Barack Obama Elected President!

[Ryan]

Wow...........

[Wales2004]

I don't know how this will all play out but I had one friend tell me a couple of weeks ago that if Clinton is the nominee that he won't vote in November. He hates the idea of not voting but he said her tactics are so slimy that he can't support her under any conditions.

[Wales2004]

If he's not good enough to be president then why should he be vice president? And why do people keep acting as if the vice president will automatically be elected president? When was the last time that actually happened? If he's not going to be president then he should get a really high visible cabinet post. He'd be wasted as vice president although the media would probably follow him around more than the actual president.

[Jess]

Folks, those poll results are a bump from her Pennsylvania showing. Obama did as well when he was on a roll too. As you recall after his string of victories and before Texas, he was surging. It is more of a reflection of a lack of standing on McCain's part than anything about the democrats right now. Even with the Democrats going after each other, he can't get traction. I think the Democrats are in a good position going into the fall if we don't continue to commit suicide. Democrats have a great way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I hope the superdelegates do not line up behind her because I am for Obama and think he is the stronger of the two candidates. Then again, I like him. I'm very unhappy that Hillary has taken the approach of doing anything to win the primary. She accepted the Florida and Michigan agreements and now her backing out of that is really pretty shameless. Now if she gets the nomination, I will support her and support her strongly. I do wish she would stop burning down the Democratic house. I also hope Obama doesn't decide to fire back in kind. The big issue that Hillary is going to have to address in the fall regarding President Clinton's administration is not the affair, it's the pardons. Man those turned the stomachs of a lot of us who thought he was great (I still think he was great, but that was urrp). ). Anyway, when Obama went there during the debate, I cringed. Let the Republicans have that one. Everybody knows it is there and everybody knows it is coming, but I'd just as soon leave it to them.

I think the party will united behind the candidate and the question is which of the two can attract the independents.

[JackPeyton]

i am torn on this.... the should oen drop out thing not the obama vs clinton thing...

one one hand, this is amazing and compelling. it seems like almost every americans voice will be heard and counted for the first time in a lonnng time. and thats great and the beauty in where we live. on the other they dem side is now split and they r going at eachother and tearing eachother down and mccain sits nice and snug.

[JackPeyton]

i think the biggest issue at this point is whoc an pull in the most votes -0 of people that will actually go vote - and beat mccain?

[Roman]

Forget the title, and read the article.

So it doesn't sound like I'm the only one saying this stuff.

From Bay City.com:

Obama is Democrats' only hope

Article Created: 04/27/2008 02:36:09 AM PDT

MUCH HAS been made of whether Barack Obama can close the deal against Hillary Clinton, and that his failure to do so raises questions about his viability in the fall, assuming he the nomination.

Such concerns, though legitimate, miss the more salient point — there is no other alternative for Democrats if they wish to reclaim the White House.

Another way to put it, whatever concerns exist surrounding Obama's viability pale in comparison to Clinton's; she cannot win. I say this not as an Obama supporter or Clinton detractor but as a political observer. Obama is the Democrats' only hope to end eight years of Oval Office exile.

The Clinton campaign has been very effective at playing up Obama's negatives. There is no doubting that he has lost some of his swagger that initially indicated he was above traditional politics as usual fray.

But Clinton has not gone unscathed. She has, according to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, driven up her negatives 14 points since January. They now stand at a staggering 54 percent.

While the Obama campaign has decried the Clinton's "kitchen sink strategy" as negative campaigning, has anything been done that will not be replicated in the fall?

I'm still not clear as to what constitutes negative campaigning; its political definition is at best ever-changing and subjective.

With the possible exception of George Washington's inaugural election, when has America not had a presidential campaign that failed

Advertisement

to rely in part on the deficiencies of one's opponent? The internal differences within the Federalist Party, along with the external negative campaigning led by Thomas Jefferson, ensured that John Adams would be the last Federalist to be commander-in-chief.

I can hear Obama supporters asking: What about Jeremiah Wright? What about "bittergate"?

These examples say more about "We the People" and our appetite for negativity — an appetite that has existed since 1797, if not before. Have studies not shown that negative campaigning, however defined, is successful?

A portion of the electorate has always been motivated by the negativity of the "other" candidate, perceived or otherwise, than their candidate of choice. But negative campaigning does not sway the masses; it usually has a much narrower focus.

As the Apostle Paul once wrote, this is "sounding brass and tinkling symbol" because Clinton cannot win.

It has been reported ad infinitum that Clinton must garner 67 percent in the remaining primaries to overtake Obama in the popular vote — a feat that she has only achieved once thus far. Most agree that she cannot overtake him in pledged delegates.

In this context, to receive the nomination by way of superdelegates is to risk the Democratic Party becoming the 21st century version of the Federalists.

I just don't see how the majority of Obama's supporters would accept an outcome decided by superdelegates, especially if he leads in popular vote and pledged delegates. Moreover, I do see a large number of African Americans permanently leaving the party en masse should this occur.

There is no scenario by which a Democratic candidate with a negative rating of 54 percent and losing a large portion of the African-American vote can win.

Am I saying anything that superdelegates are not already aware of? No! Nor does this suggest that Clinton should drop out. Clinton staying in the race is the price that Obama must pay for his failure to officially close the deal.

But everyone is looking at the same numbers, and the numbers say it's Obama's nomination. The only way it can change would be via inside party politics.

Whatever concerns party leaders have about Obama not being able to close the deal is moot — he is their dog in the race. To change now would not only be to lose in November; it could also mean the demise of the party.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at [email protected] or leave a message at 510-208-6417.

[Jess]

If that is the standard, she should have dropped out of the race months ago.

[Jess]

The negatives are a very big deal. Also, people talk about Obama getting a free ride. Truly Hillary has gotten a free ride and so has McCain. If her negatives are up to 54 percent based on what has happened in the primary, she is really going to be hit hard in the fall. On the other hand, she has demonstrated that she can take a punch. I thought she was dead at New Hampshire. The fact that she is hanging on demonstrates a certain strength. It also, unfortunately, demonstrates her willingness to dive bomb the party rather than calling it a day.

[Wales2004]

Thank you.

[EricaKane70]

I definantly disagree that SD's should vote for hillary because she is beating McCain in the national polls by 9 points, it wasn't so long ago that obama was beating him so I agree with Jess. That would really be unfair for SD's to vote for the person thats not in the lead with delegates.

[Roman]

Thank you.

[EricaKane70]

Thank god obama disassociated himself with that nut rev. wright. Its like he was trying to ruin obama this week and last with the interviews, the outrageous remarks and to top it all off have louis farkan provide him with security. Could it be that someone is upset they lost a job and just retired??? An that fool does not represent black churches.

[Wales2004]

Even though I get what you;re saying and I think this whole thing is a big mess, I try to be fair and look at it from all angles. If Obama hadn't been a member of the church at which he pastored, no one would have cared what Rev Wright said in 2003. In a way all of the members of that church are under attack because of this because it hits home for them. Most of us are looking at how it affects Obama because for obvious reasons but the flip side is that this man worked hard for decades and people lose sight of the fact that this was in the confines of a specific church. He didn't go out and say it on national television or over any air waves. It may not constitute an attack on the black church but it means that preachers are now on notice that anything they say in the pulpit can be used later to smear former or current church members who may decide to run for an elected office. And that's problematic if selective editing is used because many things can be misinterpreted or sound different from the intended.

He has a right to seek protection because he receives death threats. Another minister at the church also receives them and he has a family to protect. I believe that Jermaine Jackson (or whatever he calls himself now) once asked the Nation of Islam for protection for his brother and since Rev Wright and LF are friends then it seems natural that he would. PA Gov. Ed Rendell, who is a Hilary Clinton supporter, praised LF and the Nation of Islam which you can see for yourself:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

Things aren't always black and white. Sometimes it's very grey.

[Jess]

I'm glad Obama disassociated himself from Rev. Wright too after this week. Up to now I had thought it was unfair, and I still do , to make any presidential candidate defend the remarks of his faith leader.

This week, Rev. Wright left him no choice. He became a public figure that advocated positions contrary to all those being advocated by Sen. Obama. He had to say something. I would have expected him to make a statement had it been a state senator from his own party who became a public figure and used his public stature to advocate those type views.

I do agree with Wales about the 2003 comments, and I'm not bothered by the security. I do think, however, if Rev. Wright is going to establish himself as a public figure speaking not as a minister of his church but as someone cast in the limelight by Sen. Obama, then his role changes and he is no longer a minister, but a public figure using his stature to advocate a political position.