Clinton is a polished Belt Way insider with a huge political machine that goes back nearly two decades. The very fact he's ahead at this point is a clear indicator that he is inspiring people.

And not FDR?!!

I think that Obama is going to do something that we will all regret.

And with McCain you'll get one of the most corrupt politicians we have in office. A man who was behind one of the greatest banking scandals in our country's history. A man who's campaign staff is almost entirely made up of major lobbyists. His Chief of Staff is a career lobbyist. He has raised more money from the lobbying community than any candidate running in this election. It doesn't take much time to look up the stuff he has pulled while in the Commerce Department.

So Obama has no major experience (neither did Lincoln, FDR or Washington). But I'd take someone with no experience over someone who is experienced in corruption. Someone who is essentially bought and paid for by the major lobbyists. I guess I'm just tired of seeing major companies write our bills, I'd rather that power switch a little bit back to the people. Maybe Obama won't be able to change any of that, but I already know what I'm getting out of McCain, and I don't care for it.

It amazes me how hateful some people are....if Obama offered to make baddog Secretary of State he would still talk shit about him and dis him every chance he got.

Why can't people be reasonable at least?

I'm a dyed in the sackcloth liberal, I supported Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, John Edwards (in 2004) and now Obama, but I'm still willing to admit that McCain has been great on issues like campaign finance reform and earmarks during his tenure in the Senate.

I'm willing to admit that George W Bush has done more for the continent of Africa than any president in history and he should be applauded for it.

Obama just gave an incredible speech on race in America. It was a brutally honest take on race relations in this country that resonated with black and white people alike. It was an historic moment.

Why for the love of god can't you just admit that?

THIS sort of bickering is one of the reasons that I love Obama....he's willing to fight for what he believes in without demonizing the other side. He realizes there are smart people out there who disagree with him, and he doesn't have to belittle them or sling mud at them in order to make his point.
THAT is the kind of change America needs. One where people can disagree with a war and not be accused of being unpatriotic or accused of not supporting our troops. One where people can say our health care system is broken and needs drastic reforms without being called a socialist. One where people can be pro-choice and not be told that they want to kill babies.

If you want 4-8 more years of mud-slinging, gridlock, and demonizing people who disagree with you, then vote for someone else. If you'd like to see the end of that and the start of an honest intellectual debate on the issues the country faces, then vote for Obama.

well said....for a bleeding heart. ;)

:Oh crap :1orglaugh

I'm so sick of this argument that says that because Obama hasn't wrapped up the nomination yet it means he isn't a strong candidate.

On the contrary, the fact that he's still in this proves what a strong candidate he is.

Hillary Clinton had all of the money, all of the establishment support, all of the endorsements, 200+ superdelegates in her pocket before the first votes were cast, and a former president campaigning for her every day....a former president who left office with a 60%+ approval rating (and much higher than that among democrats)

Hillary Clinton had all of the advantages that Walter Mondale and Al Gore had when running for the democratic nomination, yet SHE hasn't been able to close the deal. A candidate with that much establishment support and name recognition should have closed the deal on Super Tuesday.
The Clinton campaign actually believed it would be over by Super Tuesday, they spent all of their money and had no strategy in place for the primaries and caucuses that took place after that.

The fact that she, who was 20+ points ahead in the national polls as recently as two months ago, wasn't able to wrap this up against an insurgent candidate goes to show what a weak candidate and polarizing figure Hillary is.
The fact that Obama has been ahead of her in pledged delegates ever since the first vote was cast in Iowa, despite all of his disadvantages (running against what was practically an incumbents campaign) shows what a strong candidate he is.

yes, gotta admit the guy has an IQ and can think on his feet.

did not read that speech, must have worked from an outline, he was looking
everywhere while talking.

and he says some things that are not politically expediant.

and his wife is smart as a whip.

my guess is you'll see darkies in the white house.

hope he is smart enough to pick edwards as VP.

I don't know, something about Obama... when he talks, I just don't believe him. He comes across as a liar. It's purely a gut feeling but it really bothers me. Of course we all know Bush lies through his teeth but somehow he at least seems like he believes his BS as it comes through his lips.

McCain is to old.. and he has cancer. So a vote for McCain is a vote for his vice president to be president.

Oh really, please name some

well said

This was at the beginning of the transcript.
"(CBS) The following are the remarks prepared for delivery by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama on March 18, 2008 in Philadelphia. "

Looks to me like he was looking at two teleprompters; possibly three. Reading his speech. I compared to a partial youtube clip and he deviated by misreading one of the words and covered it up really well by saying "and (original word)". But nearly all verbatim of the "prepared for delivery" transcript.

Are you new? Just about every democratic candidate in my lifetime has made the "youth vote" claim.

true, but how many have delivered it?

Don't have to go back that far. Bill Clinton's appearances on MTV and Arsenio were said to have "energized young voters"

This little bit intrigues me:

There are two problems with your statement.

The first is that Obama doesn't actually appear to bring such change. Sure, he talks about it, but with a bit of research you'd know that his campaign has been engaging in things like deceptive mailings, just like the other campaigns. Talking about change, obviously, is not the same as actual change.

More important, however, is the second problem. The biggest issue being faced by the US right now is not a lack of positive, inspiring politicians. It's a huge economic crisis, the likes of which probably has not been seen in decades. Inspiring speeches will not solve this issue.

What's needed right now is competent governing. Obama's underwhelming record in congress, unfortunately, casts doubt on his ability to do just that. He has star power, yes. But is he competent where it really matters? Nobody knows.

Are you asking what dems have won the election in my lifetime? JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. I was too young to remember the first two.

Why do people act like it's a BFD that Obama is going to deliver the youth vote? The dems have ALWAYS had the youth vote.

Every time I see a candidate on a talk show I get flashes of a saxophone.

I very much remember him hitting the 'youth vote'. I was in high school the first time and college the second and he had that base.

To me at times watching this election from a bit of a distance it sometimes feels like Obama is playing Hillary at her husband's game and doing it better.

Of course when my fire fox spell check accepts 'Obama' as a correctly spelled word I will know he really has made it.

Difficult to even analyze as the voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until 1972. The 18-21 age group voted pretty well that year - no doubt partly due to all the exposure - and then slipped from there for the most part.

I would bet that "Rock the Vote" has convinced more young people to vote than any one candidate.

If Clinton wins then voting doesn't seem worth it. Then again I'm in Hawaii and our votes mean shit.

Not asking that at all. Nor am I disputing that Dems generally win the majority of the youth vote. Simply winning the majority of the young vote is not 'delivering' it.

I'm talking about getting numbers to the polls and participating and showing the passion that only young people can. Getting them involved in the process and feeling like they really have a stake in the system instead of the stereotypical apathy that's always associated with them.

The problem with speeches these days is the people mouthing the words didnt have shit to do with writing the speech.

Fuck words, I believe in ACTION.

2 piles of shit hugging each other! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

In this election youth have come out in record numbers to exercise their right to vote. Isn't this basically indisputable at this point? Maybe the numbers will dwindle as we go forward, but it's started off stronger than anything seen before.

If you don't win the election it really doesn't matter how passionate you made the kids feel.

Has always been a matter of the best liar wins.

It should concern anybody that McCain has aligned himself and his policies with a person who has been voted as the worst President in history, and yet he still stands a chance to win.

Read the thread.

I disagree. Motivating a generation to get involved is huge no matter what the outcome. Many might stay involved long past this election cycle. That's even bigger.

Quoted for truth.

Precisely why McCain has this won.

Time constraints essentially prohibit this. Presidents and candidates can't spend days ironing out speeches while campaigning, or reviewing legislation, or meeting with public figures, and flying all over the world etc. The days of Lincoln in the 19th century when politics was slower and there was no mass media are long gone and have been for decades now.

Baddog is old skweel and would never understand.


I rather be inspired and believe.

Obama is getting people interested in politics for all the wrong reasons. Campaigns like his, which excel in marketing but lack in substance, change the political arena into something like "American Idol: The Political Edition".

People are choosing an idol, not policies. The success of this campaign will both stimulate future politicians to do the same and teach voters to expect inspirational talks rather than sound policies.

Of course, this is a process which started a long time ago, and has been accelerating ever since television became prominent as a political campaigning tool. Still, it's hardly something to be happy about.

You are clueless. I have been political before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye.

Candidates still have the option of acquiring a strong legislative record and extensive knowledge of the most important political issues before deciding to run for president.

Obama, however, clearly chose another path.

False, people are choosing based on character and policies. Obama and Clinton are virtually identical in policies (the substance), so what people are doing is choosing between the person they like better or feel will live up to their promises (the character).

It's not rocket science, and a guy from a broken home who was able to excel and obtain a law degree from Harvard and become a Senator can probably handle it. If his heart is in the right place (those who know him personally probably have insight), and his speeches express what he really believes, and his political track record (albeit short) is consistent with both, and he's running against a polarizing candidate (Hillary) and a stay-the-course candidate (McCain), I see no reason why he shouldn't run.