And he is the nominee, get over it.

The liberal media are children of the 60s

They believe and rightly so that ANY black president would break the log jam on racism.

Obama being black is the only reason I would even be tempted to vote for him against McCain.

McCain has a much larger legacy of being a friend to the democratic party than Obama and he is GOP for crying out loud.

Those nearly 10 years he spent in the Illinois senate are nothing huh?

Also guess what, he has worked harder in politics and been around longer than Lincoln was before he ran.

When you're "resentment" dies down a bit in a few weeks I would like to suggest you take a second look at Sen. Obama, especially compared to McCain. Your conclusions and information is almost all incorrect, and I don't mean that disparagingly at all. I hope you'll take the time to correct your information, hypotheses, and conclusions.

The media didn't annoit Obama. He went out and worked hard in Iowa and in other states and voters supported him. If Clinton had won Iowa and NH, this thing would have been wrapped up very quickly.

He also beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.  That is quite an achievement.  

to call Mr. Obama on his deficiencies without automatically being labeled "racist".

Thank you for your willingness to stand up and ask why the "Emperor has no clothes". I hope the Super Delegates are watching.

When does Hillary take responsibility for her campaign?

But it at least provided one of the craziest and funniest quotes I've ever seen.....

Her dishonesty is actually honest...

I'd give anything to see THAT on a bumper sticker.

I think I'll make it my new tagine.

I'm not ready to give up on Harold Ford's bright future just yet.  As far as the other two you mentioned along with him, Tom Daschle and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, well let's just say I'm glad that nobody talks about them as future presidential candidates.

that Obama has triple the years in elected office right?

I am shocked that so many women would support an assertion that being the wife of a elected official is a valid metric.  You speak of Carol Mosley Braun who carved her own way yet support a candidate that has 4 years in elected office, vs the candidate that has 12 years in elected office.  

The bigger question is why more women didn't come out and support a woman like Carol Mosley Braun, a candidate with real experience and who's claim to fame was not having been the wife of chief executive of a state and nation.  

Strange days...

Heh, you're comparing Obama to Moseley Braun?

Look, Obama has similarities with quite a few people.  Moseley Braun, Deval Patrick...but also Bill Clinton.

It's absurd to say Obama is going to share the fate of any of those people.  I'm a young scientist from Chicago...does that mean I'm going to share the same fate as all other young scientists from Chicago?

And you managed to spell both of their names wrong, btw.

Good diary. Rec.

The difference is, he is winning the Democratic nomination because he is running an incredible campaign. He is beating the greatest political family in our generation. Give some credit where credit is due.

great diary.  The only thing I disagree with you on is HRC's dishonesty.  The media repeats over and over and over that Hillary is untrustworthy, so lots of people believe it.  It's awful to see how much the media creates and controls the country's mindset.

As a "politically active African American" I'm sure you are aware of the role Obama played in Mosley Braun's successful Senate run in 1992.

just like you're doing, diarist.  Heckuva job, actually.

Very good diary. All of your points are valid.

You miss an issue which Obama has delivered on in both Illinois and in the US Senate: lobbying reform and government openness.

The reason Obama is doing well is because he is successfully running an insurgent campaign in a "Change" election.

He is running on a consistent message of "change begins from the bottom up", and basically "power to the people".  

And he DOES have the credentials on this issue.  

"My first resentment is that I need to state that I'm a politically active African American, who in the past has supported all of the struggles you would expect: criminal justice reform, affirmative action, afrocentricism, etc."

Strange thing is, just because you are a politically active African American I would not expect you to support affirmative action, Afrocentrism, etc.

Perhaps that is your stereotype of me, not me of you.

Or perhaps it is something else.

It's a wonder such inexperience has out performed the vaunted Clintons.

Give me someone who is going to do the job well over a million years of experience anyways. Take a look at how each of their campaigns have been run - it's not hard to figure out who is doing a good job and who isn't.

All that experience and she's going to lose.

The difference between Carol Moseley Braun and Barack Obama is quite significant.

An earlier commentor stated: Those nearly 10 years he spent in the Illinois senate are nothing huh?

I wish we knew what he did in the Il. senate, but he has destroyed all documents, so we'll never find out.

Everyone, please....

This diary, and the 20 recommended or about to be recommended today -- are just part of the Hill Streak Blues period of the campaign. In which people look at her recent strength and think the thing is still going on -- despite the race ending in March, mathematically, like so many of us noted at the time.

This isn't to discount their serious support for Hillary, but it is to discount any complaints about Obama and his policies.

Nothing... NOTHING... he could do now would be enough. He only "gave a speech." You can argue his record in the Ill. senate, you can point out his campaign policies, you can point out the historical role outsiders have played in elections... you can point out Obama donating you a kidney in grad school.

It doesn't matter.

He's a BAD GUY for these people now and they will write about how BADDY BAD he is. They'll even say "McCain is better" because it's a temper tantrum. It's like when a kid yells at his parents "I hate you! I wish I was never born! I'm voting McCain!" And you know, deep down, your spoiled brat of a kid doesn't hate you, is perfectly glad he was born, and if he wants to vote McCain, fine." After all, hormones being what they are, Kids get angry and say all kinds of stupid ass things. Maybe they even come here and blog.

But we know Obama isn't a BAD GUY. He's a very nice person with great policies and though he isn't perfect and doesn't have the "experience" of others, he has plenty of experience that has shown him to be a leader of great skill and a thinker of great wisdom. As is Hillary. But her story as a candidate so far is just about done.

And no one who doesn't want it to end will gladly open the sequel.

Loves this comment: "Her dishonesty is actually honest because I know she's pandering and lieing on many things."

I think just about everyone would agree that a reasonable person can support Hillary Clinton (there are issues where if someone takes a contrary opinion the temptation is to regard them as borderline insane, but this is not one of those situations).

The question you're asking is why a reasonable person might support Obama over Clinton.  I'll provide a few reasons.

The dynasty issue.  The US has had a Bush or Clinton in the top spot for the past 28 years.  This is third-worldism, it makes politics about connections and personal loyalty rather than ideas and policies, and it's time for this to end.  We know the GOP is going to run Jeb Bush in the future--he should be defeated for the same reasons.  Not Clinton's fault, but what has this campaign shown if not the extent to which many Dems seem to have put loyalty to the person above party, the problems which can result from cronyism, etc.?  If Clinton were just another Democrat, her supporters wouldn't be experiencing her loss as some sort of great betrayal (and what they don't see is how this drives home the point, no one wants their candidate to lose but this is more like what happened with Kennedy in 1980, and I don't mean that in a good way).

Her vote on the Iraq war.  She could have opposed it and didn't.  Bill Clinton actually gave a lot of cover to George Bush when the US was on the cusp of going to war, that's all in the public record, and you're either willing to give them a free pass for that or you're not.

The issue you raised--the pandering and the lying.  If one believes that the Clinton style of politics is part of what is alienating the middle segment of the American public from consideration and endorsement of the broad range of Democratic policies and ideas, then it's a bad idea to elect another Clinton as president.  No one doubts she supports these policies, but can she deliver?  Or does the BS factor (which you basically acknowledge exists) allow the Clintons to win elections but then get trounced when the Republicans stage their predictable counterattack? (because this middle segment of the public concludes, "Okay, I voted for him (or her), but I don't really trust him (or her), and so perhaps it's better if I vote for the GOP next time around so we can keep things even".  The Republicans win these sorts of ties.

I'm not looking for a debate.  I'm just saying these are three reasonable arguments--and not marginal ones, either, but "knocked that ball out of the ballpark" arguments.  To someone who believes any of the above, a vote for Clinton was always going to be problematic (the first issue being something she's not responsible for at all, the second and third, though, being conclusions reached upon full and careful consideration of her record).

Obama?  Think everyone would agree on this point: he's the new kid in town.  Does he lack experience?  Yes.  And so did Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR.  Not saying a President Obama would cut as wide a swath as these other figures.  He could turn out to be the next Jimmy Carter.  If all it took to be an effective president was an impressive resume, though, G.H.W. Bush would have served two terms and might be regarded today as the greatest president of the 20th century.  Obviously, there is no one-to-one correspondance, and rather than argue the point I'll suggest a lot of the criticisms of Obama could have been, and were, applied to Bill Clinton when he ran for the presidency in 1992.

Again, not trying to win any arguments.  Just suggesting that the above are reasonable positions which someone who had considered the issue carefully could hold.

And what's lacking on the Clinton side is reciprocity.  It's reasonable to support her.  It's not reasonable for someone to support him.  If the party breaks up over this, well, we'll deserve it.  You can't have a political party where half of its members regard the other half as myopic fools (and come at this, largely, from sheer refusal to concede that those in the other half have their reasons, and they're, well, reasonable, even if they're conclusions the first half doesn't share).

This obstinance, speaking generally, is not coming from the Obama camp (and here's the litmus test question--ask someone who is supporting a candidate whether it is reasonable for someone to support the candidate on the other side, don't ask them about their views, just about whether they think those who are on the other side are well-motivated, have put real care and consideration into their decision about whom to support, etc.).

Many who support Obama at this point, to be frank, feel as though the core grudge of Clinton supporters is that he ran at all.  She was supposed to win and we didn't get the memo.  If that was the case, why bother having the primary at all?

   b/c people voted for him. No more, no less. Complain about it all you want, but thems the facts. People voted for the man. That's why he's a Presidential contender.

  If Hillary is such a contender (or Edwards for that matter, whom I supported), why didn't more people vote for them?

Another one of these diaries?

We get it. Unqualified. Greenhorn. Naive.

That's why it's so amazing he beat the biggest brand name in the
Democratic party. Fair and square. Rules are rules.

If Hillary can't even beat a ROOKIE.

If Hillary can't even beat a NEWBIE.

Why would you think she can beat Gramps McCain?

Doesn't make any sense.

Thank you for this diary - I appreciate it.

What a loser!  That guy will never have what it takes to be President!

Nominate Seward!  He's the only one to take on Breckenridge in November!

Theres too many Americans that wont vote for Lincoln!  Youre nominating a loser!

The sky is falling!

voters like adults.

Lincoln references are going back pretty far in time, doncha think?  

The Dem and Repug parties have been completely reversed since then, not to mention a few other changes.

Let me recommmend Doris Kearn Goodwin's "Team of Rivals".  She has a great account of the 1860 Chicago convention.  While this did occur a long time ago, some aspects of politics are timeless, and there are parallels between what happened then and what is occuring today.

Obama has far more credentials than his "Speech in 2004."  You know this, I know this, and most likely everyone on this site knows this.  That you casually dismiss them as not "relevant" to Presidential politics is insulting.  Not to mention you're spreading misleading information about our presumptive nominee.

Or are you one of those in the "I'm going to vote for McCain" temper-tantrum camp? Is a third Bush term more appealing to you than a Democrat in the White House with policies that are 90% identical to Clintons?  Let's get over this bullshit and turn our attention to the McCain camp, which has had three months of nearly uncontested campaigning to build it's positive numbers.

I'm not for Obama because of his race.  Not even close.  

But since you challenged us, thusly:

BUT NOT 1 SUPPORTER CAN COMMENT BELOW, ANYTHING, that Obama proposes to change that is worthy of this hype.

Let me begin by saying that I do not think Obama is a perfect candidate.  He isn't.  If I were to have created my perfect candidate, s/he would have had Kucinich's healthcare plan, Gore's environmental credibility, Biden's immense foreign policy knowledge and detailed Iraq plan, and Obama's general foreign policy approach and leadership abilities.

But such a candidate doesn't exist.  

So the reason I backed Obama is simple.  Only those with the ability to inspire the American people (yes, through "words") can exert real and consistent pressure on Congress.  This pressure comes with the shifting of public opinion as a leader gets moderate America past the GOP spin on every issue of importance and demonstrates how it will help them.  Now, Clinton supporters often cite her level of policy knowledge, and with good reason.  But in a system where the President does only so much, as hundreds or even thousands of eyes pass over legislation before it is passed and signed, and 535 people who are NOT the President can alter a bill, that only goes as far as Congress is willing to let it go.  

Add to that his basic foreign policy approach, which refuses to be based in the arrogance and fear that have governed our actions, with some exceptions, since the end of WWII, and which recognizes the common sense in trying something new when what you've been doing for decades has failed...well, that's something I can get behind.  

All this said, I don't make the argument that Senator Clinton would make a bad President.  On the contrary, I think she'd be quite good and, despite some negative moments in this primary, I've come to respect her more over the course of this campaign.  In some key areas that matter a lot to me, I don't think she'd be as good as Obama.  But, for others, I can easily see why she's their preferred candidate.  We don't all share the same political calculus.  Please keep that in mind before dumbing millions of votes down to race.

Two things bother me here

My first resentment is that I need to state that I'm a politically active African American...

Does everyone need to state their ethnic background in order to speak to the issues? I remember a similiar diary by Mumphrey (also an African American) getting booted from the rec list for having an opposing view. Racism may well be a live issue in the US, but that does not mean we should be amazed if there are white Obama supporters, or black Hillary fans.

Secondly, what's this about:

But at the end of the day, I believe she loves this country

Don't tell me you believe Obama doesn't? Everything I've ever heard him say suggest to me he loves the US for everything it's done for him.

There ain't no qualifications to be President other than getting more votes than anyone else. Obama's good at getting votes, better than anyone else in the Democratic Party right now, so he'll be our nominee. Hillary hasn't won anybody over. She's got the same people now that she started with 17 months ago. So she won't be our nominee.

As far as whether his lack of qualifications means that he won't make a good President, there's not generally been much correlation there. Nixon was very qualified. So was Bush I. Neither did a very good job. Obama's obviously smart enough, and he knows how to run a good political organization. Hillary's supporters seem to think she's interviewing for a job as a first-year associate, that she'll put in more hours to master the details. That won't help her, there's thousands of people who are good at that. It's leadership that's needed.

Yes, to an extent Obama benefits from being able to be who we want him to be, i.e. an intelligent, inspiring, African-American who speaks the language of a liberal/progressive Democrat. But so what, that's politics. He's a figurehead for a movement and a sentiment, and he's a damn good one at that. But his biography and his record tells you that there's a "there there" that goes a lot deeper than that.

I'll give you this much: You admit Clinton is a liar and a panderer.

That, unfortunately, was the most coherent sentence, the only coherent sentence, in you diary.

I'm sorry that you resent Obama for this.

I have my own resentment problem with Clinton precisely because she's been a part of Washington for so long. It's probably not fair.

I will put aside this resentment if Hillary wins the nomination.

oh dear. this diary is at the top of the rec list. what has this site come to?

They hiderate my comment and all I said that a rookie,

a greenhorn, a newbie beat Hillary Clinton fair and square.

What makes you think she can beat Gramps McCain if she can't

take on an inexperienced Senator with a funny name?

I have yet to read a decent response.

The biggest brand name in Democratic politics was wiped out

by a kid.

What contradictions these Hillary supporters are.

Note : My words of BO are snark to point out the foolishness of
their statements.

"Her dishonesty is actually honest because I know she's pandering and lieing on many things"

can i quote you.......please can i?

No offense, but... Oh, you know someone always offends when they say that.

This diary is pretty good snark.

...it's the black thing isn't it? You have what we in the black community call the crab syndrome.  

It would be easier for me to take your endless negative diaries if you just state that your jealousy won't allow you to vote for Obama. If you have ever stated that the issues have convinced you that Obama wouldn't be a great president, I must have missed it. Since Clinton and Obama have basically the same platform it came down to which one more people trusted.

BTW - most people don't like liars or panderers, people are just funny that way.

"Her dishonesty is actually honest because I know she's pandering and lieing [sic] on many things."

I can't take it any more.  Your cognitive dissonance is killing me.

Obama is certainly unqualified there's no doubt to that. More than likely he'll lose the general election if he's the nominee and damage the chances of any AA winning the presidency in my lifetime.

I would add to your post he has only done one thing of note "win a Senate seat" and guess who he beat to get it? Alan Keyes. In Illinois. Big achievement there!

He wasn't a member of the aristocracy long enough to be given a shot at the presidency?  Wait your turn, don['t get above yourself,  only the "in" crowd is good enough?  Seriously, either I am in the the wrong party or the wrong country, because I thought we were Democrats and this was America.  I look at the Consitution of the United States and I do not see anything about what you have "done" to be President, or Presidential.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I would happily vote for anyone who showed the judgement, wisdom and intelligence to run this country.  I really hate this notion that there are specific jobs that make you Presidential.  A teacher, doctor, policeperson, or homemaker that is "Right" is just as worthy of the Presidency as anyone of the "elite" positions you seem to think makes one Presidential. I hate what you are saying so much it is not funny.  We have Republicans crying about class warfare, and now Democrats only thinking a limited number of jobs or actions makes you "good enough".  This goes beyond Obama I am so deeply offended by the idea of job Nobility, and that the President should only be chosen from the Nobility, I would like to have the opportunity to say things which are against the rules of this site.  And to all the people that recommended this Diary, please get the .......... out of the Democratic party.  Go join the closest thing we have to royalists the Republican Party.  Edwards shouldn't have been in the race because he lost?  Nader should not be allowed in the race because he has done nothing "Presidential"?

And his 2004 Speech at the DNC was good, but I would say it was this one that relates more to why he is more qualified than either opponent:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars.
And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

And as far as your statement:

BUT NOT 1 SUPPORTER CAN COMMENT BELOW, ANYTHING, that Obama proposes to change that is worthy of this hype.

1) Willingness to meet with foreign leaders that we do not agree with, without preconditions.  Which is a major shift in a terrible US policy.

2) Openness and transparency in Government, give people the information to make informed decisions.

3) Saying WE will Change America.  Diffrent from the elect ME and I will take care of everything that alot of politicians claim.  You can say that isn't a real change, but changes in philosophy are very real, and very important.  Obama might disppoint me, but if enough people buy into this idea we will have change anyway.

4)  The idea of inclusion and compromise, over the idea of patisanship and division.  Again, philosophy matters.  I would rather have a uniter as leader of the free world than a divider.

5) Over 1,500,000 individual donors, you do not think that changes anything?

And as far as what was worth the "hype" being the underdog and winning has always been "hype" worthy in America.  Youth involvement and excitement, is worthy of coverage on its own.
But I disagree he was a "created" candidate in any case.

It is also about why a frontrunner with a dominant financial advantage, and unanimous support in the media is scheduled to lose bigtime

Funny I cut it off before you make it specific to West Virginia, and we are talking about Hillary Clinton.  The total money for the race Obama has only pulled ahead of her in the last couple months.  Before the Primary Process, and for the majority of it she had a dominant financial advantage, she was the "inevitable" candidate, with nearly 16 years of name recognition, and major party support.  So why is she "scheduled" to lose this entire primary, and why have her tremoundous advantages going into this thing been completely discounted.

And after the 24/7 coverage of Wright, and media saturation, how can you still claim the media is "unanimusly" supporting Obama.  And wouldn't unanimous require FOX News?  Lou Dobbs? Joe Scarborough? Pat Bucanan? I think that is as Bill Clinton put it, "a fairy tale".

Here's the thing. In this democracy of ours, there is really only ONE qualification of a president. Getting votes. If enough people in this country want you to be their leader, you get to be. Experience DOES NOT MATTER. There is no rule that says you have to have so much experience. That's just an argument to get votes. VOTES VOTES VOTES are all that matter.

I wonder how much you did to help Mosley Braun win.  I know what Obama did.  I know what Barack did to help so many other Democrats get elected in 2006, what he has done to bring more and more people into the Party this election and even this past weekend.  I know what he's done to try to reform Ethics in Washington, stop the flow of nuclear arms material, and help out our Veterans.  While he is channeling optimism into action, you are promoting cynicism.  I doubt your efforts had anything to do with Mosely Braun being elected.

Basically, this entire diary boils down to an "experience" argument. HRC has four more years in the Senate, so you like her better? Well, McCain has them both beat by decades. And yet he'd be a terrible president. Imagine that.

There's a spectrum here. One one side you've got the neophyte/Washington Outsider, and on the other side you've got the insider/Experienced Politician. The spin goes both ways. If you're John McCain and the media is in love with you, you can try to have it all (the "maverick outsider" who's been in the Senate since before I was born and toes the party line on pretty much everything), but for most, it's a tradeoff. The more "experienced" you are, the more you're accustomed to dirty politics and Washington power-plays.

disagree with this one part....

"An ivy-league educated A.A. who speaks the language of liberal democrats.  Being that they control the media,..."

Liberal Democrats control the media? Did I just wake up on a new planet?

Progressive Blue

Why the hell is this mess on the Rec List?  Jesus Christ, people.

What has Obama done?  Well not to dignify your comments (as though they have added legitimacy because you yourself are black)...

How about motivate a larger "percentage" of the Democratic vote.  How about campaigning for almost 2 years and beating the Clinton machine?

How about not accumulate a 40% disfavourable rating and aura of dishonesty?

How about not vote to go to Iraq?  This is a HUGE matter that should not be diminished in any sense.  Other Senators, notably Robert Byrd, saw the quagmire that would ensue.  But the manner in which Clinton brushes off blame, kinda makes me worry about what she would do in the event of a crisis arising under her own administration.  Forget the 3 o'clock phone call, I worry about her judgment at all times of the day.

I can go on but there's no point.  This thing will wrap up in June.  In the meantime, everyone should just stop asking her to bow out gracefully.  It won't happen.  All it does is give her a platform for airing her propaganda (i.e. I am more electable, all the primary states must have a voice (my personal "favourite" given her Super Tuesday posture), its great for organizing, Bill didn't win it all until June 4...)

Wow, It is truly amazing that this diary is on the rec list of a pro-Dem site!  I looked on the "Who rec'd" in hopes of finding a group of individuals inclined to "irony", but no such luck.

I'm now listening to an HRC speech with a faux-Appalachian accent.  This is a truly bizarre election.

I never saw the test in the constitution that you needed a specific number of years as US Senator. As far as sexism goes you cant compare 1960's and 2000's its like 40-50 years apart the world has changed. Sexism did not bring down Hillary, it was a pretty lousy campaign. If Bill Clinton campaigned like Hillary did he would have never won in 1992. Hillary does not have the talent to compete with most of the politicians in the senate because they had run through many more tough elections than Hillary. Obama has been through more tough elections than Hillary. Its one thing to run the campaign and call the strategy as Hillary did with Bill, and its another to be the canidate. As a Canidate Hillary talked a good game but she did not figure out how to charm the people because she never really had to in order to win.

That is part time job in Illinois. Did you know that? When he ran for the senate he talked to the Democratic senate leader and was given credit for legislation which he did not author. I am from Illinois I have voted for him when he ran for Senate and I know the facts.

When republican dig up and rollout these facts it would be very .......

What do you call some one that plagiarized or stole some one else's legislation.

You need to do your research.

Obama has a longer legislative history than Hillary Clinton, and has been a stellar legislator, with an amazing record of writing and passing bills and amendments, paying attention to obscure but important issues and understanding them in detail, and putting together coalitions.  He has addressed a wide variety of issues and done, on balance, a better job than most by far.

Regarding his US Senate race: You seem to be unaware of the fact that he was an underdog in the Democratic primary, with two strong well-funded candidates ahead of him in the polls who were supposed to be the ones competing for that nomination.  Until he surprised everyone with a surge near the end, built in part on grassroots support that he built over time, and he beat them both handily.

It was the shock of that upset win, and his surge of popularity, that caused Republicans to shy away from entering the general election race against him after their presumed candidate Ryan had to drop out.  All of them expected they would lose, so they didn't bother to run.  His big win wasn't because he didn't have a good opponent, but rather the other way around: he didn't have a serious opponent because he was clearly going to win anyway.

in 2004:  

"America won't have a woman president until women are willing to vote for a woman."

I believe she was right.

is probably the weakest of political arguments.

I think you need to do some research on Obama...you suggest he has done nothing...and well, if you actually searched for things to disprove your theory, then you would be surprised.

And btw, George Allen?  LMAO.  You kid yourself.  That man was and is a demagogue.

When I read this, I got confused:

It is also about why a frontrunner with a dominant financial advantage, and unanimous support in the media is scheduled to lose bigtime

For a second I thought you were talking about Clinton.  But then I saw the words that came next:

in West Virginia

It's so easy for us to forget the wider context of the last year.  Who would have bet that Obama would be the frontrunner a year ago?

We focus on each state as they vote in the primary and then we analyze primary performances in a piecemeal way.  We forget that the whole Obama campaign has been one big example of exceeding expectations.  A year ago Clinton was so far ahead, was so clearly the frontrunner, I found it hard to imagine that anyone could give her a run for her money.

If Clinton loses, as looks likely, her loss must surely rank as one of the biggest primary upsets of all time.

Someday you will realize that Obama made a much better president than you were led to expect he would be

You will probably also realize that Hillary's campaign was feeding you viscous lies like:

The answer is all about race and elitism.

Which you uncritically swallowed hook line and sinker, and then amplified here at My DD.

Dang, that Carole Moseley-Braun was so admirable with her support for and payoffs from the thugs in Nigeria, I sure wish she was still the Senator from Illinois.

I'm also sorry that we now have a presidential candidate who opposed the Iraq War from the start; who actually has lived overseas; who actually is willing to consider talk and negotiation before war, and who doesn't react to every slight by throwing back countercharges and blowing off his friends. What a bummer, when we could have had "I never played the race card Clinton (but everyone else in my campaign did) and now I'm a gun-shooting, good ol' girl of the people--me and my $109 million".

Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2004. Lets say that Obama decided to serve a full term in the US Senate and run for re-election in 2010. He would a won re-election with over 70%. He would be first elegible to run for WH in 2012- However- a Democrat is favored to win the WH in 2008.

Obama is following Al Gores footstep. Al Gore's first elected office position was US House - he served their for 8 years. He served in the US Senate for less than 4 years before he first ran for President. unfortanately he lost to Mike Dukakis in 1988.

I think that's the major fallacy of your argument; quite revealing too.

Your resentment of Obama is, more or less, rooted in anger at him for taking away what Hillary deserved.

But she doesn't deserve it; no one does.

And here's something else I don't get - why is 35 years of experience sufficient but not 31 years?

There are only 3 requirements to becoming President - natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, resident of the US for at least 14 years.

Any other "threshholds" are highly subjective.

Nice diary, yd. Just don't think Hillary lies as much as you seem to think she does! And you are correct...she loves this country and will WORK hard to find the solutions we need. She is the change we really need!

Why I resent you:

You're bad-mouthing our democratic nominee and clearly know next-to-nothing because you don't even know how to spell his name.  

All you Clinton supporters will come around in the end.  CLinton and Obama agree on almost everything. Clinton and McCain agree on almost nothing. So voting for for McCain would make zero sense.  And if after your fit is over, you're still thinking of voting for McCain, fine, we won't need you anyway.  We're going to win this thing w/o you.

What the hell are you talking about???

Obama did not get a free pass from the media; i.e. reverend wright issue.

What the hell did you mean Obama didn't go to work for the nomination?  Obama worked his _ss off to get where he is today.  Hillary WAS the inevitable nominee but Obama's campaign beat her to it.  It's called a nomination race, remember?  Hillary said it well, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

You really need to get your facts straight before you post a diary.  

You've lost all credibility.

Right on!!! I was amazed to find out that the Illinois congress meets only for 55 days a year and that his tenure in the Senate was only 143 days! Didn't we learn anything about Bush's inexperience and Obama supporters are willing to do the same? It's all frightening really!

but from obama, it's the same old, same old, with a deceptive package.

I can get that from HRC.  That's why I still support her.  Her dishonesty is actually honest because I know she's pandering and lieing on many things.

I'm cynical, too.  I'm not against giving Hillary OR Obama some leeway to pander and dodge issues.  I can do that if I think they don't intend to screw me over on the important things.

And that is where I differ with you.  Hillary and Bill screwed us over on Iraq, not just on the AUMF vote but on a host of other little things since then that have worked to George W. Bush cover for his ghastly actions.  

I WISH Obama (and Hillary, too) had acted to defund the war.  But since there is not a Dem candidate left who worked to defund the war, I'm content to take the one that I have the most confidence in to ACTUALLY GET WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE WAR.  It wasn't badly executed.  It was flawed and pointless from the very beginning.  When Hillary voted for the war, she was either a fool (which I doubt) or guilty of one of the bloodiest, calculated panders imaginable.  

You give the benefit of a doubt to Hillary but not Obama.  I don't.  In fact, I'm stunned to think that anybody could prefer Hillary over Obama when it comes to the issue of Iraq.

And, by the way, I heard Obama's speech at the DNC convention in 2004 and thought it was tripe.  I don't care about that speech.  I care about the anti-war one, not because it was beautiful prose, but because it said what so many of us thought.  

"I'm not against all wars.  Just dumb wars."  

That's simple and to the point.

You know, if you put half the energy you spend on these ludicrous diaries into phone banking and campaigning for Hillary, she MIGHT have won the nomination.  

Ahhh here it comes. Obama is only the nominee because he's black. Sigh.

And of course, it's recced here on MyDD. Double sigh.....

and you resent it?

Obama has done 1 thing of note in relation to Presidential politics: he won a U.S. Senate seat.  The history of that race is so unbelievable in the context of both his primary and general election opponents that those few who don't believe in God, really have a hard time with that one.

That's fine.  Best to get this whole resentment thing out of our systems now.  

I could go off on Hillary and the horrible things I think she has done in this contest but I won't, I don't need to.  

The sooner we all "vent" the sooner we can accept facts and move forward.  I remember how much I went on and on about Florida in 2000, how utterly stupid I thought the American people were in 2004, not once, but twice they voted for this idiot.  I was all ready to secede from the United States and join Canada.  I guess that is part of the reason we are all so vested in this election, it is so vitally important.  
We all have our opinion of who would make the better nominee, but it is pretty much out of our hands at this point.  Six contests to go, probably will be a split, so unless there is some seismic shift, its probably a foregone conclusion at this point.  

I do admire everyone's passion.  I can certainly relate more to the supporters of either candidate than I can the person who doesn't get even bother to vote.  What's up with that?  

One of the saddest and most dishonest posts I have read on this board.  

What is actaully a 'sad sign of politics today' is to have a supposedly 'politically active' electorate, especailly in the Dem Party.  How sad.