WASHINGTON DC: In all the post-match analysis, one story strikes me as a very big deal because it is about facts on the ground, as it were, and it will change the tone of the coverage on the Democratic side if it turns out to be true.
It is the suggestion - to put it baldly - !
Jump to more content from this blog
Hello, I'm Justin Webb and I'm the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's North America editor.
You can stay up to date with Justin Webb's America via these feeds.
Justin Webb's America Feed(RSS)
Justin Webb's America Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ 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.
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
According to the NY Times Clinton leads Obama 845 to 765 in the delegate count. This contest will go all the way to the convention.
What price for a third candidate to emerge if neither of them win on the 1st Ballot. Al Gore perhaps?
It would be massive for Obama if he really did pip Hilary in super Tuesday delegates. Big momentum!
Dear Justin,
While I understand your animosity towards sen. Obama and his inexperience, you must give the man his dues. As a undecided democrat with no loyalties to either campaign, I feel I must point out the obvious: He won Super Tuesday, hands down. This is because Hilary Clinton has over a hundred super delegates, and is still barely ahead, if at all, in the total delegate count. She has all the machinery and operatives the democratic party has to offer, and has the ultimate political juggernaut in the party, her husband. And yet this Obama fellow just keeps getting stronger and stronger. She won California because there is a strong disdain for african-americans within the latino and asian-american communities in that state. Whether we like it or not, that is how she won because amongst white voters (even women) he pulled even with HRC in California. Sen. Clinton has won all the states she had to win in order to survive, although the sheer size of California and New York obscures this fact. In almost all the toss-ups (Utah, Missouri, Minnesota) he has prevailed, and had even pulled within ten points in New Jersey, Sen. Clinton's back yard. He even managed to get at least 40% in New York, and takes a chunk of those delegates with him. All of this was done with only about two weeks for Obama to campaign in states where Sen. Clinton had name recognition and a comfortable, double digit lead for months. He even stole Conneticuit,which is right next door to her home base of New York. Obama has bridged the racial divide in the south, and won states like Alaska and Idaho, states where the black population wouldn't even come up in the stat sheets. In the end he won more states in more places than she did, with less time as well.
The second main reason that Sen. Clinton is in major trouble right now is that her entire strategy going into her candidacy (her grand master plan, if you will) was to create this air of inevitability (a Borg-like appearance), crush Edwards, Richardson and Biden on Super Tuesday and use the event as a coronation ceremony of sorts. Of all the tens of millions of dollars that she had been raising since 2000, she banked about half of that money in the general election pot, which renders that money meaningless because under US election laws, money declared for the general election can ONLY be used in the general election. Obama on the other hand, left nothing to chance, and placed the bulk of the money in the primaries, which can be used now. So, Sen. Clinton has unwittingly tied her own hands when it comes to USABLE money. Unfortunately, her fundraising abilities have stagnated, because she used a smaller donor pool of party big-shots who give the maximum amount of 2400 dollars per person. This was fine for her campaign at the time because she was expecting to be the nominee TODAY. But with Obama's rising strength and development as a candidate with an increasingly sound, somewhat liberal platform, she is returning to the money well to find that is is drying up. Obama's money scheme centered around the "drop in the bucket" philosophy, where a lot of people contribute a small amount of money (similar to a church offering) and the collective total (when combined with the big donors) is enough. While in the beginning, this seemed like an insane strategy, he has been able to inspire hundreds of thousands of people to give $1,10,50,or 75 dollars at a time. Considering that each person has a legal limit of 2400 dollars, he can now reasonably expect (and has received ) even more money at a constant pace. And with each passing success his web-site's donor list has grown, so he can now get even more money to keep his campaign running. Also, the psychological impact of HRC not being able to keep up would be somewhat damaging to her.
Next comes the largest obstacles to Sen. Clinton: Time and Perception. I say time not because it is running out, but because there is so much of it. Sen. Obama will likely sweep the elections on Saturday and next Tuesday, giving him a week's worth of uncontested momentum. He will then have weeks to campaign and spread his message in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc. In every contest so far, the more the state in question has had time to vet Obama, and he has had to debunk misconceptions (such as having no real policy or platform) the higher his poll numbers go across the board. It's a fact. So unfortunately, Sen. Clinton is painted into a corner, forced to adopt a Giulianni strategy of making Texas and Ohio her make or break, last stand states, and pray that her organization can withstand the Obama momentum. And as Giulianni saw in Florida, this doesn't always pay off too well. The good news for Hillary is that she is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and there is no way the media will ignore her while Obama goes on his tear through the contests over the next several weeks.
So, lets just say that hypothetically her and Obama walk into Denver fairly tied when it comes to delegates. Hillary will probably win in a brokered convention where all her savvy and connections will secure a deal for her to be the nominee. Plus her uncontested victories in Michigan (where Obama and Edwards weren't on the ballot due to sanctions by the national party against the state party) and Florida (where neither of the two others were allowed to campaign or make inroads amongst voters), will in the end be counted, again due to connections. However, a brokered convention would appear so wrong, so un-democratic that it would be the kiss of death for Hillary, who already has an unfair perception of being cold, and calculating. This would disenfranchise a good chunk of the Independent, young and possibly black voters that Obama brought with him to the convention. Couple that with the fact that a brokered convention and the sight of a Clinton winning it would be a GIGANTIC call to arms to conservative voters, and McCain would end up winning. The only way for Hillary to avoid this would be to make Obama her running mate.
Therefore, in the end Obama (in reality) is holding all or most of the cards and Hillary knows it. To recap why he won Super Tuesday: Sen. Clinton did everything she HAD to do, while sen. Obama did everything he WANTED to do. And that makes a huge difference.
Go Hillary'08!!! (BUT BE VERY,VERY,VERY AFRAID)
Dick Morris reckons Obama won as well but then again he hates Hillary Clinton so he would wouldn't he.
Anyway, did my ears decieve me? Did the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News 24 say John McCain's meeting with Gordon Brown in London next week - what about his campaign?
The real surprise last night was that Clinton won Massachusetts; that is quite telling and does not bode well for the Dems if they do choose Obama as their candidate.
I believe Obama is getting votes just because of his color. If he is white, would he be getting the support he is getting now?
I believe most of his supporters want to just make history, by electing first African American.
By being competitive with Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday and denying her a coronation as the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama has already won an important political victory. Obama now has a serious chance of beating Hillary Clinton.
There are many reasons why OBAMA will gain more than CLINTON as a result of Super Duper Tuesday.
Firstly, two weeks ago Obama was only ahead in the polls in Illinois and Georgia, and he ended up winning 14 states. Thus he still has the momentum to do even better.
Justin Webb refers to Clinton winning the big prizes of New York and California. Democrats are likely to win these states anyway (as long as the Republican isn't from there).
The big prizes in this close race are actually the SUPERDELEGATE votes. Obama may end up getting more of those because they may be keener to vote the way their state did AND because they want to vote for the Democrat best placed to beat John McCain.
Well, that's my take on the events of yesterday.
Jeremy Twyman, Sheffield, UK
For the comment by Alex: First you say you have "no loyalties", the you go on a huge campaign plug for Obama. Next, you actually want people to believe that Obama lost in California because latino and asian-americans do not like african-americans! After that, I see no way to even bother thinking about the rest of your comment...
Dear Justin,
I believe that not only did Obama win but, our entire country to include the world community won. This is a great time to be an American and hopefully the power of βChangeβ promised by Obama and felt across this land will allow us to finally rid ourselves of the corrupted presidency and stagnant government that is currently destroying our lives. When Exxon/Mobile records the most profit ever recorded obtained by any company throughout history, we can see the relation between big oil and good old boys from Texas which guess what; it is the home ground of the bush family. With Obama winning, we have now a new hope to rid ourselves of another familyβs greed which are the Clintonsβ. She simply has no clue as to what is going on in our nation and if she ever makes it to the White House, may god have mercy on our country. It will be business as usual for special interest groups that line the offices on K Street in Washington DC. When I hear Obama speak, it takes me back to the speeches of such great men as JFK and Dr. King which were both about βChange.β To follow the path of such great men, it is truly amazing. I watched Obama speak last week at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona and I must say that he is even more powerful in person then TV. He is truly our answer to the last 30 some odd years with regard to the power of control by fear in connection to the establishment. We have seen our rights taken away, our youth killed and mangled in a war that was launched based on lies and deceit, and the middle class simply being wiped out by the credit crunch in relation to the housing and economical disasters taking place in America which is affecting the entire worldβs economy therefore, yes, Obama has won and again, we as Americans have won.
With a more or less 50-50 split between Obama and Hillary, the long term advantage at this point is towards Obama. Obama has significantly outperformed Hillary in the fundraising department lately, and he is a truly exciting candidate as compared to Hillary, which represents business as usual in American politics. In fact as a lifelong Democrat, the only person I can compare Barack Obama to is when Bobby Kennedy was running in 1968. As the Democratic primary voters are hard core, Obama is the kind of candidate that appeals to party workers, with the exception of women.
And of course, this is why I could be wrong. Hillary can still win.
Obama did not win.
Obama the pundits said was a tidal wave ready to swamp and destroy Hillary.
That did not happen.
Once again her walls held, JUST AS THEY HAVE FOR 16yrs. against predictions of final defeat.
It is outrageous that anyone could claim Obama won, when he did NOT win in California, New Jersey, New York or even Massachusetts after the establishment adopted him.
The bright and good and wonderful thing about this is it further makes her look like the underdog, the one position in which being a woman is a strong point.
Sure the upper-income, boardroom liberal elitists are quick to declare her done, but who are they to speak. They're veteran losers, and hate the fact that the only big Democratic win since Jimmy Carter came at the hands of a po' white boy from the deep South, whom they loathe.
We've seen this nonsense before, but apparently most have forgotten just how hard the Establishment liberal elite faught to defeat Clinton, and once he won how often they repeatedly sat on their hands as he was mercilessly attacked by the Republicans.
i wonder, justin, why you do not pose the question: did hillary really win? you could have posed it last night ...
i wonder if as you watched the post coverage last night you questioned the tone of her campaign and the 'appearance' that hillary was in the lead? i wonder if you questioned that she had any FACTUAL claims to victory ...
i saw no evidence of that in your blog. your subconscious is betraying you again. not that it matters since we are all biased. i just thought i would bring it to your attention.
self-awareness is a great asset in the most brilliant of journalists.
obama won by the way because ... he won missouri.
30 years of power for the capulets and montigues two family rein of power scares me.
Bush-vp 8 years
Bush-p 4 years
Clinton-p 8 years
Bush- 8 years
Clinton?
Obama For change.
God bless Democracy.
Hillary so far appears to be a stronger nationwide candidate for the following reasongs: 1. She won most of states that are Democratic stongholds. 2. She won heavily among working-class whites and southern whites, elderly, hispanics, and asians. 3. Most of Obama's wins are states that the democrats don't stand a chance of winning in November (Idaho, Alaska, Georgia, Alabama to name a few) - you have to remember that the majority of voters in these states are Republicans. 4. To beat the Republicans Democrats must remember the last election: to win you need either Ohio or Florida or pick off say Arkansas and Tennessee. Obama seems to be a candidate of Ted Kennedy, the elite, academics, blacks, and younger voters. His rhetoric seems to sway a lot of people, but his support is rather soft and relies almost entirely on the mantra of change. He will have a hard time presenting himself as anything different than that in November. Clinton's base is much harder to crack. If she presents herself as the person to turn the economy around and create a reasonable solution to immigration she could easily turn this. Obama's support seems to be flash-in-the-pan. I think Massachusetts is ominous for him as well as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Arizona. You may see an Obama bubble burst.
Does anyone really know who won? I've checked the updates from the Washington Post and the New York Times. They both still have Clinton ahead of Obama at 4.00pm EST. Do these prestige papers not know how to add or are they shamelessly biased champions of inaccurate reporting?
Justin - The Democrats Super Tuesday, with its inherent scoring complexity tells us two things. That the Democrat electorate are more convinced that Billary is a conventional election winner, while Obama is a potential non-conventional election winner. In this context, remember that the political game has and is changing fast, and increasingly the electorate here recognize that it's not business as usual anymore. As the election campaign rolls on, so will obvious game change - evidenced by an increasingly unstable economy, regression in the Iraq war, the collapsing housing market, and the hidden real peoples inflation number (as distinct to the politicized one. The USA is in major re-adjust mode and suddenly everyone has a stake.
If anyone really wants to know what's going on, on the Dem side of this election report to Alex's (no. 3) post.
Last night was essentially a tie, but the future bodes well for Obama. He has more money, time to campaign always helps him, Texas is the only latino heavy state left, most of the kinds of states that are left tend to favor him, and Clinton doesn't have any home turf left (Obama has Hawaii). This thing is far from over, but based on the history of those elements in this campaign, I truly think Obama has a fantastic chance.
Hillary so far appears to be a stronger nationwide candidate for the following reasongs: 1. She won most of the big states that are Democratic stongholds and southern states. 2. She won heavily among working-class whites and southern whites, elderly, hispanics, and asians. 3. Most of Obama's wins are states that the democrats don't stand a chance of winning in November (Idaho, Alaska, Georgia, Alabama, Utah to name a few) and he won caucuses rather than primaries in most of those - Hillary won handily in Oklahoma and this might be a bad sign for Obama in November - you have to remember that the majority of voters in these states vote for Republicans. Race will be a big issue and I think many people who discount this are supremely naive about the United States. 4. To beat the Republicans Democrats must remember the last election: to win you need either Ohio or Florida or pick off say Arkansas and Tennessee. Obama seems to be a candidate of Ted Kennedy, the elite, academics, blacks, and younger voters. His rhetoric seems to sway a lot of people, but his support is rather soft and relies almost entirely on the mantra of change and his weakness is on the economy. He will have a hard time presenting himself as anything different than a populist speaker in November. Clinton's base is much harder to crack. If she presents herself as the person to turn the economy around and create a reasonable solution to immigration she could easily turn this. Obama's support seems to be flash-in-the-pan, funded by the wealthy, and the media. The efforst of Ted Kennedy, et al. might turn Hillary into the candidate of the working-class. I think Massachusetts is ominous for him as well as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Arizona. He may go on to the nomination but his chances of wining in November seem to me to be lower than those of Hillary.
Justin - The Democrats Super Tuesday, with its inherent scoring complexity tells us two things. That the Democrat electorate are more convinced that Billary is a conventional election winner, while Obama is a potential non-conventional election winner. In this context, remember that the political game has and is changing fast, and increasingly the electorate here recognize that it's not business as usual anymore. As the election campaign rolls on, so will obvious game change - evidenced by an increasingly unstable economy, regression in the Iraq war, the collapsing housing market, and the hidden real peoples inflation number (as distinct to the politicized one. The USA is in major re-adjust mode and suddenly everyone has a stake.
Justin,
One could not have said this any better, you have captured the soul and soldiering of this campaign.
I hope you are a good citizen as you wrote and will vote for Barak Obama, if for no reason but the value he has place in our minds.
Best.
Frankly,
From a long-term larger perspective Obama did win. Obama won because Obama won in "purple states", those states that are more likely to be "in play" in 2008.
Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, even Georgia.
Also if you rephrase the question, "What exactly did Hillary Clinton win?" The answer is...not much. California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts will vote democratic in the general election regardless of the nominee.
Beyond her convincing victories in Arkansas and Tennessee, there is little evidence that Hillary's candidacy has motivated individuals to enter the voting booth en masse, especially in places that will be of great importance come November.
The most amazing and striking item from Tuesday was a graphic county-by-county breakdown of the Missouri vote. Without a map key or legend, one would surmise that this was a Presdiential election, with the Democrats taking St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia (where tha large state university is located)and the Republicans winning the rest...When actually it's Obama v. Hillary. If he can energize these same voting blocks in November he would likely win Missouri.
I dont know about who won on tuesday; one thing is sure a women candidate really led the male america to move beyond race !. Obama had overwhelming lead among white male voters. Isnt that funny both balck and white males cannot accept being ruled by a women ! America is more sexist than racist !!
Justin,
From the results (which for some reason still don't give a clear picture 24 hours on), it would appear that last night's results for the Democrats produced that great English invention - a draw.
Obama probably has the momentum and - by the sound of it - more money to spend in the second half of the campaign. However, I wouldn't count Hillary out yet - after all she still has the delegate lead.
Question (well, three actually!): is it really possible that the Democrats could slog through the whole process and end up at the convention in Denver with no clear winner? If so, what happens then? And has this ever happened before?
This must be McCain's best hope to close the gap on the two Democrats.
Interesting times for US politics. One point though, the sitting president is now being treated as an irrelevance. Without going into the personalities of it, is it good for government if the last 12 months of a presidential term are so marginalised?
Justin,
Perhaps you could answer a couple of questions:-
Is it really possible the Democratic nomination could be settled on the convention floor in Denver? If neither candidate has the majority, how do they decide? And has this happened before?
In the best cricketing traditions, I think Super Tuesday ended up as a hard-fought draw. Just fascinating to see how this turns out.
One point occurs to me though: the sitting president is now being treated largely as an irrelevance. Without getting into the personalities, is it good for government that the end of a presidential term should be so marginalised in this way?
Thanks for your informative reports.
As a resident of Massachusetts I would like to clear a few things up. Two weeks ago Barack Obama was polling with 22% of likely primary voters. The results from last night indicate that he recieved upwards of 40%. Also to clear something up, winning states in the Democratic primary is meaningless. The prize of the primary is delegates who are awarded on the basis of congressional districts. The Super Tuesday contest is loaded towards the established nationally known frontrunner. In states where there is more campaigning time Obama has the clear advantage as evidenced in South Carolina and Iowa. The days of dynastic politics in the United States (hopefully) are numbered .....
What do you expect, Justin. The Obama fanatics are already living in a fantasy world, so in their fantasy, they just won the election too! Dreams over facts! HOPE HOPE HOPE!
What do you expect, Justin. The Obama supporters are already living in a fantasy world, so in their fantasy, they just won the election too! Dreams over facts! HOPE HOPE HOPE!
#16 Peter: one state is still counting votes, New Mexico (so far Clinton 49%; Obama48%); others are sorting a few remaining delegates (very complicated process in some states).
#17 Cormac: note another factor: I'm in Pennsylvania, people here are already hitting Obama-fatigue, and the vote here isn't until April. The long 3 months ahead may not necessarily break to his advantage.
p.s. #13 may: Delegate count for Missouri: Clinton 36; Obama 36.
It is amazing that the only person that has not mentioned race is the qualified black candiate, Obama. Whites candidates and voters are saying, "Well, people in America simply want to make history by electing the first African American president." When Hilliary first ran for Senate, she did not have an OUNCE of experience, and yet I did not hear one person question her abilities to lead. Is it white priviledge that leads you to believe that she is automatically qualified while the viable black candidate is grilled from every angle? What exactly makes Hilliary presidential material? Being married to a president does not make you a president anymore than sitting in a garage makes you a car. In addition, with all of Hilliary's experience, she has continually demonstrated errors in judgement such as her vote to send our troops to Iraq, her stance on Iran, and her failed healthcare plan during the Clinton years. No one has questioned her qualifications with those mounting failures? In addition, when she sees herself losing, she garners a sympathy vote by saying, "I'm just being picked on because I am a woman?" Please do not forget this part of her ploy, she cries when she's losing. If Obama even mentioned his race, most whites would immediately derail his argument by trying to prove that they are "African American" friendly after all, we are allowing you to run. Give me a break. Racism is racism. Stop mentioning race because Obama sure hasn't.
This is a note to Alex who posted a response to Justin's dislike of Obama. WOW, I have never read anything so honest, real and true.
As a Britain one has to step back and think 'why do i need to get involved, its not my fight?'
Clinton is old school, calculatng and the mos dangerous figure in this election.
Americans need change, Busg has soiled the whole image of America on a global scale and you need a president that says to the world 'things are changing!' Clinton cannot do that!
Please think about it...
Bush Jr was Vice President under Reagan, then became president, he was beat by clinton and he was in power for 8 years, he was taken over by W. Bush after rigging an lection, he caused wars and has ruined the international relations between american and the world...and now another clinton may get elected.
Obama's call for change is just what he says, change. How can it be tha two families can control the US highest office for nearly a quarter of a century.
And lets not forget Clinton was not even a New York native, that was another thing that was created so she could gain the seat.
American IS a great nation and can become, once again, a beacon of hope for pats of the world that face and uncertain future, only you Americans can make the diference, make the change, and vote for a man who in his soul and heart will give american the fresh change it needs!
God bless you Sen. Obama.
I think McCain's mother was right. In the end, most Republicans as well as lots of independents and Democrats will hold their nose if they have to and vote for her son. If the Democratic candidate is Clinton, the prospect of seeing the Clintons on our television sets again every night for four years will be unbearable. If it is Obama, the prospect of an almost completely inexperienced liberal with a capital "L" in the White House will be equally horrifying.
Did Obama really win? No, according to most tallies, he is behind in the delegate count by about 75. What manner of logic has it that someone won a race when they are behind and the race isn't over yet? Will he win? Nobody knows which is why it is so hard to understand why the media continues to pay for the opinions of pundits who are proven wrong time and again.
Kevin Hanna (#5) wrote: "The real surprise last night was that Clinton won Massachusetts; that is quite telling and does not bode well for the Dems if they do choose Obama as their candidate."
_________________
Huh? That doesn't make sense at all. Obama got more than twice as many votes in MA as the winning Republican, who was the governor of the state! Democrats have been voting in record numbers and have cast nearly twice as many ballots in this primary season. That's what's telling and yes, it bodes very well for them.
What do you expect, Justin. The Obama supporters are already living in a fantasy world, so in their fantasy, they just won the election too! Dreams over facts! HOPE HOPE HOPE!
#16 Peter: one state is still counting votes, New Mexico (so far Clinton 49%; Obama48%); others are sorting a few remaining delegates (very complicated process in some states).
#17 Cormac: note another factor: I'm in Pennsylvania, people here are already hitting Obama-fatigue, and the vote here isn't until April. The long 3 months ahead may not necessarily break to his advantage.
p.s. #13 may: Delegate count for Missouri: Clinton 36; Obama 36.
The Democrats won! Whether or not Clinton or Obama win their own party nomination for candidate, it became clear last night that the George Bushs' Republican party has lost all credibility with the American voters.
Now, as to the Clinton v. Obama issue. Am I alone in wondering what opinions about anything at all Obama actually has, and is willing to express? He is full of negative rhetoric and criticism of his opponents, be they the Republicans, or Clinton, but where does he stand. Is he so naive as to truly believe that the Washington establishment is going to simply sit up and do his bidding? Please, please, put Clinton in the Whitehouse.
It is sad to see that train-wreck in slow motion.
While the Democrats deplete their energy and money on a self-induced hallucinative battle between the "vision" of Obama and the "experience" of Clinton, the Republicans are settling their differences and quickly consolidating behind a candidate which is virtually guaranteed to carry the red states and seriously contest the coastal states.
The Democratic party's problem is not going to be solved by figuring out whether it is more "progressive" or "change-y" to nominate a black or a female, or whether it is better to nominate someone who can flaunt "hope" more than they can flaunt "experience". Middle America could not care less about these nuances. In the end of the road what the Democrats will face is a right-wing machine that will be equally ferocious against either Hillary "socialist" Clinton or Barack "Hussein" Obama. And don't get fooled by current appearances: Limbaugh, Coulter and FOX-news will be spewing all the venom while McCain will be more than credible distancing himself from them, and grabbing the independent voters as well.
Aren't there any adults in the DNC to tell these two candidates that what is at stake here is larger than their personal ambitions ? Please wake up before it is too late. All America and the world needs right now is another 4-8 years of a hawkish republican president.
Alas, discipline and realism was never the Democrats strong points.
---
Disclaimer: I am a registered independent who votes Democratic. Right now I think I will vote for whomever the Democrats manage to nominate, unless I get sick and conclude that it is yet another futile effort.
Obama won on the limited Rock Star fame. If he is the candidate he will surely lose. America on a hold isn't ready to have an inexperienced unqualified Black man as President. Look for more Americans to object because the racism is still around. I'm an African American from California I voted for the best qualified candidate Hillary Clinton. But many people voting said they didn't want to call a US President Obama. This will be the Democrats biggest problem if they put Obama as President. I am proud of his efforts but he's really not ready. John Kerry wants to live through him as he couldn't make President. Ted Kennedy wants to use him. Even Kerry and Kennedy support couldn't get their State to vote Obama. The US has come a long way with race but it's not ready yet. As for Oprah she just spoke up to save face as she did nothing for Jesse Jackson or any other black person running for office. It will be interesting to see how the people of New Orleans vote as Obama didn't do anything to help them in their hour of need but he'll use his color for a vote. Will they remember it was Bill Clinton who came to help?
The fact that Obama is black means nothing. If he were white this election wouldn't be so heated. It is so heated due to the fact that this could be a turning point in history. JFK was young when he was inaugurated. Obama is very intelligent as well as educated and very prepared for this position. Look what experience got us, Bush ruined our economy and our soldiers have died for nothing. We are not taking a chance by not electing Obama, we are taking a chance by letting him go. He exhibits unity among both parties. He will reunite America as a whole. Obama is what we need. He is a true leader and will lead this country up and out of where Bush put us. Hillary is old news and the only reason she is known is because of her husbands accomplishments. She will not beat McCain, Obama will. This country doesn't want another republican in the WH. We desperately need a democrat in the WH after 8 years. Vote for Obama!!!!!
Obama is high on the term change and low on what exactly he whats America to change into. Americans shud really be careful about what they wish for - they may just get it.
Change from being the most powerful and influential country in the world- hence the envy of other nations and religious fanatics - into an also-run country right in the mix of mediocrity.
There is no race line in the way Barak is winning,it,s just that he is the man of the moment and pipo believe he is the one to lead America in to an era of change.Big up senator Obama
Brenda Scmidt- claims that Obama is only getting votes because he is black, people want to make history by voting in the first Black President. What total ignorance! That has to be the most ignorant piece of analysis I have heard yet. You really stretched yourself there Brenda.
It is not to debate over race and gender, the matter is concerned about who can lead America to a better place and upgrade the dignity of America in the world. I think it is Obama who can bring a real change at the right time for Americans and Americans shoud think their future.
Hi, I am a Nigerian writing from Asaba in Nigeria and I cannot help being fascinated by the grim contest currently unfolding in the U.S. I sincerely feel that we Blacks have to lace our bootstraps, fold our sleeves and get to work to contribute meaningfully to human development in all areas of human endeavour.
We should stop whining and crying for aid, sympathy and affirmative action. Then and only then will the racist taunts and slants end. Then shall we be taken mpre seriously.
Win or lose, Obama will inspire a lot of blacks wherever they may be to dare to dream and work relentlessly towards realizing their dreams sans complex. I think that Americans should judge Obama solely on his personal merit and not on his race. His achievements so far and possibly into the future should shame African leaders whose only contribution to their countries is to pimp and steal, loot and plunder, contributing little yet consuming the futures of generations unborn with their rapacity and greed.
Somebody in this blog drew a parallel between Obama and Robert Kennedy and another said America is not yet ready for a Black President. Pragmatically and perhaps cynically, I should agree with both views.
My advice to Barak should be this - watch your back, brother and if ultimately a Vice Presidency beckons, accept it in humility and earn your stripes; then go on to conquer the world four or eight years hence.
I have a very strong feeling that even before Sen.Obama's election as first black president he will be assassinated. Certain elements of hate are still lingering in the USA and owning guns is still open for all.
In the event of Obama winning and the possibility of running with Hillary as Vice Presidential Candidate and vice versa, can the Democrats win the American Presidential election come November 2008?