While cmugirl90 is correct in saying that nice people don't necessarally make good presidents, I don't think it would hurt... and wouldn't it be a nice change of pace from what we have now?
I've seen Obama in person twice now, and he's struck me as an extremely personable and compassionate man who is genuninely interested in helping ordinary people.
Yes, he's ambitious; you can't successfully run for president if you don't have a strong ambitious drive, but I always get the feeling that he's playing for all the marbles so that he can -share- the marbles and everyone gets to play.
My thoughts go out to you, your brother, and your family.
The MI and FL state governments and parties tried to game the system by holding their primaries early in the thought that the DNC would chicken out first. They gamed the system as disloyal Democrats and lost.
The Democratic voters in MI learned that the only way that their vote would count is if they voted Republican. They gamed the system as loyal Democrats and scored a temporary, tactical win, keeping Romney in the race a bit longer while we (and encouraging him to blow more of his own money... I'd chalk that up as a win, too).
Clinton, realizing that she's behind, suddenly gains great devotion towards seating the FL and MI delegations, which in large part voted for her because her name recognition was higher than the other candidates', and even scoring a minimal win in MI despite Obama not being on the ballot because he went in good faith with a DNC decision. She attempts to get a fair redux, which was not really on the table before, and succeeds. She gamed the system (I'm not going to say whether she is loyal or disloyal, draw your own conclusions) and potentially partially won, getting a MI revote.
All of a sudden, those loyal Michigan voters who are the only ones in this mess who gamed the system from an indisputably loyal perspective, trying to buy time for the Democratic primary to resolve before the Republicans coalesced around McCain, are being told that, in this Clinton-inspired redux, they cannot vote? The voters aren't the ones who screwed themselves out of representation, it was greedy state governments who wanted to butt in line and disenfranchise other, smaller early voting states who have been given express permission to have a unique role in American politics.
We're already so far off the track in terms of fairness that Clinton can't, by her own logic of not disenfranchising voters in the affected states, say that a caveat that says that people who voted in the Republican primary cannot vote in the new primary is somehow fair.
Besides that, there's evidence that Republicans are starting to come around to Rush Limbaugh's belief that Clinton will be easier for McCain to beat. I think the real tactical manuver here is that, even if she isn't easier to beat, and even if she wins, the amount of system-gaming and Democratic disaffection that would be required for that victory to take place throughout this entire process will guarantee Limbaugh ratings for years to come.
So Clinton should be all for Republican primary system-gamers voting here. They could be her only chance.
I'm new to the site and an Obama supporter, and it blows my mind that people on a Democratic site can be so short-sighted on the most important issue of our time.
The Presidency of the United States? Remember that? We're not even halfway there yet. Once one of the two questing warriors gets knighted, we still have to fight the dragon, and the dragon ain't going to go down without a fight.
Er, actually the media tends to play to Clinton's fiddle, because she's the one that has been putting up the goals.
Team Clinton says that they won Super Tuesday because they got the big states by up to 10% instead of Obama's twice as many smaller states by 20%-30%. They move the goal down the road to Texas/Ohio, where they say they won with 10% more votes in Ohio and a scant few percent in Texas, even though Obama actually got more delegates out of Texas.
Now it's all about Pennsylvania, even though getting such a commanding lead in the remaining states that it tips the scales in her favor is all but impossible given current trends.
Clinton's been the -master- of controlling the narrative. Obama plays it by ear and responds as necessary, but they don't generally try to enforce their perspective on the race. Axelrod's predictions were leaked a few weeks back, and he had the spread covered in every race so far except Maine, which he had Clinton winning, but actually went big for Obama. This leads me to believe that Axelrod either has a time travel device and is merely reporting the news from the future (he threw Maine in there so we didn't clue in to his ethically questionable technology), or he just has a finger on the American public's pulse, and knows how they'll respond to each campaign's style.
So, Democrats sure know how to screw themselves over. Am I right, guys?
Heck, in 1993, we controlled the White House and Congress, and still barely got anything done on the Left's agenda. And the the Right steamrollered us.
So, yes, let's fight amongst ourselves some more. You remember what the People's Front of Judea said in "Life of Brian," right? There's only one group they hate more than the Romans, and that's the Judean People's Front. Damn splitters.
Politics makes people angry because there's so much at stake. Just get a grip on what's at stake if the Republican wins.
The wounds from the Civil Rights Movement are starting to heal, it would make sense if they took this politically expedient opportunity to re-formulate their message.
Fact of the matter is, the terminology of "black value system" has been tainted by the overexposure of one man's few angry rants at a culture that disenfranchised his people, beat his close friend (some to death), and in many cases prioritizes his congregation's needs as lower because they're not exceedingly wealthy. Why wouldn't they take down something that was being taken out of context and hurting people they care about?
Just as being Jewish is more than just being of a religion, being black is more than just an issue of being the target of racism: there's religious, cultural, and economic factors that many of us can't even concieve.
It's not a conspiracy, it's trying to reach the point where we can all live together without trouble. This has been a highlight of Obama's supporters, official or otherwise: when someone or something causes trouble, the person or comment is removed from the campaign. That they don't throw these things in their opposition's faces is a credit to them, it shouldn't garner suspicion.
A lot of non-traditional Democrats have been brought into the Democratic race for a lot of different reasons.
Some are just trying to act as a spoiler because they hate one of the Democratic candidates more than the other or think that one should be helped along to some sort of inevitable defeat at the hands of John McCain, but many are genuinely interested in one of the candidates, and why not?
Barack Obama is, in addition to his ethnic diversity, preaching a new form of politics and seems to want to usher in an era of fiscal responsibility and government transparency... these are attractive virtues to honest conservatives. There's nothing innately stupid about Republicans; they've seen the damage that George Bush has done and are willing to try something new.
Hillary Clinton is the first credible female candidate... that's something attractive even for the most conservative female or sympathetic male feminists. Not only that, but her name was made in an era where the United States was doing well and was respected in the world, unlike the era of the current Republican leader. Hers, too, is a candidacy attractive to some independants and Republicans.
What I don't think is that we must automatically assume that, if one of these two candidates is not available, that all of their supporters would go to the other. John McCain, deservedly or not, is loved by many independants and iconoclastic Republicans. For many, the draw for a candidate is not the positions on the issues, but the character of the person. In that case, it's perfectly legitimate to like Clinton or Obama first, but McCain over the other Democrat.
Don't get me wrong: I started off a Clinton supporter, was won over by Obama, and weaned off of Clinton by what I saw as uncalled-for negative attacks, but I would still vote for her over McCain if necessary, because I believe as you do that the issues are too important.
Quite frankly, I don't think that people are going to stop with the melodrama, because they think it makes people afraid that the opposing candidate can't get that support back. It might be true, but it's a self-fulfilling prophesy if so, and can be avoided by just not taking these things too seriously.
I mean, seriously, anyone who is liberal or a Democrat and still thinks that we're better off with a warmongering septegenarian who self-admittedly knows little about economics probably deserves what they get.