David Corn

Steady lead? What about counting electorial votes?

Only thing that counts.

Wow.

I am seldom speechless.

What a crock.

capt --- Care to explain?

of course america can elect a black man president.
but judging from the last two "elections" it doesn't really matter who america *can* elect, does it.

this part is amusing! :

""...especially before votes are counted.""

ha ha!
hey remember when john kerry vowed to count every vote and then promptly did nothing of the sort?
hey remember when howard dean launched his crusade regarding vote fraud and then promptly forgot all about it?
gosh, would it even really matter whether we "elect" an israeli appeasing ass-kisser or a bushco appeasing ass-kisser? is there even a difference?

here is my prediction :

mcsame will just barely clinch it (with jeb bush as VP) and the reason will be "oh america is just not ready for a black man president"
then mclame will be assassinated by "lefty anti-war conspiracy theorists" and voila :

a bush is still president.

With plenty of so-called progressives in full support.

DB,

The the extent the question makes any sense it should have been asked and answered by the primary results. As if asking if we could really elect a woman if HRC had won the nod? It is as racist as the other question is sexist. We need this from our side?

The dumbest most inane thing I think DC has ever put to print.

"You Tell Us: Can America Elect A Black Man President?"

Well - obviously yes, so why play to the M$M current narrative?

Consider the tidal forces in 2000: a U.S. economy powering ahead at blistering speed, no war under way, the incumbent Democratic president with the highest end of office approval rating in 55 years, under 45 percent of the nation believed the country was heading in the wrong direction. The incumbent party’s white guy should have had a "near-cakewalk to the White House."

So here is my unoriginal thought: it not the color of the candidates’ skin, but the content of their character that is the decisive matter. And yes America will elect a black man president, just not this one.

I see that this race is now about race. One can always count on that one card in the deck that still trumps all real debate. You know the recent polls, among registered voters nearly 70 percent are ready for a black president and 77 percent respond that race is not a factor in their voting decision. There’s your answer.

Enjoy your vacation.

David Corn is coming to ask for moral support. Come on Dave, it ain't so bad. The answer is absolutely, yes.

I wouldn't be so sure a generic white man would be doing so well. Even though you'd never know it from watching tv, there are plenty of liberals in America who are excited about Obama, people who, like me, didn't give time and money to Kerry, but sure are now. There's no way a Kerry or Biden or Dodd or Gore brings this much energy.

When November comes, we're going to see unbelievable turnout for Obama.

I think this is just one more article stirring up race and politics and I do not think it belongs in the media. I am white and pro-Obama and I do not appreciate a journalist who goes for tabloid gain to promote him or herself. Obama is a person running for US President.
This kind of article is why we have problems in America. McCain is old. Why not do an article on whether the country is ready for an old man?

Hey, ease up on Mr. Corn. It's a legitimate question. There are lots of people who won't vote for a black person. For example, I don't think my Mom, a longtime Republican, could vote for any black person, though she might surprise me if the GOP put up someone like Colin Powell. But I'm trying to figure out how to ask her to vote for Obama because I really don't think she wants her dear grandson, my son, to be fighting some old necon's stupid war in Iran in a few years.

And although I think it's a good question, I think the answer is clearly that we have come far enough to do the right thing and put Sen. Obama in the White House. I'm 52, and I think there are tons of people my age who believe that it will have great value to elect a minority person president. Heck, most of us grew up giving minority people the benefit of the doubt because we wanted very much not to be racist. And I think the huge majority of people younger than me think a lot less about race and are a lot more open-minded. And I think younger people are even more excited about Sen. Obama than I am, and I'm very hopeful about what this gifted man can do for our country -- can get US to do for our country -- if he is elected.

"Can America Elect A Black Man President?"

Of course. But, it's too bad that our only choice is the empty suit Barack Obama.

Someone said that voters voted in 2000 on the content of the character of the people who ran. The one with little or no integrity, ethics or morality won because of the supreme court and his brother's attempt to suppress democratic voters.

No sane person could ever see GW Bush as aman of any characrter. He was always and remains a simple con man whith strong family wealth connections.

He has a family purchased MBA from Harvard that he did not earn. He has been kept out prison repeatedly by his father and the family lawyers. He was an illicit drug user and a drunk and may still be.

If G W Bush has any integrity , then Dick Cheney is a flying pink elephant.

Certainly race is an issue in this election--McCain would not have jumped with such savagery on Obama's obvious (and mild) comment otherwise. Who Is McCain appealing to? The people who care about the issues?
The outcome will be a statement about us as a nation--obviously. Has to be when the candidates are so different: on the one hand a guy whose touted foreign policy experience does not prevent him from repeatedly making errors in regard to the map and religious groups in the Middle East, and on the other hand a smart and capable young guy dripping with charisma, who has ALSO presented coherent plans for extricating us from the mess in Iraq, the mess in healthcare, the mess in the economy. Oh, and the world loves him!

David, the question CAEABP? is significant but not the central question. The real question is: Can Americans overcome the media's GOP-favorable slant and an email slander-campaign to elect a Democrat?

A large number of voters understand very little about the candidates. They see headlines, they get basic information from friends, maybe they hear a few Jay leno jokes, and that's about it. Elections are decided by these basically clueless people. Obama is somewhat vulnerable to this trend to start with because he is black, but the problem is made worse by an amazing double standard in dealing with the two candidates. Anything that Obama does is viewed through a negative lens, typically posed as a question: Is he patriotic enough? Is he elitist?

Meanwhile, ridiculous positions by McCain are ignored -- he is allowed to say he will balance the budget (currently $300 b deficit) while lowering taxes. He says he will catch Osama bin Laden but he won't go into Pakistan (or say what he would do differently than Bush.) He can say he will win in Iraq without ever defining what 'to win' means. if Obama held these positions he would be pummeled relentlessly.

I also agree with commenters here who note that the last two Presidential elections were fraudulent and would have been won by Democrats if they had been conducted honestly.

No, I don't think America can elect a black president and I don't believe they would have elected a woman either.

If asking and answering those questions is racist and sexist I think that's one of the reasons neither can be elected. We can't even discuss it.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope we can. But if I had to put money down, it would be on the white man who claims to be religious.

Check this out...

Independent Weekly
Durham, NC

"White denial: Obama, race and America's selective memory"
30 JUL 2008 • by Hal Crowther

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A261700

Why are the liberals playing the race card? My opposition to Sen. Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin but with the content of his character.

Liberals aren't playing the race card, to use a conservative talking point, the cons are using the spectre of race to worry people about the idea of an Obama presidency. Remember Harold Ford in the TN senate race? The idea that he was flirting with white women was so scary that he lost a race that he had been leading for much of the campaign. That is how I see the Paris/Brittany ad. One can make the case that Obama lacks "experience" or "gravitas" to make the hard decisions needed. But to portray him as a lightweight dilletante (similar to the aforementioned) is unfair. And to use Paris/Brittany in the same ad as Obama smacks of the same scare tactic used with Harold Ford. But a look at the execution of his campaign tells me that he can handle the challenges of the presidency - more so than Reagan or the Bushes.
The cons will continue to try to move people with the idea that Obama doesn't "belong", or is "arrogant", or is "uppity" (when is the last time a white guy was called "uppity"). For those of us who are black with brains, we have heard those terms since Reconstruction. Obviously, those terms still resonate which is why they've been dug up.
We are all comfortable with someone who reminds us of us. It may be looks, brains, demeanor, etc., could be anything. Obama is unique in that he is able to connect to people via multiple variables so he doesn't have to look like us. But the cons will bring us back to race in subtle ways to remind us that Obama doesn't look like the other presidents because they can't compete in the other areas. Obama seems nice, comfortable with people, understands the issues, his background wasn't elitist (no matter what people say) but he's black and that is all the cons have to work with at this point.
I think the race is closer than it should be because Obama can't connect with working class white males. You know, the ones who aren't too crazy about blacks or hispanics or asians - we all know some. There are more of those folks than we think that can't handle the idea of an Obama presidency. Obama doesn't remind them of them (they can't imagine having a beer with him a la Bush) and so they aren't comfortable with him even though McCain offers them nothing that is important to them.
I think the race will continue to poll within the margin of error. And I think that we should be terrified of the possibility of President McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc

Thanks Wahidiyya for linking to that great article. A truly heart-breaking question this is.

Presidents are picked on a deeply personal gut-level. There's just no doubt about it. And that obviously includes deeply-rooted residual racism.

If Americans could, in fact, be said to be within spitting distance of "evenly split" on the issues, a close loss wouldn't be so painful... But they're just not. The repudiation of Bushism is just so overwhelming on every issues-polling question that doesn't include his name.

McCain has lots of personal appeal, but his embrace-of-the-base and his dogmatic death-hug with so many discredited Republcan parties...

...not to mention his terrible campaign... his gaffes....

He should be so much farther behind...

I think this election IS going to be an extraordinary test of America on the race issue... color of skin and content of character... (character of American voters that is)...

On the issues, the race is a slam dunk... especially for ANYONE remotely considering themselves liberal or progressive...

Last note -- I was (and am) a Hillary supporter. I thought this race should be fought on issues....

Not only since I think they're the most important thing anyway, but also because both McCain and Hillary were such known quantities.... Issues of culture and atmospherics would have been greatly diminished...

And I think "gender" wouldn't have been nearly as charged as "race" is now. Because McCain and Clinton would have seemed like such androgenous clones of one another. So boring that the media would have had no choice but to focus on issues...

But 50.1% of Democrats decided we needed to gamble our historic advantage this year on the "race" issue....

Strangely, now that that's off my chest, I am more energized than ever to fight for our Democratic candidate (despite my doubts about nominating such a non-committal "difference-splitting" centrist)...

I deeply want America to pass this test....

Cool vid capt

Sure, just not this Black Man.
Conservative voters don't base their decisions on that at all. It's the content of his charachter, His values, and voting history among many other things. But not his skin color.
He's wrong on so many issues as most voters seem to think. There are far more voters in the USA, not just liberal N.Y. / L.A. urbanites. Abortion, taxes, healthcare, war and peace (he is and was VERY wrong on Iraq, and stutters endlessly when asked). He seems very shallow to me.

While knocking on doors during the primaries, some idiot, in every town, every day, would say, "We're just not READY to elect a black president..."

To which my Kentucky family's closest neighbor (for 40 years, so far) had the best response...

"They'd better brace themselves!"

It is a ridiculous question, David. If American voters WON'T elect a black man president, then the "experiment" is over, has failed, and should never be attempted again.

-T

Hillary Clinton asks not to be nominated at Democratic National Convention

Hillary Clinton has decided against being nominated for President at the Democrats' Denver convention, but many of her more die-hard partisans may vote for her anyway.

A source close to the New York senator confirmed she won't file a formal request to the convention asking to be nominated along with Barack Obama, who eked out the victory in their fierce primary slugfest.

"She is not going to submit the signed request," the insider told the Daily News. "People are still circulating petitions on her behalf, but this is a done deal."

Party rules stipulate that Clinton must ask in writing to be nominated herself and also submit a petition signed by 300 to 600 delegates. Without her signed request, petitions of support are meaningless.

http://tinyurl.com/5rsjkn

*****

Kinda leaves the insane HRC or McCain supporters out in the rain?

Another small part of the long national nightmare that was the Democratic primary is over.

Now what to do with the PUMA's?

lololololo

America COULD elect a black man, but maybe NOT one who shaded the truth about his racist pastor of twenty years - the infamous Rev. Wright, who never appears to have "retired" from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (see http://www.tucc.org/pastor.htm) - and his sweetheart real estate "deal" with the wife of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted on June 4th of mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery, and money laundering. Millions of Democrats who supported Senator Clinton have ALREADY muttered to themselves "What were they thinking?" and the answer to that question burns deeper when they realize Hillary doesn't seem to have even made the list of serious vice-presidential candidates!

*it's not the color of his skin, but the content of his charachter* hahaha
Someone's been reading the RNC's bullet points.

I think that should be a Dem talking point though. The whole Keating thing, and of course the way mcsame calls his wife a 'cunt' in front of other people. That's some 'content' Americans won't vote for.

David Corn -- one of the most sexist "pundits" during the primaries, is now upset about perceived racism? Puhleeze.

The press is turning this election to race.

Keep in mind that for the GOP the path to High Office is always via the low road.

The low road is where one finds lots of mud to fling at the opposition.

The "contract on America" was executed the GOP and America now owes approximately 1/3 of its yearly GDP. For doing such good work the GOP is asking America to give it a chance to raise the deficit to 100% of the GDP through another 4 years of misadministration.

This will be done by scaring America that Boogieman Obama will do things that might enrich the poor and middle class at the expense of the filthy rich who would wish to take their marbles and go home to another country.

Short and not so sweet answer: no.

As regards to the experience question, I pose this question and answer : A former US president served two years in the House of Representatives, returned to his home state for ten years after trying unsuccessfully to become Senator. Eventually he was elected President. Who was that former President? Abraham Lincoln. Moral of the story: Experience don't mean diddlysquat if somebody has intelligence, and good judgement. Unfortunately too few Americans understand that.

Posted by: Tomas Gordon | August 1, 2008 7:55 PM

Tomas Gordon's concern's about Hillary Clinton and her supporters are transparent and laughable. I suspect that if HC were the nominee, he would be posting completely irrelevant points as to why America could elect a woman, but not Hillary Clinton.

oncall -

Spot on!!!

"Experience don't mean diddlysquat if somebody has intelligence, and good judgement."

Experience is subjective, but holding a Senate seat for a couple of years, and spending those years running a Presidential race, is most certainly the experience the office requires.

And as far as judgement goes, -

Rev. "Racist" Wright
Mr. "Terrorist" Ayers
Northern Trust "Special Mortgage Rate" bank
Antoin "Lot for Sale" Rezko
Mayor Kwame "Friends for Life" Kilpatrick
Ludicris

Found: bro tex.

What's up,folks? I've been workin' like a gov't mule. Fightin' for better pay & benefits!

People are on the race thang, but instead of the black-n-white, how's your green doin'? Do you have more money than you've had 10-15 yrs ago? Most would say "hell no, I'm broke as s#*t." Don't fall for the flim-flam. Vote to live!

Save Gas! Use Public Transit !!

Bro!

Welcome...killing fatted calf, now.

-T

Bro-tex!

Where have you been?

How's pops?

You're dreaming if you think Obama can coast to victory on pocketbook issues. This may be shocking news to you, but the fact is that most Americans are NOT unemployed, not in foreclosure, and not falling into poverty...

The comfortable majority may be a little pinched by recent oil-price-related inflation, but this is no way the Great Depression. (Not yet anyway).

The fact that people are fixated on gas prices (when, in actual dollars, health care inflation, higher-education inflation have been far more detrimental to the middle-class' well-being...) just goes to show how shallow the pain really is. (Think of the frog in the slowly warming water...)

The highways around here are still full of SUVs and luxury cars going 75+...

Americans are still fully capable of deciding an election on pure BS... Just as they have done in the last several elections...

McCain's radio address this weekend: (paraphrase) "Obama's rhetoric is soaring but shallow... woefully short on specifics... and all his specific proposals will clearly cost billions but contain no clue as to how they'll be paid for... ladies and gentleman, that means higher taxes...

"Obama says he's for 'change in Washington'....but his 'change'...more spending and more taxes... sounds like the problem, not the solution..."

Ouch.

Mr. Languid sure needs to get off the bench and get in the fray soon....

Just heard a Democrat precinct committeeperson on the radio a few minutes ago... Been going to door in working class districts (Hispanic and White)... He says he thinks Obama' negatives are climbing sharply...

http: www.electoral-vote.org

Obama leads with 316, but 73 of those are within the margin of error.

Not only black, but short resume, no national security credentials, and vague, centrist, noncommittal "split-the-difference" and "blank screen" views...

50.1% of Democrats decided to take a big risk on this election...

I personally think he's awesome. And I fully agree he might be a great President...

...but you gotta get elected first....and that's just the first hurdle...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Succinct: http://tinyurl.com/6apazl

Under the headline "Obama opposes reparations,apology" -

"There's enough flexibility in the term "reparations" that Obama can oppose them and still have plenty of common ground with supporters."

If this position is OK for the potential first black US President, what is the word used when a white Presidential candidate holds the IDENTICAL position?

Can America elect a Black Prez?

NO. Not this time.
2 reasons.

1. The WATERGATE effect.
Nixon's popularity did not plummet until the Senate Watergate Hearings preempted the soap operas on TV. By the same token, our American obscession with Political Correctness has made "Obama's race" an issue that people just don't want to hear about. They fear if Obama is elected they'll "never hear the end of it" and everything will be about race for the next four years and the blacks will get all the attention when nobody cares, or if they do care, they don't want to think about it. This interrupts what Americans care about, just like Nixon's crimes kept America from their soaps. If Obama and his supporters would just pretend he's white, Obama would have a great chance. But it won't happen. The temptation is too great. It's the only thing simple enough for the press to understand.

The 2nd reason:
The true "Bradley Effect" which is jealousy of the Hispanics who feel that Blacks will steal away the attention they get if they flaunt their "blackness" in public. Especially because presidents get better parades than anyone. It is better to have a while person who would ignore both Blacks and Hispanics equally, than to have YOUR minority get less attention than the competing minority. Jealousy and sibling rivalry is a natural base human instinct. Back in 1966 Tom Bradley polled much lower with the hispanics than most other white candidates for that obvious reason. That was the far more potent "Bradley effect".

For those two reasons, Obama will continue to sink in the polls as long people continue to be annoyed by having their nose rubbed into his race and thereby making them afraid they will have to watch what they say and memorize new PC word lists. Nobody wants to think about how much guilt we have to have for racism, or whether we have to elect a black just because he's black, or to "score" everything about "how far we've come". This is a melting pot and racial pride is just too vain. We already have the distructive vanity of national pride, so we can kill people to prop up our self esteem, so I can sympathize with America's being turned off by any candidate whose CANDIDACY alone makes them think about race, whether it's McCain or Obama that broaches the topic with a snyde remark. Americans have so few brain cells as it is, they really have to be carefully rationed. The only way Obama can win is to go on national TV and announce that he is WHITE and that's IT!!! SInce he is 50/50 there is no reason why he can't choose his race, even if he is not a women.

Wow. Not much to say to that.

Except I think the point exactly is that Obama, just by being born with an African-American appearance, seems to be held responsible by some for having "to have their nose rubbed into his race..."

I can't think of a single thing Obama's ever done to rub anyone's nose in his race, besides being born with that microscopic DNA variation...

It's the Republicans who are going to do everything they can to play the race card... that's their history, and that'll be their inevitable option since their positions on every issue are being soundly rejected by solid majorities.

Obama needs to take control of this race by putting forth a solid, specific progressive and populist platform...

(Is that an oxymoron in America? Perhaps American "populism" can only be reactionary?)

... and creating the possibility for a strong popular issues-based mandate from which he can actually govern.

Nice try, Diff ... except, there's this -

"Obama has since called the race charge "a typical pattern" of the GOP campaign.

But now Obama's chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, admits that the candidate was referring in part to his race when he suggested that the McCain campaign wants voters to fear Obama because he doesn't look like other presidents."

This was certainly meant to rub our noses in his race, as Axlerod finally admitted. Once again, BHO wants it both ways - and leaves it to a spokesman to tell the truth to boot!!!!

Cheers

Obama won't win unless he makes McCain the issue.

And, yes a black man can and one will be elected... but who knows when. We need to get rid of the Republicans for a while, so I trust the Democrats will figure out a way to focus the media and the election on McCain, his record, his policies, his age, his verbal "mistakes", his looking backwards, his support for Bush, his Bushian smirk, his haughty wife, his dalliances with criminals.

If the Dem's media machine doesn't at least have some overt or subliminal messages that McCain can't be trusted, is closer to a wheel chair than a school, and is nothing but another oil company shill, that his wife will be Marie Antoinette, and he'll be Caligula, then a black man will not be elected in 2008.

It's time to sharpen the sticks and poke back. You never know, it just might work.

Barack Obama Asks For Full Votes From Florida & Michigan

August 3, 2008

Hon. Alexis Herman, Co-Chair
James Roosevelt, Jr., Co-Chair
Eliseo Roques-Arroyo, Co-Chair

Dear Credentials Committee Chairs:

In just a few weeks, our Party will convene in Denver for our National Convention. This will be an historic event that will showcase our vision for changing the direction of our country.

The delegates and alternates who gather on Monday, August 25 will reflect the talent, energy and rich diversity of our Democratic Party. The delegates will come from all 56 states and territories. As these delegates go about the important business of the Convention, I believe Party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories. Accordingly, I ask that the Credentials Committee, when it meets on August 24 to approve the delegates for the National Convention, pass a resolution that would entitle each delegate from Florida and Michigan to cast a full vote.

As a candidate for the nomination, I supported the DNC's efforts to establish and enforce a schedule for primaries and caucuses that would broaden the opportunity for Democrats from all regions of the country and all backgrounds and walks of life to have a meaningful voice. An unprecedented number of voters participated in our Democratic nominating process. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Governor Dean for his principled leadership during this long and challenging process.

As we prepare to come together in Denver, however, we must be - and will be - united in our determination to change the course of our nation. To that end, Democrats in Florida and Michigan must know that they are full partners and colleagues in our historic mission to reshape Washington and lead our country in a new direction.

With warmest personal regards,

Barack Obama

http://tinyurl.com/6sb8kh

*****

Oh SNAP! Just as I posted - the eventual nominee is seating the FL and MI in full.

Seems like I am a soothsayer!

(compared to the PUMA's and others)

Of course some people still think HRC will win the nomination. Oh yeah, because of MI and FL?

lololololololololo

If Barack attacks he will be playing into McCain's plan.

It will make him the scary angry blackman.

Barack has no choice but to rise above.

If other surrogates and senate dem's want to have some "at bats" it might help but for Barack to go negative will not turn out well.

The racists and the GOP will attack no matter what. Barack doesn't need to do so.

Barack needs to take the high road.

The rest of us do not.

For Barack to be in the race a majority of white America already has polled beyond race. Only 10% of us are black so being black is not what this is about, with or without Jesse's nut fetish.

If Barack were president today he would have been impeached, indicted and imprisoned for PWB (president while black) while we give the Bush Doctrine a free ride.

65% of the American population are sheep when it comes to politics. 85% when it comes to the TV. In 1972 Americans wanted out of Vietnam. They knew the president and his cronies were crooked. They new McGovern was principled, educated and qualified. The 65% choose Nixon. It isn't about hope, vision or leadership. It isn't about celebrity. It's politics, and like TV, politics is the message. Do the shows occupy us for the commercials or do the commercials inconveniently sponsor the shows. I'm betting on the former.

Give some cash to the man we need as our first leader of the 21st century.

But give some more to MoveOn, the DNC and any other 527 that's ready to take these clowns on.

To put this leader in the white house we need to stop pretending that politics comes with clean sheets.

pelosi suggests rep chet edwards as obama running mate.

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/pelosi-backs-dark-horse-for-obama-veep/33978?icid=200100397x1206978365x1200355172

I think you're asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be "Can America elect a Black President?" The question should be "Have Americans disposed of their racist attitudes? Or, "Is Jim Crow truly dead in the US?" These questions are more appropriate because it doesn't allow for personal dislikes of the individual characteristics of a "Barack Obama" that so many people try to conceal their racist views and perspectives behind. Obama is a muslim/ Obama is inexperienced. Obama is this or that, are all just cover for the true racist attitudes that are providing concealment of racism. Many of them say, "I'm not a racist because I would vote for another Black person. Just not Obama. This is a farce. Anybody can make that claim since there's only one African American candidate running.

AB,

Isn't this line getting to be a bore, "Anyone who isn't voting for Obama is a
racist"?

Personally, I think people who continue this ridiculous refrain are race baiting, race mongers.

If they can't elect a Black man this time with a Republican practically on life-support, then it'll never happen.

Obama's nerve-wracking narrow lead in a year when a Democrat should be creaming the Republicans is due to several obvious factors.

1). Opponent has a long history of blurring the distinction between his own rock-solid Republicanism and many moderate positions. On climate change, campaign and ethics, the environment, taxes and fiscal policy, he has, in fact, more than feinted toward the center and even to the left.

2). Obama's lack of any hisory of fire-in-the-belly commitment to a specific progressive agenda. That is failing to ignite and excite many voters on the left.

3). He bumped off a beloved front-runner who claimed a large block of dedicated enthusiasts and who now still harbor resentments.

4). He is young, he has a slim resume, and he's BLACK.

If he loses narrowly, people will be able to argue forever which of those factors made the difference. In fact, they're all in play?

What factor determined his victory over Hillary? Which factor accounted for the decisive 2 out of a thousand voters?

I like to say it was his fooling of progressives... their wilful suspension of disbelief and deliberate ignoring of his oft-expressed centrist orientation....

But that's just my own petulant preference. Like anyone who attributes his weakness exclusively to race... and implies all opponents are racist.

Isakoff's reporting in Hubris is getting trashed by Plameologist Emptywheel here:
http://tinyurl.com/isikoff-stenographer

What happened to investigative reporters who cared about the facts? Do you think Corn and Mikey will publish a new edition of Hubris with a new chapter addressing all of their sources who knowingly lied to them or will these liars be left in anonymity to lie again?

Some people say corporate media is beholden to profit more than journalistic principles. I'd like someone to prove them wrong.

...Now, to be fair to Isikoff, the contradictions in Libby's NIE story weren't as obvious in April 2006, when he first served as a mouthpiece for Cheney's lawyer, or mid 2006 when he was finishing Hubris, as they became after Fitzgerald pointed to the clouds hanging over the Vice President during the trial. Maybe he's just not good with logic.

But that doesn't entirely excuse Isikoff's actions. He had three choices: credit the word of O'Donnell, serving as an anonymous source and providing information that appears to have gone beyond Cheney's own testimony in the affair; focus on the contradictions in the story that remained after O'Donnell intervened; or at least balance the two and point out how they cannot both be true. Isikoff chose door number one: the word of an anonymous source over logic.

I have long pointed to this difference in Isikoff's presentation of the CIA leak and mine as a signal difference between TradMed reporters and bloggers. The former often won't believe something until they can get a human source to confirm it for them, and may, therefore, dismiss fairly credible documentary evidence. And we bloggers admittedly don't do enough calling of people to get their version of stories--but we do tend to find stuff in documents that TradMed reporters may not. Both approaches have their weaknesses; the two together hopefully provide a fuller picture.

John McCain is probably a great guy and someone you'd enjoy as a friend except when you run into his notorious snap temper. He was an underperformer in college, following the path of his father and grandfather. He, like George Bush, puts great faith in his own moral compass as his guide for decision making and like George Bush eschews analysis and technical savvy (such as studying the topic) as a process for policy making. He like George Bush is uninterested in many of the policy disputes of our day. He like George Bush is interested in exercising American power to maintain American Imperialism because, we are just and other are not. I really wish our media would look at he beliefs of the candidates and not their advertising campaigns comparing a candidate to two blond chicks or Moses. I also wish Obama would make judgments about McCain's philosophy and runs ads defining him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siikYCO3Zbc

America CAN Elect A Black President!
But the question should be: WILL America Elect A Black President?

I think it can be done, but it's going to take a lot of convincing for many voters. I think his primary problem, as has been pointed out more times than I care to remember, is that Obama isn't as well-known as his opponent.

Human nature being what it is, low-information voters believe a lot of the false rumors circulating about him.(He's a Muslim, that he doesn't salute the flag, etc.) He also has a thin resume (though I find that refreshing since he hasn't wasted years on Capitol Hill doing nothing, like so many have) that translates to inexperience to many.

While these are huge obstacles for him to overcome in the next 3 months, I have faith that the American people who are doubters now, will come around to knowing the truth and Obama will prevail in November.

If, on the other hand, it should turn out that the country wants to continue down the road we've been on for the last 71/2 years and Obama isn't elected, he will have paved the way for the next person of color who aspires to become President. He'll have broken down many of the barriers and stereotypes that have blocked the path to the White House for non-Caucasians during most of our country's history.

In my view, Barack Obama's candidacy as a Win-Win situation either way. (Just as Hillary Clinton's historic run was.) If we do elect him POTUS, we will begin the long march back to prosperity and constitutionality for the common man, and we will re-emerge as the well-respected country we once were around the world.
If he loses, he will have shown America that a person whose skin happens to be black, brown, red or yellow, can also have answers to the many problems that face this country. That they can be just as caring, insightful, well-spoken, and thoughtful as any white person. Barack Obama has literally insured that we WILL elect our first black President.

The only question remaining is: When?

George Will: "...polls taken since his trip abroad do not indicate that Obama succeeded in altering the oddest aspect of this presidential campaign: Measured against his party's surging strength in every region and at every level, he is dramatically underperforming. Surely this fact is related to anxieties about his thin résumé regarding national security matters, the thinnest of any major party nominee since Wendell Willkie in 1940. But the fact also might be related to fatigue from too much of Obama's eloquence, which is beginning to sound formulaic and perfunctory.

"Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs -- someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy."

*

Ouch. The cotton candy keeps alive the passion for those who are already hooked, I'm sure, but it's time show some courage, take a risk and take a stand (or two) that will bridge the gap for all those old-style, working class WHITE "labor" Democrats who haven't yet been affected by the magic... Just despising them because you think they're all racists isn't going to win the election. It's a mistake to take them for granted and count on them filling in the oval for Obama because they could never vote for a Republican. Intensity matters, and we can't afford taking the chance that many will just stay home... Figuring Obama is just another Ivy-league "elitist" Democrat (like the dozens in Congress) who prefers the company of high-rollers and eggheads...

it all boils down to a single choice:
obama or mccain.
surely one is the lesser of two evils.

The "lesser of two evils" is a pretty pure motivator for ambivalent working-class voters.... who tend to be cynical to begin with...

I sure hope someone will post soon a more full-throated endorsement of what Obama will do for America than that!

hmmm. certainly i will choose obama over mccain but i wonder just exactly what obama WILL do for america?

The "lesser of two evils" is a pretty POOR motivator for voters... whether you're talking about swing voters and independents, or motivating the base...

It's going to be a big year for Democrats... I just wish Obama was willing to LEAD it rather than just ride the coattails...

“We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much,” Obama told a campaign rally Thursday in Springfield, Mo.

'Nuff said.

If anyone says they will never vote for a Black candidate for president, they probably do not vote anyway. That is shallow thinking on their part. Most people vote issues when they vote.

I will not vote for Obama for the same reason I will not vote for McCain. I disagree with them on too many issues.

What is it they say in Arizona?

Its not the heat, its the humidity.

Or maybe it's

Not the humidity, it's the Hot Air!

""I will not vote for Obama for the same reason I will not vote for McCain. I disagree with them on too many issues""

they both suck, but surely one is the lesser suck of the two.
it is pathetic that there are only two sucks to choose from.

Humidity in Arizona?? Who knew?

As for proper inflated tires and tune-ups... Obama's statement is TRUE. One source is the bush administration. NASCAR was another.
So yeah denmac, those facts sneak up on you guys, huh?

Inflated tires and tune-ups.... pretty safe fare...

How about calling for people to drive under 60? Maybe even... shudder...55... That would save MILLIONS and MILLIONS of barrels...

I've been driving 60 or under for the last few months and my mileage on the highway went from 34 to almost 40.

But asking people to drive 55 again would probably be too politically risky for Mr. Cautious. Better stick to tire pressure.

RCP average of nationwide polls: Obama by 2.3%

Democratic party identification is almost 50%; Republicans, 35%... What's the problem?

Everyone says he needs to negative on McCain... How about going positive on....something! Anything!

The facts are easy enough to find... unless you'd rather parrot wingnut bullshyt.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS198791+16-Apr-2008+MW20080416

"The U.S. Energy Department estimates that every pound per square inch of
tire under-inflation wastes four million gallons of gas per day in the U.S. Tires that are under-inflated by five to seven pounds per square inch can
increase fuel consumption by as much as 10 percent, or two to three miles per
gallon, while reducing tread life as much as 15 percent."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1h4xfEfKqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF5Kdm4Eu6w

ELECTION RESULTS LEAKED

Diebold accidentally leaked the results of the 2008 presidential election early. This news report reveals all.

The answer is yes. But an Honest Black man - just like an Honest White Man. Obama is far from that. His arrogance is astounding. A little humility, please. A few words taken from Barrack Obama’s first resume.

Conceited, self-absorbed, arrogant, self-important, hubristic, ambitious, vain, snobbish, stuck-up, high and mighty, smug, superior, self-righteous, haughty, full-of-yourself, spectacular, elitist, snooty, overconfident, showy, self-aggrandizing, puffed-up, narcissistic, educated, pious, bigheaded, inflated, vainglorious, condescending, incomparable, untouchable, illustrious, outstanding, superior, flaunting, high-class, pretentious, exceptional, advanced, better-quality, pompous, stateliness, august, ostentatious, erudite, portentous, grand, magnificent, flashy, brassy, significant, affected, brilliant, glowing, special, esteemed, extraordinary, unique, distinctive, exclusive, bold, daring, assertive, intrepid, audacious, valiant, brash, forthright, divine, scholarly, nervy, self-assured, better, enhanced, a cut above, first-class, prominent, patronizing, aristocratic, regal, bossy, famous, high and mighty, breath taking, supercilious, majestic, imperial, stately, fancy, noble, overconfident, egotistical, self-centered, proud, pushy, brazen, presumptuous, aggressive, strident, loud, studious, cocky, boastful, swaggering, audacity, resplendent, knowledgeable, blustery, bullying, memorable, privileged, selected, anointed, god-like, chosen, preferred, vaunted, saintly, extravagant, inflated, overstated, honored, advantaged, intimidating, aggressive, great, luminous, radiant, dazzling, shining, sparkling, gleaming, skillful, intelligent, gifted, refined, accomplished, impressive, swollen, fulfilled, precious, lustrous, elegant, clever, sharp, brainy, well-read, cultured, awesome, learned, awe-inspiring, incredible, urbane, distinguished, imposing, eminent, renowned, masterful, decorous, venerable, sure, secure, poised, self-possessed, certain, paramount, superlative, unsurpassed, finest, high-minded, edifying, enriching, genuine, marvelous.

And that’s before he became Senator. And now celebrity.

Its not a yes or no.
Race counts against him as most people that would vote for a black candidate due to race already vote democratic. Voters that vote against a black candidate due to race come from both parties and in my estimate outnumber the extra minority votes Obama mobilises with 3-5%. If im right it will show as a surprice McCain gain in the election compared to polls.
But let us wait for the conventions, the vice president candidate selection and the 3 months of campaigning. If a white Obama would have won with 5% the US will get a black president, ready or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTMp-YNaDdg

Most Americans have no problem with electing a black person, man or woman, to be president.

The problem with Obama is not that he is black but that he is a very thinly diguised socialist.

I will not vote for a leftist no matter the sex or color.

I assert that a white man with Obama's thin resume and extreme far left views would never have made it this far.

His race is not a liability but an asset for without it we would not know who he is.

But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate.

(WaPo)

*****

How can that be?

lolololo

Alan,

I agree with your statement -

"The facts are easy enough to find... unless you'd rather parrot wingnut bullshyt."

The FACTS are that BHO said that by inflating tires and getting tuneups "You could actually save just as much"
as "getting off drilling" - this is patently false. Your quoted estimate of a 10% savings from tire inflation and tuneups is in line with the Bush admin and NASCAR estimates.

However, conservative estimates of domestic drilling hold out hope for replacing SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than twice that 10% - actually closer to 40%!!!

Thankfully, BHO has come to his senses, and now supports off-shore drilling - Yes We Can!

So yeah Alan, those facts DO sneak up on you guys, huh?

Cheers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28

Quite an intelligent and well crafted "split-the-difference" kind of speech...

Likely a very good indicator of the kind of President he'd be.

Except, BHO didn't say that inflating tires and tuning up cars would save as much oil as what "John McCain wants to drill under his feet", he said -

“We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much,”

ALL THE OIL THAT THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT GETTING OFF DRILLING - his words, not McCains.

Lie? Yes we can!

Mr. Corn,

The answer is NO. This is an unfortunate reality in America today. The reason that a black man cannot win the presidency is simple, there are too many racists in the Democrat party.

This is unfortunately the case. Bill and Hillary tried to use this to their advantage, but unfortunately they played the race card much to late.

But remember this, if Obama does not win in November, it is not because the Republicans didn't vote for him (they can't be expected to based on ideology), it is because the Democrat party is not really as accepting as you continue to preach.

The fact that you have to ask this question is proof positive that racism (and sexism) is alive an well in the Democrat party. So after years of yelling and screaming and race mongering against the Republicans, you know have to deal with the reality of racism among your own.

So ask yourself Mr. Corn, Are YOU really going to pull the lever for a black man?

Well said Wallstreet. Registered Dems are 3 to 1 in West Virginia over Republicans. If McCain wins WV it isn't because of Republicans.

The worst thing about this election cycle is that the Democrats will no longer be able to claim the high ground with regard to blacks and women.

There has been too much fighting and negativity between the sexists and the racists, and the Democrats have shown themselves to be the ones dividing America, rather than bringing her together.

So as the Republicans have lost the "Economic" platform, the Democrats have lost the "Inclusive" platform.

Nice work.