A letter to the Clinton supporters, explaining why people support Obama

[TheWraith]

I see Clinton supporters acting like it's incomprehensible why people would support Obama. From my perspective, it's nearly incomprehensible not to. Obama represents virtually everything that the progressive wing of the party has been waiting and hoping for.

A message that can bring in independents and Republicans, without compromising basic core principles. Motivating voter turnout for our side, rather than the other guys. Bringing new voters into the process.

Opposition not just to the war, but to the continuance of all sorts of failed policies that previous politicians have gone along with because that was the status quo.

Elimination of big-business ownership of government and lobbyist influence. A campaign funded by real people, and in massive numbers and quantity. An end to the Republican financial advantage over Democrats on the national scene.

A new, fresh start on the international scene, someone not hobbled by having endorsed the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, or by any other connection to past mistakes and baggage carried by the history of US policies.

In short, Obama presents the figure of an FDR, a leader who offers a radical change for the better in the direction of the country, and the establishment of progressive ideals not tainted by politics as usual.

[zalinda]

1. Whatever you're smoking, pass it around

He may represent that in your Obama eyes, but not mine.

He's a 1/2 black man who speaks well and is backed by a lot of money. He and Clinton's policies are almost interchangeable. Some people support him because he's black, some because he's a man, some because he's not Clinton, some because he speaks well, some because he is the latest fad. No one talks about supporting him because of his policies. Why? Because he doesn't speak about his policies except in broad terms, because they are almost a carbon copy of Clintons', which came by way of Edwards. His supporters can't talk about his policies, they can only point to his website. That tells you something right there.

As far as his opposition to the war, how come he has said yes to every single funding bill? He is not a fresh start, he the Jerry Falwell of the left. He is not JFK, RFK or FDR, or anyone close to that stature. His leader in the state senate, made him by giving him bills to pass that he either didn't work on, or worked on very little. He is a manufactured candidate, and the only reason he has gotten this far is because the media has been kind to him.

zalinda

[Kittycat]

2. Nice race baiting.

[zalinda]

3. And, out of everything I said you pounced on race

that is very telling. You honestly don't think people are voting for him because of his race? Yet, if Edwards was still in the race, you'd tell me that white men were voting for him because he's white and a man.

Yup, typical Obama supporter.

zalinda

[leeman67]

4. Sorry but...

saying he's a "half-black man who speaks well" sounds just a wee bit racist even if that wasn't your intent.

[Kittycat]

6. Not to mention it was his starting point, then reinforced once more.

[jgraz]

40. The old "who me, racist?" tactic

This is so typical of Clinton supporters, you almost have to wonder if they're being coached.

[zalinda]

22. And, if I said it was a white man who speaks well

would you have called me a racist? Obama supporters seem to jump on anything that remotely connects to race. How many white men have been lauded as great orators? The fact that MLK has been called probably the greatest orator of all time, and he's black, makes a difference? When MLK spoke, I heard something. When Obama speaks it might as well be the adults on the Peanuts cartoons, because all I hear is wawa wah wah. MLK spoke of substance, with Obama there is no substance there. All he does is speak well and is a half black (got to be politically correct) man, who probably would not be where he is if he was all white.

I don't know maybe his supporters never heard MLK speak, so they haven't heard greatness before. Even Jesse Jackson is more inspiring than Obama, and had Jackson made the nomination, I would have proudly voted for him. No, Obama doesn't even come up to the knees of these 2 great men. I seen and listened to greatness and it isn't Obama.

Btw, I've compared him to other black men because your statement suggested that black men can't speak well.

zalinda

[grantcart]

14. your bitterness is palpable

[ClassWarrior]

16. Okay, let me "pounce" on something else. According to some, he could be FDR.

See post #11 below.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Hello?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

27. Hm... you bemoan people "pouncing on race," yet that's all you seem to want to discuss.

NGU.

[stillcool]

21. can't imagine why..

He's a 1/2 black man who speaks well and is backed by a lot of money. He and Clinton's policies are almost interchangeable. Some people support him because he's black

[MH1]

32. Why did you even include race in your comment?

THAT's the issue.

[zalinda]

42. Ah, because HE'S running on being black

He's part of the "historic" dem race. And, just like Clinton's gender is an issue, so is Obama's race. But, it seems that with Obama supporters, you dare not mention his race.

zalinda

[LowerManhattanite]

7. Race...the first thing out of your mouth...

Kinda like an ingredient listing on a package. The items are listed by “proportion” in the mix.

The FIRST thing listed is the component in the highest concentration.

Thanks for that insight into what makes you tick.

[Catherina]

8. You're too funny! Thank God he's only 1/2 Black

The candidate the media has been kind to is Hillary Clinton. They say on the Tuzla story for weeks before people made it such a fuss on the internet they couldn't ignore it anymore. I leave you to your sour grapes Zalinda. You can suck them while sitting on Hillary's Express-Train-to-the-Iran-war.

[JayFredMuggs]

46. Is this like saying "thank God Hillary is only HALF woman?"

I don't get this waste of space on gender and race............sorry........I got over those issues 50 years ago, and wish the rest of America would do the same.

I look at Hillary and Barack as PEOPLE of the HUMAN RACE. Then I go on from there and look at their positions on issues, their character, and their background, then I look at their leadership skills. We are, indeed, electing a national and world leader.

Only one person measures up in all of those qualities for me, and I don't care if he or she is a purple lesbian or a green giant.

Why do Democrats continue making RACE or GENDER part of the equation? We won those wars about equal opportunity for many of our nation, and should be concerned only with the remaining few who don't, unfortunately, enjoy such rights. Barack, Hillary, John McSame, they are all U S Senators, distinguished people on this planet, all of whom serve our nation and the world.

Let's focus on their ability to lead, not the other crap.

[Raejeanowl]

10. Zalinda, You Make Good Points

And they can't undermine them with the usual redirected race-baiting accusational bullshit. It shows weakness.

Since race, age and gender are very much unavoidable features of this and any campaign, and insofar as a man of color is running for the Democratic nomination, it's hardly earth-shattering to point out that it very much is one of the touchstones of why people respond to Obama in certain ways.

How is anyone going to deny that many voters are VERY excited about the racial representation factor? They can't have it both ways. You don't get to enjoy a totally baggage-free bias point in Obama's favor and simultaneously discredit the identifiers of that bias. It's there, the elephant in the Democratic living room.

[MH1]

33. Specifics, and not interchangeable with Clinton:

http://lessig.org/blog/Fact%20Sheet%20Innovation%20and%20Technology%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf

Shorter version:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

Why Lawrence Lessig supports Obama:
http://lessig.org/blog/2007/11/4barack.html

Who is Lawrence Lessig? (many people at DU should know, but some may not)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

[Hamlette]

36. so, they are exactly the same except he's black and you don't consider that race baiting?

you people have lost the ability to hear yourself.

I do hate to say this but the issue IS likability. The person who gets elected is the one who is most likable. Bill was likable but Hillary is not.

It's not because she's a woman, I find many women likable. It's because she seems deceptive and not completely honest, traits she has reinforced from the health care disaster when she excluded everyone but her select few from the design team to the Bosnian disaster.

I still would have given her a pass and until a couple of weeks ago I was supporting Obama but said "either one is fine with me". Not so anymore. Her comments about Wright, Bosnia, McCain being experienced but Obama not being experienced, her mocking Obama supporters, together with how the right hates the Clintons has convinced me she will divide the country further and we need to turn the flipping page on this shit and MOVE ON.

I don't care about Wright, which is the most dirt you have on Obama, because he is a religious figure. If you can buy, as Bill Maher says, a space daddy and heaven and hell and virgin births you are obviously NOT looking to your religious leader for truth.

[zalinda]

44. And, she's a woman, so what's the big deal?

And, while Obama has not been called every racial epitaph in the book, Clinton has been called every negative name for a woman imaginable.....and yes, here on DU.

The fact that Obama supporters somehow can't get past the race issue is a mystery to me. I've made it clear that I don't care if it's a black, white or green person running, or if it's a man, woman or hermaphrodite, I want the issue front and center, and that has not happened in this race.

Anyone who says anything about Obama that has the slightest racial overtone, is pounced on as being racist. I have to wonder about all those who cry racist, what neighborhood do you live in? Is it all white or is it like mine, a veritable United Nations.

zalinda

[Hamlette]

45. we have lost the ability to see the other side's point of view

I honestly can't see the Hillary supporter's point of view and they can't see mine.

It does not good to talk about it now.

Sad.

[zalinda]

48. I am in the unique position of not being a supporter

of either side. The simple truth is Obama supporters push me to defend Clinton, as the beating that she has endured has been unending. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would probably be defending Obama, but it's not.

I go to only 2 places on this board. I click on the front page and the latest page, a few times a day. This is where I get my news. When you start reading the titles of the threads you start to get a sense of what is going on and who is doing it. The amazing sense of arrogance coming from the Obama supporters is unbelievable, the term of "sore winners" comes to mind. All those Clinton supporters that you are rubbing their noses in, in your win, you will need in the GE. But the arrogance suggests that you don't need anyone but Obama supporters, that is too sad. But, I'm sure after Obama loses the GE, you will then be blaming the Clinton supporters. This is the most unbelievably sad primary season I've ever witnessed.

zalinda

[ginnyinWI]

37. it's not about policies to me.

Their policies are very similar.

The difference is the person. Obama would show the world that things are going to change--that this is no longer a Bush nation or a Clinton nation. It's a chance for America to have a fresh start.

I also think his ethics and values are just what this country needs as an antidote to all the secrecy and law-breaking that's been going on. His statements on transparency and changing the way Washington works have been absent from his opponent. It won't be easy to fix all that's wrong, but he knows how to galvanize groups of people and take on powers that be without losing his own integrity. The way he's been running his campaign shows this, as does his life story.

[Lerkfish]

39. and your reason for the racebait?

I see no good reason

[madmunchie]

47. EVERYTHING you said can also be said about HRC customized to her though

He's a 1/2 black man (WIFE OF FORMER PRES) who speaks well and is backed by a lot of money - (HRC IS BACKED BY A LOT OF MONEY from corps and lobbyists). He and Clinton's policies are almost interchangeable. (CLOSE/BUT HE HAS MORE TACT AND FINESSE AND A RECORD OF SOUND JUDGMENTS THAT BACK HIS POLICIES) Some people support him because he's black, (MANY SUPPORT HER BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN AND HAS THE LAST NAME CLINTON) some because he's a man, some because he's not Clinton, some because he speaks well (SORRY, SHE IS NOT A GOOD SPEAKER SINCE WHEN IS THAT BAD??????), some because he is the latest fad (SOME BECAUSE THE MS HAS BEEN TRYING TO PUSH HER DOWN OUR THROATS FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS). No one talks about supporting him because of his policies. Why? Because he doesn't speak about his policies except in broad terms, because they are almost a carbon copy of Clinton's', which came by way of Edwards. His supporters can't talk about his policies, they can only point to his website. That tells you something right there. (OH PLEASE!!!! HIS POLICIES/ ARE MORE SOUNDLY BACKED BY HIS LIFE AND HIS JUDGMENTS/VOTES/ SHE IS ALL OVER THE BOARD. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE HER TO ADMIT THAT HER IRAQ VOTE WAS WRONG????? HOW ABOUT THE BANKRUPTCY BILL???...NAFTA SUPPORT????? EVEN THOUGH SHE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE STORY ON THAT ONE)

As far as his opposition to the war, how come he has said yes to every single funding bill?(HOW DO YOU STOP FUNDING THE TROOPS?????? - A LOT EASIER TO "NOT DRIVE THE BUS INTO THE DITCH TO BEGIN WITH THAN TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT OUT") He is not a fresh start( SHE IS SO "THE ESTABLISHMENT" THE SAME IL SAME IL" , he the Jerry Falwell (WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING'?) of the left. He is not JFK, RF or FDR, or anyone close (SHE ISN'T MARGARET THATCHER OR QUEEN ELIZABETH AND ENTITLED TO BE POUTS) to that stature. His leader in the state senate, made him by giving him bills to pass that he either didn't work on, (HRC VOTED FOR IWR (WHEN SHE KNEW BETTER THAN ANYBODY ABOUT IRAQ SINCE SHE WAS IN THE WH FOR 8 YEARS AND HAD ACCESS TO MUCH MORE INFO THAN MOST AS WELL AS HAVING ACCESS TO MANY OF THE EXPERTS ON THE ME AND IRAQ)or worked on very little. He is a manufactured candidate,(HRC IS A CANDIDATE FOR POTUS BECAUSE HER LAST NAME IS CLINTON AND HER HUSBAND HAS BEEN BUSILY WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES TO GET HER IN THE WH) and the only reason he has gotten this far is because the media has been kind to him. (AGAIN, THE ONLY REASON WHY HRC IS WHERE SHE IS IS BECAUSE OF HER HUSBAND - REMEMBER, HE CAME FROM PRETTY MUCH NOWHERE AND UPSET GHB FOR THE WH/ SHE COMES IN W/ THE BIGGEST "WAR-CHEST" (MONEY) IN HISTORY OF THE PRIMARIES/ BLOWS IT AND IS NOW IN DEBT BECAUSE - - -SHE IS NOT BILL AND HIS COAT TAILS ARE GETTING RAGGED) WHERE AS OBAMA STARTED W/ NO MONEY (MOST OF HIS SUBSEQUENT RECORD BREAKING MONEY RAISING IS COMING IN FROM SMALL DONATIONS BECAUSE HE IS PAVING HIS OWN WAY)

Get a life, everything you said is so superficial in defense of HRC/ she should have been hands down the nominee IF she was really wanted by the people/ she had all of the ADVANTAGES FROM EARLY ON....money/name recog/ and msm getting all of us used to her being the nominee....she is just not likable enough for people to trust and respect her to be POTUS and that is being reflected in the voting booths. While the heavy handed "leaders" have supported her/the people have not and now some of the "leaders" are beginning to fall away as well.

zalinda

[zalinda]

51. At least I had the courtesy of not yelling.

Anyway, I don't support Clinton either. So, your rant is lost on me. They are both leftovers from 2% of the dem primary voters in Iowa. 98% of the dem primary voters did not get to vote for who they really wanted. Some fair election! Money has drove this election like an auction. Really sad!

zalinda

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Where do you get this claptrap?

He's almost antithetical to what you claim.

Sure, he's not a fascist, but he's a go-with-the-flow corporatist. Not only does he not rock the boat, he's Mr. Even Keel himself. He's steadfastly avoided controversial votes and positions and he actively embraces the stultifying forces of power.

Religion is slathered about endlessly to a dangerous degree, and the feeling of a vague movement is no accident with this approach.

His positions are based on supposition and it's transparent as hell. Sure, Clinton was dead wrong about voting for the horrible "sense of the Senate" on Iran, but much as Obama grandstanded and made endless hay after Edwards brought the subject up, he couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote on it. If it was so important, he'd have been first in the line to vote against it, but he wasn't.

His repeated votes of "present" on divisive issues show him to be cautious beyond the ken of someone pretending to be a crusader, and it just goes on and on.

With a wife who makes six thousand dollars a week as an administrator for a profitable medicine-for-money corporation, it's no surprise that his health plan is so weak. That she portrays herself as just like the rest of us and a simple working mom shows the extent to which the two of them will go with posturing.

He's an ultra-moderate, and suffers from precisely the same malady as Senator Clinton does: chronic, mealy-mouthed accomodation.

Virtually everything you've said is wholly unsupported, and the only things he really has to run on are intentions and claims of how he would have handled situations for which he was never called to account.

What is truly amazing is the extreme nature of groupthink and self-delusion. Sure, he's no fiend, but he's NOT courageous or particularly progressive. He also makes extremely bad alliances and thinks he can continue getting away with these relationships.

Truly, most of the Obama campaign and supporters have the world on "ignore", dismissing nasty reality as inconsequential as they ride the petering-out wave of enthusiastic novelty.

I get the passion and fulfillment, and this is obvious; it's just not particularly founded, and there are going to be some very disillusioned partisans when the tide ebbs.

I just hope that he and they don't fuck it all up for the rest of us.

[cornermouse]

38. $6,000 a week in a hospital?

I'm going to take a moment to point out that you don't get that high up the ladder without being a real cutthroat.

[Rageneau]

9. Obama is a fad. All icing and no cake. He's popular because young people are impressionable.

But when the real election begins and the REAL opponents of the Democratic Party unpack their weapons, these starry-eyed Obamaniacs will begin to learn -- most for the first time -- what they are really up against.

Then, many of them will finally see why so many of us who have been around a while know Hillary is our best candidate. Obama is going to panic, steam in circles, try to flee, and eventually sink under the barrage they will hit him with -- a barrage he has never in his political life seen anything like.

Obama is going to get slammed, pilloried, torn limb from limb, and slandered with a thousand lies, and neither he nor his supporters are going to know what to do about it.

But if Hillary is the nominee, things won't get a BIT rougher on her. Because they can't.

[ClassWarrior]

12. If things don't get rough on HRC, it'll be because...

...Murdoch and Sciaffe are her new best buddies. And if you're willing to trust those snakes' good intentions, I pity you.

By the way, I see what you mean about Obama being such a panicky guy. :eyes:

NGU.

[Raejeanowl]

17. You've Got It

Not the thinking person's candidate. The "Feel-Good" candidate. The hot dog. The neophyte, part-time legislator, perennially running the fast track for the next higher office, with the padded resume and the big dog backers.

Clinton's been on this inquisitional wheel for what, fifteen or so years? Ready-made villainess, already hated or disliked by many, multiple "scandals" already out there, ready to pick over again.

When it's time for the Republican Party to get its digs in and win at any cost-especially compensating for the relative weakness of their own candidate-this Democratic race will begin to look like kindergarten squabbling for Obama.

[ClassWarrior]

19. That's right. "Multiple scandals already out there" in the public's mind...

...ready to be activated with just a few words. "Chinese donors." "Blue dress." "Feminazi." The RW bastards will barely have to lift a finger to re-smear her.

Learn a little about cognitive science: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

NGU.

[stillcool]

23. You can always hope, wish, and pray...

[izzybeans]

25. It's extremely naive to assume that older adults aren't impressionable and easy to decieve.

Boomers have notoriously been the goat (and the perpetrators) of a governmental heist of epic proportions and yet somehow the youth are the ones naive. how old are the leaders driving this national crisis in leadership? Who supports them?

[ClassWarrior]

11. Obama is a Progressive opportunity, ala FDR...

CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven on a recent Democracy Now!:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression—working people, the unemployed—and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

NGU.

[dana_b]

13. which, imo, is what we are in need of for our economy.

Also a leader who will talk with the "enemy". This Iran thing is happening right now under our noses and it's scaring the crap out of me. If we had a leader who was willing to talk to them without any pretext, maybe the financial blockade that we are throwing at them right now wouldn't be happening. We're on our way to war without the leaders ONCE talking face to face. How an they let that happen?

[grantcart]

15. evidently they don't want your letter - many of them need therapy.

[immoderate]

18. I support Obama because...

With his charisma, personality, and intellect, there is the chance that he can rise to the opportunity presented to him. He just might be the next JFK. I don't think HRC can be that.

--IMM

[1776Forever]

20. The Next JFK? Ted Sorenson, President John F. Kennedy’s speech writer says:

The Next JFK?

Ted Sorenson, President John F. Kennedy’s speech writer and one of his closest aides, has declared Obama is the true heir to JFK’s legacy and said this:

http://2parse.com/?p=38

Perhaps most tellingly, both preached (and personified) the politics of hope in contrast to the politics of fear, which characterized Republican speeches during their respective eras. In 1960 and earlier, cynics and pessimists accepted the ultimate inevitability of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, much as today they assume a fruitless and unending war against terrorism. Hope trumped fear in 1960, and I have no doubt that it will again in 2008.

Although President Kennedy became the breakthrough president on civil rights, health care, and other liberal issues, he was not the most liberal candidate for the nomination in 1960. His emphasis on the importance of ethics, moral courage, and a multilateral foreign policy made him –like Obama –hard to pigeonhole with a single ideological label. His insistence that the United States “must do better” in every sphere of activity, including its cold war competition with the Soviet Union, caused some historians to mistakenly recall that he “ran to the right” of Richard Nixon on national security issues, forgetting his emphasis on negotiations and peaceful solutions.

JFK’s establishment opponents– probably not unlike Obama’s–did not understand Kennedy’s appeal. “Find out his secret,” LBJ instructed one of his aides sent to spy on the Kennedy camp, “his strategy, his weaknesses, his comings and goings.” Ultimately, Kennedy was both nominated and elected, not by secretly outspending or out-gimmicking his opponents but by outworking and out-thinking them, especially by attracting young volunteers and first-time voters. Most of Kennedy’s opponents, like Obama’s, were fellow senators–Johnson, Humphrey, and Symington–who initially dismissed him as neither a powerhouse on the Senate floor nor a member of their inner circle. That mattered not to the voters; nor does it today.

Above all, after eight years out of power and two bitter defeats, Democrats in 1960, like today, wanted a winner–and Kennedy, despite his supposed handicaps, was a winner. On civil rights, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the race to the moon, and other issues, President Kennedy succeeded by demonstrating the same courage, imagination, compassion, judgment, and ability to lead and unite a troubled country that he had shown during his presidential campaign. I believe Obama will do the same.

What seemed to me more newsworthy about the Telegraph article than the headline, and the bulk of the article which made this point:

The Kennedy legacy and the aura of Camelot have been powerful but largely unspoken themes underpinning the campaign of Mr Obama, another charismatic Harvard alumnus heralding a new era in politics.

[Life Long Dem]

26. And guess what? Some because he is much more honest..

If you don't have any honesty, In my opinion you don't have anything I want. Example, Bush.

[doyourealize1]

28. I don't think so

I am an HRC supporter who also likes Obama, but less.

A lot of Obama voters polarize HRC voters, but that's not always the case. Far from it.

[OzarkDem]

29. Obama is nothing like FDR

and as much as it pains me to disagree with fellow Dems, he's not what you think he is.

FDR would never promote health care reform that doesn't cover all Americans

FDR would never use Republican talking points to criticize another Dem's health care reform plan

FDR would never promote privatizing social security

FDR would never go to bat for the nuclear energy utility companies and protect them from safety regulations

FDR would never go to bat for any public utility over the interests of average Americans


You need to take an close look at they guy you're supporting. Advice from a fellow Dem who cares.

[ClassWarrior]

35. But there's real potential there... See post #16.

NGU.

[VotesForWomen]

30. yeah, none of that's true. if O was a black woman his campaign would have gone nowhere. it is a cult

of personality, plain and simple. people are projecting anything they want onto Obama, and hey, since nobody even heard of this guy a year ago, it's easy to do.

[JCMach1]

31. Obama is no FDR... and if you think he is offering true Progressive

change you aren't reading the policy statements that I am...

He is John Kerry-lite and ultimately about as electable...

[ClassWarrior]

34. Not yet. See post #16 above.

NGU.

[NashVegas]

41. Your Post Starts Out on a False Premise

I cannot speak for other Clinton supporters, only for myself, and I never had or expressed any difficulty in understanding that some people would support Obama. It is my belief the average Clinton supporter never had any problems with the fact that some people would support Obama's campaign.

What I reject are the blinded-by-idealism arguments in favor of his candidacy - which is if anything, even more cynical than any other previous front-running campaign in history, once you look under the hood.

Elimination of big-business ownership of government and lobbyist influence.

Get real. Goldman Sachs is Obama's #1 contributor. #1. If big business had any belief his candidacy posed any threat to their grip on power, he'd have been eliminated by January 19.

That's just one thing. There's more. What is incomprehensible to me, not just as a Clinton supporter, but as a Democrat, is how the media has set itself up as SuperDelegate Numero Uno, and Obama supporters claim not to see this, or somehow think "this is a good thing" because they're currently on the same side.

[TheWraith]

49. "Blinded by idealism..." I hear that a lot from Republicans.

Usually when somebody tells me that I'm being an unrealistic idealist it's followed by the phrase "wide eyed liberal" or some variation thereof. Being a liberal Democrat is ABOUT being idealistic. That's rather part of the point.

And you have no actual proof of your suggestion that Obama's candidacy is somehow "more cynical" than that of the Great Triangulator or any other. Put it this way--he's raised more money than any other candidate, from more donors than any primary campaign in American history. You also conveniently leave out that those donations are from employees of Goldman Sachs, not from their lobbyists or the company itself. God forbid people working in the finance industry recognize that they need a Democrat to fix the economy for them to have continued job security.

You also forget that "big business" isn't a monolithic group that meets in a shadowy room and decides how to control politics. What IS true is that there's one pro-business DLC Democrat in the race: that's Clinton. There's one Democrat who takes money from lobbyists and defends the lobbying industry: that's Clinton. And the candidate who has taken the MOST money from lobbyists is NOT McCain: it's Clinton.

By the way, the media treatment of the race works against Obama, not for him, because they perpetuate the meme that it's still up in the air, or that Clinton could still win, when neither is true.

[butterfly77]

43. Here is what they are not getting...

they are not really listening to what he is saying they are getting caught up on him being new and looking at his color. Hillary supporters mainly are having a problem because they think that it is her time and it is owed to her as the republiCONS were thinking about McCain at one time,.

As a former Hillary supporter I have never understood why people were voting for her just because she is a woman which seems to be the main reason, I am not voting for Obama because of his skin color either. I switched as I began really looking at each for who they were and there messages. I did a lot of research on Obama and I myself was surprised as I slowly began to listen to him very closely.

[Skip Intro]

50. Hillary supporters are hung up on his color???!!! BULLSHIT!

I cannot believe you even said that.