This is the typical tongue-in-cheek drivel that Obama ninnies dribble. Obama, with less than 2 years experience in national government, had the audacity to run for President because he could give a good speech. He routinely blames Dems and Repub-nuts equally for legislation passed and voted for by Republican majority Congresses. He is a vacant, void, and empty vessel promising WHAT? His econ advisor, Goolsbee, is an arch conservative from the Freidman school of economic thinking. I tire of his MLK cadence and speechifying, telling us how good he is. I don't trust him for one minute. I am so delighted that HRC has the guts to stay in the fight. IF he drops out (or not) and IF he is still credible in 9 years after he has 500% more national experience and a real record on which he can be evaluated, he MAY be able to win his parties nomination after HRC's two terms are done.

And his win in Mississippi is just like all his other wins: states with almost all BLACK Democratic parties whose electoral college votes have uniformly gone to Republican candidates since the sixties when white, southern Democrats switched parties. So WHAT if he wins the South? He has no chance there in the national election while HRC may. Why do Obama supporters not notice the reverse racism of the BLACK voter. If Obama were not Black, he would not even have a prayer.

What rubbish. In his "meagre" two years in the Senate, Obama has more signficant accoplishments than HRC has in her meagre term and a half. (The Coburn-Obama bill; the Lugar-Obama inititiave; the ethics reform -- HRC has no legislative accomplishments that compare with McCain-Feingold; Obama has 3.) Neither of them have deep experience -- but that is, frankly, a good thing. Experience means time in Washington -- which means that the people with experience are the very people who created the mess we are in.

With regard to Obama winnign just because he is black. Equal rubbish. If Obama were a white man with all his intangibles, he would have won New Hampshire and the election would have been over. Obama did not win Iowa, Idaho and Utah because he is black -- he won them because he is just that good.

Beathan

"This is the typical tongue-in-cheek drivel that Obama ninnies dribble. Obama, with less than 2 years experience in national government, had the audacity to run for President because he could give a good speech."

You wouldn't have to put up with us ninnies if Hillary could close the deal. :D

Obama '08

Even sillier, by this logic, Hillary Clinton should not have run for President either. She has just over one term in the Senate and cannot give a speech. By this logic, the Democrats should have gone with Richardson, Biden or Dodd -- but very, very few of the Clinton supporters now trumpeting "experience" are supporters of the candidates who had real experience who switched to Clinton. Clinton's supporters, like Clinton, will say anything and take any position based on perceived short-term advantage, rather than principle. That is NOT what we need in a President. That is what we have had for the last sixteen -- possibly twenty -- years. Enough is enough.

Beathan

"In his "meagre" two years in the Senate, Obama has more signficant accoplishments than HRC has in her meagre term and a half. (The Coburn-Obama bill; the Lugar-Obama inititiave;"

So... to illustrate Obama's competence and experience, you point to two legislative initiatives which Obama was merely a SPONSOR (meaning that all he did was to agree to have his name on the bills), and to which one of them has senator McCain as a sponsor too -- that's pathetic...

Do your self and senator Obama a big favor, keep your discussion on “hope”, “change”, “unity”, and good feeling stuff, because when you get into specifics, they are as shallow as his soaring flowery rhetoric --- THERE ARE NONE!!

You can't possibly be Black?! If so, I don't interrupt your view of him as relevant or meaningful. The past seven years of a "USH" administration doesn't speak to the experience brought into office either. And, so WHAT if Blacks vote for Blacks? Do you not see the correlation with this pattern in past Republican voters? Most are White and will vote only White! Oh, and by the way, Whites voted for him in Iowa so to assume they won't in NC during the national election is ridiculous. To say that he brings little experience is also nonsense. Take a look at past presidents, who were "ACTORS", not only in Hollywood, but also in the presidency. Take a look at that California governor? Why do White republicans continue to support themselves and their elitists ways in society while turning up their noses to hardworking people of color. Keep in mind that the very Black voters you speak of were the same ones that helped build this great nation on their backbones. They have long ago earned respect and their rightful place in America. Peace.

Well -- if your ignorance of Senate procedure and the significance of being a "named sponsor" (as opposed to a mere sponsor) of legislation is at all representative of Clinton supporters in general, there is no wonder why y'all have been bamboozled into thinking she has real experience. Obama's name is on his legislation because of the critical role he played in drafting it and shepherding it through the process. Where is Clinton's named legislation -- name three. Also, which bill was cosponsored with McCain? McCain-Feingold? Obama is not Feingold ...

She doesn't. Richardson certainly did. Biden and Dodd had decent claims, too. HRC simply does not.

As for Obama's "specifics" -- anyone who thinks he lacks substance has not bothered to read his detailed positions on his website or other materials. The claim that Clinton has more substance is itself more Clinton rhetoric than substance. It is untrue. Frankly, one reason why I support Obama is because of the difference in the details of the candidates' plans. I read Clinton's plan and say -- good general ideas, but then I choke on the details and end up thinking "this stuff is nuts." Obama has the same general ideas -- but, guess what, his details are also sound and sane.

Also -- for all y'al you claim that Obama can't win the general election because he can't win the white vote -- Newsweek has now released its poll data. Clinton loses the white vote in a race against McCain by the exact same margin as Obama. Obama wins against McCain because he, unlike her, maintains the excitement and loyalty of nonwhites. What does this mean? Racists vote against Obama in the primary -- crossing over to do it -- but they will switch back to the Republicans in the general election. Thus, HRC is, hands down, the weaker and worse candidate.

Beathan

Excellent post and points. He's got "Audacity" all right! But that's about all he's got, besides the unthinking support of Af-American voters who are so excited at the prospect of a potential African-American President for the U.S. Obama supporters, my guess, do indeed notice the reverse racism of the Black voter, but only privately. They wouldn't dare mention it publicly, as you were brave enough to do here. (For which of course you will be falsely attacked as a 'racist.") To add to the long list of reasons why Obama is not ready or right for the Presidency, add the amazingly elitist arrogance of his campaign, his supporters and his wife -- and no doubt, of course, of himself -- and the absolutely vacuity of his empty promises. He has no proven substance, none.
AND he does act 'entitled,' a charge which his accusers constantly hurl (falsely) at Hillary Clinton. Thank you for speaking up!

finally waking up to that fact, thanks to the ABC debate and the consistency,bravery and spunk of Senator Clinton's campaign & her own statements. Btw, this pattern of his simply putting his name on bills written by others began in the Illinois Statehouse where his mentor Emil Jones constantly set up bills written by others for Obama to put his name on. Reason? Speaker Jones is quoted as having said, "I want to make me a President and I'm gonna." (paraphrase) Obama is Emil's boy and Emil won't stop until he has made him a President, apparently. Then of course there is also the issue of the 130 "present" votes during his eight years in the (Corrupt) Illinois Statehouse; a record which NO OTHER State Senator there even comes near.

Ona --

You are as wrong and confused as the other pro-Clinton posters on this thread ...

Hmmm ... where to begin. How about the "present" votes. This vote is a special vote in the Illinois assembly -- it is part of a particular kind of legislative power play used in Illinois under its special rules, and not used elsewhere. If you bothered to check, you would find that Obama's record of "present" votes is, in fact, unremarkable. Whoever told you that is was a record "which no other state senator there even comes near" was just lying to you -- and you, apparently, didn't bother to check your facts before repeating it.

As for Clinton's consistency -- I call it flat out pigheadedness. She is unwilling to compromise, even when compromise is necessary to get things done. (Her fifteen year record of failure on healthcare is proof of this.) This bespeaks a fundamental flaw in her character -- or, more accurately, several flaws: 1. an arrogance which prevents her from realizing the intelligence and reasonableness of others (especially those who disagree with her); 2. an inability to learn from past mistakes (which makes all the experience in the world irrelevant); 3. an ability to use tactics other than straight-ahead fighting (which is frequently the worst possible tactic); and 4. a complete lack of flexibility of mind and imagination (which can be seen by the fiasco of her campaign -- she had a plan to wrap of the nomination on Super-Tuesday, and has been utterly lost since it did not happen -- she should have known that no plan survives first contact with the enemy).

I find Clinton's "bravery" to be a misinterpretation of her character flaws. She certainly lacks the moral courage to tell the truth and deal honestly with problems. She takes a page from her husband's book here -- why admit and explain an inconvenient truth when you can just deny it. This is not bravery -- this is an utter lack of moral courage.

Spunk -- well, she has spunk. We need more than spunk in a President -- we need strength of moral character, intelligence, flexibility and imagination. Spunk without these make a fun date (although flexibility and imagination are definite pluses there), but it doesn't make a good presidency.

Obama's mentor in the Senate -- yes, he had a mentor. Yes, his mentor put him into leadership positions and advanced his career faster than that of other junior senators. This did create significant resentment among other senators. However, this did not involve having other senators ghostwrite his bills. (If you think this is even possible -- you have no clue about the ego of state senators.) That is -- Obama was given opportunities junior senators don't usually get -- and he took full advantage of those opportunities to press his own legislative agenda, which he did with great skill and competence. Thus, Obama's mentor's faith in Obama benefited him -- but that faith was fully justified by Obama's actions.

Beathan

I must admit, I find it hypocritical how Obama supporters and other democrats suddenly think character is a virtue and should matters when it come to picking a president.

These are the same people who defended the Clintons no matter what they did, so long as it was being done to republicans. These are the same people who regarded the Clinton political strategies of triangulation, goal-post moving, and other unsavory tactics as brilliant!!

However, now that the Clintons are using the same old tricks/tactics against your candidate, now it’s a problem for you. So now you seek “Moral Character” in a candidate, when you didn’t give a rats-ass about it back then. Very, very typical – and phony.

Maybe -- but if you think it is hypocritical to want to turn the page after sixteen years of exhausting fights about irrelevant moral issues (such as who a person sleeps with) and relevant moral issues (such as whether the President will lie to the American people), then I suggest that you need to look up the definition of "hypocritical."

As an Obama supporter who was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton in the nineties, I can say that I resented the Republicans use of distraction politics to undermine the important work of government by focussing on things as irrelevant as who Bill bops. However, I also regretted the circus that the Clinton amoralty created. This is not hypocritical. We can dislike the Republicans for their cynical and indeed hypocritical (given the marital histories of Gingrich and McCain) attack on Bill Clinton. We can also dislike Bill Clinton for giving the enemy such an opportunity for attack.

However, we also remember Hillary Clinton's scandals -- such as Travelgate -- which are, frankly, worse than Bill's. Anyone who was paying attention to the character of Hillary Clinton, even if they are not a "character voter", cannot support the woman. She is proving her lack of moral character again and again in her persistent lying to the American people and attempts to mislead us. We have been misled into Iraq in the last eight years. We need a President who will not undertake a policy of deception again. Hillary Clinton is exactly the wrong choice for such a change.

We need to turn the page. It is hard to imagine a candidate more able -- more qualified -- to do that than Obama is.

Beathan

Beathan

Remember this one? “I did not have sex with that woman.”

It’s sad that the old adage we have all resigned to our selves as being true is. How do you know when a politician is lying? There moving their lips.

How is it that these idiots have not blown the world up yet?

Hope Obama will be different. I know Clinton isn’t.

Beathan--

Thanks for fighting the good fight on this one. Character issues do matter in presidential politics, and I'd rather have a young, "inexperienced" president with character and imagination and a willingness to learn and whose heart is in the right place (JFK, Teddy Roosevelt) or even just an "inexperienced" one who isn't so young but still has the rest (Eisenhower, FDR) than an experienced jerk (Richard M. Nixon) or (worst of all) an inexperienced jerk (George W. Bush)

Beathan: good words. I, too, have taken the time to read Obama's positions on his web site, to watch several of the debates, and to read some of the in-depth coverage of his positions on various issues. His views clearly have substance.

Those who say Obama is nothing more than a charismatic speaker are, I would say, spending far too much time watching cable news channels and not enough time reading. (Al Gore was right - TV is seriously screwing up political dialog in this country.)

What seals the deal for me, however, is judgment. Obama's judgment in the run-up to the Iraq war was exactly the same as mine and exactly what should have gone through the mind and counsels of the President of the United States. If the White House phone rings at 3 a.m. and it's the SecDef urging the next President to invade the next Iraq, there's only one of the current three candidates I would want answering that call - the man who realized in advance that it would be a blunder of truly historic proportions. Obama.

I can not vote for a candidate for President of the United States who did not have the judgment to see that invading Iraq would be an historic blunder.

So I guess I would ask Americans: "Are you liking how Iraq is going? Are you glad we're there? Would you perhaps like, going forward, to have someone in office who would have prevented every one of those many thousands of deaths -- 4,000 and counting being our own?"

Obama '08!