully me into voting for him!
Mrs. Clinton has as good a chance as Barack IMO>
He wont win by a land slide, look at the numbers presented, the are not in his favor, there are 700 delegates still undecided, he has to win 97%to be a shoe in, not gonna happen, or he has to win 3 out of every for the remaining primaries and since delegates are based on % that isnt going to happen either, so then the only other option left for him to win is the popular vote, well he isnt leading by the astounding number which would make him a shoe in either, in fact if Michigan and Florida are able to seat there delegates. it is going to be an even tighter race, by the way for Clinton to upset Obamas apple cart she only needs to land 20 more super delegates and obama will be in a quite a pickle.. I have been reading about the religion factor placed on the blogs.. church and state are supposed to be separate when it comes to office, so no matter what either is, it really should not matter. What i would be more concerned with is the book he authored and some of the facts he writes about in it. As far as Clinton, she was part of the rebuilding of our economy after the first Bush took office, and I dont know that there were many that did not benefit from the rebounding economy.
History repeats itself, When B. Clinton took office it was difficult at first because of the unknown for the debt that was before him, the administration made some difficult decisions and we all bettered for it. Im not sure if Obama is able to pull that one off. When the hope wears off and the spotlight is gone then what.. Honestly people I do wish Clinton would stop saying she is ready on day one.. its really old, it isnt about thresholds or being ready on day, its about having a solution and not afraid of putting the solution into action even if it means making difficult choices for the short term. I want a solution solver not a problem promiser.
leo
I used a new political analysis tool this afternoon: Excel. The results were not compelling for Obama. Yes, he's won more states. Yes, he's ahead in the delegates. But no, he is not likely to get the nomination, and I believe it will be the superdelegates who unseat him.
Why would the superdelegates do such a dastardly thing? To win in November. Thus the use of Excel. Many of Obama's states will not run blue in November, so winning the state delegates means nothing when they do not produce electoral votes. Nor is winning a state primary any kind of bellweather as to whether the state can be flipped: Newsflash, Utah will not run blue in November, even if the Dems re-animated Ronald Reagan, or even Joe Smith, and gave him the nomination.
So the superdelegates, who, having run for state and national office, are closer to the math, will go with the candidate who can get 270 electoral votes. Her name is Clinton.
In light of this past week's events, I believe that Obama is a sure loser in November. The right wing slime machine will simply run those Wright videos over and over and folks who haven't been paying attention will simply vote McCain who will appear to have more gravitas.
I understand that the Clinton folk are still hoping for a windfall that can save the nomination for her in spite of all the facts at hand.
The Wright stuff is going to blow over within the next week. The next endorsement, the next gaffe by McCain (or by Obama or Clinton), the next slur by any candidate, the next outrage by any candidate. In today's new cycle this stuff will by the oldest of old news by November.
Obama will probably not win in a landslide--eventually the conservatives would figure out he was liberal and the racists would figure out he was black. But Clinton wouldn't get the racists or the conservatives anyway (lots of overlap among these groups and the sexists, too, right)--and also would do without just about everyone in the middle who would like to see the Republicans out but don't like the Clintons, don't like her imperious style or her sleazy connections.
Obama isn't a lock to win--but he's an inspiring new figure with a genuine charm, intellectual capacity, and power of persuasion that we haven't seen in decades.
The Rev. Wright stuff has already blown over with everyone except the desperate Clinton campaign, whose effort to keep it alive was pushed off the front page by the Bosnia "misspeak".
The Wright clip won't be running on an endless loop because there'll be another loop of John McCain saying, "I know Senator Obama, and I know he doesn't believe those things." As an election issue, that one is dead.
The "sniper fire"/Tuzla montage, on the other hand, combined with Clinton's endorsement of McCain as CiC? I hate to think ...
The only Dem to win the office of the presidency in the past 28 years in this country was named "[b]Clinton[/b]".
The R's never got over that. They spent the entire 8 yrs exhausting all their resources of energy and money in an effort to take them down. Yes, "them". She had the AUDACITY to try to use her position as First Lady to better the world and provide universal health care. She was brutally derided for it when sexism was barely admonished with a wrist slap, let alone renounced... Newt Gingrich and cohorts lived and breathed to destroy her health care plan.
The Elephant Party is known for their lasting memories. It's often said that a Republican never forgets who their enemies are... The name Clinton tops the list and has for a few decades. Because they won. They beat them at their own game. Twice. No other Dem has in most of our adult lifetimes.
Then they had the added AUDACITY to preside over peace and prosperity for 8 years (oh I know it's all been rewritten and the rewrite shows us the 90's actually sucked-- Problem is ...I have a memory too) -- Clinton is [i]not[/i] the "easy one to beat", as the Limbaugh oft-repeated meme might suggest ... (since when do we take what Rush says at face value?)
Read any thread for the past 6 months at Free Republic to see who the ground team is really organizing for to take the Dem nomination. It's Obama. Yes, I know - Rush Rush Rush. Just go look for yourself. It's easy to see.
Every movement organized by grassroots / netroots Repub's is hatched over at Freeperville. See it for yourself. The Dem for a Day campaign was set up to crossover for Obama. I know it's painful to think that Rush might be trying to spread DISINFO!!
(No, Not Rush! Would he?! Could he?!! We never [i]thought[/i] we might have to doubt him!!)
Hillary Clinton has miles of experience-- not referring to the kind of experience she touts on the campaign trail -- but the electable kind. The experience of having been a living pinata for the republican party for three decades - and bouncing back up, dusting off, still standing strong. There is not a Swifter out there who hasn't already taken a few gratuitous swings at her with a club. Still standin'... still commanding half the voters votes in the country.
That's how you win a race across from the New Republicans.
Durability! Resilience. Toughness.
My interest in preventing McCain/Lieberbush from taking office in January '09 is far stronger than any nebulous enticement I may feel to Hope for Change in an untested wilderness.
Yep, it's confirmed: your post is good news for Hillary.
Oops. In yet another contest... BBCode vs HTML.
Appears HTML wins! ;-)
I feel your pain. About the HTML, I mean.
I think either one can beat McCain; frankly, he's a boneheaded idiot with about as much understanding of politics, domestic or foreign, as the keyboard I'm typing on. My concern is what kind of president they'd be.
Regardless of what would happen afterwards, I believe Clinton's history will give her at best a narrow victory. I believe Obama would win by a wide enough margin to legitimately claim a mandate.
That's because Clinton has not yet been challenged on the stuff she claims to have been 'vetted' on but hasn't come out; specifically, all her and her husband's business dealings since they left the white house. And then there's whatever indiscretions after the white house years that the Republicans will tar her and Bill with. Should Hillary be accountable for Bill's misconduct? No she shouldn't. Will she? Yes, she will. If Obama touched this stuff the Democratic party would virtually expel him. The most anyone can do is point out the the silly Bosnia-gate and Belfastorama debacles.
If one of them can't win, neither can the other. To paraphrase Nader--and this is the only thing I've agreed with since 1985--if the Democrats can't win this in 2008 by more than his spoiler vote, they don't deserve the presidency.
So I guess the "foundation of what America stands for" is that nobody with a Muslim name should ever be president.
Funny, I don't see that in the Declaration of Independence.
Why is this thread such a troll magnet?
whoops, I pressed "reply" to harris01, but apparently it didn't work.
As many people decry Obama about his former Church and pastor, I think many people need some education in African-American churches and religion. There seems to be much ignorance demonstrated by those who are not white. I think it would be an eye opener. The Black Churches were found from a need that could not be meant in a white world so often the theme is at times rhetoric that expresses their frustration in the world they are living and many people would consider this political. But then all religion becomes political at some point since ministers, preachers, rabbis, priests etc., uses the 'pulpit' to tell us at times how to vote, what issues to support and how to conduct our lives. I have sat through many sermons that I totally disagreed with the minister but did not mean I had to quit going, walk out or withhold support. Just because it is not our church does not mean that it is any more wrong or right than the one we attend. All this hue and cry demonstrates that prejudice is still strong.
Barack is beating Hillary and either can beat McCain, but especially Barack. Obama is getting triple teamed these days (Bill, Hillary, and McCain) and still holding strong. He responds to political swipes quickly and cleanly, and doesn't lose his cool. McCain is on vacation, always has been. He's gotten a 35-year pass from his time in Hanoi. But as soon as the pivot comes, when Hillary finally melts (after setting fire to the Scarecrow and the Tin Man accidentally hits her with a bucket of water), McCain is going to have to sell himself to the YouTube generation. (Watch the brilliant "Baracky": http://youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA) That cranky old man hates making sales calls. He will not sell himself to the YouTube generation. He won't even sell himself to the Republican base. (He got the nomination through the sheer shittiness of his opponents, who divided and failed to conquer an absolutely apathetic Republican electorate.) (Obama has already garned twice as many votes as McCain.)
I predict a blow-out in November. Say hello to President Obama!
We can not afford a PIT BULL in the White House. I am a White Woman and voting for Barak Obama.
we made the mistake of picking the "electable" one in 2004. kerry was a dead horse from the start. we need to pick the right one this time. that's obama. america is hungry for change, and neither hillary or mccain can offer that.
Either will beat McCain. Everything is aligned against the GOP this year, and none of the issues of personality and background that have loomed so large in these months of fighting between Democrats will matter much in the end.
Both can be good presidents. I believe Obama has more potential to bring different factions together to get things done, and I believe he can lead the country in a greater moral and philosophical shift, so I'm supporting him. But Clinton would also be a vast improvement over Bush.
I really think it's time for all of us to bury this Obama vs. Hillary conflict. The real show is about to begin.
Obama is. New voters, moderate Republicans, and independents are drawn to him. 50% of the population will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. --and that's not a made up, right-wing news statistic. I'm one of them, and know plenty.
February 2, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I listen to Hillary and I reflect on the toll booth the Clintons installed when HE was President. I don't want to see more lobbyists - we need to get rid of them all. McCain is nothing more than the Bush machine and we see where that got us. I will vote for the candidate that tells me the truth - the lies that got us into war, the lives lost and the mutitude of injured that are forgotten and pushed aside are enough. We know the Clintons and yes we are small town "bitter" in Pennsylvania and proud of it! I believe in the honest moral values. Who am I going to vote for - it's a start to bring this country back to where it was - OBAMA.
April 15, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm an independent, not a dem. i'm war-hesitant, and agree with dems more on tax policy. but i am not pro union all the time, nor is pro-choice something that blindly gets my vote. nor do i have much hope in any of the health care proposals, i would prefer free 'house insurance' by extending medi-ins with a huge deductable. i see two reasons for insurance. 1 to keep bankruptcy at bay. 2 to keep from getting raped because the system is setup to charge 5x the cost to people without insurance.
anyways, i don't line up with anyone's policies.
if mccain hadn't gone on his 100 years war kick i would have had an easy choice in a match vs clinton. integrity counts. as it is i have no idea, maybe i would consider a third party, go ron paul!
i would happily push the obama button.
February 2, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If any of you are wondering how Obama can reach out to republicans without compromising our core values, there is a great vid out there where he explains his views on the role of religion in politics. I think it is the best way to show the common sense he has in dealing with very tricky and volitile issues. I am sure many Dems and Republicans will be nodding their heads in agreement. Something that seems almost impossible in this tense climate.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938
February 3, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is Obama more electable. But he's more likely to win by landslide, which is what he needs to get us back on track - so we're no longer the riches Third World Nation hated by the rest of the world.
February 3, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course, Obama will try anything and everything to be in the white house.he will denounce Farrakhan because that's good for his election. but do you know that the church he belong to gave an accolade to Farrakhan. that's speak volume. he needs to denounce his spiritual adviser too, Rev. Wright who espoused racism, anti-Semite , hatred for white people,etc. this is a serious matter. before you say something, read more. do not be mesmerized by his rhetorics. His not what he appears to be.
February 28, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama is a fraud and belongs to a racist church. Yet, if god forbid, Senator Clinton belonged to a church that has the same tenets that Obama's church has, she would be quickly labeled a racist and rightly so.
It is a double standard and sexism is acceptable in our society and media. The media is bias against Senator Clinton and treats Senator Obama with kid gloves. Senator Obama doesn't give specifics and just paraphrases Senator Clinton's answers in debates.
If truly Senator Obama wants to make history and wants to improve race relations, then let him be equally judged on his merits and not on the color of his skin. The fact is, he is not qualified to be president. All the inspirational speeches do not hide the fact, that he does not possess the leadership qualities to run our nation.
March 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
An substantiated opinion is one thing, but unsubstantiated inflammatory accusations are quite another. If you are a Democrat, I don't understand what purpose you hope to achieve by posting them, because it could well be that Obama gets the nomination. Will your comments have helped the Democrats win?
You claim that
This is not true. Obama does not belong to a racist church. The church obviously has its root in the black community but they do not in any way exclude other people. And if the church has developed a set of value guidelines to strengthen their own community and become "soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind", what's racist about that? All humankind pretty much includes everyone I'd say.
And if, for that community, they are devoted to "generat[ing] strength, stability and love" in the family and "reach[ing] out and expand[ing] that blessing to the less fortunate"; dedicated to the pursuit of excellence and education, a high work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect within that community, what is racist about that? All of America can only say 'thank you'. Any particular community would do well to emulate them.
Maybe you would like to check out their homepage: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
March 5, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your reading list should include Martin Marty's discussion of Reverend Wright's church
which is on the Net. Unlike any of us writing here he is both qualified to discuss religion and has known Wright for 40 years.And has attended his church often.
The reading list could also include Dreams from
My Father which seems to provide insight into Obama's thinking.
May 3, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa there!
What evidence do you provide for claiming that Obama doesn't mean what he says? None.
What evidence do you provide for your incendiary comments about Rev. Wright? None.
Maybe because it's not true??
You claim
This isn't true. 'The accolade' was from a magazine formerly, but no longer, associated with the church Obama attends (The Trinity United Church of Christ. The comments were made by Rhoda McKinney Jones, managing editor of that magazine (Trumpet Newsmagazine) last November/December. The Washington Post and Tim Russert incorrectly attributed the statement to Rev. Wright, pastor emeritus of the church.
For the facts you can read more at
http://www.zimbio.com/Jeremiah+Wright+Jr/articles/17/trumpet+editor+clarifies+russet+mistatements
As for Obama, he provided an unambiguous statement on the issue:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
You can't get any clearer than that.
March 5, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't elect Rev. Wright, then. Elect Obama instead. Sane people support Obama.
April 1, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both are abundantly qualified. Both are electable.
February 7, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
both are NOT abundantly qulaified. Barack lacks any credentials or solid IDEAS. I would not vote for him--neither would most of the folk I work with. They are not impressed by his limited record nor by his avoidance of taking an actual stand on issues (see his actual voting record).
We see him as some pied-piper charlatan who dances on stage, mouths slogans and words that people like to hear, and does not tax his supporters with having to think much about anything:
CHANGE! FRESH! YES WE CAN!
But WHAT change? Fresh meaning wihtout the connections. know-how, political clout, or backgrund to accomplish the political maneuverings necessary to get things done in DC? Can do WHAT? (beside get him elected so he can be even more puffed-up about himself).
Barack runs for president like my old high school classmates ran for class president: I am cool, I am popular, I look fly/phat, I make exciting speeches. Well, that's okay for the vapid job of class president, but it is nowhere near sufficient for runing a world power.
He is nothing more than a late-night TV infomercial--well, not really. At least the Oxy Clean guy SHOWS US how the product actually works.
I am one sister who sees nothing in this candidate worth voting for -- and I, for one, will NOT vote for him simply because our skin tones match. I am looking for experience and substance and found it in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!
February 13, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will be eaten alive by the republicans. He has Kerry's aloof, above it all quality. He is already being character-assasinated by the republicans so that they have defined him with thei voters, and he is not bothering to defend himself.
They have already succesfully convinced republicans (and even some dems!) that he is a muslim. YOU might know it is false, but the repubs are going to make sure that lots of people think it is true and that many others have their doubts.
Then there is the Che nonsense. After every right wing blog and pundit has been comparing the guy to Che Guevara nonstop, his houston office opens up with a fox news interview showing the che poster on the wall there. Just google Obama and Che and see how many times you see the pictures before you find any kind of defense or counterattack. How many times do you think we'll see those pictures in the general?
The point is not to spark a defense of Obama on these points, but to note that the R's are ALREADY defining him in ways that will really hurt him and he is not even in the fray to vote "present", much less to defend himself and hit back.
Contrast that with Hillary's recent MSNBC spats and see the diference. Hillary will throw elbows and attack the republicans. Obama wants to court them and stay above the fray.
I'm sure we will all be proud of the high minded campaign that Obama ran when we look back on it during McCain's presidency.
This is not to say that either of the above is true
February 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democratic voters should consider a class action lawsuit to end the process of super-delegates. A case can be made that the super-delegates degrade, and are intended to dilute, the weight of our votes to allow the party elites to determine who gets the nomination of the party. It doesn't matter whether Hillary or Obama gets the nomination, both will be great democratic leaders. However, the fact that super-delegates have the power to overrule the voters is against the concept of democracy, and harms the voters of this country. A single super-delegate vote can carry as much weight as 50,000 citizen votes.
Do not lose focus on this issue after the primaries are over. While it may turn out that this process does not override the American vote this year, the chances are there for the future. It is our rights as Democratic party members to have our votes count of equal value to the Washington insiders.
February 17, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legally this is a non issue. The supreme court has ruled several times that parties can choose their candidates just about anyway they want to. The only way to change this is for party members to pressure the party leaders to change it. I doubt that will happen with enough force to make changes.
March 5, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
To vote for Barak Hussein Obama(yes i dare say it)is like spitting on the foundation of what America stands for. This man is a racist who would say anything to progress his agenda.
Vote for Hillary, Macain or whom ever but vote for someone who is proud to be an American unlike this fake anti american wolf dressed in sheeps clothing!!
March 4, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama. Hands down.
March 8, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a former Edwards supporter, I am leaning to Clinton simply because Obama supporters are trying to bully me into voting for him!
Mrs. Clinton has as good a chance as Barack IMO>
March 8, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wont win by a land slide, look at the numbers presented, the are not in his favor, there are 700 delegates still undecided, he has to win 97%to be a shoe in, not gonna happen, or he has to win 3 out of every for the remaining primaries and since delegates are based on % that isnt going to happen either, so then the only other option left for him to win is the popular vote, well he isnt leading by the astounding number which would make him a shoe in either, in fact if Michigan and Florida are able to seat there delegates. it is going to be an even tighter race, by the way for Clinton to upset Obamas apple cart she only needs to land 20 more super delegates and obama will be in a quite a pickle.. I have been reading about the religion factor placed on the blogs.. church and state are supposed to be separate when it comes to office, so no matter what either is, it really should not matter. What i would be more concerned with is the book he authored and some of the facts he writes about in it. As far as Clinton, she was part of the rebuilding of our economy after the first Bush took office, and I dont know that there were many that did not benefit from the rebounding economy.
History repeats itself, When B. Clinton took office it was difficult at first because of the unknown for the debt that was before him, the administration made some difficult decisions and we all bettered for it. Im not sure if Obama is able to pull that one off. When the hope wears off and the spotlight is gone then what.. Honestly people I do wish Clinton would stop saying she is ready on day one.. its really old, it isnt about thresholds or being ready on day, its about having a solution and not afraid of putting the solution into action even if it means making difficult choices for the short term. I want a solution solver not a problem promiser.
leo
March 11, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used a new political analysis tool this afternoon: Excel. The results were not compelling for Obama. Yes, he's won more states. Yes, he's ahead in the delegates. But no, he is not likely to get the nomination, and I believe it will be the superdelegates who unseat him.
Why would the superdelegates do such a dastardly thing? To win in November. Thus the use of Excel. Many of Obama's states will not run blue in November, so winning the state delegates means nothing when they do not produce electoral votes. Nor is winning a state primary any kind of bellweather as to whether the state can be flipped: Newsflash, Utah will not run blue in November, even if the Dems re-animated Ronald Reagan, or even Joe Smith, and gave him the nomination.
So the superdelegates, who, having run for state and national office, are closer to the math, will go with the candidate who can get 270 electoral votes. Her name is Clinton.
March 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
In light of this past week's events, I believe that Obama is a sure loser in November. The right wing slime machine will simply run those Wright videos over and over and folks who haven't been paying attention will simply vote McCain who will appear to have more gravitas.
March 21, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that the Clinton folk are still hoping for a windfall that can save the nomination for her in spite of all the facts at hand.
The Wright stuff is going to blow over within the next week. The next endorsement, the next gaffe by McCain (or by Obama or Clinton), the next slur by any candidate, the next outrage by any candidate. In today's new cycle this stuff will by the oldest of old news by November.
Obama will probably not win in a landslide--eventually the conservatives would figure out he was liberal and the racists would figure out he was black. But Clinton wouldn't get the racists or the conservatives anyway (lots of overlap among these groups and the sexists, too, right)--and also would do without just about everyone in the middle who would like to see the Republicans out but don't like the Clintons, don't like her imperious style or her sleazy connections.
Obama isn't a lock to win--but he's an inspiring new figure with a genuine charm, intellectual capacity, and power of persuasion that we haven't seen in decades.
March 22, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Rev. Wright stuff has already blown over with everyone except the desperate Clinton campaign, whose effort to keep it alive was pushed off the front page by the Bosnia "misspeak".
The Wright clip won't be running on an endless loop because there'll be another loop of John McCain saying, "I know Senator Obama, and I know he doesn't believe those things." As an election issue, that one is dead.
The "sniper fire"/Tuzla montage, on the other hand, combined with Clinton's endorsement of McCain as CiC? I hate to think ...
April 1, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only Dem to win the office of the presidency in the past 28 years in this country was named "[b]Clinton[/b]".
The R's never got over that. They spent the entire 8 yrs exhausting all their resources of energy and money in an effort to take them down. Yes, "them". She had the AUDACITY to try to use her position as First Lady to better the world and provide universal health care. She was brutally derided for it when sexism was barely admonished with a wrist slap, let alone renounced... Newt Gingrich and cohorts lived and breathed to destroy her health care plan.
The Elephant Party is known for their lasting memories. It's often said that a Republican never forgets who their enemies are... The name Clinton tops the list and has for a few decades. Because they won. They beat them at their own game. Twice. No other Dem has in most of our adult lifetimes.
Then they had the added AUDACITY to preside over peace and prosperity for 8 years (oh I know it's all been rewritten and the rewrite shows us the 90's actually sucked-- Problem is ...I have a memory too) -- Clinton is [i]not[/i] the "easy one to beat", as the Limbaugh oft-repeated meme might suggest ... (since when do we take what Rush says at face value?)
Read any thread for the past 6 months at Free Republic to see who the ground team is really organizing for to take the Dem nomination. It's Obama. Yes, I know - Rush Rush Rush. Just go look for yourself. It's easy to see.
Every movement organized by grassroots / netroots Repub's is hatched over at Freeperville. See it for yourself. The Dem for a Day campaign was set up to crossover for Obama. I know it's painful to think that Rush might be trying to spread DISINFO!!
(No, Not Rush! Would he?! Could he?!! We never [i]thought[/i] we might have to doubt him!!)
Hillary Clinton has miles of experience-- not referring to the kind of experience she touts on the campaign trail -- but the electable kind. The experience of having been a living pinata for the republican party for three decades - and bouncing back up, dusting off, still standing strong. There is not a Swifter out there who hasn't already taken a few gratuitous swings at her with a club. Still standin'... still commanding half the voters votes in the country.
That's how you win a race across from the New Republicans.
Durability! Resilience. Toughness.
My interest in preventing McCain/Lieberbush from taking office in January '09 is far stronger than any nebulous enticement I may feel to Hope for Change in an untested wilderness.
March 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, it's confirmed: your post is good news for Hillary.
April 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. In yet another contest... BBCode vs HTML.
Appears HTML wins! ;-)
March 23, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel your pain. About the HTML, I mean.
March 28, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think either one can beat McCain; frankly, he's a boneheaded idiot with about as much understanding of politics, domestic or foreign, as the keyboard I'm typing on. My concern is what kind of president they'd be.
Regardless of what would happen afterwards, I believe Clinton's history will give her at best a narrow victory. I believe Obama would win by a wide enough margin to legitimately claim a mandate.
That's because Clinton has not yet been challenged on the stuff she claims to have been 'vetted' on but hasn't come out; specifically, all her and her husband's business dealings since they left the white house. And then there's whatever indiscretions after the white house years that the Republicans will tar her and Bill with. Should Hillary be accountable for Bill's misconduct? No she shouldn't. Will she? Yes, she will. If Obama touched this stuff the Democratic party would virtually expel him. The most anyone can do is point out the the silly Bosnia-gate and Belfastorama debacles.
If one of them can't win, neither can the other. To paraphrase Nader--and this is the only thing I've agreed with since 1985--if the Democrats can't win this in 2008 by more than his spoiler vote, they don't deserve the presidency.
March 28, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I guess the "foundation of what America stands for" is that nobody with a Muslim name should ever be president.
Funny, I don't see that in the Declaration of Independence.
Why is this thread such a troll magnet?
April 1, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
whoops, I pressed "reply" to harris01, but apparently it didn't work.
April 1, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
As many people decry Obama about his former Church and pastor, I think many people need some education in African-American churches and religion. There seems to be much ignorance demonstrated by those who are not white. I think it would be an eye opener. The Black Churches were found from a need that could not be meant in a white world so often the theme is at times rhetoric that expresses their frustration in the world they are living and many people would consider this political. But then all religion becomes political at some point since ministers, preachers, rabbis, priests etc., uses the 'pulpit' to tell us at times how to vote, what issues to support and how to conduct our lives. I have sat through many sermons that I totally disagreed with the minister but did not mean I had to quit going, walk out or withhold support. Just because it is not our church does not mean that it is any more wrong or right than the one we attend. All this hue and cry demonstrates that prejudice is still strong.
April 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack is beating Hillary and either can beat McCain, but especially Barack. Obama is getting triple teamed these days (Bill, Hillary, and McCain) and still holding strong. He responds to political swipes quickly and cleanly, and doesn't lose his cool. McCain is on vacation, always has been. He's gotten a 35-year pass from his time in Hanoi. But as soon as the pivot comes, when Hillary finally melts (after setting fire to the Scarecrow and the Tin Man accidentally hits her with a bucket of water), McCain is going to have to sell himself to the YouTube generation. (Watch the brilliant "Baracky": http://youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA) That cranky old man hates making sales calls. He will not sell himself to the YouTube generation. He won't even sell himself to the Republican base. (He got the nomination through the sheer shittiness of his opponents, who divided and failed to conquer an absolutely apathetic Republican electorate.) (Obama has already garned twice as many votes as McCain.)
I predict a blow-out in November. Say hello to President Obama!
April 17, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can not afford a PIT BULL in the White House. I am a White Woman and voting for Barak Obama.
April 17, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
we made the mistake of picking the "electable" one in 2004. kerry was a dead horse from the start. we need to pick the right one this time. that's obama. america is hungry for change, and neither hillary or mccain can offer that.
obama, well Yes He Can.
for more, see my post here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/a-tale-of-two-speeches.php
April 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Either will beat McCain. Everything is aligned against the GOP this year, and none of the issues of personality and background that have loomed so large in these months of fighting between Democrats will matter much in the end.
Both can be good presidents. I believe Obama has more potential to bring different factions together to get things done, and I believe he can lead the country in a greater moral and philosophical shift, so I'm supporting him. But Clinton would also be a vast improvement over Bush.
I really think it's time for all of us to bury this Obama vs. Hillary conflict. The real show is about to begin.
May 12, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink