However, I the may not last long if it’s Barack Obama. I’m afraid that the Republicans will take him apart like a Christmas turkey. He has no experience battling at the level that they’re going to attack him, and the attack is going to last ten long months.

If a Black person rapes someone white, the Republicans are going to ask Barack Obama to personally disavow the rapist and agree that he should receive the death penalty. If he refuses on either of these points, they will say that he’s soft on crime and can’t defend white people because he’s beholden to Black people . . .

Meanwhile, the will rename Barack Obama “Sadaam Obama” and they will continually call him this until America is so tired of hearing this name that they just want the problem to go away.

They would attack Hillary Clinton in the same ways, but remember that Bill Clinton had a 70% approval rating at the end of his presidency, even after the Republicans had tried to impeach him. So, the Clintons know what it feels like in the Republican oven.

Obama is a student of American history and he’s not ignorant of what the Republicans will do. But he’s never had personal experience combating it. He’s like a person who has seen baseball but never played.

I won’t cry for Hillary if Barack is the nominee. But I’m afraid that I’ll eventually cry for Barack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/13/obama-hillary-im-look_n_76706.html

Obama: “Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well.”

I’m sorry folks…I’m a fan.

Barack specialized in constitutional law. He taught consitutional law at the University of Chicago. He knows the constitution “inside and out.”

He will not treat the constitution like toilet paper as BUSH has done. He’ll respect that the executive branch is a co-equal branch with the congress and supreme court.

He will not try to shove “healthcare” down the congress’s throat as Hillary tried to do (and FAILED) in ‘93-94.

Hillary likes to say, “I’ve learned my lesson,” but she really has not.
Her emotional intelligence has not evolved. She presumed that her nomination was inevitable and that she deserved it.

In Iowa, she is about to get schooled by the Professor.

So ironically, we’re at a time where, as far as experience is concerned, less is more.

You’re right; I don’t question his competence. Oddly enough, in researching, I’ve found that we’re not that far apart on the core of most issues-just that our methods to get to the end are somewhat different.

My only problem with Obama is that I’m not sure, with everything that’s going on in the country, he can step up and lead a nation when he’s only held office on a national scale for a few years. If this were 2012, I’d probably be down. But right now, at least for me-I do question his experience.

I know you don’t question Obama’s competence and aptitude per se. I just don’t think you give him the proper credit for having the same in order to understand, navigate and work said “system”.

Hell, if he didn’t have the competence and aptitude that you claim he’s lacking, he’d never have been able to get into Columbia or Harvard, let alone graduate from and shine at those institutions.

Come on, now. The neophyte you’re describing is Mike Gravel, not Barack Obama.

It makes Obama a viable candidate because he is yet to be systematized. Which is precisely the excuse that some people seem to so desparately need.

NOW they are using Obama’s old drug use…

Via Andrew Sullivan’s Blog:

The hints were there already, but now a Clinton surrogate is flaying Obama for his refreshing candor about past drug-use. Again: this is the politics of fear. Check out the classic Clinton defensive crouch with respect to the GOP:

“The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight … and one of the things they’re certainly going to jump on is his drug use,” said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama’s openness about his past drug use — which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire — with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was “young and irresponsible.”

So a Clintonite is urging that Obama follow W’s example. Somehow, I don’t think this is going to help. But it’s a sign of how worried they are that their coronation has turned into something a little more complicated.

Update: Not only does the Supreme Court and Bush’s Sentencing Commission agree with Obama, but Kennedy has an even more stiffer bill to end the disparity co-sponsored with Orin Hatch. Joe Biden has an even tougher bill. So she’s not only to the right of the Democratic Party leadership. She’s too the right of Anthony Scalia and Orin Hatch. Good God, she’s making this too easy!

In tomorrow’s debate, we will all see how desperate Hillary is to win and how Barack will respond/react to the live knifing.

It’s the last debate before the caucuses.

I read that too at The Atlantic.com.

Uh huh.

Will those handkerchief heads speak up.

And the fact that Obama’s campaign began RIGHT THERE-before he had even been sworn in as a senator-is just one more reason I can’t support him.

The Clinton campaign has decided to use retroactivity for crack cocaine sentences as part of their argument for his unelectability.

The primary argument against his electability are polls that say DEMOCRATS THINK she is the most electable. So now it comes down to what Democrats think rather than reality? I hope and expect that Senator Obama will respond that Senator Clinton confuses perception with reality…while Demcorats THINK she is the most electable, the same polls she cites say otherwise. In head-to-head match-ups, she performs the worse, the only Democrat that loses to McCaine and does the worse against Giuliani, Romney and Hucabee.

As to retroactivity, Obama merely needs to tout the recent decision by the Supreme Court that hands discretion BACK to Federal Judges and the Sentencing Commission moving forward with retroactivity, as Ambinder points out.

The larger question for the hankerchief heads, as you like to call them, supporting Hillary Clinton is will they join her in effectively using a Wille Horton on Obama…using the unjust incarceration of mostly Black men as a wedge issue to scare White folks against Obama?

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/clinton_will_close_on_electabi_1.php

Before Obama’s 2004 Convention-Keynote Address, I was like much of the US Population that doesn’t keep up with politics. I wondered, “Who da HEEL is this Obama guy?”

After that speech, I was a believer.

Just a speech? To some people, it was just a speech. To others like myself, it was a VISION.

There’s a scripture that reads, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

And after six years of blind-visionless leadership, we’ve seen people perish…on 9/11…in New Orleans…and continuously dying in Iraq.

I’m sorry that some people can’t get over the fact that Obama is neither “experienced” as Hillary nor Cheney or Rumsfeld.

I’m excited for Democrats. I’m excited for America.

1980s: Reagan Democrats
2000s: Obama Republicans