I totally agree. Obama's weakness -- he's totally reactive. He acts only out of political necessity -- which is why he befriended this man Wright in the first place -- to gain the popularity and stature he needed to run for office in that community. The only credibility he had as a presidential candidate was to pose as a completely new kind of politician with a new brand of politics. Unfortunately, he's more of the same "old politics." The same kind of narcissism and self-regard that made Wright go on this "media tour" now motivates Obama's so-called repudiatiation of Wright. Obama is a political animal and nothing more. I don't see him as a leader capable of bringing real change -- I see him as just another politician, and frankly, looking at his legislative record, not a very good one. He's a real liability for the Democratic Party's hopes for capturing the White House, and anyone who says this is not so has no sense of history or political reality. I think his "press conference" is utterly meaningless at this point.
This race is becoming less about winning states than what the voting groups within the states reveal about who is voting for whom and why. The demographics show strength or illuminate weaknesses. North Carolina is another red state with little chance of being blue in November. Thus, Obama needs to show that he can break the pattern of voting blocs reflected in Ohio and Pennsylvania -- something he's not likely to do. If he can't make inroads on the working-class voters that are the real swing voters in November, his win in North Carolina will only cement the notion that he is a weak candidate for the general election.
"They talk alot"? What does this add to your point? I think Obama not having served even a single term in the Senate is quite revealing. He's not up to the task. And yes, he does have responsibility as subcommittee chairman for holding meaningful, substantive hearings on US policy regarding Eastern Europe and NATO. For one reason, his position on Iraq is focused almost entirely on his argument that the diversion of US forces to Iraq has distracted from the central mission in Afghanistan. Yet, he shows no leadership on this issue for which he can, as chairman, set the agenda. That is the whole point of Senate deliberation -- as chairman he has a chance to lead, to set the terms of debate, gather useful data and testimony to inform deliberation, and craft policy -- yet has done NOTHING! You simply choose to ignore Senator Clinton's years of service on the SAS -- but the comparison and distinction between the candidates' experiences are real. I think any reasonable person would reject your unsupportable conclusion that Clinton's six years on the SAS is worthless experience. Let it also be said that, with her SAS experience, she has more foreign policy experience than most governors who run for President -- more than Bill Clinton had when he ran.
Clinton's six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience? If you are going to write a diary, at least be factually accurate and fair. Obama has responsibility for Eastern Europe and NATO (covering the mission in Afganistan) and has not held a single hearing or even travelled there. Richardson's meeting with Hugo Chavez sounds a lot like Carter visiting Hamas to me.
Obama and his supporters will STILL be talking about "the math" when Hillary is the nominee!! He can't win in November -- that's clear. He has failed to win over Reagan Democrats, who will vote for McCain in November. The Democratic party leadership knows this hard cold political reality.
Of course! It's all Hillary's fault!! She's the reason -- the sole reason -- that people everywhere think Obama is an elitist, out-of-touch snob! What you don't get is that thing that turns people off about Obama is his condescension! You can't blame Hillary for everything!