But the alternative is Romney. I don't think we are ready for a Mormon to be the President. Also, McCain has the best chance to win the national election according to head-to-head poll
wel what do you expect when Obama's wife is teling black voters in SC that its their duty as black voters to vote for Obama?
Yes, but the polls show him doing pretty well in upcoming states. If he gets enough momentum from Florida to give him an even further edge, this could be over. For the general election, I'm of the opinion that the conservatives will like him well enough once they see who the alternative is.
I've been with Obama since before he was running. Him deciding to run was like the Rockets picking Yao for me. I liked them both, for similar reasons, before either seemed like a real possibility even as a candidate (or draft pick). I remember talking to heypartner before the lottery where Francis represented the team and we got the number one pick. We knew then it was very unlikely we'd get the #1 but we both agreed that if we did it would be really exciting to try to draft Yao. I liked Yao because, even while we didn't know a whole lot about him, his ceiling seemed gigantic. I liked him too because, from the little I knew of him, he seemed to have integrity, he was already a massive talent but it was clear he had to get better and he could get better and he wanted to get better, and, maybe most of all, because while he represented something new in what was beginning to feel to me like a stale game he did so most by commitment to the ethics and the fundamentals that made the game exciting in the first place. He seemed to be playing for the right reasons. Of equal appeal, he seemed smart. I like Obama for all those reasons too. I also like him because I want a president that I can really look up to, specifically because he's smarter than I am. I want a president who is a deeper thinker. One who's not only good at winning battles, however crucial the stakes might be, but who is rather concerned with building consensus around the idea of doing the right thing. One who not only understands the power of inspiration but harnesses it. That is so rare. He is a man that reminds me of what I, when I was growing up, thought a president was supposed to be but somehow never was. I was born in 1969, so Watergate happened just before the beginning of my first conscious years. And Watergate, on the heels of Vietnam, triggered a disillusionment regarding politics in our country that exists to this day. I grew up with that. But, as it had just happened, I also grew up with a sort of generational memory that seemed to say, 'It wasn't always like this. And it's not supposed to be like this.' I like Obama because he is post-Vietnam. He doesn't belong to the cultural arguments that began way back then which have never been resolved and have taken on the flavor of a permanent war. I like him more because he is able to look to the best of this nation's past while rejecting the worst of it. He is that incredibly rare orator who possesses the power to change men's minds. That is why he is compared to MLK, JFK, RFK and sometimes even Lincoln (of whom Obama reminds me the most). But it is that power itself -- the power, through words, to change men's minds -- and not political experience, ideological purity or ability to win fights, that made those men great. He inspires me and he inspires others, particularly young people. And I believe that inspired people can accomplish unimaginably great things. They certainly did when they were being led by the words of the four historic figures above. Among the candidates I could consider supporting, there is no meaningful difference in plans or policies. There is also no meaningful difference in experience. They have all spent their lives in public service of one sort or another, whether it was in their official jobs or not, and they all have relatively short time in elected office. So did Kennedy. So, especially, did Lincoln. I don't favor one candidate over another because he's been in Washington longer. I don't penalize on that basis either. I think Edwards and Clinton could be very good presidents, maybe great ones. But I don't see theirs as potentially historic presidencies. I do see Obama's that way. I certainly see the potential for it. And I see no danger whatever in that not coming true. At the very least, Obama would be a president that was more competent than most simply by virtue of his intelligence, his wit, his feeling and his ethics. He is a man who clearly thinks deeply and cares deeply about this country and the people in it. He is also a man who has been successful at everything he's ever tried. More, I trust him. And I believe he has the potential to be a historic president. At worst, I feel extremely confident he would be a very good one.
I would be willing to bet most hispanic voters in Florida had no idea what Obama's wife told SC voters.
Interesting stat In a race that basically means nothing for the Dems, the top three contenders still out-paced the republican top three by over a 100,000 votes.
from josh -- For the Democrats, the big question tonight was how the press would play Hillary Clinton's 'win' in Florida, or how successfully she could spin the result to count as a landslide victory on a par with Obama's big win in South Carolina. The final number seems to be Hillary 50%, Obama 33%, Edwards 14% which, in numerical terms, is a trouncing, even it doesn't match the spread in South Carolina. Just judging from the cable news we watched this evening and how the major newspapers are playing it on their websites, it doesn't look like they get much of a pop. Most of the website front pages of the newspapers I'm looking at either don't mention the Democratic result out of Florida or put it under the fold with some conspicuous notation that the 'win' had not delegates. Nor, at least in the headlines I'm seeing, does there seem to be any real mention of the margin of her win, which was substantial. For the record I'm looking at the Boston Globe, New York Times, WaPo, USAToday, Dallas Morning News, LATimes, Stl. Post-Dispatch and others. The standard seems to be some form of the Post-Dispatch's small related item "Clinton wins primary but no delegates." In the Post, there's a snarky piece by Dana Milbank: "Much Ado About No Delegates: The only piece missing from Sen. Hillary Clinton's Florida victory party Tuesday night was a victory." Ouch. CNN has a small related headline: "Clinton trumpets win with no delegates at stake." Just in terms of managing the news cycle I think what the Clinton folks would have been looking for are two things -- big pictures of Hillary smiling, preferably above the fold, thus suggesting victory and some mention of her margin. But I don't see either anywhere. Perhaps the print front pages will play this differently. But on balance I suspect they didn't get as much juice out of this as they wanted or expected. --Josh Marshall
he must've missed CNN bright red breaking news banner last night trumpeting Hillary's landslide win, and fox's coverage of her "victory" speech.
does anyone have a "popular" vote versus delegate vote count for the Dems so far? I don't know the numbers but I'm thinking that we might get a decent laugh out of it.
