BBC BLOGS - Justin Webb's America
« Previous | Main | Next »

Why Obama won

Justin Webb | 06:39 UK time, Wednesday, 4 June 2008

Ten reasons.

1. He is black. Geraldine Ferraro has a point: Obama's individual story is important and his racial makeup - he is of mixed race - is a part of his appeal. Black people have rallied to him.

2. He is not black. He is also the first black presidential hopeful to run as a post-racial candidate (hence the upset with Ferraro). White people feel unthreatened by him.

3. He was not taken seriously. Oops. If the Clinton people had blown him out in Iowa, at the beginning of the process, he would be toast.

4. He is serious. This appears to be a serious year, in which Americans are deeply worried about the state of the nation, and Obama's slightly professorial demeanour looks a good fit.

5. He offers self-help and self-improvement. She offered a plan to make America better - he offers a plan to make Americans themselves better.

6. He promises change in a year when Americans are ready for change.

7. He is 46 and handsome.

8. He catches the attention of the media but is a hard target to attack - you look uncool to diss him (as Hillary has discovered).

9. Mark Warner - the former governor of Virginia, the other young anti-Hillary man - didn't stand.

10. Axelrod wrote the script. David Axelrod was an adviser to The West Wing and helped mould the character (Matt Santos) who succeeded Jed Bartlett. He based him on Obama and now Obama seems based on Santos. But either way, it was written... And it has come to pass...

Comments

  • 1. At 07:06am on 04 Jun 2008, rupertornelius wrote:

    Clinton wasn't cut out for president - she'll make a good fairy godmother, though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 07:23am on 04 Jun 2008, RalphMa wrote:

    Brilliant! Right on the money. I would only add

    11. He was consistently anti-war. None of the other viable candidates (of either party) could say that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 07:27am on 04 Jun 2008, jaybs1 wrote:

    Justin,

    Like Hillary you still can't accept reality, stop looking for excuses, the race was there for the taking and Hillary lost it! - her strategy campaign was completely wrong. Even in her final primaries speech she says "What do I Want" well for starters she wants to
    re-write history and run by Hillary Rules only, she claimed Super Tuesday was a success!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 07:28am on 04 Jun 2008, powermeerkat wrote:

    Justin, you've failed to mention the most important reason:

    Obama won because Hillary is who she is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 07:29am on 04 Jun 2008, Jordan D wrote:

    Well, it's a shame ... and now I'd rather have McCain as President than Obama who is inexperienced not least in Foreign Policy.

    Here's hoping that Clinton becomes Leader of the Senate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 07:30am on 04 Jun 2008, Susan2108 wrote:

    I'm wondering if Obama himself is a little surprised he won the nomination.

    I read somewhere that "the plan" was to run for President in 2012...after another term in the Senate.

    I wonder if he had planned this as a "trial run" for more Americans to learn about him? And because of the things you mentioned in your witty top ten list, primarily #3, he finds himself a contender! Lucky for us!

    I wish him the best and hope he surrounds himself with honest people who will not try to convince him to "play the game" to his detriment. For me, it has been the integrity he has shown in addressing issues like the gas tax gimmick and Hillary's open hostility. I hope his handlers don't convince him otherwise....you know, "polls show that if you say this or do that....." I would rather he continue showing polite but firm resolve....people know authenticity when they see it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 07:41am on 04 Jun 2008, chf-cooper wrote:

    I will willingly support Mr. Obama, should Mrs. Clinton be on the ticket. If not, then my opinion of America will worsen.
    All the best,

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 07:58am on 04 Jun 2008, Aaronapro wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 9. At 07:59am on 04 Jun 2008, mikewarsaw wrote:

    If he is enthusiastically endorsed by ex-president Carter, then the free world is in for a rough time as Obama comes across as an appeaser willing to do deals with authoritarian dictatorships. Will he be the Chamberlain of the 21st century????I can just imagine the Israeli reaction now.....

    At least with McCain running there is a chance that Obama will be shown for what he really is.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 08:05am on 04 Jun 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    A commentary in the New York Times written by Maureen Dowd is instructive. Writing about the possibility that Mrs Clinton could be on an Obama ticket, the last sentence reads "It would be," said one influential Democrat, "like finding out there’s no tooth fairy." Interesting, except for the fact that former believers in the fairy then become grown-up and worldly. Which is what we need in the Presidency. Perhaps Mrs Clinton's abilities will rub off on Mr Obama, that is, if he is successful in Denver.

    Perhaps Justin or our mathematically inclined posters can answer this - during the last several weeks it was stated that neither candidate could win the required number of *pledged* delegates and now it appears that one has. Am I missing something?

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 08:21am on 04 Jun 2008, trustworthysami wrote:

    its crazy this nomination process this year.

    clinton lost, obama won

    clinton has to concede, but what she does is as her audience rhetorical questions???

    why would you do that?

    of course,,, it could be part of her unfinished business...but again.hillary with all due respect and i do respect her and want her to become VP or play major role...you lost my dear friend!

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 08:22am on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #10 David Cunard

    I believe you may have misread or misunderstood.

    The point was that neither candidate could win the requisite number of delegates counting only those who are "pledged" via primaries or caucuses, i.e., they both needed numbers of "superdelegates" to achieve a majority.

    The Obama delegate totals that put him above the 50 per cent mark of total delegates on Tuesday includes both "pledged" and "superdelegates".

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 08:35am on 04 Jun 2008, AnonymousCalifornian wrote:

    Does this warrant the 'big incident' BBC website headline (the one that covers the top part of the screen and pushes down the 'other top stories' section)? It's somewhat odd that an international news company put state primary result articles as the main story on many occasions, but this is a little too much.

    Now this is fairly big. This is the first time a 'racial' minority has been elected to be one of the major candidates to run for President (is this the first case in majority 'white' countries--maybe Americans can now rub it into the faces of other majority 'white' nations and call them racist.... ;-\ ). Still the actual selection of President is in around five months.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 08:40am on 04 Jun 2008, AnonymousCalifornian wrote:

    Will ditto mikewarsaw's comment about what if a President Obama ends up to be another Carter.

    That would be baaaaaaad for the United States, especially as China (and to a lesser extent, India) is rising. During President Carter's years of ineptitude, at least the Soviet Union was starting to decline, not ascend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 08:48am on 04 Jun 2008, ezekielthemack wrote:

    Justin,

    I agree with most of the points that you make with regard to the reason why Obama won this democratic nominee race. However, I definitely do NOT agree with your comment that he would have been "toast" had the Clinton campaign blown him out in IOWA. This is just it; they couldn't blow him out, because they were up against an unknown quantity first of all, and secondly, a formidable opponent. This is the candidate who garnered more money in donations from the public than both senator Clinton and senator McCain, which in itself speaks volumes, in terms of the reverence that the public feel towards him.

    What this contest should show you Justin and everyone in general, is that you underestimate Barack Obama at your peril. To think that this man wasn't given a prayer and was seen as the "nice" black guy who would garner a few votes but not do any thing of any profound merit in this contest, it's amazing to see how the tide has turned.

    Hillary must have nightmares about how this acutely intelligent, intellectual, articulate, charismatic black man managed to steal her thunder for all her connections in Washington.

    One last thing Justin, although Barack is of mixed parentage, he IS seen as a black man. You only have to look at the negative and furtive inferences that Hillary Clinton has made towards him throughout her campaign (remember the "photoshop" skin darkening issue?), not to mention Fox News and its institutionally racist propagation of negative spin towards Obama, to know what colour THEY think he is.

    Kudos to Barack Obama!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 08:49am on 04 Jun 2008, OnlyHereForTheFood wrote:

    Some good points, I'd also add that Obama has revolutionised how campaigns are funded too - Dean might have ran the "beta" version of internet fundraising back in 2004 but Obama perfected it to an astonishing degree. Also not just money (although that's a big help) but also organisational abilities, which helped him win the caucuses and build up his insurmountable delegate lead.

    It ties in with your third point - Clinton should have got in gear when it was clear that Obama was matching and surpassing her fundraising back in late 2007.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 08:53am on 04 Jun 2008, mikewarsaw wrote:

    Ref AnonymousCalifornia's comment, living in Eastern Europe as I do, there is much greater sensitivity to the imperial ambitions of authoritarian countries, especially Russia/Soviet Union and various mad-cap dictatorships. Here we have been on the receiving end of their ambitions particularly in the 20th century. Carter is perceived as being weak and wishy-washy, unable and unwilling to stand up to ruthless dictatorships and Obama comes across as the same. I do not particularly like Republican internal policies within the USA , which are a matter for US citizens, but THE great presidents in the latter half of the 20th century in terms of foreign policy were all Republicans, in particular Ronald Reagan. Don't you remember what happened with American hostages in Iran towards the end of the Carter administration??????

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 09:01am on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #6 Susan2108

    The "trial run" thing you mention is interesting.

    Can you recall where you might have read it, and when?

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 09:05am on 04 Jun 2008, Dharmesh wrote:

    I agree with the point about West wing, I also think that the series 24 had a role to play in the acceptance of a non white president.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 09:08am on 04 Jun 2008, lechic wrote:

    I'm slightly concerned when people highlight McCain's experience in foreign policy - remember this is the man who sang 'bomb bomb bomb Iran'... is this the kind of experience the world really wants?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 09:12am on 04 Jun 2008, Pat Jack wrote:

    Justin you make some good points but you did miss the most important factor for Mr Obama's win - he had a song

    ..cue YouTube...

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 09:19am on 04 Jun 2008, Daniel1956 wrote:

    Justin,

    I do agree with your points, particularly#3.

    From here in the UK, it will be his foreign policy that matters. Not just Iraq, but trade, energy shortages, food shortages in the Third World, Zimbabwe etc.

    What we need is some one who will lead and say this is wrong, this has to be changed etc.

    I am not yet sure that Obama has got that extra something.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 09:20am on 04 Jun 2008, LouisDB wrote:

    I'd add an eleventh reason.

    The magesterial portrayal of a black president by Dennis Haysbert in 24. Don't underestimate the impact of popular culture on an electorate who have often confused fiction with reality in the past.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 09:32am on 04 Jun 2008, alanskillcole wrote:

    This thing about "experience"...experience of what? Do any of these senators have foreign policy experience? Maybe only sitting on a sub-committee or going on a junket abroad...

    Senator Clinton may have spent slightly more time in the Senate than Senator Obama...Senator McCain more time than Senator Clinton but time getting used to the ways of Washington is surely no indication of what mettle that nation's CEO will be made of?

    And democrats who'd rather switch to McCain says loads...especially with the (slight?!) ideological differences (Roe vs Wade, intelligent design, healthcare, war, etc)
    Must be all down to that Ali G line...

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 09:44am on 04 Jun 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Obama had the better strategy and message, and there are better candidates for VP than Clinton. A well deserved victory by Obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 09:49am on 04 Jun 2008, Mandragara wrote:


    In reference to Mikewarsaw's comments about Republicans being stronger in Foreign affairs than Democrats, I don't think it holds up.

    After all, Kennedy avoided a nuclear war by standing tough against the Russians. Bill Clinton played a major part in resolving the Troubles in Northern Ireland (one of the oldest continous conflicts in the world) and of course last but not least: Roosevelt.

    Looks like a pretty impressive track record to me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 09:51am on 04 Jun 2008, Snasar wrote:

    He won because:

    1 He's not Hillary

    2 He has not been round long enough to have made plenty of mistakes (like marrying Bill)

    3 He kept his spouse (Michelle) out of the limelight

    4 His team brilliantly orchestrated the caucuses - where students can turn up in the middle of the day when normal voters are working for a living, raise their hand for Obama, and it counts as a vote in a caucus.

    5 People hate old politicians, and none come older than Bill and Hill

    6 He didn't make the mistake of talking about policies

    7 Black (or off-white) is currently cool.

    8 He speaks like a white man, almost

    9 He's got a funky name

    10 He didn't sish the dirt in public (his team did plenty of that behind the scenes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 10:07am on 04 Jun 2008, righteousmistyfog wrote:

    Hillary lost because the majority of democratic voters don't trust her - lying about Bosnian sniper fire, 'obliterating' Iran comments, trying to win cheap votes in West Virginia by promising to subsidise cheap fuel and even claiming that statehood for Puerto Rico would be on the the list of her priorities! People are tired of her old school platitudes and want the 21st Century brand of sincere politics that Obama seems to offer - in particular, his message about not receiving campaign funding from political lobby groups was a very powerful one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 10:12am on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: 17 mikewarsaw

    Defending the West from Soviet domination during the Cold War required a different set of weapons, policies, and skills than what is required now.

    That defense required threats of Mutual Assured Destruction to convince the Soviets that expansion of their empire would not be tolerated. Hordes of Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops pouring into Western Europe was considered by many to be a realistic threat. Even Carter, who you consider weak, was willing to wage that defensive war, should it have become necessary.

    I would be surprised to hear that anyone, even in former Eastern European Soviet satellites (or in former Soviet states like Ukraine, etc.) fears a military reconquest by Russia anytime in any reasonably conceivable future. Russia is having a hard enough time maintaining its territorial integrity in the face of independence/separatist movements in Chechnya and elsewhere. Even in countries like Ukraine and others, the Russian support for ethnic Russians falls far short of invasion and reconquest.

    The current and future competition between the West and Russia and/or China is economic and political/diplomatic. Russia will use its oil and gas (and much later, other economic strengths as they grow) as a lever to increase its influence over Europe and in its attempts to become a major world power again.

    I suggest that in the current world situation, peaceful stability can best be assured through:
    1. sufficient military strength to adequately respond to any reasonably likely military threat
    2. economic strength to avoid attempted economic domination by others
    3. political/diplomatic influence and prestige in relations with other countries
    and 4. the wisdom to be able to understand that number 1. above isn't the appropriate foreign policy tool for all situations.

    Bush has destroyed (or is in the process of destroying) 2. above, and, quite frankly, I see nothing in McCain's credentials or proposals that would result in any change. While I don't see Obama being able to reverse the downward spiral, at least he appears to recognize that we are in one, and recognition of the problem is the first step in trying to solve it.

    Bush, and to a lesser extent, Clinton before him, has destroyed much of 3. above. I fear McCain's policies of continued warmongering, e.g., expanding our Iraq misadventure into Iran and/or Syria, will harm our political/diplomatic clout even more. Given his stated intentions and priorities, Obama can only improve US relations with the rest of the world.

    Regarding 4., Bush has clearly demonstrated that he lacks even rudimentary intelligence to utilize the policy tools proper to the situation. McCain displays the same lack of understanding. Again, Obama appears to me to be intelligent enough to select the proper tool for the situation.

    So, if you believe that not being a blustering militarist/warmonger like Bush and McCain is a sign of weakness, then, yes, Obama is weaker than either of them. However, you should recall that even Reagan, who many liberals here in the US still consider to be a warmonger, had the judgement and courage to talk with Gorbachev to resolve conflicts rather than elevate them to a military level.

    It is my opinion that Obama, unlike McCain, has the character and judgement to be strong _in the right way_ whenever necessary.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 10:34am on 04 Jun 2008, sizzlestick wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 31. At 10:58am on 04 Jun 2008, firstperspective wrote:

    Finally, America has grown up.....

    Well ... the Democrats at least.

    Lets hope other nations take note and ... Finally ... pack away the toys of myths, bias and the associated juvenile thinking

    Well done US!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 11:00am on 04 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Awaiting the decisions of the supers yesterday, I was amused at the names listed. It began Ms Ferradino, Ms Spisak, Ms Nordgren, Ms Pettis-Fondren, Ms Leong-Hong, Beutenmuller, Shimkaveg, Relawsk, Hasan, Daniello, Ruggerio, McDowell and finally a Ben and Tim Johnson. All of them grand names in the melting pot that is America, the land of the free, yet some feel that the name Obama sounds like a foreigner! An outsider? Not one of us? Perhaps in the mountains they are all Smiths and Jones with a Bush mentality!

    David. My whole comment yesterday was not intended as a putdown, and the word I referred to, that you used in place of African-American was mulatto.- Someone of mixed black and white ancestry. From the Spanish / Portuguese word mulato- a little mule,or donkey. Taking it now further to a previous auto analogy where I suggested Obama was the Rolls Royce [ or Edsel?] and Hillary the Daf[t], the generic designation of the name mulatto is "hybrid", which can not be all that bad considering our dependence on oil.

    Ed. I hope your head is feeling ok this morning and you did not imbibe too much Ambrosia when celebrating the result. Although I am not a whiskey connoiseur I felt an elitist like yourself would at least have been drinking something with "Regal" in its' name.

    Oh, and reason 12 He is not only a gentleman, he has the manners of a gentleman. If he and America can maintain the patience required, their joint star can only ascend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 11:06am on 04 Jun 2008, magnificentpolarbear wrote:

    re your #10 Justin.

    Did the WW really base Santos on Obama?

    Unlikely as Obama had only been a senator for about a year. Having been elected in november 2005 and taking his seat in Jan 2005.

    Series 6 was well under way at that point.

    So in this case reality followed life rather than the other way round.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 11:07am on 04 Jun 2008, Opebiyi wrote:

    I am glad that Barack Obama has finally clinched the democratic nomination. It is wonderful for the world that a black man is now in a good position to take the helm in the most influential country on earth. I am afraid though that a lot of hopes will be dashed if Obama becomes president as expectation is too high. There will not be any sudden change 'we can believe in' He can not possibly do much different to any other US president in office. I wish him the best of luck though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 11:14am on 04 Jun 2008, mrjackk3 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 36. At 11:24am on 04 Jun 2008, righteousmistyfog wrote:

    #10 David_C

    'If he is successful in Denver'.

    Do the math, Hillary also lost the popular vote http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html.
    You seem to want to perpetuate the myth that she won anything - she won diddly squat!


    Are you suggesting that Democrats pick a Presidential nominee that lost the candidate race to Obama against every indicator? Well, that would sure go down a storm with the electorate!

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 11:25am on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 38. At 11:42am on 04 Jun 2008, Mike50s wrote:

    Anyone reading pieces like this from liberal sycophants would think that Saint Obama had won a colossal landslide victory. In point of fact, he just won the popular vote, if at all (debatable) and did not win a single major state except his home state of Illinois. Clinton lost because of racism, misogyny and grotesque media bias.We will see what other skeletons fall out of the Obama closet, the Democrats may yet need to find another candidate at quite short notice. Perhaps we will even discover whose flag Mr Obama would really like to put in his lapel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 11:46am on 04 Jun 2008, a7dh5e wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 40. At 11:47am on 04 Jun 2008, Suisaidh wrote:

    I have no problem with Obama and I am sure he will make a good candidate, he has serious lack of experience and is very much the lightweight in a contest with John McCain.

    However, and I know I will be dismissed as a whinging feminist for saying this, but Mr Obama has won through simply because Hilary Clinton is a woman and middle America is more ready to accept a mixed race man as leader than it is to accept a woman.

    She is experienced, tenacious, intelligent, has depth, and purpose, all the things a president need. Not that I agree with all her policies, far from it, but at least she has some that she can back up with strategy and reason. But all the way through her campaign the public hasn't know whether she should be tough or soft, whether she should look glam or business like (as if how she looks should matter) whether she was the power behind Bill Clinton all along, or whether she's hanging on his coat tails. The American view of what a woman should be these days is so confused that they can't decide if she's great or awful, and either way misogyny is still so ingrained that too many people of both genders simply can't take the idea a female leader seriously... she just doesn't "look" like a president.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 11:52am on 04 Jun 2008, Man-international wrote:

    I do not know whether it's just me or the Americans are a so so much smarter than the rest of the world. China is America's next rival and growing at an amazing pace and with their population, nuclear tech and a hefty economy they might purchase the largest and second most sophisticated military in the world in the near future and that would be hello once again the cold war (no guarantee that America will win this time around with politicians like Bush popping up every now and then). But then if you examine the facts, China's growth relies so much on Africa's raw materials and China's influence in Africa's growing by the day. Then suddenly, Americans come up with this young African born president (though never met the African parent). Is there some ploy here to curb China's influence in Africa and automatically stifle its growth?

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 12:01pm on 04 Jun 2008, Cahuenga Tec wrote:

    Justin, re: Point 10, there may be some art imitating life analogies with the West Wing but the original story arc was intended to see Santos lose to Alan Alda's older Republican Senator character...

    The outcome of the WW election was changed to balance the untimely death of the much missed John Spencer. It was felt that twin losses, John's death and the loss of the election would be too depressing for the audience.

    I look forward to seeing how this script will now playout with Obama and McCain come November. The differences feel much starker than 04 and 2000 and I wish Obama all the best.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 12:10pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Justin, A good list!

    Susan, "I wish him the best and hope he surrounds himself with honest people who will not try to convince him to "play the game" "

    He has so far managed to do just that. I, too, hope the admirable organisation and conduct of his campaign is an indication of things to come. "...people know authenticity when they see it." TOO RIGHT!

    Chf, I fail to see how having HRC as VP might prevent America "worsening" - or even why such a disastrous misjudgement on Obama's part should diminish your opinion of the whole country. ;-)

    Aaron spots the pronoun mismatch, as have others - a very telling indication of character. I've long noted that excessive use of third person pronouns is a sign of perceived dis-empowerment, and that excessive use of first person singular is a well-known indication....

    Mikewarsaw, Carter is the best ex-president we've had in a very long time (living memory?), and the nearest thing to an Honest Man to have been within a mile of the White House in more than a century. Let's hope this last honour may be up for challenging in the near future.

    Ezekiel has it!

    McGinty!

    Alanskillcole, "Must be all down to that Ali G line..." Yo!

    Snasar, There is some truth in what you say.

    Peterm99 (29), I can't add to what you say, and I recommend all here to read your excellent analysis - again!

    Waterman, Yes, thank you, my head is fine. I have nothing "regal", and prefer the product of small islands, either the Liffey water or the distillates from Islay. I second your number 12 enthusiastically!

    Forward into the FUTURE
    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 12:21pm on 04 Jun 2008, zip2cosmic wrote:

    Obama won because he is genuinely in it for the people.

    Hillary was in it for herself. Her comments blaming sexism and refusal to concede are just another example of her divisive nature.

    Selecting her for running mate would be a mistake.

    America and the world does not need another autocratic executive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 12:42pm on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #40 Suisaidh

    I won't argue the gender vs. racial bias questions with you, as that is a matter of perceptions, and obviously we disagree.

    However, I take great exception to the experience claim. My belief is that being the spouse of a governor and president for 16 years does not constitute experience that can reasonably be claimed to be relevant (especially since her single effort at formulating national policy while her husband was in office ended in embarrassing failure). If it were relevant, one or both parties would have nominated ex-Presidential spouses long ago.

    I believe that the way she tried to push the experience claim actually hurt her candidacy. To many, it was just another manifestation of the Bosnian sniper, N. Ireland peace process, Sir Edmund Hillary namesake, and similar claims, and contributed to a general feeling that she was trying to mislead an unsophisticated public - especially when people discovered that Obama is more than just a Senator three years into his first term: he actually has more legislative experience than Clinton (albeit all but 3 years of it at the state, and not the federal, level).

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 12:46pm on 04 Jun 2008, a7dh5e wrote:

    Re: 39. This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules.

    What house rule did I brake?

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 12:49pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    On reading through all the comments, it just occurs to me that the well-known observation about owners coming to resemble their pets (particularly with dogs), seems (at least for me) to hold true for candidates and their supporters in terms of character more than visualisation, but I reckon the genuine smilers will prevail over the frowners

    Smile!
    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 12:50pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    a7dh5e,

    You'll get an email (eventually) which will give you a vague, but possibly illuminating idea.

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 12:52pm on 04 Jun 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Although Clinton will still not use the 'L' word, this was a good summary of why she lost from the AP
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_el_pr/how_clinton_lost
    BTW Justin's accent seemed intact as he spoke on the World Service this morning

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 12:54pm on 04 Jun 2008, ronaine wrote:

    I watched Sen. McCain's speech last night, the first speech of his I have caught this election season.

    Frankly it was one of the poorest delivered political speeches I have ever seen. He makes Gordon Brown seem slick and effortlessly warm. And that smile (applause cue) - frightening.

    I can't believe anyone in their right mind, never mind disaffected Democrats, would consider voting for him.

    Sen. Clinton's speech last night made me think of Mark Anthony (what do you reckon MAII?). She has the mob. She was just missing the bloodied toga.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 12:55pm on 04 Jun 2008, Emmnues wrote:

    Congratulations to Obama team!

    While team Hillary has been a rugged conventional wrestling foe, team Obama has been 'Superfly Snuka' - bringing into play agile, gravity defying new moves. Lets see if his style can take out McCain...

    A question to Justin after reading your colleague Laura Trevelyan's article from New York in which she gives much weight to Hillary's 'I have the most vote' claims. What does the BBC calculations show?

    See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7434766.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 12:58pm on 04 Jun 2008, a7dh5e wrote:

    Why does the president have to be a former European or a former African? Why can't the president be from the indigenous population?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 1:00pm on 04 Jun 2008, Armitage_Shanks_QC wrote:

    Justin- looks, age, skin colour: you forgot voice!

    What a voice that man has- it's not just big, he knows how to use it as well...

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 1:00pm on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: 30 sizzlestick

    I replied to your post earlier (in post #37).

    The reason it was deleted (according to the moderators) is that in my comparison of Obama to Powell and Rice, the listing of the innumerable negative characteristics of the latter two could be considered potentially defamatory. Apparently, the BBC applies British law, which does not allow for truth to be used as a valid defense against defamation lawsuits.

    Anyway, my bottom line is that while I do not think that Obama is anywhere near the best that the US could have selected, in comparison to those two, he is a knight in shining armor.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 1:04pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Candace,

    Thanks for that link. An excellent review. And thanks for your many concise and to-the-point contributions on this (probably pointless) blogging exercise.

    xxxx
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 1:11pm on 04 Jun 2008, Streathamite wrote:

    @ mikewarsaw #9:
    If you knew anything about Iran - which you clearly DON'T - you'd know that the Us propped up the truly-hated 'authoritarian dictatorship' of the Shah for 40 years, which is why the US is hated by most ordinary Iranians.
    In fact, the first time the iranian people had ballots since world war 2 has been under...The Mullahs.
    Equally, and unlike the US, they have never invaded any other nation, with or without provocation, only defended themselves against the Invasion by ex US-supported 'authoritarian dictator' Saddam, which was warmly supported at the time by the US.
    I'd suggest you do your research, or your thinking a little more thoroughly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 1:11pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    First of all, my congratulations to Senator Obama, and my commiserations to Senator Clinton. Both have fought fine campaigns.

    Why did Obama win? For one thing, he had almost the entire black voting block, while not appearing to be a black extremist. For another, scandal just seems to slip off him. He is the Teflon candidate. His broad based fundrasing apparatus allowed him constantly generate funding, to the point where the 'outsider' candidate was able to win the air war.

    More importantly, why did Hillary lose? This will be remembered the contest where two frontrunners - Giuliani and Clinton - lost because of their poor strategy. Each was, in a way, opposite to the other - Clinton would destroy all opponents by Super Tuesday, Giuliani would concentrate on the big states - but both underestimated Iowa. That was her big mistake. Her racially-tinged remarks were somewhat clumsy, and caused her to further lose black voters.

    I think the real question is how Hillary stayed in the race so long. Quite simply, tenacity, and her ability to appeal to so-called Reagan Democrats. (This fulfils my First Rule of American Politics, that a candidate can make himself into the opposite of what he is - hence Hillary, who came from a privileged, Republican background, became the choice of the people). She is one smart cookie.

    It seems to me that Obama, if he can bear it, should pick Clinton as his VP nominee. Together, they are unstoppable. For one thing, she will bring new states into play - Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia - and perhaps secure others that are already within Obama's grasp, such as Ohio, Nevada, and New Hampshire. The ticket would balance experience with change, it would unite the party, convince a lot of 'hard-working, white Americans' that the Democrats still represent them, and Obama would gain a magnificent campaigner. Are the rifts between them - and within the Democratic Party itself - too deep? One can only hope not.

    Hoping that the two of them can kiss and make up,

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 1:18pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Judge for yourself - are this man's best days in the past?

    Grrrr!
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 1:22pm on 04 Jun 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Cheers, Ed. Never pointless if we learn from it, and I certainly do. Enjoy your comments, too. It has been a long, hard slog for Obama, and he was right in saying in his speech last night that it is the start of another; onward to November.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 1:25pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Slasher,

    I, too, hope the rifts within the party (and the country) can be healed, but I reckon that trying to do so by putting HRC on the ticket as VP would be like trying to heal a running sore by smearing on some cow dung - who knows? It might work, but I'd prefer some penicillin.

    ;-)
    ed

    AND it would appear (and would be) a cynical move in complete denial of the central message of the Obama phenomenon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 1:25pm on 04 Jun 2008, Mike wrote:

    Re: the link from Candace. Which suggests that Clinton lost out because of her vote for the Iraq war and her reticence to admit that as a mistake:
    I think we have the same situation with Brown / Blair. Initially, many of us thought that Brown would be a fresh start. However, it now looks too much like he continuing to live the Blair legacy. For instance continuing to push for 42 day detention. What we needed was a break with history, not a continuation.
    The article mentioned above suggests that Hillary still has a link with what went before and therefore is unable to make the change freely. Obama on then otherhand is free to make a new path, America has the choice - UK did not... Yet!

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 1:28pm on 04 Jun 2008, a7dh5e wrote:

    Re: 39 (Removed).

    My correspondence (two sentences) was removed because I criticised Justine Webb and the BBC.

    First sentence re-sent at 52.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 1:29pm on 04 Jun 2008, JustinRuinedIt wrote:

    Normally when someone is about to spoil a plot of a programme they warn people so they can turn away. Particularly when the blog they are writing is targetted at the sort of people who are likely to watch the programme.

    So, for example, if I was writing a blog about American Politics and was about to give away the plot of the WEST WING, I would warn readers. Maybe look away, as I am about to spoil the show for you.

    Not Justin though.

    Idiot.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 1:33pm on 04 Jun 2008, ronaine wrote:

    Ed, wow am I glad to read those review snippets... I was beginning to imagine it was all a bad dream.

    Last night made me think that Sen. Obama will have to give Sen. Clinton practically whatever she asks for. I guess, sticking with the Roman theme, in the brokering and manouevering to come, will Sen. Obama turn out to be Brutus or Octavian...

    :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 1:39pm on 04 Jun 2008, parritchmaker wrote:

    Obama and Hillary? Not a good idea. Better to keep her to Health/Social Policies Committee work.

    Too many people who like Obama would be very unhappy at Hillary as VP especially with the Clinton baggage.

    However has she conceded yet?

    To all you Whisky drinkers - there are no bad malts- island, highland, lowland or otherwise! Try Springbank 21 yo. Highland Park

    These are acceptable for drinking a toast to any new President!

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 1:46pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Obama early on, opposed the war in Iraq which caught the attention of people in the US who opposed the war....people (like me) who are in Move.on...

    So Obama started with an active political base of supporters.

    Now there are Move.on commercials on tv linking McCain and Bush...

    The left in America has been shut out but its here and its active.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 1:46pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    #65

    "Too many people who like Obama would be very unhappy at Hillary as VP especially with the Clinton baggage. "

    Ah, but they aren't the only ones who vote in the General Election. Are they seriously going to desert him?

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 1:51pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    James Carville, who has been extremely active in the Clinton campaign, is married to Mary Matalin who worked in Dick Cheney's offce in the White House.

    If the Clintons continue..some of us will think they are intentionally trying to weaken the Democratic Party

    No to Hillary for vp

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 1:56pm on 04 Jun 2008, Streathamite wrote:

    tbh we are ALL guessing on this one; but here's mine.
    Obama won because he stands for the polar opposite of Bush. He stands for social progress, hope and change. He stands for everyman. He was against the war, and said all the sane things on that. He stands for positivity.
    btw @ jordan D 5; Dubya came froma family with LOADs of collective experience in govt, he was surrounded by one of the most experienced teams in US presidential history; and he STILL made a holy mess of it.
    I'd say try youth for once.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 2:01pm on 04 Jun 2008, uksimona wrote:

    I think it was such an exciting campaign from both BO and HRC! Better than any reality show I've ever seen. It would be such a shame if they won't team up.

    I love to think one of these scenarios might come true:

    1)HRC will stand back and quietly support BO but BO will lose without her core voters and she will come back in 2012

    2)HRC will get top senate post or secretary of state post (last best option for BO if he wants to get her votes and still keep her out of the way and mostly abroad)

    3)HRC will stand back and her daughter will run in 2016 whatever the outcome of BO's bid to the top job

    4)HRC will get VP (does HRC do vice-anything?!?!? I doubt it....)

    More to come....I love it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 2:02pm on 04 Jun 2008, Joe wrote:


    One of the more interesting comments i heard was that: Obama does not have a campaign, he has a cause.

    Was amazing to the excitement from the audience.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 2:03pm on 04 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    Justin:

    You forgot:

    1. The democratic primary systems was hijacked by the extreme left wing of the democratic party.

    2. Obama took advatage of a flawed system that does not reflect the voting public.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 2:05pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    "James Carville, who has been extremely active in the Clinton campaign, is married to Mary Matalin who worked in Dick Cheney's offce in the White House."

    I'm a bit of an old romantic, and to that, I can only say.... 'awww'.

    Seriously, I respect Hillary. She wasn't the best nominee, she didn't deserve to win, and she seriously degraded herself with that stuff about winning the popular vote. And some of her supporters are unsufferably obnoxious (although some Obama supporters are as well). But there's little doubt that she'd be a fantastic asset to any campaign. Her fighting spirit would be very useful in, say, Missouri.

    As regards Obama's foreign policy inexperience, this is where Obama's 'change' message is most important. A more even-handed attitude to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be a good start (I can't see McCain reprimanding the Israelis for building yet more settlements in the West Bank, but I think Obama could). Obama recognises that the 'war on terror' is poorly named; military action is only a part of the ideological struggle against Islamist hatred of America.

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 2:06pm on 04 Jun 2008, parritchmaker wrote:

    @67 - One would hope they would have the courage of their convictions. Be pragmatic and get on with working the "system" to get their man elected.

    I really do dislike all the talk of "woman" /"african american" "coloured" It would be better if it was accepted that this is the first person named Barrak Obama not mentioning his skin colour or sex!

    Is America ready for a socialist revolution? Will that be on the agenda? That is not what it will be - as USA is way way further right than Old World here in Europe!! I wonder how many citizens will see the Democrats as being"socialists"? There is a feeling of wanting change, but how much do you wish that change? And be careful you might just get what you wish for!!

    :-0)))))

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 2:08pm on 04 Jun 2008, parritchmaker wrote:

    @70- Yes I'm lovin' it too! Great to watch from a distance!!

    Left wing? not in Europe!

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 2:15pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    #70
    What's so special about Chelsea Clinton? The young woman, although no doubt intelligent and politically astute, has not been elected to any office at local, state or national level. Why all the fuss about her? Is America so wedded to its dynastic traditions?

    #71

    "Obama does not have a campaign, he has a cause."

    He had a damn fine campaign, and let us not forget that.

    #72

    "1. The democratic primary systems was hijacked by the extreme left wing of the democratic party."

    Everybody had a chance to vote (barring the two rogue states, and they can blame their representatives). Here in Britain, candidates for each party are chosen either by the active members of a political party in a constituency (usually less than 100 out of a population of 60,000), or by the party central office (a meeting of about ten party apparatchiks). You don't seem to realise that you Americans have one of the most democratic internal party systems in the world!

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 2:25pm on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #67 SlashDashUnderscore

    "Are they seriously going to desert him?"

    In my particular case, yes.

    I dislike all three candidates for a variety of reasons.

    McCain and Clinton, because I believe they have sold their souls to Likud and AIPAC and will replicate the Iraq situation in Iran and/or Syria, and because they are ethically-challenged as evidenced by past and current behavior (e.g., Keating scandal, White House travel office, commodity futures, Marc Rich pardon, etc., etc.) Further, they both are proponents of curtailing constitutional liberties as evidenced by their voting for things like the Patriot Act.

    Obama, because I will lose a big chunk of income when he raises my capital gains taxes by 100 per cent as he has promised, plus other less significant policy-type differences.

    I have decided to vote for Obama because he appears to be an intelligent, principled, decent individual, and that would be a refreshing change from the past 20 years.

    Were Obama to pick Clinton as a running mate, that would prove my opinion of him as principled to be incorrect, and thus the two tickets would be essentially undifferentiated in the major issues of national importance. I would then switch my vote to McCain because of financial self-interest and because, being a Vietnam vet, I feel some affinity with him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 2:25pm on 04 Jun 2008, DesmondMcCarter wrote:

    Your points are spot on, but I really hate the way the racial points are highlighted (although, they are true).

    What we must realise is that he is articulate, a great speaker (in JFK like way and very much UNLIKE the current president) has tonnes of energy and also thinks about working with the world, rather than applying the current adminstrations isolationist tact. These points need to be highlighted, i.e. I disagree with the numerical ordering of your points.

    Anyway, roll on November .... :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 2:28pm on 04 Jun 2008, parritchmaker wrote:

    @76 We are not good at turning out to vote in UK. However maybe if our elections were as exciting as this more of us could get enthusiastic?

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 2:31pm on 04 Jun 2008, Joann53 wrote:

    Justin,

    Could we please have a similar list of why Hillary lost? That is, if she lost.

    The story continues!

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 2:40pm on 04 Jun 2008, Mike wrote:

    Re: #80 Joann53
    What do you mean by - If she lost? Are you suggesting it's STILL not all over? When do we Actually find out?

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 2:47pm on 04 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    At 07:59 am on 04 Jun 2008, mikewarsaw wrote:
    If he is enthusiastically endorsed by ex-president Carter, then the free world is in for a rough time as Obama comes across as an appeaser willing to do deals with authoritarian dictatorships. Will he be the Chamberlain of the 21st century????I can just imagine the Israeli reaction now.....

    The terrorist appeaser will be this convention's Michael Moore. Obama has to stay far away from him. Despite what people outside the U.S believe, Jimmy Cater is held in contempt by the American people.

    The man is a disgrace and I apologize to the world that he was ever elected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 2:48pm on 04 Jun 2008, Streathamite wrote:

    regarding Obama's foreign policy inexperience; you've had people with masses of experience in charge, or around the man in charge for a long time, and it's led to the point where the US's international standing has gone through the floor.
    At least this man listens and is open-minded.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 2:50pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Peterm99,

    "Were Obama to pick Clinton as a running mate, that would prove my opinion of him as principled to be incorrect,"

    I couldn't agree more, but I expect both of us are right in expecting Obama to do better than that, especially when he has such an excellent 'field' of relatively un-sullied possibilities.

    " and thus the two tickets would be essentially undifferentiated in the major issues of national importance."

    Far from it, because there's the minor issue of the war, even though somewhat compromised by HRC's prevarication and general mendacity.

    " I would then switch my vote to McCain because of financial self-interest and because, being a Vietnam vet, I feel some affinity with him."

    I respect the latter and thank you for your service, but I have a better opinion of you than to believe you on the former. As noted elsewhere, McChip seems to be seeking "revenge" for Vietnam, and you haven't shown any such signs so far.

    Respect!
    ed

    P.S. I would probably abandon Obama/Clinton, and support a principled third party, most likely Ron Paul - how's that for someone accused of being a "leftie"?
    ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 2:59pm on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #82 MagicKirin

    "Despite what people outside the U.S believe, Jimmy Cater (sic) is held in contempt by the American people."

    I beg to differ.

    Those Americans who have not drunk the AIPAC/LIKUD kool-aid recognize that Israel's expansionist policies and occupation/oppression of the Palestinians is the major source of the problems in the Middle East.

    Carter recognizes that a reasonable solution must be found. Reasonable does not mean acquiescing to terrorists of either side, Israeli or Palestinian.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 3:05pm on 04 Jun 2008, moderate_observer wrote:

    i can in no way understand why a clinton supporter would vote for McCain. ideologically they are complete opposites. he is a republican, while obama and clinton's ideas were very
    similar ,since they are both democrats. americans would hav chang electing either of the 2.

    my issue with mccain is that he is reading from the same old book as previous candidates of the last 20 years. i know exactly what he will say before he speaks.
    I am particularly wary of anyone who hides behind the lable of patriotism in order to push their campaign. Its like a bad man claiming religion in order to convince people he is good.

    bush milked patriotism in '04 somehow convincing everyone he is more patriotic than Kerry, even though Kerry is the one who went to fight for the country while he didn't go into combat.

    McCain outside of iraq and killing terrorists, speaks nothing of the ongoing crisis situations affecting americans at home, and when you begin to believe he is for the troops, he confuses you by not supporting policies for war veterans.
    How many more vets have to march on washington in order to get their benefits?

    He seems to be in denial or completely oblivious to whats going on in the economy, in health care etc. he is a one issue candidate. and offers no real solutions on foreign policy other than attack our enemies and hold a grudge with who doesnt agree with us.

    McCans ideas will push the US into political irrelevance, because he will waste watever credibility the nation has left while pushing his war agenda.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 3:07pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    I never got the whole 'Ron Paul shall save America from everything' momentum that seemed to sweep the interweb at one point. I'm afraid that I could never take seriously an individual that regards the Law of the Sea as an unacceptable infringement on the dignity of his country.

    But perhaps I'm not taking the threat from Albanian-registered container ships seriously enough.

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 3:08pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    slash dash underscore

    Cheney should be prosectued for war crimes..nothing romantic about that...

    The Bush administration chose to have a war for profit and lied with propaganda in the news media to get Americans to support their war Innocent people have been tortured...



    Impeach Bush/Cheney

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 3:10pm on 04 Jun 2008, Justianus wrote:

    re # 10

    "Perhaps Justin or our mathematically inclined posters can answer this - during the last several weeks it was stated that neither candidate could wind the required number of *pledged* delegates and now it appears that one has. Am I missing something?"

    David,

    Just to expand on the answer already given:

    According to Real Clear Politics, the current tally in [b]pledged[/b] delegates is:

    Obama: 1,767
    Clinton: 1,640

    So yes, both candidates got too few pledged delegates to reach the finish line (2,118 delegates).

    What happened yesterday was that the [b]superdelegates[/b] started weighing in heavily in Obama's favour.

    I'm not sure how he managed to pull it off - many of the supers had said they'd wait till the primaries were done and dusted before committing - but it was a brilliant coup, since it effectively annulled the relevance of Clinton's South Dakota win.

    Had this not happened, Clinton could easily have continued at least someway on to Denver, again raising the specter of her popular vote "win" and the botched Florida and Michigan primaries (along with the debatable settlement of that issue).

    And I'm sure she would have.

    As it stands now, though, all that is moot. The fight for the nomination is over.

    As Clinton's curious speach yesterday made clear, though, that doesn't mean she's stopped fighting altogether. After all, even when you've lost the war, there may still be a fight or two to pick.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 3:12pm on 04 Jun 2008, moderate_observer wrote:

    sorry i forgot to add, mcCains policies are more of a threat to the security of isreal than obama's. unless there is a widespread military draft in the US there is no way the military can support the ambitious continuation of bush/mccain plans. and a weaker US military means a weaker defense for its allies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 3:12pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    Peter,

    I think that's the big reason why I, a Brit with no stake in this election, am so excited about Obama's candidature. If 'change' means anything, it means a change in foreign policy: away from war except as a last resort; away from unilateralism; away from appeasing Israel (because what do you call not bringing up an uncomfortable truth every time you meet a country?) America has an important role to play, but it cannot be an even broker if it openly supports Israel, regardless of the situation, in the UN Security Council (it's the little things as well - America has withdrawn the Fullbright Scholarships it gave to some Gazans, because Israel won't allow them to leave).

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 3:14pm on 04 Jun 2008, graeme900 wrote:

    like susan in no. 6 i also seem to remember reading a profile of democrat contenders for the election around 3 years ago where obama had practically ruled himself out of running against clinton.

    i do think the democracts as a whole have managed to miss out on a 16 year ticket here by not controlling the election well enough. surely the party could have looked into the future and realised that an elected clinton, with obama as deputy would have secured a second term and set obama up nicely for a crack at the presidency after the hilary reign. now clinton faces the option of accepting as obama's running mate but leaving the democract party with little left in 8 years time.

    i also think obama might struggle against mccain and that hilary would have been the better option but we'll soon see.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 3:15pm on 04 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    peterm99 wrote:
    re: #82 MagicKirin

    "Despite what people outside the U.S believe, Jimmy Cater (sic) is held in contempt by the American people."

    I beg to differ.

    Those Americans who have not drunk the AIPAC/LIKUD kool-aid recognize that Israel's expansionist policies and occupation/oppression of the Palestinians is the major source of the problems in the Middle East.

    Carter recognizes that a reasonable solution must be found. Reasonable does not mean acquiescing to terrorists of either side, Israeli or Palestinian.

    You mean those people who drink the kool-aid by left wing nuts like Ward Chuchill and Norm chomsky.

    There were mass resignations from the Carter Center to protest his book.

    there are no terrorists in Israel but there are in surronding countries. Carter is anti-semite just like Tutu, Rev Wright are.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 3:18pm on 04 Jun 2008, thegangofone wrote:

    A stimulating article!

    I think I would have stressed that he looks very bright - but he's not an ivory tower academic. These are genuine brains - Bush has an MBA but I think the jury found against him a long time ago on the intellectual front.

    The world needs (I am not American) a far-sighted thinker who can handle long term issues like climate change and population growth (thats getting on the agenda now but usually only as part of food shortages debate). That latter issue could well impact upon economic policy in a big way.

    We need joined up policies that are flexible enough to take account of the impact that terrorists; maverick states and suchlike will have.

    The thing is I personally believe he is an excellent candidate. I would like to see him keep Clinton off the ticket as she will be a back seat driver all the way. He is the most exciting political candidate to emerge for decades. He looks more promising than Kennedy for me (a bit before my time I have to add).

    Hopefully if Clinton does get "huffy" that does not mean that McCain wins by default. Hes credible but aged not in years but on the policy front. This is a new era and it needs a new and sharply focused eye.

    Go Barak!

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 3:20pm on 04 Jun 2008, magnificentpolarbear wrote:

    re #63

    The Series 'West Wing' ended in 2006 so Justin has not revealed any information thats not already in the public domain.





    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 3:21pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    peterm99 and magickirin

    I have great respect for Jimmy Carter. He is following very closely the Christian model. Unfortunately it is a political world where true Christianity might not work.

    "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's"

    Carter is a Christian.

    He is following Christian principles

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 3:27pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    An analysis of "Clintonism", or perhaps a post-mortem?


    What was Clintonism? Depending on your perspective, its distinguishing characteristic was either astute centrism or craven triangulation. Yet, at the heart of Clintonism, was a fixed assumption about the nature of the American electorate. Clintonism looked at the trends of voter turnout, a steady decline of voting from the 1960s onward, and saw a citizenry that was tuned out and turned off by politics. The only way for Democrats to win was to narrowcast to the few people who were still listening and whose votes were still up for grabs. Bottom line? Ignore the rest, the millions of nonvoters. The essence of Clintonism was this cynical electoral strategy.

    And, HRC wants a private meeting

    Awwwww

    Onward to the FUTURE!
    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 3:27pm on 04 Jun 2008, elizabeth-uk wrote:

    Justin - I find your second of the ten so called reasons, insulting.

    Be clear. If a black person wins something, or earns more, or achieves more than someone of a different skin colour, it's probably because they were just better in the eyes of those making the decisions. Why can't you (and many others), just accept that.

    I imagine it is rather galling to have to put up with white people denigrating you for being black whilst at the same time using the colour of your skin to rob you of anything you do achieve. Even if they do try to bury it somewhere amongst 9 other reasons.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 3:33pm on 04 Jun 2008, popefridge wrote:

    How about, he won because he was the only reasonable candidate from any party excluding ron paul, who was the victim of a media blackout.

    Hillary was a joke, she would have just been another lobby-puppet and everyone intelligent saw through her. The repulicans are unelectable currently, so that leaves obama.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 3:33pm on 04 Jun 2008, darrellmcc wrote:

    This is my first time reading a blog from the BBC, I must say being an African-American i think its refreshing to read blogs that don’t have racial undertones. I would like to thank the BBC for only posting rational blogs, also the people that posted them. My personal belief is any of the two candidates were a better fit than our current president; also both candidates views are very similar. I do think its sad that the biggest issue out of the whole campaign is race and gender. Its 2008, when are we going to get past the "I’m better than you" mentality?

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 3:35pm on 04 Jun 2008, bbennettUSA wrote:

    Obama has a LONG way to go! I feel your idealizing him in the UK. He has miss spoken himself so many times, and he is promising things he can not do. Your not seeing this in UK and Europe for some reason. Then there is his past statements and backgound---it looks very bad for him here in the next few months.
    I will add another point, as a life long Independant/Republican--- the GOP thinks now that many of us will just HAVE to vote for McCain. As far as I can tell this is NOT going to happen this election. The American voter has been so twisted about by phony promises and false statements this old ploy of reverse voting will not work this time. McCain is for open borders, making illegals citizens costing real citizens much, and pro-everything ---Israel. As I see it, most Americans have had all we will take of this kind of sham.
    Obama is riding a very big and dangerous wave---I think some will do anything to push him off. What a fine kettle of fish! and full of danger.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 3:35pm on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #93 MagicKirin

    Obviously, we have differing opinions. Normally, discussions with reasonable people with differing opinions can be worthwhile.

    However, comments such as "there are no terrorists in Israel but there are in surronding (sic) countries. Carter is anti-semite just like Tutu, Rev Wright are." have convinced me that it is not worth my time to pursue this further with you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 3:41pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Magic,

    "there are no terrorists in Israel but there are in surronding countries. "

    Created and driven there by the likes of the Stern Gang and other LIKUD precursors! The first "Terrorists" in Palestine were Zionists, and y'all are proud of it.

    Here's a list of the CHILDREN killed by the Israeli "Defense" force
    - only 78 (so far) this year.

    "Carter is anti-semite just like Tutu, Rev Wright are."

    Bovine Faeces!

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 3:46pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    You all may find this interesting:
    (I did)
    Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder revolve around a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and sense of entitlement. Often individuals feel overly important and will exaggerate achievements and will accept, and often demand, praise and admiration despite worthy achievements. They may be overwhelmed with fantasies involving unlimited success, power, love, or beauty and feel that they can only be understood by others who are, like them, superior in some aspect of life.
    ..
    There is a sense of entitlement, of being more deserving than others based solely on their superiority. These symptoms, however, are a result of an underlying sense of inferiority and are often seen as overcompensation. Because of this, they are often envious and even angry of others who have more, receive more respect or attention, or otherwise steal away the spotlight.

    Better look to myself, then ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 3:47pm on 04 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    Justin's and some others' reasons are as empty as Obama's suit. Black? Are you kdding? He has nothing in common with American blacks.

    His wife does. But isn't she more of a liability than asset in the campaign?

    And what has he won? Democratic nomination, achievement? That's like trying to decide who's the better driver, the blind or the deaf!

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 3:49pm on 04 Jun 2008, Shawn wrote:


    Anybody who says Obama can't win in November is either clueless or in denial.

    Obama just defeated the most well-connected, well-funded, well-known and [ruthlessly] ambitious political machine in US politics - the Clintons. Can't take on McCain? Sorry - try again.

    I am so excited and proud to support Barack Obama. How many Republicans can say that about McCain, honestly? Not many, and that's the difference.

    I certainly believe the party will be much more united in November and the Democrats have the money, the momentum, the enthusiasm and are on the side of the American people regarding the issues. McCain has Bush's failed policies to run on. Obama is the future; McCain is the past. Obama is hope; McCain is fear.

    This is gonna be good.






    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 3:51pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    I love this in particular, Ed. It says a lot about 'small government' conservatives.

    "3. Reduce the Government. the government should only be big enough to annihilate any country and (if necessary) every country, to spy on its citizens and on other governments, to keep big secrets, and to see to the health and happiness of large corporations. A government thus reduced will be almost too small to notice and will require almost no taxes and spend almost no money."

    More or less sums up most of the Republican party - including McCain.

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 3:51pm on 04 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 109. At 3:54pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 110. At 3:59pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    So, was it this?

    Simply an account of how the IDF have killed 78 children so far this year, and the circumstances of these deaths, or was it the link to the bragging of the pre-LIKUD terrorists?

    I suspect it was the latter

    Oh, well, the Mods are as Gods...
    xx
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 4:02pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    That first reason is nonsense and I am disappointed that you dredged it up to give it currency. Geraldine Ferraro is a loser and a whiner, and on this point she doesn't know what she is talking about. That is why she got in trouble for saying it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 4:07pm on 04 Jun 2008, ronaine wrote:

    Having just heard Sen. Obama's AIPAC speech, another example of what a smart political campaigner he is, the only factor to prevent a Dem victory on the scale of '92 would have to be racism.

    Or perhaps some shifty manouevering of the Roman variety...

    :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 4:09pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    McChip didn't have it all his own way in South Dakota. Ron Paul got 17% and Hucabee got 7%

    ;-)
    ed


    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 4:10pm on 04 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    #98
    Elizabeth UK, heard of affirmative action?

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 4:12pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    "Anybody who says Obama can't win in November is either clueless or in denial."

    Yes, but don't underestimate McCain! I've been saying that ever since he was nominated. He is the only Republican who could possibly beat Obama.

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 4:12pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    bbenettUSA

    I thought there was a nice balance at one time between the Dems and Repubs..where the Repubs were so careful about how money was used. Thats been lost and now the Repub politicians seem to work for the corporations.

    I think we need to clean up Washington...both parties

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 4:20pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    An open question to the moderators:

    How can some messages be removed because the BBC fears slander proceedings, and some, e.g. #93 above remain? I have in mind the last "sentence". I do not wish to complain, because allowing such a comment to remain clearly illustrates the venom with which some address others.

    On the other hand, my response to #93 (currently #103) sits in limbo (and probable eventual removal), due probably to the inclusion of a link leading to documented quotations....or possibly to a link detailing the circumstances of the deaths of over 900 children at the hands of the Israeli Defense Force, most of them totally innocent of anything beyond being in the wrong place at the wrong time (and not of their choosing)

    Just wondering...

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 4:22pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    a7dh5e (#52), where did you get that idea? Any natural born citizen is eligible for the office of president, regardless of ancestry. In fact, native Americans have held other political offices.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 4:23pm on 04 Jun 2008, powermeerkat wrote:

    "Carter is a Christian.
    He is following Christian principles" [96]


    In case you haven't noticed we still have a separation of Church and State.

    And that's why if Obama loses in November it's not going to be because he is a religious nut, by because his Republican opponent is not a fundamentalist who listens to racist preachers and whose wife has not felt proud to be an American first time in her life when her husband has been running for US president.

    [being able to tell a difference between a muzzle and a butt of a gun may help a little too, when runing for a position the US commander-in-chief]


    P.S. Jimmy Carter may have been a good country preacher but he was certainly an unmitigated diaster as a president. And that's why Democrats pretend that he never existed till this very day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 4:24pm on 04 Jun 2008, LesParke wrote:

    Re: 72

    "1. The democratic primary systems was hijacked by the extreme left wing of the democratic party."

    Yes, how dare those filthy left-wingers have the audacity to express their constitutionally-protected right to vote. They should have known their place and voted for Hillary, like all the rational Democrats.

    "2. Obama took advatage of a flawed system that does not reflect the voting public."

    Except he won more states, more delegates, and more of the popular vote. If you're using some other method to determine what "the voting public" wants, I'd love to hear it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 4:26pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Justianus (#89), the reason that several superdelegates announced for Obama on Tuesday was likely due to behind-the-scenes work by Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader). Many of the superdelegates are current members of Congress, and subject to the influence of their party leaders. Pelosi stated her intention to have this wrapped up soon, and she has the experience and power to get what she wants.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 4:33pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    I don't know what "McChip" is supposed to mean, but it's getting to be a tiresome old joke.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 4:40pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    PurrMeerkitty,

    1.)
    Rev Wright is NOT racist
    , and I defy you to find any evidence to the contrary.
    2.) McChip SOUGHT OUT the endorsement of fundamentalists like Hagee.
    3.) Jimmy Carter's main problem was that he's not only a Christian, but, more importantly, an Honest Man.
    4.) The Iranian hostage business (Carter's downfall) was heavily manipulated, both by the Republicans and the Iranians.

    Just for the record.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed


    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 4:42pm on 04 Jun 2008, Mark_WE wrote:

    "MagicKirin wrote:
    Justin:

    You forgot:

    1. The democratic primary systems was hijacked by the extreme left wing of the democratic party.

    2. Obama took advatage of a flawed system that does not reflect the voting public."

    First can anyone explain how the left wing of the democratic party hijacked the primarys? As someone from the UK I don't fully understand the process but everything seems perfectly valid to me.

    It seems odd that the votes of two states were ignored, but if there is a system in place and they tried to cheat it then I can understand why (although it seems that the Democrats gave Clinton a boast by giving her a compromise deal)

    While I agree that Obama may have taken advantage of a flawed system - but that is the system they both had to follow, and why should Obama be punished for understanding it better?

    However, I can't see how this doesn't reflect the will of the voting public as it seems that more people actually voted for him then Clinton (if you don't avoid counting some states like HRC seems to suggest).

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 4:44pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    Just a few points on the issues of a 'Christian' president, and Reverend Wright.

    Firstly, I as a Catholic can't see how Bush is really so devoted to his faith as is made out. For one thing, he attends church fairly infrequently, and his grasp of theology is pretty poor. All of his public announcements on religion seem to be hopelessly banal.

    Secondly, Obama's position regarding Reverend Wright was that he doesn't necessarily agree with everything his pastor says - in fact, he may strongly disagree - but he doesn't go to church to be lectured, he goes to worship God. Wright's sermons, he says, are meant to be thought-provoking rather than instructional. Besides, Wright's comments seem to have been blown out of all proportion - for one thing, very few people have actually seen more than five second clips.

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 4:45pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    powermeerkat

    Carter's value system is Christian..thats what motivates him in the political arena as well as in his life...

    There are people who believe the US is a Christian nation. I hope you will tell them it is not a Christian nation. No Christian nation would ever behave like the US with no health insurance for all its children. No Christian nation would wage a war of choice for profit.

    So would you like to remove in "God WeTrust" from the coinage and no "under God" in the pledge?

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 4:50pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Gary,

    You're probably right. It has at least four references to me:
    1.) He is third generation Navy, and thus a "Chip off the old block"
    2.) Similar to McSame, a "chip of the Shrub"
    3.) A famous (in the UK) brand of frozen, "oven-ready" freedom fries.
    4.) For some unknown reason he looks like a chipmunk with cheeks full of nuts.

    But I'll abandon the tired joke for something as yet undetermined, say, McPast-it, McGrin, etc.

    Salaam/Shalom
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 4:56pm on 04 Jun 2008, powermeerkat wrote:

    " The Iranian hostage business (Carter's downfall) was heavily manipulated, both by the Republicans and the Iranians."

    A small meerkat ("known to attack animals many times its size without any warning signs") happens to know how it was 'manipulated'.

    Iranian thugs simply didn't want to deal with a weak, cowardly US president (vide Jimmy's 'reactions' to Soviets' and their proxies' interventions in Angola, Mozambik and Afghanistan) but they did not want to antagonize Ronald Reagan (who was anything but an impotent wimp).

    Carter was (pea)nuts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 4:58pm on 04 Jun 2008, powermeerkat wrote:

    "Barack Obama gives backing to Israel in his first foreign policy speech since declaring victory in Democratic campaign." [BBC World]


    Now, that's an honest man who knows whose side of his bread is buttered.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 5:01pm on 04 Jun 2008, plainvanillakid wrote:

    Wrong there, Justin.

    Geraldine Ferraro did not have a point. There have been 6 black presidential candidates going as far back as 1972. They did not have anything like the response Barack has.

    Geraldine Ferraro has been corrected on the evening news in the US many, many times for bringing up this clanger.

    You have done what Geraldine wanted and believed a believable story. Believable… until you look at the facts and you look at the history, and then it becomes laughable.

    Do your research Justin King.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 5:01pm on 04 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    Mark_WE wrote:
    "MagicKirin wrote:
    Justin:

    You forgot:

    1. The democratic primary systems was hijacked by the extreme left wing of the democratic party.

    2. Obama took advatage of a flawed system that does not reflect the voting public."

    First can anyone explain how the left wing of the democratic party hijacked the primarys? As someone from the UK I don't fully understand the process but everything seems perfectly valid to me.

    It seems odd that the votes of two states were ignored, but if there is a system in place and they tried to cheat it then I can understand why (although it seems that the Democrats gave Clinton a boast by giving her a compromise deal)

    I'll try to explain although the rules don't make sense to me. Obama won a majority of Caucus states. Where people go into a house or meeting place and vote for their canidate then those that don't reach a threshold have to vote for someone else. You don't have to be a state resident to vote in a caucus.

    Certain states do not allow indepedent voters to vote in the primaries. This is the largest voting block in the country.

    Finally in regard to Florida and Michigan, the U.S constitution says, the state determines the date of the primary. An archachic traditions is for Iowa and New Hampshire to go first.
    Most of the country does not agree with this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 5:01pm on 04 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #119 powermeerkat

    I will grant that Carter probably will not be considered by historians to be among the best of our Presidents.

    Nevertheless, he has since shown himself to be a decent, principled person who is not afraid to speak truth to power, whether here or abroad. I find most of his critics to be those who are driven by an agenda and are not interested in hearing an objective viewpoint.

    In spite of his Presidential deficiencies, he is highly intelligent, and I respect the man and firmly believe that the US and the world is better off for all of his efforts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 5:04pm on 04 Jun 2008, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    @29. I cannot fault your reason in your article. Well said.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 5:05pm on 04 Jun 2008, parritchmaker wrote:

    some "out of the box" thinking. Why not both of them campaign for President till the convention. McCain would then have to split his attacks. At the Convention get this done and dusted and both campaign hard for the winner.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 5:07pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    An eerie recollection of June 4th, 1968

    If the link doesn't work, try going here

    Congratulations to the BBC for an entrancing series!
    xx
    ed


    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 5:10pm on 04 Jun 2008, purpleDogzzz wrote:

    The problem I have with Hillary is not that she is lying and using terribly convoluted and inaccurate mathematics to defend her position, even in total defeat, for that is something that I would expect any politician of her kind to do. But I have a problem with her using these negative and blatantly transparent tactics to hurt her party. Once it was obvious that she had lost, she should have gracefully conceded and announced that she would support the winner fully and act in whatever capacity she can to see him win in November.

    I still think that she would secretly rather see the warmonger McCain in the Whitehouse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 5:11pm on 04 Jun 2008, SlashDashUnderscore wrote:

    Carter, I think we can all agree, has had a better post-presidency than his sorry four years in charge (when, to be fair, he was more the plaything of circumstances - the oil shock and hostage crisis - rather than his own incompetence).

    /-_

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 5:15pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Oh, and Carter finished in the top 10% of his class at Annapolis, while McAdmiral was 894th out of 899. Carter remains the ONLY Annapolis graduate to have become POTUS - long may that factoid remain true!

    I will change that wish in the unlikely event that Jim Webb, following two successive terms as Obama's VP, decides to run (he'll still be younger than McCain is now)

    xx
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 5:16pm on 04 Jun 2008, usajafo wrote:

    It is amazing to me that so many Hilary supporters have said they will vote McCain instead of Obama. This sounds like voting for spite.

    Have none of these women considered that McCain represents overturning of Roe v Wade? During the next presidency, there may be 1 or 2 supreme court retirements / new appointees. That could be all it takes to make abortion illegal.

    Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 5:31pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Ed (#138), maybe British usage differs, but a "factoid" is something which appears to be a fact, but is not actually a fact, like "asteroid" (false star). Nit-picking, I suppose, but one of my faults.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 5:33pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Slash Dash Underscore

    Its very difficult to follow the Christian religion and be a politician in a nation like the US.

    Powermeerkat

    Do you want the words "under God" removed from the pledge? Do you want the words "in God we trust " removed form public buildings?

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 5:38pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    usajafo (#139), I don't think it's a significant number. Take into account that it's a sensational statement, so reporters will pick it up and use it. A few reporters have also quoted Clinton supporters saying they will stick with the Democrats.

    If Obama selects Sebelius as his running mate, and McCain selects Palin, the issue will be finessed, I think. Voters who wanted a woman in the White House will be sure to get one near it either way, and they can focus on the differences between the two parties, which is what they should do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 5:44pm on 04 Jun 2008, Mark_WE wrote:

    MagicKirin wrote:

    "I'll try to explain although the rules don't make sense to me. Obama won a majority of Caucus states. Where people go into a house or meeting place and vote for their canidate then those that don't reach a threshold have to vote for someone else. You don't have to be a state resident to vote in a caucus.

    Certain states do not allow indepedent voters to vote in the primaries. This is the largest voting block in the country."

    That actually sounds rather like how British MPs are selected, members of the local political party choose their candidate and then in the general election everybody in the local are gets to vote on which candidate they want to elect.

    As this is a party voting for their candidate it seems fair enough that they don't allow non-party members to vote in the selection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 5:46pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Another kind if chip?

    ;-)
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 5:49pm on 04 Jun 2008, StephMar wrote:

    #117


    There is no venom in that. Or just as much venom in Wright's sermon.
    You ask for racism? The idea that white amercian government invented aids to kill balcks is racism!!!!

    Also the stats in palestinian children is biased and abusrd. Let's look at stats of innocent civilians killed by suicide bombers to remain impartial.

    My son told me many times how terrorist cells hide among civilians and thus cause deaths of civilians themselves by mingling among them and subjecting them to the risk due to their cowardice. I belive Hezbollah flaunts similar practices.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 6:02pm on 04 Jun 2008, timohio wrote:

    What mikewarsaw and others miss when they describe Republicans as great in foreign policy is that they stand firmly against left-wing dictators by cozying up to right-wing dictators. Nixon, Reagan, and now Bush all created future problems for the US by their support of repressive governments, their willingness to overlook human rights abuses, their fascination with undercover operations, and their preoccupation with looking tough. Reagan's support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, for example, planted the seeds of our current problems in Iraq and the ongoing tensions with Iran. The whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept always comes back to haunt us.

    Oh, and the Obama/West Wing thing: Obama was picked as the model for Congressman Santos after he made his electrifying speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004 and while he was running for the Senate. Justin had a reference a while back to a video (which I believe was on Slate) that detailed the connection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 6:02pm on 04 Jun 2008, LongStrangeTrip wrote:

    Regarding Geraldine Ferraro: I agree that she does have a point.

    I seem to remember that at the time of the 2004 Dem Convention, the party went to great effort to showcase its racial and ethnic diversity, in order to demonstrate how much more inclusive and democratic it was in comparison to the Republicans.

    A big part of that was to give the convention's keynote address to a dynamic, though relatively unknown, Black/multi-racial, state senator from Illinois - Barack Obama. Would anyone outside of his state have known who he was if he hadn't been part of the Democrats' program that night? Probably not, and his 2008 presidential run might never have gotten off the ground.

    Getting back to Ms. Ferraro, I think she was treated shamefully by Obama supporters and most of the pundits. I think they perverted what she said, so they could sanctimoniously wag their fingers and proclaim publicly from their high-horses, "She is a racist!" with the sub-text of "See how progressive and cool I am?" It was a shameful way to treat someone who has spent her life serving the people and Democratic Party.

    Shameful, but not much of a surprise, because my experience of Obama supporters has been that they will often react to any opposition (real or perceived) with something akin to "road rage." Hopefully they will start to take more cues from their candidate, who is far more gracious and reasonable than most of them have been.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 6:14pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Steph,

    "Also the stats in palestinian children is biased and abusrd (sic). "

    I know they are alarming, and it is indeed absurd that such violent and illegal occupation and oppression is payrolled by US aid to Israel, who receives more such aid than any other country.

    "Let's look at stats of innocent civilians killed by suicide bombers to remain impartial."

    Let's do just that!

    I remind you that B'Tselem is JEWISH, so if it's biased, one would expect UNDERstatement of Palestinian casualties, but perhaps you discount them because they're in favour of peace and Human Rights, so they must be a bunch of "bleeding heart liberals", They probably are.

    Here's the UN's take on the casualties, just for some better graphics.

    Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
    Namaste -ed


    Ignorance is a voluntary misfortune
    Nicholas Ling



    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 6:15pm on 04 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    RalphMa#2 exactly.

    #9 mike warsaw
    At least with McCain running there is a chance that Obama will be shown for what he really is.....
    what black?


    Oh steph... you are

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 6:18pm on 04 Jun 2008, vagueofgodalming wrote:

    I'd amplify reason 6 to add that Obama is not associated with the past, i.e., not only does he promise change, he is a change.

    Just as Clinton's greatest weakness was her surname - not because of Bill, but because W has discredited dynastic politics. A Kennedy would have the same problem.

    Ed - I think if you dig deeper into Ron Paul you won't like him so much.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 6:20pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Mark-WE #143

    MagicKirin is a source of misinformation. He writes his opinions as if they were facts. For example:

    "Certain states do not allow indepedent voters to vote in the primaries. This is the largest voting block in the country." MagicKirin quote

    which I guess means Independents are the largest voting block in the country.

    But in 2004 :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

    There were 72 million Democrats, 55 million Republicans and 42 million iIndependents.

    And if anything there are more Democrats now than in 2004 imo.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 6:21pm on 04 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    yes ed censorship is funny.

    Stephmar doesn't like being called names.
    But I suspect if you were face to face you could get the N word out of her in a short time.
    Typing and the PC culture has allowed her to carry on with the "he's osama, Black preachers, WHite america speach , but we not as blind as the mods can see the obvious.
    Steph .
    baby killing statistics are not in favour of the Israelis.don't go downt hat path i think Ed will produce more than enough. If not go to the UN and ask. They all figure it out but thats why you are not running anything.
    If the charlie rose piece is ready I linked to yesterday you may get an education.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 6:22pm on 04 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    And as for terrorist tactics. ask any soldier what they will do to WIN when their homeland has been in occupation for 60 years.
    I bet standard military code is out the window.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 6:35pm on 04 Jun 2008, StephMar wrote:

    #148

    So your argument is that to be fair we have to have equal number of casualties???

    In wars usually things pan out like that. Because one fights with more strategy than the other. Do I have to repeat myself and explain the Palestinian civilian casualties again??

    Have you seen Israeli and Palestinians fighting each other as army to army lately? The warfare is that of terrorism and no structure, no laws apply to terrorists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 6:37pm on 04 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    bethpa wrote:
    Mark-WE #143

    MagicKirin is a source of misinformation. He writes his opinions as if they were facts. For example:

    "Certain states do not allow indepedent voters to vote in the primaries. This is the largest voting block in the country." MagicKirin quote

    which I guess means Independents are the largest voting block in the country.

    But in 2004 :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

    There were 72 million Democrats, 55 million Republicans and 42 million iIndependents.

    And if anything there are more Democrats now than in 2004 imo.

    Betha Wikiepdia is a PC source which has no validity. Even in Massachuseets indpendents outnumber Democrats.

    Go back to school

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 6:41pm on 04 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    parritchmaker wrote:
    some "out of the box" thinking. Why not both of them campaign for President till the convention. McCain would then have to split his attacks. At the Convention get this done and dusted and both campaign hard for the winner.

    One problem, McCain has been campaigning for the last month assuming Obama is his opponent

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 6:41pm on 04 Jun 2008, e2holmes wrote:

    8 reasons Obama won:

    1. He is a very gifted orator. He would never have won without that gift. After his 2004 speech, many, many Democrats said 'Did you hear that speech? I want that guy to be our president.'

    2. He has a personal history of rising up from a poor background and dedicating himself to public service that taps into deeply-felt storylines that Americans have about themselves: 'the Land of Opportunity', 'the Immigrant story', '...dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal", and '..Ask not what you can do for your country but what you can do for your country'. [Obviously he doesn't inspire everyone(!), but that doesn't negate his effect of many Americans.]

    3. He made a principled stand against the Iraq war from the beginning. The majority in the progressive-wing of the Democratic party would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she a) voted for the war and b) is viewed as a hawk. That's about 50% of the party.

    4. He pulled off a win in Iowa. All of a sudden, the progressives who wanted to vote for him, but didn't want to vote for a loser took notice.

    5. The Democratic party has a proportional system for dividing delegates. Under the Republican system (winner takes all), Clinton would have clinched the nomination with her CA win (and other big states in Super Tues).

    6. MI and FL decided to buck the Democratic National Committee and set their primaries too early. As a result, the DNC sanctioned them and those races didn't count. If they had not thwarted the rules, Clinton would have likely won both and it would have given her momentum coming into Super Tuesday.

    7. Obama got very lucky with the timing of the races scheduled after Super Tuesday -- they were all in states where he had a demographic advantage. A long string of wins after Super Tuesday gave him a bunch of momentum.

    8. Obama has consistently been able to raise much, much more money than Clinton. Much of this has been grassroots (under $200 donations). He was endorsed and helped by MoveOn.org early on and they are the leaders in grassroots fundraising.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 6:42pm on 04 Jun 2008, Mark-WW wrote:

    Everybody goes on about Hilary's experience...

    What experience?
    She was the First Lady, not the president.

    Since when was being the President's missus a qualification for the top job?

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 6:47pm on 04 Jun 2008, Mark-WW wrote:

    Why did the super-delegates fall-in behind Obama?
    Simple: the black vote.

    Given that the majority of black people generally vote democrat, not awarding the nomination to a black candidate who won a majority of delegates would be political suicide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 6:50pm on 04 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    "105. At 3:47 pm on 04 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:
    Justin's and some others' reasons are as empty as Obama's suit. Black? Are you kdding? He has nothing in common with American blacks.

    His wife does. But isn't she more of a liability than asset in the campaign?

    And what has he won? Democratic nomination, achievement? That's like trying to decide who's the better driver, the blind or the deaf!"

    coming from the Guy that said blacks were "lazy unemployed thieves"
    So now will you support him?
    If he is not black .that seemed to be the big concern for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 6:56pm on 04 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Jacksforge
    Easy boy easy.
    No need to throw the anvil!

    Stephmar is no crazy MAII type but has contact with her son, carrying out his duties. He, her son is no terrorist and I see her last paragraph as being very truthful indeed.
    Please do not frighten everybody who has an opposing position to your own off the board.
    All discussions are paramount for the dont knows like me on this thread. We may hold a different fixed view but diplomacy requires debating all sides of a perplexing situation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 7:01pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Powermeerkat

    This article might interest you

    http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=8209

    "We're trying to get Christians to take their biblical responsibility of being active as salt and light, and that means in every arena, including government," Cureton said. "You know, God created government to begin with--if you look at Romans Chapter 13 that's clear. So here's just a dumb question: If God created government to begin with, would he want his people to stay out of it? I don't think so."

    And by law the IRS should take away their tax exempt staus if they do that.

    But the US is mixing religion and politics. What Rev Wright said should have been irelevant..as should whatever religion the politicans are should be irrelevant...and kept private...like their sex lives...



    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 7:06pm on 04 Jun 2008, AAlvinTwiningham wrote:

    Hey Stephmar, you do know that Isreal was founded by terrorists, right?

    http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2005/12/the_other_road__1.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 7:16pm on 04 Jun 2008, califteacher wrote:

    I voted for Senator Obama because he speaks honestly and openly, a rare trait in a politician. I first read his two books several years ago, and I knew then that he would be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
    Mr. Webb claims to know the ten reasons why Senator Obama won the nomination. Mr. Webb, you are incorrect. If you want to know why he won the nomination, read his two books, especially Chapter Two of "The Audacity of Hope". This chapter is titled "Values" and it goes to the heart of what is wrong with the American political system. It is the reason I am voting for Senator Obama in November. Before your readers criticize the man, read his books.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 7:22pm on 04 Jun 2008, ffmcgurk wrote:

    All these disparaging blatherings about Clinton, Obama, even Pres Carter no less, seem guilt-embroidered veils to hide the massive failures of this administration during the last seven years. They are America’s failures. Maybe that is why so many try to hide from them by attacking someone not in the administration. We’re all culpable. We’re all responsible.
    The war is a catastrophe of Grecian-tragedy proportions. Operas will be sung about it two centuries on. The economy and the value of the dollar are tanking, and we’ve become deservedly disliked and demeaned ‘round the world. Bush’s face was put on every American’s after 2004. “Gravel Gertie” could not have done a worse job in the past seven years. We must change a failed ruling party.
    For those who want to vote for McCain, including Dems who aren’t happy that Sen. Clinton lost, those votes will be votes in support of continuation of the ineptly planned and executed, treasure-draining Iraq war.
    As the elder veteran in a family of four combat-experienced officers in Iraq or soon returning for encores----If you willingly support McCain and the war, then you should have enough honor to enlist (max enlistment age is 42), and/or have your bloodline serve in it.
    Otherwise, it is high, bloody hypocrisy of the kind that has become a trait of too many “Americans”---only one in 300 families have anyone serving in uniform.
    We need change, we need to change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 7:24pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    MagicKirin #155

    Well now I know where some of your confusion comes from. You live in Massachussetts and think all the rest of the nation is like Ma where 49% are registered Independent.

    This is the original source for the statistics Unlike you Wiki cites sources...

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm

    "An estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over will be eligible to vote Nov. 2, although many are not now registered.

    Of these, about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats.

    About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation."

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 7:27pm on 04 Jun 2008, nobleFloridian wrote:

    Obama handsome? Justin, when did you last visit your optometrist? If he's handsome then I am the geriatric version of Brad Pitt!

    A silver tongue he undoubtedly has, but there is no substance behind that particular talent. "Change" has been his campaign watchword, but we are yet to find out how he will carry out all those brave promises.

    "Brainwashed" is the word that comes to mind about those misguided enough to vote for a man who is clearly too inexperienced in all respects to take on the mantle of commander-in-chief, a misnomer of huge proportions in his case.

    Sorry I was late to the party - I was busy volunteering at our local veterans' park this morning.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 7:27pm on 04 Jun 2008, StephMar wrote:

    Well, from what I know there was a terrorist ultra right wing group in Zionist movement but Ben Gurion outlawed them. There are extremes in every cause. I just don't think that is by itself a justification to what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing for that matter.

    This quote: "Palestinian terrorists do not attack civilian buses because they are a different species to the rest of us, they attack civilians because Israel enjoys overwhelming military superiority over them" also doesn't justify their actions. Nothing justifies terrorism.
    I said I wasn't going to respond to some poster's nonsense, but I have to say that 60 of anything he reffers to also doesn't justify terrorism. Our soldiers are dying right now because someone somewhere justified terrorism.

    Israel -Palestinian conflict is a great example of people's inability to live with each other in harmony, no matter whose fault it is. And sadly nothing will ever fix that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 7:27pm on 04 Jun 2008, pesca2008 wrote:

    Barak Obama is half white and half black, that's why he won, many whites see him for what he is : the son of a christian anglosaxon white woman with a PHD and multi-lingual, he is smart , sharp and cool, the mix and change America needs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 7:32pm on 04 Jun 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    So many comments, so little time!

    #12 peterm99 and #89 Jusitianus - thanks for that; so he hasn’t actually won after all! Reliance on the doubtful word of superdelegates seems fraught with danger to me, considering that many flip-flopped about their choice and others wouldn't commit themselves until they could see how his campaign was going. Everyone wants to back a winner, but this 'win' appears artificial, relying as it does on changeable opinions. To quote the archpropagandist, Joseph Goebbels, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Of all this morning's newpaper headlines that I read, the only one that had reported correctly was, surprisingly, The Los Angeles Times, which had the banner "Obama claims nomination", that is, not "wins". I have read that Mrs Clinton is asking that there be a traditional roll call of the states but that the Obama campaign is concerned that it might backfire. If they are so sure of ultimate victory then they should have nothing to worry about - if they demur then it will seem that even they have doubts. #38 Mike50s puts it in stronger terms but his penultimate sentence may well yet be valid.

    Considering that, Justin's own headline is premature and thus irrelevant, although I quite liked his reason at 10, but would remind him that the series was cancelled because of low ratings. Although fictional, history may repeat itself.

    #32 - WatermanA; I didn’t take it to be a putdown, but you have refreshed my memory - what I wrote was "African-American (actually a mulatto) . . ." And indeed, Mr Obama is of mixed race rather than being "pure" Black.

    Lastly, for now, Ed: I don’t think you can be pleased with your candidate's speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. So much for the "change" you had anticipated!

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 7:35pm on 04 Jun 2008, louwlondon wrote:

    Point 5 is very interesting - Barack Obama embodies that oft-neglected liberal ideal of encouraging people to make the best of themselves... For in depth analysis of this point, visit theliberal.co.uk:

    `...Hence the intriguing riff on Gandhi: “We are the change that we seek”; a shift that is both generational and self-generating, self-defining and necessitating a redefinition of the self. This is the awe – the audacity – of liberalism: that it dares the individual to imagine his potential and challenges him to rise to it, to work to ride “the tide that lifts every boat”.'

    from "Barack Obama and the Idea of America"
    by Benjamin Ramm:
    http://www.theliberal.co.uk/Obama_and_the_Idea_of_America.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 7:42pm on 04 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    good on you nobel .
    As it happens I'm off to teach a vet how to make a frog.

    Water man, no anvils throwing here(thanks for the compliment though )
    Steph mar may not be a MA (by no means is she that offensive).
    but she is racially bias as her inability to understand Israel' actions are overboard but more importantly her own words betray.
    I have a go not for her misguided view of politics but because she has shown herself to be a racist(closet racist but still racist)

    And steph now i will get on the israeli issue.
    If palistine were a state this would be a war , but because they have no state they get labeled as terrorists.
    In the eye's of the enemy of israel Israel ids a terrorist state.
    The UN barely dissagrees with that.
    And for you to suggest that carter and Tutu and anyone else is anything but a hero for daring to talk truthfully is pretty rude.
    I still call a pheasant a pheasant , and will not stop waterman until the people posting here stop being racist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 7:46pm on 04 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    DC yea the aipac speech was his worst moment in this campain so far.
    now maybe J street will get him to come and address their concerns.

    As for steph's "And sadly nothing will ever fix that."
    certainly not trying won't fix that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 7:48pm on 04 Jun 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    What you don't mention, and this is important, is the distrust of the Clintons and the fear that they would have used the White House as their power base for influence peddling. They are not the most savory characters and a good part of the population is aware of it. Add to that Hillary's support of an unpopular war.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 7:50pm on 04 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 176. At 7:51pm on 04 Jun 2008, kedginton wrote:

    Point #5 is critical as the people of America and the world starting to see the importance of improving themselves, if they ever want a better life.

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 7:54pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Obama looks like Tiger Woods : )

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 7:57pm on 04 Jun 2008, StephMar wrote:

    Someone said here that all Obama supporters do is accuse others of racism. #172 is a great example and testimony to that.

    In fact that post is just plain mental case. I just can't understand how someone can be so incoherent, uninformed, and ridiculous.

    Apparently my advice on spell check went unnoticed, so did someone else's advice on medication.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 7:57pm on 04 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 180. At 8:00pm on 04 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    172 - "but because they are not a state"-- ??????

    Wow, the idiocy is astounding.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 8:09pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    The attacks begin:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/04/lieberman-attacks-obama-over-foriegn-policy/#more-7598

    "Lieberman, who endorsed John McCain earlier this year, has been increasingly critical of Obama — particularly his goal to end the war in Iraq. The Democrat-turned-independent has been a strong supporter of President Bush's Middle East and Iraq policies.

    Obama endorsed Lieberman in his 2006 Democratic primary battle against challenger Ned Lamont. But after the Connecticut senator lost and decided to run as an independent, Obama switched his support to Lamont, who shared his opposition to the Iraq war."

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 8:12pm on 04 Jun 2008, frostynorth wrote:

    I think Obama won because Americans are sick and tired of corrosive personality politics, dirty tactics, demagogue-like "winner-take-all" attitudes, the perpetual state of campaigning Scott McClellan (sp?) talks about in his book (wasn't a fan of his before, still not now, but he has a point in that respect)... in general the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney sort of politics. The voters are tired of their government having a self-important authoritarian character that pits its own people against each other. The fact that they're tired of it is evident in how people keep voting for him despite the amount of traction the "evil muslim" and "anti-American angry black man" caricatures get in the media.

    Clinton ran her campaign almost as if Rove himself was in the driver's seat. The Republicans are already being even more vicious (though McCain has had the good sense to at least appear distanced from it). The people are sick of it, and Obama says he'll put a stop to it. Whether he will or not as the hypothetical president... I guess we can only wait and see.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 8:24pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Bethpa (#162), regarding your statement about not mixing religion and politics, I disagree. While it true (and properly so) that "no religious test shall be required for any office under the United States," it is nevertheless proper for individual voters to apply whatever test they choose to evaluate a candidate's character. I see nothing wrong with judging a man (in part) by the company he keeps, and offensive statements by Pastors Wright and Pfleger (and by his wife and himself) were understandably harmful to his chances.

    I am supporting Obama, so I hope that those statements don't make the difference in the election.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 8:32pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    David_Cunard (#170), practically everyone in the United States is of mixed racial ancestry. There are very few pure Africans here. In any case, it is how one identifies themselves that matters. I am reminded of the playwright August Wilson's remarks when asked by an interviewer about his similar mixed parentage: (paraphrasing) "society considers me black; my entire experience is black; I AM black."

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 8:33pm on 04 Jun 2008, mwmonk wrote:

    Justin's point number #9 - about former Virginia Governor Mark Warner - is more important than the cursory comments already included here.

    Warner would have run Hillary close this year, would have been a certain contender for the VP slot on her ticket, and I believe Obama should consider him now for VP.

    With Warner on board - and it is a big hypothetical with him walking away with the VA senate race - the Democrats would just about destroy McCain and whoever he runs with in November.

    He has already been mentioned in the press as a possible VP(http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/968590,CST-EDT-novak25.article) and I think we will hear a lot more soon.

    Obama - Warner 08 looks unbeatable and is the real dream ticket. And Warner - Whoever in 2016 would be just as hard to beat. It sort of makes Karl Rove's generation in power theory look like a short term strategy!!

    And by the way, McCain's speech in Louisiana last night was the worst political speech I have ever heard, or heard of.

    He came across as creepy, devoid of ideas, and as impossible to support as Iain Duncan Smith, who looks like his Grandson.

    History is happening in front of our eyes, and 45 years after Dr King had his dream, it has come true....

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 8:34pm on 04 Jun 2008, David Cunard wrote:

    #180 newBodo - I don't think the Palestinian National Authority actually qualifies as a sovereign nation - some nations recognise it but not all, which includes Israel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 8:37pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    I'd like it if Mc Cain chose Lieberman as his vp then it would be very clear where everyone stood.

    And I 'd like to see Zinni as Obama's vp.

    Until the Israeli Plaestinian issue is more settled there will be continual interference in US politics by Israel. They need the US for safety.

    Zinni has had experience in the Middle East , he was an envoy and he is tough. He knows the military and he is more interested in getting things done than in political maneuvering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 8:40pm on 04 Jun 2008, mary gravitt wrote:

    Obama won because he had the best organization behind him. He won because the American peoples are sick and tired of being sick and tired of being ashamed of the US and Bush as the so-called Leader of the Free World.

    George W. Bush makes US feel ashamed and Americans as a whole group cannot bear this, even non-flag wavers like myself. We want to reclaim our right as Righteous Peoples who do not need to flex our muscles to get our way.

    Obama won because we need to refresh ourselves and get a fresh start at trying to be decent human beings and World Citizens.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 8:48pm on 04 Jun 2008, proles wrote:

    "It was written" and "it has come to pass"??? Gross! No wonder this blog has been downgraded on the BBC website - after all the trouble and expense of a suave new haircut, and no more pic! Just more messianic millenialism. First we have to endure Republican hacks comparing McCain to Jesus in not denying America and now the pundits are going to treat us to a quasi-religious spin on the Obama parade. Only in fervent America. Ten tautologies might be more like it. All of which can be reduced to the same tried and true two. Forget the personal characteristics, millions of other Americans can be described the same way, and spare us the faux religiosity, Obama 'won' for the same reasons any Duopoly Party candidate wins - money and connections. And of course, taking for granted that he toes the Party line. All of which came together in his first 'official' act as 'winner'. To declare his undying devotion to Israel. It's all there at the AIPAC convention. Money, connections - and the first clause in the Party line. You want power, you suck up to power; and nobody sucks up to power more than Obama Copacabana.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 8:57pm on 04 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    People keep saying he won.

    Chill out he didn't win anything. It's a nomination. It is being portrayed like he won the presidency.

    Questionable voting practices resulted somehow in identifying a lesser of two evils in the eyes of questionable beholders.

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 9:07pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Gary_A_Hill #183

    Anyone in the US who says they are an agnostic or an atheist will not get elected. Can not a politican say that his religious beliefs are private?

    And what has happened is by mixing politics into religion it has watered down the meaning of the Christian religion. Christianity is about forgivenss and loving your enemies. Where is that in America today?

    While many Americans are critical of Europe because it does not have a high church attendance, the US has a lower standard of living than the Europeans...

    Its my opinion that America is hypocritical and there might be a God who cares about that kind of hypocrisy. ..and that is part of what those preachers were saying. The US says one thing ..but does another.

    The Bush administration and its lies have brought out the hypocrisy of America. When Bush said that health insurance could not be extended to children with no insurance because that would hurt the insurance companies..that about said it all...

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 9:15pm on 04 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    On #10, why don't we just hire the cast
    of the "West Wing", and let the world
    believe that they are actually running
    things? If they make a mistake, we can
    always break for a commercial (corporate
    America will love that).

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 9:21pm on 04 Jun 2008, Mr_Dirk_Gently wrote:

    189 - Proles

    To be fair, if it was up to connections wouldn't a Clinton have won?

    190 - NewBodo

    Normally primary runs are a blow out - hence why Super Tuesday is generally considered the end of the road. I some celebration is entitled after a fight this long.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 9:22pm on 04 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    . At 7:54 pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:
    Obama looks like Tiger Woods : )

    The difference Tiger Woods worked and earned every major.

    Obama has not earned anything yet many of his supporters want to give him the Presidency with no resume or accomplishments

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 9:23pm on 04 Jun 2008, Mr_Dirk_Gently wrote:

    Typing > me

    I THINK some.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 9:42pm on 04 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 197. At 9:55pm on 04 Jun 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:

    Bethpa (#191), we are certainly in agreement that there is plenty of hypocrisy in the United States.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 10:40pm on 04 Jun 2008, MagicKirin wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 199. At 10:41pm on 04 Jun 2008, aquarizonagal wrote:

    Please, no more about Clinton for VP. Someone should stick a fork in because she is DONE!

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 10:55pm on 04 Jun 2008, ellymk wrote:

    i think if he gets in he will be a threat to world peace just as george w bush was, i think we should all be very frightened if he is elected

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 11:21pm on 04 Jun 2008, DougTexan wrote:

    DOn't forget the 'Unclear Option' of the Clinton arsenal,..

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 11:30pm on 04 Jun 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

    Re: #199 is a great Molly Ivins quote. Obama has appointed a three-member panel to search for a running mate. Hopefully the list of candidates will include Sebelius from Kansas, Webb from Virginia (not our Justin but I prefer him over Clinton), and Richardson from New Mexico.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 11:58pm on 04 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Steph,

    "Well, from what I know there was a terrorist ultra right wing group in Zionist movement but Ben Gurion outlawed them."

    They became LIKUD., and Ben Gurion is in here.

    "Israel -Palestinian conflict is a great example of people's inability to live with each other in harmony, no matter whose fault it is. And sadly nothing will ever fix that."

    Israelis are the illegal foreign occupiers and the Palestinians are the occupied - there is a difference, you know.

    Noble,

    "but we are yet to find out how he will carry out all those brave promises. "

    It's all on his website, in great detail.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 00:34am on 05 Jun 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    The reason Obama won is very simple. He was the stronger candidate. Why? He was against the war and did not have a corrupt past. Sexism and racism were only important to the media and to a candidate who wanted to get a leg up. If any "isms" had been involved, it was Obama who would have lost.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 00:37am on 05 Jun 2008, haglady wrote:

    answering #9 and #17

    carter's administration actually freed those 52 hostages in Iran, as Reagan hadn't had a chance to do anything, barely sworn in when they were released.

    I well remember Reaganomics. We had two kids in diapers, and nobody was hiring anywhere. Unemployment checks were reduced by 10% due to so many depending on the system. Reagan's response: Trickle-down economics -- allow money to flow to rich people, and it will trickle down to the masses.

    Such hogwash! Bush's policies have put many of us in the same boat, with more to follow. The GOP exists to bleed the masses to support themselves and their cronies. And the Dems exist to bleed the rich to support everyone else. There has to be a middle ground!

    Furthermore, I support former President Carter's trip to the Middle East. In this world, growing ever smaller, must we continue working at blowing each other up to settle our differences? Someone needs to start the dialog.

    Go Obama!

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 00:46am on 05 Jun 2008, allmymarbles wrote:

    If American Jews want to protect Israel they should stand firmly AGAINST the Iraqi war and any further incursions in the Middle East. People like Bush, Lieberman and McCain, with their OK Corral approach to diplomacy, would totally destabilize the Middle East. The first casuality would be Israel.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 01:04am on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 208. At 01:11am on 05 Jun 2008, cynic555 wrote:

    MMM .. Obama's "change" motra has plenty of appeal.

    However - I suspect the close scrutiny may reveal he isn't as "fresh" a politician as he would like to portrait.

    For a "change master" I am still waiting for anyone to give me a single example of him sponsoring any substantive legislation or even him siding with the Republicans on a single issue.

    Like many independents I am cautious about jumping on any one's band wagon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 01:13am on 05 Jun 2008, wcaston wrote:

    Re:#17
    If one further investigates the history of what happened with the Iranian hostage crisis, it will be found that with the help of George Bush, director of the CIA at the time, a deal was brokered with the Iranian government to not release the hostages until after Reagan took office, thereby thwarting months of hard work Carter had spent towards their release. This is commonly known as the October surprise, and Carter had been working up until the night before Reagan's inauguration. It can be seen on his face at the event.

    Interestingly, many years later, 1987 from what I remember, it was discovered that the Reagan Administration had covertly been selling weapons to the Iranian regime in order to fund right wing death squads and dictatorships all over Latin America.

    The Republican Party has a far more extensive and pernicious history with regards to supporting sinister dictatorships all around the globe. Look at Chile, Afghanistan, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Iran, Iraq, just to name a few.

    Your comments cannot be taken seriously.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 01:16am on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Serious discussion of Middle-East

    Highlighted by jacksforge - Thanks Jack

    Listen/watch and make up your own mind

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 01:27am on 05 Jun 2008, Ambiance-Moushkila wrote:

    i just thought this

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-vogel/clintons-disgraceful-exit_b_105078.html

    was a brilliant piece.

    And yours too justin ;) For once your list was original and quite accurate. There's a ton of these top-5 reasons-why-clinton-lost all over the web and this one I like more.

    cheers mate

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 03:06am on 05 Jun 2008, AndreainNY wrote:

    Dare we refer to an Obama presidency as "Four more years of Carter"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 03:10am on 05 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    #212, I hope not. But, fortunately, Obama
    does not have the "Carter Smile."

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 03:46am on 05 Jun 2008, Reuben33g wrote:

    Holy frijoles batman! I've never seen so many posts on this blog before.

    I think that the number one reason that Obama won should be: He's not a Clinton.
    Who (besides a few racists) really cares that he's black?

    Maybe the real reason he won is that he's young and handsome, not an old, lip-stick wearing sow.

    When Obama was courting the far left of his party, he favored negotiating with terrorists like Hamas and Al-Qaeda, but now that he's secured the nomination, he's pretending to be pro-Israel.

    Why don’t the media (masters of the obvious) point out this bit of pandering when they cover their favorite candidate?

    Anyone who can change their position so fast with no obvious motive (other than telling people what they want to hear) is not trustworthy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 04:24am on 05 Jun 2008, haglady wrote:

    answering 191

    Hope you aren't confusing the citizens with the government. There are plenty of US who disagree with Dubya's policies. At the moment, those holding the most power have dictated just about everything, including how to hijack elections (see Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004).

    Yes, there were Catholics who voted as their Pope told them to, and gun-toting folks who voted their interests, and plenty of, yes, uneducated people who never faced hard adversity who voted for bootstraps. I don't believe they are the face of the US, any more than Dubya is.

    At this juncture, I believe Obama holds much more promise than the same old, same old offered by McCain. Our nation has many resources to draw upon, but four more years of the GOP putting personal profit over national interest will bankrupt us completely, if we aren't already.

    The concern that he's inexperienced keeps coming up. One could look at the other side of the coin. He's not beholden to myriad interests. He's a fresh slate, with a chance to steer the US in a different direction, hopefully one beneficial to those of us struggling to pay the bills, including the taxes.

    This current administration appears to be pulling out all the stops to keep the US economy from crashing before January. I figure they suspect that all the big money folks, anti-abortionists, pro-gun sorts, bootstrappers, folks that can't bring themselves to vote for a (n-word), and the flag wavers Proud to be American, all put together, aren't going to give the GOP four more years. The best they can do is create a mess for the incoming, in the hope he'll only get one term.



    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 04:25am on 05 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    Reuben33g, this is customary in US
    politics. Reagan courted the religious
    right during the primaries, then discarded
    them later. Carter made a speech where
    he proudly proclaimed that he parted
    his hair on the left during the primary,
    but that during the general campaign,
    he would "part it down the middle."

    Only John McCain is slow to adapt,
    but he will.

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 04:27am on 05 Jun 2008, haglady wrote:

    I saw the "Carter Smile" on a child's piggy bank in the shape of a peanut. Often wish I'd bought it; it was hilarious.

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 04:53am on 05 Jun 2008, peterm99 wrote:

    re: #214 Reuben33g

    "When Obama was courting the far left of his party, he favored negotiating with terrorists like Hamas and Al-Qaeda, but now that he's secured the nomination, he's pretending to be pro-Israel."

    While your characterization displays your biases and is overly simplistic and inflammatory, your implication regarding Obama is substantially correct.

    In earlier days, he did indicate a willingness to explore solutions to the Israel/Palestinian conflict in a more reasonable and even-handed manner than has been the case for several decades. His speech to AIPAC has exposed that he has abandoned any semblance of even-handedness.

    Forget about change, forget about integrity, forget about all of the high-minded rhetoric. Sadly, Obama has demonstrated that he is, after all, a typical American politician who is willing to abandon integrity and principle in order to curry favor with AIPAC, one of the most powerful interest groups in the US.

    Should he be elected, the prospect for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians during his term(s) is not improved over what it has been during the Bush or Clinton administrations. Truly sad.

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 04:56am on 05 Jun 2008, gunsandreligion wrote:

    haglady, #217, you're making me cry.
    Now I have another item to add to my
    quest, along with the "Alien Pops" candy
    dispenser which I used to see at mini-marts.

    I'm hoping to secure one of the Alien Pops
    to use as a fountain in my backyard garden.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 05:01am on 05 Jun 2008, haglady wrote:

    reply to 214

    I suspect Obama hasn't had enough time to change his stance since securing the nomination.

    Yet even if he is pro-Israel, it doesn't necessarily mean he's against talks with other groups.

    Communication is not kowtowing. How can any conflict approach resolution without both sides sitting down and discussing the situation? How does diplomatically ignoring it help?

    I find it troubling that Carter's recent trip was portrayed in such a negative light by the present administration.















    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 06:27am on 05 Jun 2008, powermeerkat wrote:

    I think we should all vote for Mr. Obama to make his wife proud to be an American for the first time in her life.

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 10:37am on 05 Jun 2008, lkrndu wrote:

    At this moment of triumph for Obama and the Democrats, McCain and the Republicans will do their worst, starting with the matter of experience. Which takes me back to George H. W. Bush and 'the vision thing'. Obama might be well-advised to consider just that sort of oblique reply, updating Reagan's 'There you go again' at the same time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 10:59am on 05 Jun 2008, ma_VER wrote:

    #126 - Bethpa Could you list some Christian countries? I'd like to know how a good Christian country behaves.

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 11:22am on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Haglady (220), Namaste

    SPOT ON!

    Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
    -ed

    P.S. "The best they can do is create a mess for the incoming, in the hope he'll only get one term. "

    One of my darkest fears. I sometimes wonder why anyone as clever as Obama wants to compete to inherit the coming times.....

    Pray

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 11:33am on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Ver (223),

    Interesting question. The first conclusion I reached while pondering was that a truly Christian country wouldn't be EXclusively Christian (nor necessarily "religious"), and then the list of possibilities began to expand - Sweden, Norway, Canada, - all Northern???

    Not to say these are "perfect" - who is? There must be others, but that's a start.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    P.S. There are problems with "Christian" ethics
    .

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 11:44am on 05 Jun 2008, trustworthysami wrote:

    this is a triump for american politics and american democracy

    congratulations to obama and clinton

    time take back the white house baby!

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 12:18pm on 05 Jun 2008, ma_VER wrote:

    Ed - Good point. However how much does Christianity come into how the Governments of Canada, Sweden and Norway operate? Genuine question, my knowledge of how these things isn't exactly expansive. For me, a Christian country would have ethics and policies founded in religious beliefs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 1:12pm on 05 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    #223 ma_VER and Ed

    My point is that you can not join religion and politics...

    I would say that a good human rights record is as close as we can come to establishing Christian values though...a respect for other human beings...but its very easy to say and very hard to do.

    By mixing religion with politics it has watered down the religion. Religion imo is a personal communication with God and no one else will know what is the truth of the experience except for God.

    Compare this verse in the Bible to what is seen today:

    Matthew 6:5-6 ESV

    “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.


    Imo what is being done in the name of Christianity is literally blasphemous and I think some of them are atheists, hiding behind religious values to gain power.

    And in my mind..the religions and the philosophies ( including science) all lead to certain universal truths. ( I'm a Unitarian with beliefs founded in Christianity) But everyone has to find their own way and people should not be pressured to say or believe anything religious.

    Religion is personal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 1:22pm on 05 Jun 2008, elizabeth-uk wrote:

    In response to post #108

    You said :

    "Ever since 1965 or introduction of affirmative action balck achievement is mostly due to their color and rarely due to their ability.

    We hire blacks because they are black not becuase they are competent"


    If my grammar and spelling were as bad as yours, I'd keep a low profile. There is no way I could hire you. Your written communication skills and your racist attitude don't do you any favours.

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 1:58pm on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    ma_VER,

    To my mind, it isn't the "government" in a "Christian" country, but the ethical/moral foundation of the culture and behaviour of the general population which matters.

    This may (and should) be reflected by the behaviour of the nation on the international scene, and, as I implied earlier, needn't have any basis in formal religion.

    For example, Thomas Jefferson assembled the "Jefferson Bible" featuring the great wisdom of Christ, although he himself didn't consider Jesus necessarily divine.

    In the same way, I consider Christianity (my interpretation, of course - ;-)) to constitute an excellent ethical basis, but I also find much of great value in other religio/philosophical traditions, e.g. Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism, and, yes, Islam.

    I still reckon the three Northern countries tend to present a very acceptable face of "Christian" behaviour.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 2:02pm on 05 Jun 2008, ma_VER wrote:

    Bethpa #228 : I agree with what you say about how nobody should be pressured to say or believe anything they do not truely believe. However, with reference to your comment on how politics has damaged religion, it is my belief that religion has been far for troublesome to politics than visa versa.

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 2:16pm on 05 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Yes Ed I agree with you yet again : )
    ..................................

    "These facts about Jefferson's religion are known. He was raised as an Anglican and always maintained some affiliation with the Anglican Church.

    He was also known to contribute financially, in fair proportion, to every denomination in his town. While a student at William and Mary College, he began to read the Scottish moral philosophers and other authors who had made themselves students of church history. These scholars opened the door for Jefferson's informed criticism of prevailing religious institutions and beliefs.

    But it was the world renowned English Unitarian minister and scientist, Joseph Priestley, who had the most profound impact on his thought. According to Priestley's Corruptions of Christianity, published in 1782, and many other of his books, the teachings of Jesus and his human character were obscured and obfuscated in the early Christian centuries. "

    partial quote from
    http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasjefferson.html

    ...............................

    (I think first come human rights then comes Democracy. If you have Democracy first you can have some very nasty groups come into
    power.)

    ..............................

    http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html

    "In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian, but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

    (sigh)

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 2:29pm on 05 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    #231 ma_VER

    ok : )


    Religion and politics should be kept separate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 2:44pm on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Regarding Jefferson, probably nobody left quite as much usefully quotable material.

    Or ponderable writing.

    "The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." --Abraham Lincoln

    One of the very best! Though, being a man of his times, he died "owning" 300 humans and left a line of mixed blood who (I suppose) are both proud and angry regarding their heritage.

    I think he would be proud again (like Michelle Obama) of the nation which has produced present Democratic Nominee Presumptive. I am

    Peace and siblinghood to all
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 2:47pm on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    233, 231,

    Separate religion and politics, by all means, but ethics and politics must be re-united and fully fused.

    xx
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 3:15pm on 05 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Jacksforge #172
    Still fancy you were a bit over the top with Steph, so my next tactic must be to play with words.
    First, may I state that I am not "casting" you as the villain in the piece or promoting you "forging" a relationship with every internet string contact. But, may I humbly request, that you should be "drawing" on all your experience, whilst not "shrinking" your duty as a blogger even when somebody might be considered to be "bending" the facts, [which is extremely "upsetting"], because "punching" your points, "hammering" them home, and advocating the "heat treatment" is not getting through.
    Should debating on this blog be a "combining process" between 2 opponents to achieve a good result? Even when one of the bloggers appears "case hardened", all input must be even "tempered" so that all feelings can be "normalised". If nothing still works and you are approaching "critical temperature" then stop, "quench" your frustration with a cold beer, otherwise the "jigs" up and you give yourself a heart attack.

    Thought you might like this.
    "A teacher who is attempting to teach without inspiring the pupil with a desire to learn, is like hammering on a cold iron". Horace Mann.
    wma

    ps # 173 Despite the Aipac speech under strained circumstances, Obama if chosen, can still develope to become one of the best presidents in the "weld ". He did not say much about Arab rights but I'm hopeful. Sitting in the lions' den you do not make the suggestion that it's time for lunch!

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 3:20pm on 05 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Ed,

    I sometimes wonder what it must have been like to have owned slaves and to benefit from their labor.. How did people justify that? I guess by considering the slave less than fully human.and in a certain more distant way..perhaps that is what has happened with the western world taking advantage of the emerging nations..but now it might be the tide has turned and some of the emerging nations that will have strong economies...with commodities.


    "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."
    Jefferson on the slavery issue




    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 3:22pm on 05 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    #229

    What a convincing argument and response. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change anything.

    From your name I'd assume you're from UK so what makes you think you can pass judgments on American affairs? Or is the liberal brainwashing that allows that? You hire me? Get off the tower.

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 3:23pm on 05 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    Ed

    Yes ethics and standards..(but not God)

    To me it is really unseemly to have "in God we trust" on money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 3:25pm on 05 Jun 2008, bethpa wrote:

    #236 watermanacquarius

    very punny : )

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 3:53pm on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Beth,

    "I guess by considering the slave less than fully human.and in a certain more distant way..perhaps that is what has happened with the western world"

    And, I am bound to note, this is at the heart of the Palestinian problem.

    {:-(((
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 4:27pm on 05 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    mike warsaw
    Don't you remember what happened with American hostages in Iran towards the end of the Carter administration??????

    Yes a republican negotiated to keep them captive long enough to let reagan win.

    using the state department (diplomats) staff like a toy for their election campaign.

    All involved Reagan Bush 1 should be in jail.
    but there are other resons you do not like the dems eh, if they were to field other cantidates and support differnt peoples then it would be a great party from you perspective I bet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 4:41pm on 05 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    128. At 4:56 pm on 04 Jun 2008, powermeerkat wrote:
    " The Iranian hostage business (Carter's downfall) was heavily manipulated, both by the Republicans and the Iranians."

    A small meerkat ("known to attack animals many times its size without any warning signs") happens to know how it was 'manipulated'.

    Iranian thugs simply didn't want to deal with a weak, cowardly US president (vide Jimmy's 'reactions' to Soviets' and their proxies' interventions in Angola, Mozambik and Afghanistan) but they did not want to antagonize Ronald Reagan (who was anything but an impotent wimp).

    Carter was (pea)nuts.

    And you NUTS.
    It was more like a bribe of weapons.
    Hardly talking tough .WE'LL GIVE YOU SOME GUNS IF YOU KEEP THEM FOR LONGER.

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 4:45pm on 05 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    And that's why Democrats pretend that he never existed till this very day.


    Not all CARTER WAS GREAT.
    the other idiots around him were not so great.
    CARTER tried to bring solar to the front and actually addressed the future unlike most americans living in the 50's dream suburban disaster zone.
    carter is rather a big part of habitat for humanities.
    carter was overlooked because he was not a bully .

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 4:59pm on 05 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    "Someone said here that all Obama supporters do is accuse others of racism. #172 is a great example and testimony to that.

    In fact that post is just plain mental case. I just can't understand how someone can be so incoherent, uninformed, and ridiculous.

    Apparently my advice on spell check went unnoticed, so did someone else's advice on medication."

    But you are.If not stop acting like one.

    Oh and I can't mis type but you can (by the way stop being so pompous about your spelling.for i care not about spelling JUST CONTENT
    The content of your letters shows a definate racial bias that is why I mention it.
    As for medication why that attack on something you have no knowledge about ,totally unfounded.

    But you are a racist I can show evidence in that regard. show me yours.

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 5:09pm on 05 Jun 2008, Susanxxx wrote:

    Forgive me if someone else has already said this, but I believe you forgot something VERY IMPORTANT:

    HE VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR! This was one of the main reasons he won. Not only because now everyone pretty much agrees that it was a lousy decision, but also because he was one of the very few who had the courage to stand up against the majority.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 5:19pm on 05 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    236. At 3:15 pm on 05 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:


    A lovely well thought out piece.

    But sometimes you get a piece out of the scrap pile heat it up and then you notice a flaw.
    Some just throw it aside where as to me it can be fixed. it takes firewelding it back into stock.
    In this case in all seriousness,i understand your points, but so do you of mine.and all I have heard from her is pungent.
    And I don't get worked up. thats my secret.Im good at it.real good.
    not so my spelling and punctuation ,but those not predisposed to ignoring others because they speak funny(or write funny)spend a lot of time suggesting I take drugs (though when I talk of my favour of that the mods are gods:)and learn a skill I care not for.
    All i ask of them is to admit some truth .They are racist.
    And if you think you can change a racist using this blog you are in a land where i would be happy.
    nice righting though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 5:27pm on 05 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    hag lady you ARE
    beautiful

    ""What a convincing argument and response. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change anything.

    From your name I'd assume you're from UK so what makes you think you can pass judgments on American affairs? Or is the liberal brainwashing that allows that? You hire me? Get off the tower.""

    This is a site on the BBC if you do not want Brits commenting go to an American site BUDDY

    As one who cannot spell for anything either I would have sympathy , but for the number of times I have beeen described as a halfbaked drug addled idiot by you for my spelling.
    So She does make a good point. and it is illegal for her to hire you if she thinks you will be a racist blob that will not keep it to yourself.
    just imagine the liability in hiring yourself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 6:17pm on 05 Jun 2008, elizabeth-uk wrote:

    Response to #238

    I can give my opinion on anything I like. I am surprised that you didn't know that.

    Yeah - it was pretty convincing as in your vitriolic haste to dump venom, you revealed how much you resemble the very people you despise. Your poor spelling, lack of attention to detail, poorly constructed arguments and bad grammar are indicative of your own limitations, *not* anyone else's.

    Having pronounced that most 'blacks' only achieve because of affirmative action programs, are you now asserting that everyone who disagrees with your jaundiced mutterings are brainwashed?

    I haven't even tried to suggest that you could reconsider your right to pollute a *UK* web site. Because that would be stupid.

    Despite his political inexperience, Obama is hugely talented. I have no idea if he'll make great President. (A little presumptive, but) I'm sure he'll do his best.

    Why on Earth would a few impoverished comments on affirmative action be in any way relevant to Obama's achievements.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 6:41pm on 05 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    The only limitation here is demonstrated in your inability to come with anything more original than a flaw in spelling of a word. There are quite a few people here who focus either on spelling or on "racism" thus showing their superficial analysis and lack of contribution. Enter elizabeth-uk

    This "UK" website is filled with the brainwashed crowd that is quick to pass judgments on things they've had little or no exposure to. Mid London "left elite" and UK country side dwellers know null about the dynamics of black-white relations in small town USA therefore most of the comments are laughable.

    Obama's talents are yet to be revealed, so are your "valid" points. So far all he's shown is his hardly eloquent speeches with no substance and a desire to please major lobby groups. All that complimented by his spouse's malice and extremist surrounding and you got yourself America's future.

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 6:55pm on 05 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    The affirmative action relates perfectly to the whole issue because Obama's supporters (including you) are quick to respond to any disagreement and critique of their beloved Orwellian candidate with accusations of racism, thus themselves focusing on race rather than on issues.

    Such responses only lead to conclude that Obama's supporters are either self-righteous Americans who feel guilty for "misery” of black community or empty college students who vote for "what's cool" and not substance.

    How else would you explain a candidate in the race who has no knowledge, no experience, and very questionable morals? And if you care to read some posts here from Obama fan base it promptly brings up an image of 1950s USSR personally cult. Actually, just a little introspection will suffice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 7:13pm on 05 Jun 2008, AAlvinTwiningham wrote:

    newBodo, you might not be aware of it, but the first "B" in "BBC" stands for British. It really is a UK site so no need for the parenthesis.

    I am truly baffled by the attitude that "furiners" have no right to an opinion about US politics. Don't they have a stake in our elections also, especially those who also have troops comitted to our Iraq mistake?

    As far as having any experience with interracial relations, some of your posts have demonstrated quite a lack of understanding on your part. The UK has large immigrant populations and while colonialism may not be quite the same as slavery I think the friction they feel there is pretty similar.

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 7:14pm on 05 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Elizabeth,
    Q.E.D.
    ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 7:48pm on 05 Jun 2008, StephMar wrote:

    It's actually a valid point that majority of people in other countries don't understand all the dynamics of social relationships in US and are quick to comment.

    In fact there is a huge difference in these relationships in US south and US north. Partially because the percentages of minorities in the South are much larger than in many northern states and partly because of Civil war history.

    There are more open minded people in the North here than in the South but from what I know the South also has much more social problems on racial basis. There is also more poverty among minorities in states like Alabama and Mississippi as opposed to Connecticut or Oregon. So some tension is understandable.

    While I disagree with overt racism and generalizations about negative qualities of minorities I do agree that affirmative action is by itself a racism enforcement law. And Obama's supporters much more than Obama himself act in divisive manner and cry racism the moment there is any criticism in his address....as witnessed by myself many times on this blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 8:16pm on 05 Jun 2008, elizabeth-uk wrote:

    #250, #251 . . .
    #250, #250 . . .

    "The affirmative action relates perfectly to the whole issue because Obama's supporters (including you) are quick to respond to any disagreement and critique of their beloved Orwellian candidate with accusations of racism, thus themselves focusing on race rather than on issues."

    You make no sense. The reason I can't debate with you is because you don't present a clear argument. What are you talking about?

    You said 'blacks' only achieve if part of an affirmative action program. Now you've added that if people respond negatively to racist comments such as the one you made (which has since been removed) we are guilty of positive discrimination towards 'blacks'.

    So where does the Orwell bit come in? Four legs good, two legs bad? Last time I looked he had two legs. Or was it more 1984 than Animal Farm? (It's just you brought up the Soviet angle . . .). I've read them all (my favourite was 'Down and Out in Paris and London' in case you are interested).

    I'd say your current President George Bush is more Orwellian when you consider the 'War Is Peace' mantra coupled with a heavy dose of double-think.


    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 9:03pm on 05 Jun 2008, newBodo wrote:

    The possibility of any debate was exhausted the moment you responded to my first impersonal comment with invectives and accusations; that same moment you joined the likes of the poster of #152.

    To complete this futile shouting at the deaf I'll reiterate. What I said was that affirmative action is reverse discrimination, and not what you conjured up in you last post. I also said that any critique of Obama results in accusations of racism even when the critique is one of substance. Thus the race card is brought up by Obama supporters and not his critics. What this results in is the perpetuation of race issue by minorities themselves. And the reason that occurs is because they have no legitimate contra-argument in support of Obama, except to resort to the most obvious one. (For examples of this see you posts, post #152, and others by that character).

    As far as Orwell reference, apparently you need to reread it for you've missed the crucial point he was making. The "Empty Suit's" ability to mesmerize crowds with words of change bordering on extreme socialism is astounding and your inability to see through it equates you to the dweller of Oceania, oblivious of what goes on around. But that's understandable, perhaps you thought Animal Farm was about cute little animals.

    Not to ruffle your rather obtuse state of mind I suggest you stick to "debates" with poster at #152. Much more common ground there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 9:54pm on 05 Jun 2008, Grrrlie wrote:

    #30 - You complain that Obama as a black politician hasn't experience enough and hasn't done as much as CONDIE RICE AND COLIN POWELL?!!! Yes - Obama hasn't traveled the world spreading neo-con lies and war-mongering like Condie; yes, Obama hasn't stated to the UN Assembly and the entire world that Iraq had WMDs/weapons of mass destruction - and been naive enough to take the word of a SINGLE INFORMANT!!! Instead, Obama has worked hard for his own constituency and has opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. That means he has vastly MORE experience - in building peace and prosperity, which is what we so desperately need here in the USA! It's not a question of "experience" but of having CONSTRUCTIVE experience!

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 01:36am on 06 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    Just say that letter again Aqua man .
    Made me chuckle, nice one.:)
    May not listen too well but ,oh well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 01:53am on 06 Jun 2008, jacksforge wrote:

    Wow . I m converted. Your right he is darker than me. (WHICH IS INSIGNIFICANT of course) . He never showed good judgement. Why didn't he jump for the war ,I mean that's just un'merican .
    Why he's only done gone run the longest primary race from further behind to the front. That's pathetic. should have wrapped it up in 10 days after all.
    What's more the wimp never tried to break the rules , or punch below the belt ! Well that just ain't political is it?
    How we gonna know if he's gonna do what's RIGHT?

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 11:42am on 06 Jun 2008, a7dh5e wrote:

    Re: 118.

    Gary_A_Hill,

    I know what the rule is supposed to be, however, it seems you have to be a former European or a former African to take part.

    All the presidents so far seem to be former Europeans.

    a7dh5e

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 12:20pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Waterman,

    "Despite the Aipac speech under strained circumstances, Obama if chosen, can still develope to become one of the best presidents in the "weld ". He did not say much about Arab rights but I'm hopeful. Sitting in the lions' den you do not make the suggestion that it's time for lunch!"

    But neither is it necessary (or wise?) to disgustingly pander to their unjust demands (undivided Jerusalem).

    I, too, still hope for more. Only time will tell. The conversation (David Rose) Jack linked us to contained a telling discussion of the idiocy of American Jews saying "We will never divide Jerusalem!", "We will never give an inch!", etc. while sitting happily in New York or California.

    Just who is this "WE"?

    While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists... (p. 6)
    ..
    A democratic citizen must deal here first of all with the question, Who is this "we"? It is not the "we" of the Declaration of Independence, which referred to a small group of signatories bound by the conviction that "governments [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed." And it is not the "we" of the Constitution, which refers to "the people [my emphasis] of the United States."
    ...
    This "we" of the new strategy can refer only to the president. It is a royal "we". A head of state, preparing to act alone in starting a preemptive war, will need to justify his intention by secret information, and will need to plan in secret and execute his plan without forewarning.......[truncated]
    Would be participating citizens of a democratic nation, unwilling to have their consent coerced or taken for granted, therefore have no choice but to remove themselves from the illegitimate constraints of this "we" in as immediate and public a way as possible.


    (MODS: I donated $50 to the cost of publishing the whole statement above in the New York Times - surely I have a small stake in the copyright)

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 1:21pm on 06 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Ed,
    I could not agree more with you.
    You took my paragraph from an earlier attempt to sooth the savage breast of Jackf.
    Our, your my hopes are that we can get a talker into the White House! With the religious stumbling blocks already strewn around it would not appear to be a politically viable position to antagonise another religious group before the big one.
    At the moment one has the disappointed group supporters of Hillary and the perhaps undecided Repubs and Independents who are looking for trivia or any dubious comment to make hay and swing a campaign from the straight and narrow. Obama at this time does not need the Jewish lobby on his back, either at home and away in reaching his objective- POTUS!.
    Look at the long list of names that have already made it into print. Brainwashed. Black Magic .Saviour. Messiah. Saint. Jesus. Allah. Apostate . Cult leader. Rediculous!

    A pie in the sky suggestion from a tangential brain like mine .- In the future if at all possible make Jeusalem a sort of "Vatican" state . An island of all religious beliefs on its own. The jew, the christian, the muslim- all beliefs can enjoy its history and special status. Worship in peace. An out of bounds area to terror and trauma. A city for both one and a city for all.
    I have that crazy Three Musketeer ideology in my head that we must try to work together, { without the fighting} Can we?
    Can this Obama guy finally drown the lingering doubts of all parties, races, beliefs that lie around festering in the world.
    We all pray indirectly to the same God, one perhaps given a different name by each belief. I am praying to mine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 2:17pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Waterman,

    "A pie in the sky suggestion from a tangential brain like mine .- In the future if at all possible make Jeusalem a sort of "Vatican" state . An island of all religious beliefs on its own. The jew, the christian, the muslim- all beliefs can enjoy its history and special status."

    That was among the intentions of the ill-fated UNGA resolution 181:

    Part III. - City of Jerusalem(5)
    A. SPECIAL REGIME
    ..
    The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.
    ....
    To protect and to preserve the unique spiritual and religious interests located in the city of the three great monotheistic faiths throughout the world, Christian, Jewish and Moslem; to this end to ensure that order and peace, and especially religious peace, reign in Jerusalem....

    But, anyone who wants can find the truth of what happened instead......
    {:-(((((

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 3:06pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Specifically on the failure of resolution 181

    "Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." British author, Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel."


    {:-(((((


    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 3:26pm on 06 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Ed
    Do I understand that you agree [ somewhat] with my first suggestions in playing the political poker games of these elections? Play your cards close to your chest. Hold , fold, raise, bluff etc so that the "pot of gold", i.e. - us , the planet is won by the candidate who appears to benefit all of mankind into the future.
    I read all your links where I can receive them and respect your feelings regarding the Palestinian situation. Rome was not built in a day. Brick by brick my Citizens.
    Surely there are many who view this world with both their eyes and hearts as we do? Armagedon is on the horizon should we decide to blindly follow the status quo and it is no idle threat.
    Faith in ones belief will move mountains. Obama has survived the first Hill. Onward and upward for him and our world.

    "Though my soul will set in darkness, it will rise in perfect light. I have loved the stars to strongly, to be fearful of the night" Sarah Williams.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 3:51pm on 06 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Ed
    just read your 264 #

    In some respects it would appear that the 1948 Jewish thrust in Palestine utilised all the ideas and technologies of the nazi regime.
    Superior military preparation and organisation, and a defencless opponent.
    One must not confuse the Holocaust with their- the jewish, present day actions but yes. A lot of similarities are visible going by your links.
    Thank the lord on this day for an English channel. Yet, our glories defeating the nazi regime and their attrocious plans, indirectly precipitating later Jewish action against another folk.

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 4:40pm on 06 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    That's why it's called "The Catastrophe", al Nakba.

    The British Mandate's census says it all. Palestine Jews were outnumbered two to one, and were mostly urban. Jewish-owned land was less than 7% of Palestine (though 12% of arable)

    The only way to fulfil the dream of a "Jewish State" was to get rid of the majority. Even in the proposed partition, Jews were a thin majority, while the area designated for an "Arab State" had a 90% Arab majority, and that included the "Jaffa enclave", cut off from the rest...

    Partition was never a good idea, as witness the contemporary disaster in Indo-Pakistan.

    As well as the fact that establishing a new state based upon a single religio-ethnicity is a concept completely out of step with the ethics of the times, particularly the "Western" strand.

    Utter madness, and we're still paying the cost sixty years on, but those paying the most are the folk living third (and fourth) generation in refugee camps (or Gaza, which is little different)

    </rant>

    Sorry. It's all in here. No it isn't - there's much, much more.

    {:-((((

    I and the public know
    What all schoolchildren learn,
    Those to whom evil is done
    Do Evil in return.

    W.H. AUDEN, "September 1, 1939"

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 1:22pm on 07 Jun 2008, watermanaquarius wrote:

    Ed
    I link to huff post that I am sure you have read.
    Still a dream? Or is this a new UNGA resolution 181 rehash.

    http://tinyurl.com/6jnchn

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 2:20pm on 07 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Waterman,

    You're wrong! I hadn't seen it. Thanks very much for pointing it out.

    I'm afraid I'm so cynical and pessimistic based upon sixty years of horrible history, that I don't even see such positive signs sometimes.

    I still hope for a better approach from Obama - few could do worse than all those who have come before, excepting the very admirable Jimmy Carter.

    We live in hope, as we must.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 8:42pm on 07 Jun 2008, SunshinePlus wrote:

    Obama is authentic, he is kind and he can think and answer on his feet because he knows where he is going and who he is. He has a gifted diplomatic negotiator personality with the best interests of the American people at heart. He is wise beyond his years and has a respectful answer for impromptu reporter's questions.
    These are just a few reasons why he will also win the presidency.

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 01:59am on 08 Jun 2008, elizabeth-uk wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 272. At 04:35am on 08 Jun 2008, MaxJGUK wrote:

    I have to dispute the Ferraro point.

    Yes, times are changing and yes, maybe across the pond in Europe we see Obama's ethnicity as 'kinda cool' at this particular moment in history. But racism is still very much a part of every day life in America and Obama IS black. In the modern day climate, his colour may not be the kind of disadvantage that it would have been a decade or two ago, but to say that it is actually an 'advantage' to be black is simply ridiculous. It doesn't stand up against the weight of history and it doesn't stand up against the experiences of black people all across America (and the world) today.

    One thing is for certain, Hillary Clinton's status as a white woman did not hinder her. Obama's status as a black man may yet (sadly) come into factor in the general and whilst you can be rest assured that more than a couple of Americans will walk into those voting booths in November and think twice about Obama because of his colour, the same cannot be said of McCain.

    Sure, maybe it's not the factor it used to be. In fact it plain isn't. But Ferraro's comments were simply too far. It is not an advantage in Presidential politics to be black - regardless of 'the moment' and however much that compensates.

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 3:02pm on 08 Jun 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    MaxJG,

    Yes and no. I think there is more than a grain of truth in Ferraro's remark. I myself, due to "white liberal" overcompensation would find it easier to support an Obama than a Sptizer (pre-exposure), or an Edwards, in part due to inverse racism.

    There is also the fact that the DNC have used "affirmative action" to actively encourage the inclusion of minorities, which is an admirable thing, as far as it goes. Obama probably owes his early window of opportunity to this in some degree.

    Obama has managed to capitalise on every opportunity which has come his way, and this extends to the admirable team with which he has surrounded himself.

    Opportunism is sneered at by many, but it is the PRIME trait which has marked Homo Sapiens out among our fellow creatures. Opportunism combined with grace and honour (and a genuine smile
    ) is a rare and winning combination.

    I look forward to January 2009, and the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the first US President of the new paradigm.

    Salaam, etc.
    ed

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 07:29am on 09 Jun 2008, tiptopnoname wrote:

    I believe that O'bama won because people are sick of the current political leadership or rather the lack of it. However, I think people are in for a rude awakening once O'bama gets into office. I DO NOT believe that O'bama is the answer to the problems facing this country! I believe that a lack of morals, values and standards is to blame. America has become very demoralized and un-Godly. People have been deceived by our government. Washington is nothing more than an arm of the real government (World Government). The people of this country "DO NOT" really have a say in anything, we just think we do because we want to think it. O'bama will take this country in a direction that will forever change it for the worse. He is not the person of hope, but he is the person of change alright. It is time for America to wake-up to the truth that we can do nothing without "GOD". This is the answer to our problems, not O'bama. I feel that this country has turned its back on God and the truth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 7:32pm on 09 Jun 2008, northernrocker wrote:

    Obama won because he's naturally inspiring and compelling, above all with the young who participated as never before - and likely will in November. If he wants to win against McCain, however, he needs to shore up his Hispanic and independent support (where McCain is strong) and to compensate for his lack of foreign policy experience. Bill Richardson fits this bill, leaving Obama to focus on rescuing the embittered democrat female vote - with, maybe some help from Hillary (who should not be his running mate due to her powerful negatives among independents).

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 04:00am on 11 Aug 2008, ipotter wrote:

    He's promising change, but he's just another actor delivering lines... he'll say anything he's told to say. Not a desirable quality for the leader of a nation. Neither is criminal behavior. This guy hasn't won one election in his life, but has instead played the system for his advancement. The primary was no different. There is no such thing as a 1/2 vote under the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Clinton won by the rules and by law. Obama has been consistently inconsistent, on war, policy, everything. I might add, he was against the war before he was for it, and before he was ever in an office where it made any difference what he thought. NOBAMA

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 7:11pm on 11 Aug 2008, jcputn5349 wrote:

    re: "There is no such thing as a 1/2 vote under the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Clinton won by the rules and by law."

    Yep, Nobama...even Republicans felt sorry for Hillary. It has something to do with fair play, and how those who do *not* follow rules frustrate those who *do* follow rules. We want Liberals like Hillary to lose fair and square, or it's no fun. I have a working theory that the injustice humanized her to the American public and made her past threats of socialism through Communist terror less scary--in comparison to the radical Obama. However, a comparison of their vote records shows they vote almost identical to each other. The American Conservative Union rates Obama at 7 and Hillary at 12. For contrast, McCain is 80, considered center-right where most Americans say they are politically.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.