*unfortunately we can't vote in the US (my wife and myself) but we follow this very carefully and for us Obama is really a candidate that good or bad can really bring something different to Washington and the world.
you know what the beauty of this whole system is... my mind is boggled by people like futurist, sandroad and free campos that they ACTUALLY believe someone like Mitt Romney would be good for the future of this nation. and im sure they are boggled that many others are TOTALLY convinced the obama can bring about the concrete changes many truly need.
i really am curious though... how can you truly support romney?
what does he offer? and why does it not matter that like LiG said, he has dramtically shifted his ideological base in order to be electable...
i am actually sad for those that view the US as a company to be run... that a CEO is the right person to do it, and the notion that a CEO of a major corporation has a very similar skill set to the president of a nation.
thats horribly depressing in my view...
obama looks like he's daydreaming into the skies in that picture: contemplating the future of america. and you can see determination in the clenched lips.
the picture looks like more platitudes to me. demand substance! rhetoric and inspirational speeches are important, but they will not get you health care, they will not feed the hungry, they will not reduce student loan debt, they will not develop alternative energy sources, they will not end the strangehold that corporations have on our government...
Obama isn't bad on all these issues, he's just not as good as he's been allowed to seem on them. Make sure he improves his policy positions to the point that if enacted, they will change something in America for the better.
Typing PROGRESS under a picture of yourself does not make you a progressive... having progressive ideas do.
FrankLloydMike, i disagree with you on this a bit...
its very popular to say that speeches and inspirational leadership will not achieve results. I believe that is false. I would argue that the type of leadership Obama represents is even MORE powerful than the behind closed doors style power Clinton represents.
Populist politics, love it or hate it, is effective when employed by those who know how. Sweeping changes can not be made in back rooms... they have to be made in the open, by the public. The truth is, America's course will not change without significant pressure to do so from the public. So in my mind, Obama is the right type of power for the right time. Mobilize the masses, re-energize the electorate, put some pressure on our leaders, and health care will get done, schools will get financed, student loan debts will be managed, alternative energy sources will be valued... etc etc
there is very clear historical evidence to back this...
look at some of the most popular liberal presidents of the past, and you will find a rousing public presence that inspired people to press.
You must have missed the memo my man, your boy dropped out. Not to mention Obamas actual plans for Healthcare and Iraq were more detailed than Edwards ever were anyway so I dont quite get where youre going with the whole platitudes v substance stuff.
sandy m'boy taxes do not equal nationalization. You are incapable to understand that. Mostly because you're an idiot.
I mean, honestly, you've got a problem with the 14th amendment! The 14th amend. which freed the slaves and basically gave personhood to corporations (while still freeing them from the responsibilities of the more corporeal entities among us) giving them free reign to screw over the little guy with impunity by inferred rights, should they choose.
The FCC regulates the airwaves owned by the people as ruled by the supreme court as they interpreted the constitution you moron. How else were corporations supposed to get their piece of the radio spectrum if any tom dick or harry was broadcasting his own ham radio show all over the dial?
You're kool-aid drinking ass needs to do some thinking instead of repeating.
i'm gonna make a somewhat heretical comment: i'm beginning to think that the details of any plan or initiative that ANY candidate spouts right now are all smoke and mirrors because they simply can't be real. so i'm going to start just listening to the overarching/big picture message. the message or the vision of a candidate may establish which way that candidate will ultimately go when gathering together the various advisors who will actually draft/craft future policy positions. we just need the person who will bring the right people to the table.
thinking about this more and more as i think about meeting doris kearns goodwin next week as part of the lincoln bicentennial celebrations. maybe i'll even pick up her ' team of rivals: the political genius of abraham lincoln':
Goodwin makes the case for Lincoln's political genius by examining his relationships with three men he selected for his cabinet, all of whom were opponents for the Republican nomination in 1860: William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates. These men, all accomplished, nationally known, and presidential, originally disdained Lincoln for his backwoods upbringing and lack of experience, and were shocked and humiliated at losing to this relatively obscure Illinois lawyer. Yet Lincoln not only convinced them to join his administration--Seward as secretary of state, Chase as secretary of the treasury, and Bates as attorney general--he ultimately gained their admiration and respect as well. How he soothed egos, turned rivals into allies, and dealt with many challenges to his leadership, all for the sake of the greater good, is largely what Goodwin's fine book is about. Had he not possessed the wisdom and confidence to select and work with the best people, she argues, he could not have led the nation through one of its darkest periods.
Ten years in the making, this engaging work reveals why "Lincoln's road to success was longer, more tortuous, and far less likely" than the other men, and why, when opportunity beckoned, Lincoln was "the best prepared to answer the call." This multiple biography further provides valuable background and insights into the contributions and talents of Seward, Chase, and Bates. Lincoln may have been "the indispensable ingredient of the Civil War," but these three men were invaluable to Lincoln and they played key roles in keeping the nation intact.
Steven is the voice of reason, as usual. No matter how detailed and comprehensive any candidate's policy stances are, they probably bear very little resemblance of whatever legislation would end up getting passed after being hashed out by the cabinet, congressional committees, senate committees, and joint committees.
So....apparently the "decline to say" voters here in California are having a hard time voting today. I am one of those people and I didn't have a hard time at all. I think this has to do with incompetent poll workers. It's pretty annoying if it takes so much to get people to vote, and then they get there and they can't because the workers are incompetent.
Wow -- well, I'm in California and I took the trouble to trade in my DNS (decline to state party affiliation) absentee ballot for a dem ballot, allowing my to cast a vote for Obama (we don't need someone Redders hate and fear, on the ballot, do we ?). No problem at my Hayes Street, San Francisco polling place with this, though I had no clue if it would fly, going in.
An hour ago I heard that in South Bay polling places where some ballot shortage has occurred, the stated remedies were a) "plain paper" replacements could being produced; b) voters would be able to use their sample (in-pamphlet) ballots, and c) each polling place has one electronic voting machine.
Carter may have been a ghost of a presence, compared to FDR (if not to Lincoln) but he may have been the last of the type you describe. And now another breed of same ?
i don't think any of these are of that stature, really. but of the current field i'm supporting obama because i trust him to surround himself with good people, to listen to them, and to give considered response/action based on what he learns.
i trust mccain to do the same, making him my second choice.
i don't really trust clinton to do this at all. she gets too enamored of her own positions to consider others' seriously - at least until she changes her mind.
they're really the only three i'm considering anymore...
there are some really strong/weird breaks happening in how the states fall out:
hillary is stronger with the northeast liberal establishment, while carrying her home state and oklahoma (tenn. seems to be the shocker). obama seems to carry the traditionally 'red' states, almost all of them.
california will really be the deciding factor on the night. winner gets to claim the momentum...
so, i was a precinct coordinator in MPLS and we had in precinct 2 ward 2 788 presidential ballots cast, 606 for Obama. it was an absolute madhouse, and now i am a senate delegate. woo-hoo! and we sub-caucused even!
Obama has won more states and is close in delegates. People in the next few set of states it is up to you. I have to say that I am disappointed by hispanics, si se puede? If you speak spanish help good ol' obama out.
Let's move forward, donate more (if you can), work harder, WE CAN WIN.
Obama has won more states and is close in delegates. People in the next few set of states it is up to you. I have to say that I am disappointed by hispanics, si se puede? If you speak spanish help good ol' obama out.
Let's move forward, donate more (if you can), work harder, WE CAN WIN.
and speaking of delegates, there is a difference of only 6 PLEDGED DELEGATES between Obama and Clinton. The major diff is with the Super Delegates -- who of course can always change their minds.
^^ Well I dont know if thats fair as a naked statement. A lot can move around before November. She will certainly have a more difficult time with McCain, but I sincerely hope we can have a real debate about why that fight will be so much harder. Im so fucking tired of this thing being broken down demographically, the news media is so far off base on this one and hopefully yesterday finally showed that. What will matter is how compelling each candidates arguments are, and how they think about solving problems. Do you think the american people have a right to be included in discussions about healthcare and the environment? Do you think America should posture itself as a republic or an empire? Its not just what your policies are its why you shape them the way you do. And frankly, if you arent an honest person it doesnt matter what your policies are because no one has any reason to believe you'll follow through with them holding our best interest in mind to begin with. Honesty and integrity and authenticity really do matter more than race and gender and i think Hill will find that out very quickly if she finds herself head to head with McCain.
Hey, gin and crow -- as usual, thanks for all that!
Pretty good post there, oe, I thought.
Alsoo, I guess I'm shocked that McCain did that well compared with Romney's outcome. I honestly did not see McCain having the ability to have gotten that that far out in front.
oe -- I think the problem with Hillary is that there's an enormous amount of angst about her on the Red side. If she's the one, a lot of undecided Repubs are going to vote for McCain. These people, led by Rush Limbaugh and the like, just HATE Hillary with a passion. Obama doesn't have that disadvantage.
There are a LOT of people who voted consistently for Republican candidates in the past, who are disenchanted -- perhaps only temporarily -- with that party. The President's approval rating, running at about 30% for the last year or more, is ample evidence of that. Given that the positions taken by Hillary and by Obama are really not that far apart, let's make it easier for the poor Reds to vote for a Democrat !
Agreed... Despite some commentary to the contrary, the only thing right-wingers hate worse than McCain is Hillary. Some talking heads are saying the right-wingers (the Limbaugh and Coulter crowd) would rather dominate the GOP at all costs, even if it means a Dem being elected to the White House, but I don't buy that.
If the race comes down to McCain vs. Obama, I think a lot of right-wingers will simply stay home, while young voters and independents will turn out in droves to vote for Obama.
If it comes down to McCain vs. Hillary, though, I think the opposite will happen. The people who supported Obama will have a very hard time getting excited about Hillary, and they'll sit out the general election. Meanwhile, the right-wingers will put aside their reservations about McCain and come out in full force to vote against Hillary.
Gin -- I agree with that, with the exception that I don't see any Democrat sitting out this election, for any reason. The need to change direction, with any Democrat who's running, is just too strong in their (our, my) minds -- isn't it ?
Gin, well put as usual. I also think that Hilary running for (especially if she wins) the presidency is the best possible hope for the Republican party. Not only do they have a unifying agenda (Must. Hate. Clinton.) but also, the right-wing of the republican party has her number and can essentially make her do whatever they want through their obstructionism and media savvy. Obama wins by refusing to play the game and is much better both at media manipulation (he's no Rove, but he's better than her) and at political maneuvering.
In short, if you want the next eight years to look like the last two, vote for Hillary.
last night it was HUGE for Obama he is winning the popular vote nationally and won a majority of delegates. He came back from 20 and 30 point deficits to win 14 states, he has won the majority of the primaries and caucuses.
PLUS
look at the states he has won, that is the coalition to put a Dem back in the white house. Where did Hillary win: the NE and Cali, good luck getting the whitehouse with that.
j -- I agree with most of that. I also think, and have been roundly criticized for it, that Obama has run "young energetic change candidate" mode very well thus far, but has been light on details and recognizable positions. I've been told to not worry about this because he will assemble the right people and be a great team builder. Well, maybe. But I've always wondered how well the Big Charismatic Orator mode could sustain him over the long term. He is quite good at it. But, it may, as you've suggested, be losing power and failing him a bit already. I was quite surprised to see Hillary doing that well.
As I watched Obama's speech last night, I had similar thoughts. I'm not an Obama hater, but couldn't help but be very aware that I had heard that same speech several times before.
Patrick, I do hope you want the war to end. Remember, O has mentioned more than once that he'd go into Pakistan or areas of Afganistan to go after OBL/Al -Queda even again the sovereign country's wishes. I don't think he's "soft" on terrorism at all, but if Hillary gets in every attack in Kashmir will be a "deflection" from her __________-gate/swiftboat du-jour. And to be efffective in those areas we need out of Iraq.
As in, fighting the actual people who attacked us. Which is the only way to end the war. Not attacking new people (who, as it turned out, were completely unaffiliated with our attackers) when you screw up and allow your enemy to slip away.
VOTE OBAMA
*unfortunately we can't vote in the US (my wife and myself) but we follow this very carefully and for us Obama is really a candidate that good or bad can really bring something different to Washington and the world.
you know what the beauty of this whole system is... my mind is boggled by people like futurist, sandroad and free campos that they ACTUALLY believe someone like Mitt Romney would be good for the future of this nation. and im sure they are boggled that many others are TOTALLY convinced the obama can bring about the concrete changes many truly need.
i really am curious though... how can you truly support romney?
what does he offer? and why does it not matter that like LiG said, he has dramtically shifted his ideological base in order to be electable...
i am actually sad for those that view the US as a company to be run... that a CEO is the right person to do it, and the notion that a CEO of a major corporation has a very similar skill set to the president of a nation.
thats horribly depressing in my view...
obama looks like he's daydreaming into the skies in that picture: contemplating the future of america. and you can see determination in the clenched lips.
the picture looks like more platitudes to me. demand substance! rhetoric and inspirational speeches are important, but they will not get you health care, they will not feed the hungry, they will not reduce student loan debt, they will not develop alternative energy sources, they will not end the strangehold that corporations have on our government...
Obama isn't bad on all these issues, he's just not as good as he's been allowed to seem on them. Make sure he improves his policy positions to the point that if enacted, they will change something in America for the better.
Typing PROGRESS under a picture of yourself does not make you a progressive... having progressive ideas do.
FrankLloydMike, i disagree with you on this a bit...
its very popular to say that speeches and inspirational leadership will not achieve results. I believe that is false. I would argue that the type of leadership Obama represents is even MORE powerful than the behind closed doors style power Clinton represents.
Populist politics, love it or hate it, is effective when employed by those who know how. Sweeping changes can not be made in back rooms... they have to be made in the open, by the public. The truth is, America's course will not change without significant pressure to do so from the public. So in my mind, Obama is the right type of power for the right time. Mobilize the masses, re-energize the electorate, put some pressure on our leaders, and health care will get done, schools will get financed, student loan debts will be managed, alternative energy sources will be valued... etc etc
there is very clear historical evidence to back this...
look at some of the most popular liberal presidents of the past, and you will find a rousing public presence that inspired people to press.
No idea llettdownl -- i'm a Dr. Paul guy.
a vote for Romney is a vote for more outsourcing and escalating job loss.
my bad sandroad
Dukakis 08'!
You must have missed the memo my man, your boy dropped out. Not to mention Obamas actual plans for Healthcare and Iraq were more detailed than Edwards ever were anyway so I dont quite get where youre going with the whole platitudes v substance stuff.
sandy m'boy taxes do not equal nationalization. You are incapable to understand that. Mostly because you're an idiot.
I mean, honestly, you've got a problem with the 14th amendment! The 14th amend. which freed the slaves and basically gave personhood to corporations (while still freeing them from the responsibilities of the more corporeal entities among us) giving them free reign to screw over the little guy with impunity by inferred rights, should they choose.
The FCC regulates the airwaves owned by the people as ruled by the supreme court as they interpreted the constitution you moron. How else were corporations supposed to get their piece of the radio spectrum if any tom dick or harry was broadcasting his own ham radio show all over the dial?
You're kool-aid drinking ass needs to do some thinking instead of repeating.
You expect rational thought from somebody who probably lives in his mother's basement and masturbates to Ayn Rand novels?
may i suggest you guys take the vitriol outside of this thread?
voted
was that just a vote for change?
for all my republican friends:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/02/the_paul_volcker_myth.html
i'm gonna make a somewhat heretical comment: i'm beginning to think that the details of any plan or initiative that ANY candidate spouts right now are all smoke and mirrors because they simply can't be real. so i'm going to start just listening to the overarching/big picture message. the message or the vision of a candidate may establish which way that candidate will ultimately go when gathering together the various advisors who will actually draft/craft future policy positions. we just need the person who will bring the right people to the table.
thinking about this more and more as i think about meeting doris kearns goodwin next week as part of the lincoln bicentennial celebrations. maybe i'll even pick up her ' team of rivals: the political genius of abraham lincoln':
Goodwin makes the case for Lincoln's political genius by examining his relationships with three men he selected for his cabinet, all of whom were opponents for the Republican nomination in 1860: William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates. These men, all accomplished, nationally known, and presidential, originally disdained Lincoln for his backwoods upbringing and lack of experience, and were shocked and humiliated at losing to this relatively obscure Illinois lawyer. Yet Lincoln not only convinced them to join his administration--Seward as secretary of state, Chase as secretary of the treasury, and Bates as attorney general--he ultimately gained their admiration and respect as well. How he soothed egos, turned rivals into allies, and dealt with many challenges to his leadership, all for the sake of the greater good, is largely what Goodwin's fine book is about. Had he not possessed the wisdom and confidence to select and work with the best people, she argues, he could not have led the nation through one of its darkest periods.
Ten years in the making, this engaging work reveals why "Lincoln's road to success was longer, more tortuous, and far less likely" than the other men, and why, when opportunity beckoned, Lincoln was "the best prepared to answer the call." This multiple biography further provides valuable background and insights into the contributions and talents of Seward, Chase, and Bates. Lincoln may have been "the indispensable ingredient of the Civil War," but these three men were invaluable to Lincoln and they played key roles in keeping the nation intact.
Steven is the voice of reason, as usual. No matter how detailed and comprehensive any candidate's policy stances are, they probably bear very little resemblance of whatever legislation would end up getting passed after being hashed out by the cabinet, congressional committees, senate committees, and joint committees.
ha!...he said joint.
and he said 'hash"-ed out...
So....apparently the "decline to say" voters here in California are having a hard time voting today. I am one of those people and I didn't have a hard time at all. I think this has to do with incompetent poll workers. It's pretty annoying if it takes so much to get people to vote, and then they get there and they can't because the workers are incompetent.
Wow -- well, I'm in California and I took the trouble to trade in my DNS (decline to state party affiliation) absentee ballot for a dem ballot, allowing my to cast a vote for Obama (we don't need someone Redders hate and fear, on the ballot, do we ?). No problem at my Hayes Street, San Francisco polling place with this, though I had no clue if it would fly, going in.
An hour ago I heard that in South Bay polling places where some ballot shortage has occurred, the stated remedies were a) "plain paper" replacements could being produced; b) voters would be able to use their sample (in-pamphlet) ballots, and c) each polling place has one electronic voting machine.
Carter may have been a ghost of a presence, compared to FDR (if not to Lincoln) but he may have been the last of the type you describe. And now another breed of same ?
VOTE OBAMA - Done.
Ballot cast at approximately 5:37 cst.
i don't think any of these are of that stature, really. but of the current field i'm supporting obama because i trust him to surround himself with good people, to listen to them, and to give considered response/action based on what he learns.
i trust mccain to do the same, making him my second choice.
i don't really trust clinton to do this at all. she gets too enamored of her own positions to consider others' seriously - at least until she changes her mind.
they're really the only three i'm considering anymore...
there are some really strong/weird breaks happening in how the states fall out:
hillary is stronger with the northeast liberal establishment, while carrying her home state and oklahoma (tenn. seems to be the shocker). obama seems to carry the traditionally 'red' states, almost all of them.
california will really be the deciding factor on the night. winner gets to claim the momentum...
I'm very close to your position. A couple of McCain's avowals bother me, but I'd trust him to lead the country. I want to like Hillary, but. . .
That was to Steven. Momentum may be on Obama's side going forward (as they say) based on trends of the last two weeks -- according to David and Mark.
Human failing and folly are no strangers to the throne (as it were). . .
so, i was a precinct coordinator in MPLS and we had in precinct 2 ward 2 788 presidential ballots cast, 606 for Obama. it was an absolute madhouse, and now i am a senate delegate. woo-hoo! and we sub-caucused even!
I dare anyone to find a more substantive AND inspiring speech by any candidate than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dzHDzvTfzQ
Obama has won more states and is close in delegates. People in the next few set of states it is up to you. I have to say that I am disappointed by hispanics, si se puede? If you speak spanish help good ol' obama out.
Let's move forward, donate more (if you can), work harder, WE CAN WIN.
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
I dare anyone to find a more substantive AND inspiring speech by any candidate than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dzHDzvTfzQ
Obama has won more states and is close in delegates. People in the next few set of states it is up to you. I have to say that I am disappointed by hispanics, si se puede? If you speak spanish help good ol' obama out.
Let's move forward, donate more (if you can), work harder, WE CAN WIN.
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
I know it's all about delegates, but looking at actual votes >>>
with most all results in (except CA and NM, both at around 80%) the total number of votes stands at:
Clinton: 7,055,159
Obama: 7,019,566
don't lose hope, and let's get to work!
YES WE CAN!
and speaking of delegates, there is a difference of only 6 PLEDGED DELEGATES between Obama and Clinton. The major diff is with the Super Delegates -- who of course can always change their minds.
Obama has won 15 out of 25 competitive states.
IT is time to sway the Super Delegates:
CALL YOUR CONGRESS PEOPLE AND ASK THEM TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE FOR OBAMA:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
this is when the real work begins!
I hope they wake up and realize that a vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain.
^^ Well I dont know if thats fair as a naked statement. A lot can move around before November. She will certainly have a more difficult time with McCain, but I sincerely hope we can have a real debate about why that fight will be so much harder. Im so fucking tired of this thing being broken down demographically, the news media is so far off base on this one and hopefully yesterday finally showed that. What will matter is how compelling each candidates arguments are, and how they think about solving problems. Do you think the american people have a right to be included in discussions about healthcare and the environment? Do you think America should posture itself as a republic or an empire? Its not just what your policies are its why you shape them the way you do. And frankly, if you arent an honest person it doesnt matter what your policies are because no one has any reason to believe you'll follow through with them holding our best interest in mind to begin with. Honesty and integrity and authenticity really do matter more than race and gender and i think Hill will find that out very quickly if she finds herself head to head with McCain.
Hey, gin and crow -- as usual, thanks for all that!
Pretty good post there, oe, I thought.
Alsoo, I guess I'm shocked that McCain did that well compared with Romney's outcome. I honestly did not see McCain having the ability to have gotten that that far out in front.
oe -- I think the problem with Hillary is that there's an enormous amount of angst about her on the Red side. If she's the one, a lot of undecided Repubs are going to vote for McCain. These people, led by Rush Limbaugh and the like, just HATE Hillary with a passion. Obama doesn't have that disadvantage.
There are a LOT of people who voted consistently for Republican candidates in the past, who are disenchanted -- perhaps only temporarily -- with that party. The President's approval rating, running at about 30% for the last year or more, is ample evidence of that. Given that the positions taken by Hillary and by Obama are really not that far apart, let's make it easier for the poor Reds to vote for a Democrat !
Agreed... Despite some commentary to the contrary, the only thing right-wingers hate worse than McCain is Hillary. Some talking heads are saying the right-wingers (the Limbaugh and Coulter crowd) would rather dominate the GOP at all costs, even if it means a Dem being elected to the White House, but I don't buy that.
If the race comes down to McCain vs. Obama, I think a lot of right-wingers will simply stay home, while young voters and independents will turn out in droves to vote for Obama.
If it comes down to McCain vs. Hillary, though, I think the opposite will happen. The people who supported Obama will have a very hard time getting excited about Hillary, and they'll sit out the general election. Meanwhile, the right-wingers will put aside their reservations about McCain and come out in full force to vote against Hillary.
TOTALS FOR ALL THE VOTE SO FAR
OBAMA % CLINTON % MARGIN Î"
TOTAL % (+ FL, MI) 49,4 42,8 7%
TOTAL % (- FL, MI) 52,0 42,0 10%
Obama is winning in popular vote!
TOTALS FOR ALL THE VOTE SO FAR
OBAMA % CLINTON % MARGIN Î"
TOTAL % (+ FL, MI) 49,4 42,8 7%
TOTAL % (- FL, MI) 52,0 42,0 10%
Obama is winning in popular vote!
Gin -- I agree with that, with the exception that I don't see any Democrat sitting out this election, for any reason. The need to change direction, with any Democrat who's running, is just too strong in their (our, my) minds -- isn't it ?
Obama wins the most delegates:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html
Good news, but still a bit close for comfort. Maybe some news crew will catch Hillary eating a live baby or something between now and the convention.
Gin, well put as usual. I also think that Hilary running for (especially if she wins) the presidency is the best possible hope for the Republican party. Not only do they have a unifying agenda (Must. Hate. Clinton.) but also, the right-wing of the republican party has her number and can essentially make her do whatever they want through their obstructionism and media savvy. Obama wins by refusing to play the game and is much better both at media manipulation (he's no Rove, but he's better than her) and at political maneuvering.
In short, if you want the next eight years to look like the last two, vote for Hillary.
And Sandy, I accept your concession.
¡¡ Sí, Se Puede !!
¡¡ Sí, Se Puede !!
j, as usual you are misleading,
last night it was HUGE for Obama he is winning the popular vote nationally and won a majority of delegates. He came back from 20 and 30 point deficits to win 14 states, he has won the majority of the primaries and caucuses.
PLUS
look at the states he has won, that is the coalition to put a Dem back in the white house. Where did Hillary win: the NE and Cali, good luck getting the whitehouse with that.
HE IS WINNING, simple as that
free blah blah blah, you should be happy, obama is not doing well among hispanics. a divided country must feel good to you, right?
Being the underdog helps Obama. Less people will feel inclined to get out and vote for Hillary and more people will feel inclined to vote for Obama.
j -- I agree with most of that. I also think, and have been roundly criticized for it, that Obama has run "young energetic change candidate" mode very well thus far, but has been light on details and recognizable positions. I've been told to not worry about this because he will assemble the right people and be a great team builder. Well, maybe. But I've always wondered how well the Big Charismatic Orator mode could sustain him over the long term. He is quite good at it. But, it may, as you've suggested, be losing power and failing him a bit already. I was quite surprised to see Hillary doing that well.
As I watched Obama's speech last night, I had similar thoughts. I'm not an Obama hater, but couldn't help but be very aware that I had heard that same speech several times before.
Patrick, I do hope you want the war to end. Remember, O has mentioned more than once that he'd go into Pakistan or areas of Afganistan to go after OBL/Al -Queda even again the sovereign country's wishes. I don't think he's "soft" on terrorism at all, but if Hillary gets in every attack in Kashmir will be a "deflection" from her __________-gate/swiftboat du-jour. And to be efffective in those areas we need out of Iraq.
As in, fighting the actual people who attacked us. Which is the only way to end the war. Not attacking new people (who, as it turned out, were completely unaffiliated with our attackers) when you screw up and allow your enemy to slip away.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.