Well, I was out and about yesterday, listening to the talkers talk about Iowa. When the news about Obama came in, I went to my Black son and told him about it.

Asked him what he thought.

It's a historic time and he gets to vote in this election. He's looking forward to that, and the idea that everybody today is asking, "can a Black man be President?" is very significant to him.

He also said, Obama would get shot

I didn't expect that comment! Despite him growing up with me, and a lot of efforts to bridge culture gaps, there are still aspects of it I don't always consider. That's one of them.

Anyway, Obama is inspiring people and that's good, win or lose. He showed it's now possible. Might not yet be plausible, as it's early and much remains to be seen, but totally possible no matter what.

He also mentioned Oprah. When I asked about that, because I know her program is not something on his radar, he said kids from school talked about it. Interesting? I thought so.

As one who is wary of the Clinton's, I sincerely wish the best for Mr. Obama. Our nation would do far better with him in office than Mrs. Clinton, in my view.

I'm going to say this nicely. Given the Clinton machine's history, it's my belief that Mr. Obama should worry more about that flank...in many different ways...than anything else.

Herb

Oh, I think you are right Herb. No need to be nice. It's totally rational to express that --I think it's reality. Like it or not, below the belt politics are here with us. I really hope we can get past that some how, but with things as polarized as they are, and the media working it's ass off to help fuel that, cheap shots are gonna be the norm. Sadly, enough.

IMHO, Obama has to worry about ALL the machinery! Clinton, GOP, old school media, the works!

We've got bets today on who says, Obama / Osama first!

My daughter was dismayed at Hilary ending up below Edwards. The white guy is still better than the woman (Her view, not factoring in a lot about Hilary that's got little to do with her being a woman.)

Caucuses are about organization, and the clintons used to be king of that.

You know I think they still are! However, the competition is stiff, and there are some real negatives surrounding Hilary. No getting around it.

The best of the best are in analysis mode right now. There will be a re-branding of Hilary, big time. You watch. Will it be enough? I don't know, but it's absolutely gonna happen after Obama and Edwards beating her out.

There is also the Internet People Powered Politics in play. To Hilary, being more of an establishment (read corporate) leader, this is not easily dealt with, because it's a representative movement, not one that wants to be led, as in told.

Obama happens to play into this well! His core hope message works in that maybe people will see him as an enabler. That's way different than the Hilary value proposition and it showed just now.

BTW: Going forward, I strongly encourage each of you to get plugged into the local politics, and from there key Internet Politics. The game is changing and we can aggragate our voices to a level not seen before.

I believe significant change is possible. The key going forward is to pool voices on our own channels, and primary politics. Fewer incumbents = us getting heard = balance more in our favor instead of corporations.

People would be foolish to write off Hillary Clinton at this point. Iowa has a history of front-runners losing its caucus but going on to win their party's nomination (Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and, and Bob Dole for example). The same kinds of stories being written about Hillary now have been written about other Iowa losers in past years. The only bad thing for her is that unlike past Iowa losers she doesn't have much time to regroup in New Hampshire. Hard to believe their primary is less than a week after Iowa's caucus this year.

Andrew

I agree Andrew.

It's way to early to count anybody out. Except, of course, those that withdrew after Iowa.

I seriously think we can count Romney out. He went all-out in Iowa and he got clobbered by someone who campaigned less, spent far less, and had a much smaller organization there. By contrast, Hillary and Obama both had large campaigns and Hillary got started a bit later than he did, taking her presumed Iowa victory for granted, and it cost her.

Romney comes off as transparently insincere. Just look at his lame defense of claiming he saw his father march with Martin Luther King: depends what the meaning of the word "saw" is! Even a child would instantly see the parallels to Clinton's infamous "depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is" and to Republicans, any identification with a Clinton is deadly. When Romney lost Iowa, he tried to spin it as having been even further behind Huckabee (even though he was the presumed front-runner there til about a month ago) and the fact that he made up the gap to be only 9% was progress indeed! This guy is completely finished. McCain will beat him in New Hampshire and he'll gradually fade away into irrelevance. Everyone can see right through him.

By the way, I chatted with a Republican friend last night and she is an Obama fan, too. It's not just that she can't stand Hillary (she can't), but she does find Obama appealing and thinks the Republican party has drifted from its fiscally conservative roots. She echos something I've heard/read from more than one Republican and it's really bad news for Republicans in 2008. If Obama is nominated, unless some big scandal erupts or there's a 3rd-party candidate, he might crush any Republican opponent if too many Republicans support him.

Andrew

This just in: Romney wins WY caucuses

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22517585/

I hope he's washed up, I think it would be dangerous to have a mormon elected president. They say they won't infect government with their beliefs, but that's a lie. It's what they are taught to do in all aspects of life.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton criticizes rival Barack Obama's record on abortion rights in a mailing sent to New Hampshire voters. The mailer says that seven times during his time in the Illinois state Senate, Obama declined to take a position on abortion bills, while Clinton has been a defender of abortion rights.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U00P7O0&show_article=1

Now that the gloves are off, I'm liking Mr. Obama more and more. Maybe he's a tad more pro-life than even I thought.

Plus, if Mrs. Clinton is trashing him, he must be doing something good.

Herb

Herb you're becoming more fun all the time.

I know you're not a Bill Moyers fan at all, and I'll give you that. However last night on his PBS program "Journal," he had Ron Paul on for a 20 min. interview and followed it up with Dennis Kucinich.

It was intriguing to hear how different their messages are from the front runners and how popular they are on the internet, espcecially Paul. Many young people are drawn to these two men for their lack of polish and seemingly fly in the face philosophy of their own parties. It was quite a contrast to watch.

Mr. Paul, though a libertarian thinker, does indeed get a lot of things right. And because he's pro-life, he gets people like me at least listening when he, along with others like Mr. McCain, say we need to reduce our foreign oil craving.

But from there, I'm an Anwar and Nuclear power guy ALONG WITH green fuel sources. We just need a little help with non-green sources while we transition.

But you're right about the non-front runners being interesting.

Herb

Both made points last night that they are Christians who choose not to put their faith on their sleeves like Huckabee. It was refreshing to hear them get some quality air time.

Obama, a man with no experience, a man tied to the Daley machine, a man whose only qualification seems to be Oprah thinks hes sexy.

Those are aome of my concerns too, Nwokie. But I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination, because the number one priority is flushing the Republican party out of the White House.

Mr. Obama would be far preferable to Mrs. Clinton.

When she attacks Mr. Obama for not being radical enough on abortion, she shows her true colours.

Anyone with a 100% approval rating from naral like Mrs. Clinton says she must have icewater in her veins. That's how cold she is and how radical she is.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/clinton.html

Herb

Your kind of radical Herb...

Yeah, and that's fine. I'm radical to defend innocent unborn little kids. Not Mrs. Clinton.

Course, with travelgate, the white house billing records, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, whitewater, plus her turning a $1,000 stock tip into 100k...there's lots to dig into if she gets the nod.

http://www.againsthillary.com/2007/07/23/clinton-scandal-a-to-z-guide-flashback/

In fact, she'd probably be easier to beat than Mr. Obama. But that's not a chance I'm willing to take.

Herb

I hope he's washed up, I think it would be dangerous to have a mormon elected president. They say they won't infect government with their beliefs, but that's a lie. It's what they are taught to do in all aspects of life.

While I recognize Mormonism for the cult it is, a statement like that is akin to saying someone shouldn't vote for Obama because he'll make us all eat hog jowls, grits and watermelon if he's elected.

That sounds like what was said about John Kennedy, the Pope would be running the country.

Course, with travelgate, the white house billing records, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, whitewater, plus her turning a $1,000 stock tip into 100k...there's lots to dig into if she gets the nod.

EVERYONE in Washington has a dirty side Herb and if ya don't believe it just look at drunk DUHbya.

You can slander and trash a lame duck all day long, Trixter.

But if that's all you've got, you're doing no better than all those who piled on the impeached lame duck Mr. Clinton, a fact which you constantly remind us.

But at least there was presentable evidence to pile on Mr. Clinton, who found guilty of perjury, lost his law license and was impeached.

So since you don't have any solid goods on Mr. Bush, it's all talk. If you had any evidence, you and your democrat friends would have used it.

Mr. Bush runs the table on the democrats yet again. He beat Mr. Gore, he beat Mr. Kerry and he named a bunch of pro-life justices to the supreme court...all without breaking a sweat. And it still drives the left nuts, who insist on trying to get a pound of flesh. Keep looking in the rear view mirror, reliving the past. It only helps conservatives whilst democrats waste their energy on a president who is no longer able to run for office.

Herb

Herb- I believe the evidence is there....however it may not come out until years after he is out of office. I think Bush will be dogged his entire post-presidency about his adminstrations secrecy.

There are already plenty of former Bush officials who have come forward with damaging stories, but haven't been able to stay in the forefront of the media.

Every Presidency has it's controversial times, but its my opinion that when the history books are written Bush will be seen in the unkindest of lights. And his judgement day will come that is one thing I do know and I wouldn't want to be there.

Herb says:
"Keep looking in the rear view mirror, reliving the past."

Look who keeps bringing up Nixon. Look in the mirror bro.

Absolutely. I look in the mirror and live in the past with Mr. Nixon all day long. But I admire the guy.

How sad to spend it in the negative. What's pathetic is when people try to do someone in who hasn't even been convicted of any wrongdoing. I thought it was innocent until proven guilty?

This just in:
Obama Surges Past Clinton in New Poll
By Paul Steinhauser,CNN
Posted: 2008-01-06 22:41:26

MANCHESTER, N.H. (Jan. 6) - Two days before New Hampshire's Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in that state, a new CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.

Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week's Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday -- a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.

Herb

"What's pathetic is when people try to do someone in who hasn't even been convicted of any wrongdoing."

Bush has and it will be found out. But it won't happen during his presidency. Mark my words, the years after Bush is out of office you will be reading and hearing stuff that this man did that will not be kind. Hold onto your optimism Herb, this will be one President you won't want to live in the past with.....EVER!!

BTW- I concede Nixon to you.

"What's pathetic is when people try to do someone in who hasn't even been convicted of any wrongdoing."

What are you talking about?

What is pathetic is Herb requiring a conviction before criticisms can be made. Are you saying that accusations of wrongdoing are insufficient to criticize a President? If so, then I look forward to your retraction of all the criticisms you made of President Clinton based on his being merely impeached, but never convicted.

I am looking forward to my November flush appointment! I'm bringing a power rotorooter just in case the GOP tries to deliberately clog up the plumbing.

Not that it will matter at the time but this is one Democrat that will vote for Obama in the Oregon Primary. I wouldn't vote for Hillary for anything. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has everything to do with her. I'll vote for a woman for president when we have one worthy of it.

I'm hearing that a lot!

The next coupla states should prove interesting as she works on messaging.

IMHO, Obama / Edwards both are very electable. Hilary is a complete wild card, in that respect. People are starting to talk now, since Iowa kicked things off.

I've yet to hear anyone say, "Yeah, Hilary is the one." This has happened with both Obama and Edwards. Lots of younger people like Obama too. (very interesting, given the rough split we've got to work with this year)

"Are you saying that accusations of wrongdoing are insufficient to criticize a President?"

No. Critiques are an honoured American tradition. But when it crosses the line and goes into calling someone a criminal without a trial and conviction, what's equally American is 'innocent until proven guilty.'

Mr. Bush wasn't my first choice, but it's laughable that democrats who are supposedly all about civil rights, rush to judgment.

Herb

Herb- I guess Bush made it easy. He rushed to a decision about Iraq. He is getting what he put upon himself.

Rushed decision, President Bush gave Saddam several opportunities to comply with the cease fire from the first gulf war, Saddam ignored those requests.

Good point, Nwokie.
And the gutless UN gave Mr. Saddam plenty of time, as well.

Herb

Skybill says: "...a statement like that is akin to saying someone shouldn't vote for Obama because he'll make us all eat hog jowls, grits and watermelon if he's elected."

As Herb would quote Mrs. Clinton, "not so fast."

Don't confuse religion and culture. Mormonism is a religion, which is a choice. Mormons live by many rules and have many beliefs, all of which are instilled in their membership. Eating watermelon is not dictated by a religion or rule, it's simply their culture (even though it's mostly a stereotype). There is no doctrine of the black culture that says they must use government to make us all like grits. However, it's been proven that mormons will use government and power to advance their beliefs upon society as a whole when given the opportunity. When was the last time you saw black kids going door to door wearing short sleaved shirts and black ties trying to get you to eat grits?

It was reckless no matter how you try and spin it.

"...it's been proven that mormons will use government and power to advance their beliefs upon society as a whole when given the opportunity."

I don't carry water for the LDS church, but it's also been proven that hispanics, african-americans, catholics, evangelicals and secular progressives will all 'use government and power to advance their beliefs...'

The Rev. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Reed, Chuck Schumer and everyone inbetween attempt to use government to advance their agendas. To exclude all the other groups at the expense of the mormons, although I agree they are a cult, is myopic. There's plenty of other areas you can bash n' trash Mr. Romney without getting personal.

Herb

Look, I have no problem with blacks or hispanics using government to help advance equal rights, etc. But, when someone tries to advance their religious beliefs upon others, that's where I draw the line. Equal rights are not the same thing as fairy tale beliefs.

Equal rights, how about special rights.

Sorry, our nation was founded on religious principles.

"...endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights..."

And the Supreme Court has ruled that we don't check our religious beliefs at the door. Besides, it can easily be argued that secular progessives practice what is essentially an atheistic religion.

Herb

Define special rights.

Yes the founder fathers had strong religious beliefs, but they also made it very clear not having a belief is of equal importance.

Those who crafted our formation documents would be turning in their graves to see just how far off people like Herb have truly taken their ideas.

Herb you keep trying to put God in places where God has always been, but somehow you want to make sure there is some kind of emblem or religious artifact that reminds people of this.

Vitalogy does not have a religious belief system, however he does make room for those who do. Herb you don't seem to hold the same notion.

Just because the founding fathers believed in a creator does not make the idea of a creator any more or less factual. They were men back then, just like us today, who don't really know.

My belief system consists of those things that can be proven. If it can't be proven, then it has no place in our government or rule of law. Individuals are free to believe whatever they want, no matter how crazy or insane, but those beliefs should not be put into law for ALL of us to live under. When religious zealots are allowed to control government, that's called a theocracy. And we need to look no further than the middle east to see how theocratic government serves the people.

It is well known that the mormon church would like us all to live under their beliefs. Ever heard of a mission? What's the mission of a mission? Simple, to recruit more members to believe as they do, and to collect more money to further the mormon church's agenda. If their organization is so great, why the mammoth recruitment efforts? Mormons are free to make up whatever rules they want to live by within their own church. That's fine with me. Just don't expect the rest of us to put up with it when it spills over into the governemnt where members use their power and influence to change our laws.

Don't believe me? Read this: "Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt and members of his staff discussed how to incorporate Mormon principles into state policy."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRjE4VtAm4J5Sk-Mw4GT1lPt0SFgD8TS2VSG0

What is all the worry?
Oregon has a Mormon U.S. senator and a Mormon federal judge he got appointed (Mosman (sp.))

Mo Udall — who I believe is related to Gordon Smith — was also Mormon and a Democrat.

Romney would not dare try to get us all to talk to a Golden Salamander or force us to believe Jesus was resurrected in the United States.

I actually fear less his religious background than I do Huckabee's, who would do more to push his beliefs on us than Romney.

It's pretty funny that liberals who so often eschew faith, are handwringing about Mr. Romney.

I'm definitely no LDS backer, but something about him scares them far more than one would expect.

Herb

It's pretty funny that conservatives who so often promote faith, are handwringing about Mr. Huckabee.

Something about him really scares them.

Herb there are many people of faith who lean left. There are plenty of non-believers who lean right. This should not be about whose religion is going to make a better president or not. I think Vitalogy spelled it our perfectly.

Lets keep the campaign focused on more important issues.

troll sez: "And the gutless UN gave Mr. Saddam plenty of time, as well."

Unlike plenty-of-guts Bush, the UN didn't bust their budget killing no-WMD holding non-terrorist Saddam Hussain. The UN is looking pretty smart standing next to our smirking egg-on-his-face President.

Lets Get this thread back on track.

Last night was a very momorable night for American ploitics. Not only was there a record voter turnout, but there was also a truly historic speech. And that was Baracks. Why is it that his speech's make me feel like I am truly experiencing history in the making? Who are his speech writers and do they realize that they are invoking JFK, MLK, Lincpln just to name a few. He has SC, Michigan, and Nevada all but won already mark my words that Obama is already the most presidential of all the canidates.

Mr. Obama connects with most of us because
1. He's not lying
2. He appears to actually believe what he says, while not always pandering [everyone does a tad]
3. He's positive and not on constant 'attack his competitor' mode.

None of those things are strong suits of Mrs. Clinton.

I may not agree with all of Mr. Obama's positions, mainly on the life issue, but he would probably make a good president. Far better than his main opponent. He's also far less tainted than Mr. Edwards, a slick trial lawyer.

Herb

Richard Nixon was a Lawyer.
Not slick per se, but certainly Slimey.

Happy Birthday Dick, may you continue to rot in Hell.

Shyguy, I felt exactly the same way. Obama's speech in NH was riveting. People who haven't seen it should watch it, whether you are an Obama supporter or not. If Obama winds up winning the nomination, I think that speech will be the one remembered, the way Bill Clinton's "Comeback kid" speech from 1992 still is.

By the way, Obama "lost" only in terms of public perception and the media. Due to proportional awarding of delegates, Obama and Clinton each got 9 delegates as a result of the New Hampshire vote. Clinton is still ahead in delegate count due to some sort of goofy "super-delegates" which Clinton has already won, somehow without any public voting...

Andrew

Given that NH is mostly white and quite conservative, I think Obama did just fine in NH. He was behind in the polling until just a few days ago, and we all know how accurate polls can be.

In one sense I'm glad the pollsters have finally been proven to be fallible. The last few months all you've heard in the media is who is "ahead" and "behind" in the presidential race as if the polls somehow meant something ahead of actual voting. Tell ya what: you can say who's ahead when one candidate has more delegates than another. Obviously opinion polls don't count for much, no matter how many times we're told how incredibly accurate they are nowadays.

The pollsters were way off about New Hampshire. Some polls predicted Obama would win New Hampshire by 10 or more points.

Andrew

Happy Birthday Dick, may you continue to rot in Hell.

AHHHHHH Justice.....

I will change my Party reg just to be able to Vote Democratic against Hillary if I have too. At this point anyone but HILLARY. I don't agree with Obama's politics but I will say he presents himself the best out of any person in both parties.

I will say he presents himself the best out of any person in both parties.

Ahmen!

I'd say Obama will be president in 2016.

I've been in Florida the last few days. People here like him! The annual conference I'm attending features people from around the globe, and Obama is a point of discussion, I didn't expect.

I'm seriously liking that spark he has. Maybe he really is the right guy.

IMHO, having an ability to connect to and attract a diverse set of people is very important in a President. Another thing too:

One can be wise and smart, yet not too experienced and do very well, depending on how one chooses to do things, who is chosen for what role, etc...

Look at the (P)resident! He's done very, very well, if you take it from his perspective. Advancing the notion of executive power, neo-conservative agenda items, entitling the wealthy, etc... it's all gone down nicely, but for some pesky slip ups here and there.

(Greedy people are people too)

My point here is not to slam Bush, but to highlight where one's affinity toward people, and the kind of people they are, really can pack a punch, and Obama has it across a wide spectrum.

John Kerry has announced he is backing Obama today.

What? A member of the Status Quo backed Change? I'd think Obama wouldn't want this endorsement from a reminder of 2004's painful defeat by Bush.

Andrew

Agreed. I thought it was interesting that he's not backing Edwards.

Kerry and Edwards never got along that well, and have blamed each other for their loss. Heck Edwards couldn't even carry his home state.

Bush did and look at what a mess we have in America today for it.

This just in from the Boston Globe:

"The military has warned soldiers not to use official computers to forward a chain email that falsely accuses Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of being a Muslim who attended a radical Muslim school, saying distribution of the information is a violation of Army regulations and constitutes unlawful political activity.

The memorandum, dated Thursday, came after the discredited claims about Obama's background were sent from an Army computer to what appear to be thousands of Army personnel worldwide.

"Currently there is a Chain Email floating around with the Subject line: 'Who is Barack Obama,' " states the official warning, which was sent to all personnel who work for the Army Medical Command, based in Fort Sam Houston, Tex. "Like virtually all chain emails this one is false."

Further, it adds, distributing the e-mail using military computers is a violation of several Army regulations that state that government communications equipment must be used only for official purposes and that their misuse could be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Moreover, Army personnel were told that the political nature of the e-mail constitutes a violation of separate regulations that explicitly bar the military from engaging in any political activities while on duty, saying "the subject email falls under the realm of prohibited political activity."

One of the relevant regulations states that uniformed or civilian Defense Department employees cannot, among other things, "knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business with DoD; engage in political activity while on duty; and engage in political activity while in any Federal workplace."

A copy of the reprimand, which came from information technology managers at the Army Medical Command, was obtained by the Globe. The author of the message, reached by the Globe today, confirmed its content.

"In this emotion-charged election year expect to see an overabundance of similar chain emails from friends and foes alike in both your personal and government email inboxes," it concludes. "Just keep in mind that the government systems are for official use only."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/military_warns .html

As far as the comments about Obama being shot if he were elected President, I don't think so. I think racists are far lazier than they used to be! People with such a backward view of things realize that they have lost, and probably see the world as failing and going to "hell in a hand basket" rapidly. I doubt that inspires the desire to pull the trigger to "save America" from being influenced by a black leader.

Just my humble opinion.