But rest assured – if Clinton is able to steal this nomination from Obama – she will not choose him for Vice President and she will piss of the party even more.

Watch what happens.

He will have more pledged delegates and popular vote. She has to win by margins of 60% or more in all of the remaining 17 elections. SHE WILL NOT DO IT. It is probable but not possible.

As it goes now – keep writing, emailing the superdelegates to ENCOURAGE them to suppport your candidate.

And on another note: Hillary Clinton is going to mess up some stuff in the US if she gets the nomination. She is of the entitlement philosphy, which means, she is going to skuelch on anything she fits to do. She can not freeze interest rates (a president does not have that authority), she will go after your wages for healthcare (mandated vs choice), she will not cut your taxes (remember your bonus is taxed at almost 50% because of Bill Clinton’s policies), she will create more financial distress for the economy by trying to (or look like it) save everyone who made poor financial decisions, she is not looked upon favorably globally because she is seen as an extention of the Bushes(as a matter of fact she and Bill are close family friends with the Bushes no matter what they tell you, Big George calls Bill his other son and Little George calls him his other brother).

America better fight hard to keep her out of the white house because if she stays we will still be in Iraq 4 years from now – NO MATTER what she says.

She will cave to political expediency – she did it before and she will do it AGAIIN.

But maybe McCain and Petraeus/Pace in ‘12 will begin to reverse that trend.
(and, yeah, I know the above won’t happen. But I’d love to hear someone try to compare their expeerince with those two)

============================

As my wise mother is wont to say, “Wisdom knows wisdom.”

And it has nothing to do with experience.

Nice Blog btw D.

Obama has no clue what it means to serve OR lead in a time of war. We’re in one. Don’t think I need to rehash McCain’s military credentials.

There is a difference between being a first term senator and a first term govenor. A governorship is an executive position, similar to the presidency. Because of that, there’s no way you can compare two years of experience as a senator-a majority of which has been spent campaigning-to someone who spent 2-4 years running a state.

Yes, McCain has a temper. But I would rather have a president who has a temper than one who operates under the vagaries of hope. We “hoped” during the 90s-I think the casualties of the WTC in 93, Khobar Towers, our embassies in Africa, and my brothers and sisters who died on the USS Cole are testament to what happens to a country that “hopes” too much.

No need to get your knickers in a twist. The right place for me isn’t for anyone but me to decide. And if you’re already speculating about my m.o. perhaps you have a problem I can’t help with.

If I had ignored your commentary, then how could I have responded to it?

You haven’t adressed the crux of my post, though.

Obama has as much experience to recommend him for president than each of the last two presidents.
And certainly more relevant experience at this point in our country’s history than Senator McCain.

Obama has wisdom. McCain has a temper. And he doesn’t know his ass from his elbow when it comes to the economy. I’ll take a wise president over a volatile ignorant one any day of the week.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. But don’t make it personal.

It’s simply not necessary.

Here’s my thing, Craig: Obama burst onto the stage what, 2-3 years ago, after some time in the state legislature? By comparison, McCain has held command-has had people’s lives placed in HIS responsibility-of one of the largest naval aircraft squadrons of his day. He has interacted with world leaders as a representative of the president. I’d have to go back and look at the dates (can’t right now, as my fiancé has given me a 5 minute limit before she kills me), but I dare say that McCain was involved in high level negotiations at the senatorial level before Obama hit the streets of Chi.

I bring my input into this arena because it is-for the MOST part-a place where we can bang out our differences. I may well be the only black McCain supporter here. That’s cool. I knew the nest I was stepping into. People here-I don’t think-support me, but they hear me out as I do them.

If you don’t like that, cool. Ignore my commentary. But don’t think I’m going to cut and run just because you-or anyone-doesn’t like what I have to say. If that’s your m.o., maybe this isn’t the right place for you.

“You are a first-term Senator who is not even halfway through his first term. Your political experience is mostly on the local and state level. You have no military experience. Some-myself included-would argue that you started campaigning for the presidency even before you were sworn in as a senator. And I cannot point to a single bill that you have authored and passed (not including co-sponsorship) that has been of benefit to our nation.”

Replace the word Senator with Governor and you could be describing the last two presidents of the United States. One from each party. The Democrat governed rather well, the Republican is the worst president of the century, and that’s saying a lot, given his father’s term and the two of the Best Actor in the Role of President. (You wanna talk about cult, let’s talk about all the love for the silent president, also known as the former Mrs. Jane Wyman.)

There’s a reason only 15(?) active senators have ever been elected president. Not having a congressional record that can be ripped to shreds has its privileges. It’s not wonder most senators have to settle first for Vice Prez on their way to Commander-in-Chief.

As for experience, none of the frontrunners has any. Hillary wasn’t president, Bill was. Who is John McCain, really? I haven’t a clue.

This is the first race in US history, far as I know, that pits two Senators against each other. Unless, of course, Huckabee sweeps the rest of the states and Romney’s delegates all go to Huckabee. In an election where “anything can happen” supposedly, I’m a bit surprised no one else has said as much.

But I digress.

The only presidential candidates with experience are incumbents. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated because fear clouds our vision so much we can’t see straight.

Hillary is more interested in power and rubbing her hater’s faces in her ascendancy than she is in the people of this country. She’s a bold-faced liar, and will do anything to win. She can’t be trusted.

That much we all know if only we’re willing to admit it.

McCain’s a “true American hero” if one believes in such things, but he’s more like those aging sentimental favorites nominated for Academy Awards whose actual performances in the year they’re nominated wouldn’t be compelling enough to even get a negative review in any other season.

How dare a Black man interlope in this arena and garner all this enthusiasm and support?

How. Dare. He?

Anyway great blog. You’re blogrolled.

In the case of African Americans, for the very first time. This is the first time in my life that I’ve felt like an American, not just a minority in America, and a proud American at that.

Now, NMP,

why’d you have to go THERE with me?

choke me up like that.

I hear ya. I really hear ya.

Re: Is it conceivable that America is ready to embrace a new view of itself as a nation that cares for its most vulnerable, that uses military force carefully and in balance with diplomacy, that sees capital markets as a means to an end — the enrichment of all of society — rather than an end in itself? I would argue yes.

This sounds great but it’s really just the same old Democrat policies wrapped in a cool, new package: Expanded government, class warfare, higher taxes, weak on national security and against american business. I don’t think the American people will buy it.

Obama is not moderate and the vast majority of Americans are.

This arguement also exhibits the person’s ignorance, laziness or ambivalence to explore Obama’s substantive policy issues anyone can get from his website. Also recent reports (one of them from the recent 60 Minutes interview) have stated when Obama started his candidacy last year he was cited as being “too professional” with his detailed, substantive policy speeches. Now he’s critcized for being an “empty suit,” a false “Messiah” figure and a potential dangerous dictator in democratic clothing. Give me a freaking break! Isn’t the near 30-year two family rule of Bush and Clinton more dangerous? Concentrating this much power is a akin to a quasi-Monarchy.

But, of course, attacking your opponent’s greatest strength is key to the Clintons’ and the Republicians’ playbook. For us Obama supporters, we’re just gonna have to get used to it. Because if he gets the nomination, this kind of rhetoric will undoubtedly get much worse.

I know that both side, heck all candidates, have their “fringe” elements and so when the pundits cite Obama’s Mamas, etc. I roll my eyes. Please, there’s crazymad folks rooting for each and every candidate. Fact.

I’m going to just keep repeating my little old sentence to the people who insist on going where I just don’t want to go right now.

There ARE people who will never vote for a black man. There ARE people who will never vote for a woman. There ARE people who will always drag their knuckles on the ground. That doesn’t mean I’ve got to convert any of those people to ranks of upright, compassionate, open hearted human beings.

“Leadership or politics. Which do you choose??

The two worst fringe candidates and the democrats have them.

If he weren’t so dangerous this fringe candidate would be boring as hell. I mean who ever heard of him before the media made him into some sort of hero? He’s no genius.

He IS an empty suit ready to be molded by his handlers, very dangerous people.

How Dangerous is Obama?

This article proves that he’s merely a tool for the world government and promoter of a tax to be paid to the UN to fuel its totalitarian control over us and to redistribute the wealth to other countries.  
“A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”
“The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).”
“In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
An Obama presidency would be racist and a disaster for the USA.
In one of Obama’s campaign offices, there is even a flag with a picture of a murderous Marxist dictator on it!

Read the rest here:  http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02131.shtml 

“MANAGUA, Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua, says Barack Obama’s presidential bid is a “revolutionary” phenomenon in the United States.”

Yeah, the Marxist Revolution!

It’s all about words. The hook brings you back. You’ve got some who just want to be reassured that their President can sound like a technocrat. That’s all. It has little to do with competency. But it allows people to assume that you know what you’re talking about.

Hillary is good at this. She just keeps repeating the phrase “35 years of experience,” and people go for it. Mind you, I believe 20 of those “35″ years was spent as the first lady (12 years as first lady of Arkansas and 8 years as first lady of the U.S.).

Senator Clinton can give a laundry list of proposals that her supporters can quote verbatim. And it is this that allows them to suggest that Clinton is all substance and Obama’s all fluff. Note, these aren’t necessarily specific plans (she, herself, isn’t outlining how she’ll pay for everything, etc.). They’re just specific promises. She can have a list as long as the day, but it won’t amount to a hill of beans if she can’t get them through Congress.

For example, Obama and Clinton go back and forth over their healthcare plans. At the end of the day, we’ll end up with a compromise between the left and right on this issue. Anything too far one way or the other will result in gridlock.

So it seems odd that some hear Hillary’s technocratic language and assume she’s better prepared. She says she’s got solutions? Well, she claims 35 years of experience – why hasn’t she solved anything yet? And I mean her specifically, not her husband.

Like I’ve said before. If people really wanted “experience,” they would have chosen Senators Dodd or Biden (they’re elected experience goes back to the early 70s). But they didn’t. As a matter of fact, I believe Obama and Clinton have the least amount of elected experience out of the whole bunch (correct me if I’m wrong). When you consider that Obama has more elected experience than Hillary (8 years as a state legislature; experience at the state and federal level; 3 years as a U.S. Senator) this whole “experience” argument seems pretty disingenuous.

Anyways, if I were advising the Obama campaign, I’d urge him to say the magical words. Give two policy speeches a week. It could be on anything, just give at least two boring speeches per week from here on out. Next, I’d tell him to say the words “details” and “specifics” at least 10 times in every stump speech.

As to all the commenters who note that Obama is allegedly the most “liberal” Senator — so what? Is it conceivable that America is ready to embrace a new view of itself as a nation that cares for its most vulnerable, that uses military force carefully and in balance with diplomacy, that sees capital markets as a means to an end — the enrichment of all of society — rather than an end in itself? I would argue yes.

And I find it strange that critics can, in the same breath, call Obama both an “empty suit” and also “most liberal.” Either he’s got substance or not. Make up your mind!

Being a charismatic speaker is a virtue when used for virtuous ends. But, please understand that for some people who, for example, have immigrated to this country, Obama’s powerful oratory naturally makes us uncomfortable. Speaking for myself, I am Latin American with family in Cuba, Argentina, Chile. In that part of the world, we had many powerful orators who wanted to transform the world and who the masses loved, but who then turned out to be different than expected. One of my grandmothers came to South America from Russia, shortly after the revolution. She used to tell me about Lenin’s speeches, which apparently, were very gripping and although she was initially swayed toward his ideas, once the genie was out of the bottle, the mob had its own mind.

Some people are just not going to be turned-on by rhetoric that causes very emotional and passionate responses in crowds; some people are skeptical of mass-mentality, of mob-think.

It is a gross generalization to suggest that most Obama supporters are part of a flock-mentality. Most are people with critical minds. But, when I see his speeches, there are always a few people in the audience who look enraptured, like they are having a religious experience, or alternatively, like the girls in old footage of the Beatles, who would cry from seeing them. I am in a university town, and the college students here act similarly. They wear t-shirts and have posters of Obama’s face, some like old posters of Chairman Mao or Che Guevara. (I take this with a grain of salt because they are young and most know about Mao and el Che just from t-shirts.) Perhaps the fact that youth need to have a hero like Obama and are seemingly prone to a hysterical form of hero-worship is revealing of some ill in our society.

The question is more about the zone of indeterminacy between participating in a movement, and using that movement to define who you are (because you are young, or feeling empty) without thinking critically.

I understand your point about Obama making people believe in themselves. But, there are many people who didn’t need anyone to prod them into believing in themselves again.

I am obviously not an Obama supporter. I do wish, however, that we could all have a more civil discourse about all the issues surrounding the presidential race — especially racial politics — without being ostracized. I wish there could be a really honest dialogue between people of different races and about race in this country, in which we could be frank and self-reflect and be as honest as we could be with ourselves and one another.