Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html en-gb 30 Tue 29 Jul 2014 09:01:51 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html jcputn5349 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=99#comment276 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. Mon 11 Aug 2008 18:11:57 GMT+1 ipotter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=99#comment275 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 Mon 11 Aug 2008 03:00:41 GMT+1 northernrocker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=98#comment274 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). Mon 09 Jun 2008 18:32:54 GMT+1 tiptopnoname http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=98#comment273 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. Mon 09 Jun 2008 06:29:14 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=98#comment272 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 Sun 08 Jun 2008 14:02:09 GMT+1 MaxJGUK http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=97#comment271 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. Sun 08 Jun 2008 03:35:58 GMT+1 elizabeth-uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=97#comment270 This post has been Removed Sun 08 Jun 2008 00:59:12 GMT+1 SunshinePlus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=97#comment269 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. Sat 07 Jun 2008 19:42:44 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=96#comment268 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 Sat 07 Jun 2008 13:20:05 GMT+1 watermanaquarius http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=96#comment267 EdI 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 Sat 07 Jun 2008 12:22:37 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=96#comment266 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 knowWhat all schoolchildren learn,Those to whom evil is doneDo Evil in return.W.H. AUDEN, "September 1, 1939" Fri 06 Jun 2008 15:40:58 GMT+1 watermanaquarius http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=95#comment265 Edjust 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. Fri 06 Jun 2008 14:51:40 GMT+1 watermanaquarius http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=95#comment264 EdDo 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. Fri 06 Jun 2008 14:26:37 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=94#comment263 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."{:-((((( Fri 06 Jun 2008 14:06:48 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=94#comment262 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......{:-((((( Fri 06 Jun 2008 13:17:30 GMT+1 watermanaquarius http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=94#comment261 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. Fri 06 Jun 2008 12:21:38 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=93#comment260 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) Fri 06 Jun 2008 11:20:47 GMT+1 a7dh5e http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=93#comment259 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 Fri 06 Jun 2008 10:42:01 GMT+1 jacksforge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=93#comment258 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? Fri 06 Jun 2008 00:53:53 GMT+1 jacksforge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=92#comment257 Just say that letter again Aqua man . Made me chuckle, nice one.:) May not listen too well but ,oh well. Fri 06 Jun 2008 00:36:30 GMT+1 Grrrlie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=92#comment256 #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! Thu 05 Jun 2008 20:54:15 GMT+1 newBodo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=92#comment255 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 20:03:04 GMT+1 elizabeth-uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=91#comment254 #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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 19:16:53 GMT+1 StephMar http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=91#comment253 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 18:48:53 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=90#comment252 Elizabeth,Q.E.D.;-) Thu 05 Jun 2008 18:14:30 GMT+1 AAlvinTwiningham http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=90#comment251 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 18:13:32 GMT+1 newBodo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=90#comment250 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 17:55:32 GMT+1 newBodo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=89#comment249 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-ukThis "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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 17:41:43 GMT+1 elizabeth-uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=89#comment248 Response to #238I 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 17:17:27 GMT+1 jacksforge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=89#comment247 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 BUDDYAs 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 16:27:18 GMT+1 jacksforge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=88#comment246 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 16:19:32 GMT+1 Susanxxx http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=88#comment245 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 16:09:36 GMT+1 jacksforge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=88#comment244 "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 CONTENTThe 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 15:59:38 GMT+1 jacksforge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=87#comment243 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 . Thu 05 Jun 2008 15:45:46 GMT+1 jacksforge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=87#comment242 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 15:41:20 GMT+1 jacksforge http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=87#comment241 mike warsawDon'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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 15:27:52 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=86#comment240 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 Thu 05 Jun 2008 14:53:32 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=86#comment239 #236 watermanacquarius very punny : ) Thu 05 Jun 2008 14:25:18 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=85#comment238 EdYes ethics and standards..(but not God)To me it is really unseemly to have "in God we trust" on money. Thu 05 Jun 2008 14:23:22 GMT+1 newBodo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=85#comment237 #229What 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 14:22:02 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=85#comment236 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 Thu 05 Jun 2008 14:20:02 GMT+1 watermanaquarius http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=84#comment235 Jacksforge #172Still 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.wmaps # 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! Thu 05 Jun 2008 14:15:27 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=84#comment234 233, 231,Separate religion and politics, by all means, but ethics and politics must be re-united and fully fused.xxed Thu 05 Jun 2008 13:47:13 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=84#comment233 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 LincolnOne 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 amPeace and siblinghood to alled Thu 05 Jun 2008 13:44:36 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=83#comment232 #231 ma_VERok : ) Religion and politics should be kept separate. Thu 05 Jun 2008 13:29:55 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=83#comment231 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 fromhttp://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) Thu 05 Jun 2008 13:16:16 GMT+1 ma_VER http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=83#comment230 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 13:02:45 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=82#comment229 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 Thu 05 Jun 2008 12:58:06 GMT+1 elizabeth-uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=82#comment228 In response to post #108You 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 12:22:55 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=81#comment227 #223 ma_VER and EdMy 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 12:12:37 GMT+1 ma_VER http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=81#comment226 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 11:18:45 GMT+1 trustworthysami http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=81#comment225 this is a triump for american politics and american democracycongratulations to obama and clintontime take back the white house baby! Thu 05 Jun 2008 10:44:45 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=80#comment224 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.edP.S. There are problems with "Christian" ethics. Thu 05 Jun 2008 10:33:33 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=80#comment223 Haglady (220), Namaste SPOT ON!Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace -edP.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 Thu 05 Jun 2008 10:22:07 GMT+1 ma_VER http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=80#comment222 #126 - Bethpa Could you list some Christian countries? I'd like to know how a good Christian country behaves. Thu 05 Jun 2008 09:59:04 GMT+1 lkrndu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=79#comment221 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 09:37:01 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=79#comment220 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 05:27:06 GMT+1 haglady http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=79#comment219 reply to 214I 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 04:01:39 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=78#comment218 haglady, #217, you're making me cry.Now I have another item to add to myquest, along with the "Alien Pops" candydispenser which I used to see at mini-marts.I'm hoping to secure one of the Alien Popsto use as a fountain in my backyard garden. Thu 05 Jun 2008 03:56:51 GMT+1 peterm99 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=78#comment217 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 03:53:01 GMT+1 haglady http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=77#comment216 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 03:27:05 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=77#comment215 Reuben33g, this is customary in USpolitics. Reagan courted the religiousright during the primaries, then discardedthem later. Carter made a speech wherehe proudly proclaimed that he partedhis 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 03:25:40 GMT+1 haglady http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=77#comment214 answering 191Hope 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 03:24:32 GMT+1 Reuben33g http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=76#comment213 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 02:46:04 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=76#comment212 #212, I hope not. But, fortunately, Obamadoes not have the "Carter Smile." Thu 05 Jun 2008 02:10:29 GMT+1 AndreainNY http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=76#comment211 Dare we refer to an Obama presidency as "Four more years of Carter"? Thu 05 Jun 2008 02:06:27 GMT+1 Ambiance-Moushkila http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=75#comment210 i just thought this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-vogel/clintons-disgraceful-exit_b_105078.htmlwas 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 Thu 05 Jun 2008 00:27:56 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=75#comment209 Serious discussion of Middle-EastHighlighted by jacksforge - Thanks JackListen/watch and make up your own mindSalaam, etc.ed Thu 05 Jun 2008 00:16:41 GMT+1 wcaston http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=75#comment208 Re:#17If 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 00:13:01 GMT+1 cynic555 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=74#comment207 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. Thu 05 Jun 2008 00:11:06 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=74#comment206 This post has been Removed Thu 05 Jun 2008 00:04:33 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=74#comment205 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 23:46:48 GMT+1 haglady http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=73#comment204 answering #9 and #17carter'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! Wed 04 Jun 2008 23:37:28 GMT+1 allmymarbles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=73#comment203 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 23:34:23 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=72#comment202 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 Wed 04 Jun 2008 22:58:51 GMT+1 Candace9839 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=72#comment201 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 22:30:13 GMT+1 DougTexan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=72#comment200 DOn't forget the 'Unclear Option' of the Clinton arsenal,.. Wed 04 Jun 2008 22:21:45 GMT+1 ellymk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=71#comment199 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 Wed 04 Jun 2008 21:55:41 GMT+1 aquarizonagal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=71#comment198 Please, no more about Clinton for VP. Someone should stick a fork in because she is DONE! Wed 04 Jun 2008 21:41:37 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=71#comment197 This post has been Removed Wed 04 Jun 2008 21:40:42 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=70#comment196 Bethpa (#191), we are certainly in agreement that there is plenty of hypocrisy in the United States. Wed 04 Jun 2008 20:55:36 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=70#comment195 This post has been Removed Wed 04 Jun 2008 20:42:47 GMT+1 Mr_Dirk_Gently http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=70#comment194 Typing > meI THINK some..... Wed 04 Jun 2008 20:23:30 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=69#comment193 . 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 Wed 04 Jun 2008 20:22:42 GMT+1 Mr_Dirk_Gently http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=69#comment192 189 - ProlesTo be fair, if it was up to connections wouldn't a Clinton have won?190 - NewBodoNormally 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 20:21:19 GMT+1 gunsandreligion http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=68#comment191 On #10, why don't we just hire the castof the "West Wing", and let the worldbelieve that they are actually runningthings? If they make a mistake, we canalways break for a commercial (corporateAmerica will love that). Wed 04 Jun 2008 20:15:08 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=68#comment190 Gary_A_Hill #183Anyone 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... Wed 04 Jun 2008 20:07:24 GMT+1 newBodo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=68#comment189 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:57:21 GMT+1 proles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=67#comment188 "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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:48:38 GMT+1 mary gravitt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=67#comment187 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:40:45 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=67#comment186 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:37:39 GMT+1 David Cunard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=66#comment185 #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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:34:19 GMT+1 mwmonk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=66#comment184 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.... Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:33:13 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=66#comment183 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." Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:32:09 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=65#comment182 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:24:36 GMT+1 frostynorth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=65#comment181 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:12:13 GMT+1 bethpa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=64#comment180 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." Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:09:47 GMT+1 newBodo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=64#comment179 172 - "but because they are not a state"-- ??????Wow, the idiocy is astounding. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:00:01 GMT+1 newBodo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=64#comment178 This post has been Removed Wed 04 Jun 2008 18:57:59 GMT+1 StephMar http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/06/why_obama_won.html?page=63#comment177 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. Wed 04 Jun 2008 18:57:00 GMT+1