"Why Obama Will Never Win" by At Random / LJWorld.com

Blogs home At Random

Why Obama Will Never Win

Obama may look like the winning horse leading the pack at the beginning of this year's Presidential race, but he won't be able to keep up the pace all the way to the finish line. He isn't seasoned. He isn't experienced. Neither he or Edwards have the lineage behind them that would be required to go the distance. Still, Obama is working the track and has picked his way from the back of the pack and moved into a key position to make a run for the final stretch. It hasn't been an easy task. He has been hit by dirt and mud as much as any of his opponents. He seems to be gaining speed. He is a full length ahead of Edwards and Edwards is a nose in front of Clinton.I am glad I have my bet on Clinton though. She is saving herself for the finish line. She has great stamina, loves to be pushed for a grand finish, and is well seasoned and confident. She stands head and shoulders above the competition because of her previous experiences in other races such as these - some of which she watched from the sidelines. Obama has blinders on; he won't be able to see the filly passing him on the inside track until he begins to taste the dust that is stirred up as she leaves him far behind. And she hasn't even begun to work up a lather.

By Ronda Miller

January 6, 2008

At Random

From the Citizen Journalism Academy

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

6 January 2008
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…

“Obsama?”

Stay classy, Marion.
6 January 2008
at 9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Barclay (Anonymous) says…

When Sen. Obama spoke at the Lied Center didn't I hear him say something to the effect of, the ownership of private property is the reason behind some of our nation's biggest problems. People cheered. I have a problem with that statement, but I have bigger problems with Sen. Clinton.
6 January 2008
at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kugrad (Anonymous) says…

The least experienced president prior to taking office was Abraham Lincoln. Enough said.

No Barclay, Obama did not credit ownership of private property with our nation's biggest problems. You must have misunderstood him.
6 January 2008
at 9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Barclay (Anonymous) says…

On March 3, 2006 Obama spoke in Topeka. During his speech he referenced an “ownership society” as being a problem in America. I ask this, how can socialism ever bring prosperty? Throughout history, personal responsibility and personal ownership have always served humans better than dependence upon government for the meeting of basic needs- excluding national defense and infrastructure. Long-term prosperity in any nation has never come from government. Ask Cubans, North Korea, former East Germans, Russians…
6 January 2008
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

coneflower (Anonymous) says…

He isn't owned by anybody.
6 January 2008
at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

markoo (Anonymous) says…

Short version: Obama bad, Clinton good. Obama weak, Clinton strong. I back up nothing to support myself, but I believe it anyway. I look at no polling data like this one that shows a 13 point swing for Obama in NH (and is now up by 10):

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi…

Or this one showing a 3 point gain for Obama and Edwards (and cnn/wmur being notoriously off like in Iowa showing Hillary up +2 and was off by 10):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/…

Or this poll from the Concord Monitor showing Obama up 1%:

http://www.yourconcord.com/primaryblo…

All trending with Obama gaining and Hillary losing in a state that merely a month ago was her “stronghold” with a comfortable lead.

But Obama bad, Hillary good. Yep.

Sorry, Ronda, I don't like the current caucus/primary system setup myself, but as it stands you have to live with the fact that Iowa has a tremendous influence on the tone of the race. And that just doesn't bode well for your candidate. But you're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe, despite the polls and what people on the ground are saying.
6 January 2008
at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

markoo (Anonymous) says…

And BTW, what is all this “experience” crud Hillary supporters speak of about their candidate? Being the head of the Task Force on Health Care Reform? Gosh, that really went swimmingly for her and her “experience”, didn't it? Did the rest of Bubba's experience as the President just get passed down to her by proxy or osmosis somehow, or shall we understand that it was, in fact, Bill who was the president and has all the experience and not Hillary?

6 January 2008
at 10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…

Why Obama Will Never Win?
Because the Mike Huckabee / Chuck Norris ticket is just too strong.

I don't know much about Huckabee, but I'll tell ya… That Norris dude…
I once saw him in a movie where he took on a country like The Iraq, all by himself.
It was over in an hour and 30 minutes, not 7 years…
6 January 2008
at 11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…

I fail to see how people can think Hillary has enough experience to be President. If she gets the nomination she will only provide more of the status quo of partisan rancor that has befouled this country for a long time now. America does not need more of this!
6 January 2008
at 11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…

Good one, Reticent! Don't forget that the chief export of Chuck Norris is pain!
6 January 2008
at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yankeelady (Anonymous) says…

Don't count John Edwards out. He has some good plans, and would not be part of the same old gang. I like Hilary, but 4 yrs Daddy, 8 yrs Clinton, 8 disaster yrs with W, then 4-8 more Clinton would not be good. We really do need change. And I don't think the Republicans can begin to provide a healthy change. The Republican hierarchy isn't thrilled with Huckabee either, he plays to the neocons, but not the corporates, and that's where the decision will be made. Watch, there will be a stealth attack on Huckabee like South Carolina in 2000 on McCain. Karl Rove may be gone, but his legacy is there.
6 January 2008
at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

I could care less about who Chuck Norris or Ophrah endorse. We live in such a celebrity society. That's why when an untalented young man with mental problems doesn't get a lot of notice decides to shoot up a shopping mall. It's why that guy (whose name I refuse to remember) blew up the federal building in OK. He thought he would be the martyr who started the great race wars. What a bozo.

Obama is the best, because he isn't bought and paid for by all the corporations. I think people and groups should be allowed to donate what they want. There would be a stadium used for fund raising day. Candidates would have to put up a sticker of a company logo on a board everytime they accept a donation. The bigger the donation the bigger the sticker. Then have a day when Joe/Jane Citizen comes in and donates. Each would have a little sticker. I would vote for the person who had the most little stickers, it they were moderate candidates. Race cars display their sponsers, so should candidates.
6 January 2008
at 11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

funkdog1 (Anonymous) says…

Overdoing it a bit on the horse race metaphor, aren't we?
6 January 2008
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Clinton has dedicated her entire life to making change. People say she is unemotional, that she is without passion. For a woman, still, in today's world to come as far as she has shows enormous passion. What do people think she is doing this for? I believe she and her husband have enough money to live beyond well for the rest of their lives. Perhaps she is doing it for the strong beliefs she has about change.

Obama is a nice enough, caring enough, intelligent enough, passionate enough leader, but frankly he often looks like a deer in the headlights when asked questions that he will be faced with on a daily basis as President.

It is interesting to see how the “Old Boy's Club” gangs together to keep the little woman down. Good luck this time around boys!
6 January 2008
at 12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

Watch him speak. Don't count him out. 100,000 extra people didn't show up to the caucus for Hillary. Black folk are going to show up and vote, you can count on that. No republican homophobia campaign is going to stop it. When this guy speaks he makes you feel the way Dr. King and Kennedy did. Hillary's old battle ax I am ready crap doesn't stand a chance.

6 January 2008
at 12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…

to come as far as she has shows enormous passion

I agree - a passionate lust for power.
6 January 2008
at 12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EXks (Anonymous) says…

Shouldn't there be an article entitled why Huckabee will NEVER win?

Seems controlling elitists powers of the GOP (Rush Limpblob, Richard Viguerie, et al) will do anything to stop this Love Thy Neighbor As Thy Self and Better to Give Than to Receive populist politician. Just wait and see….
6 January 2008
at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ndmoderate (Anonymous) says…

“It is interesting to see how the “Old Boy's Club” gangs together to keep the little woman down. Good luck this time around boys!”

My opinion against Hillary has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman.
6 January 2008
at 12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

My opinion of her has nothing to do with her being a woman either. The first woman president needs to be of higher fiber ethically. She has too much experience with the GOP attack machine. You play with the dirty boys long enough you become one of them. It will be unfortunate for American women if she is first. She deserves something I agree. If not for Hillary's ability to do the dirty jobs we would have not been able to like Bill so much.
6 January 2008
at 1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

funkdog1 (Anonymous) says…

overplayedhistory said: The first woman president needs to be of higher fiber ethically. She has too much experience with the GOP attack machine. You play with the dirty boys long enough you become one of them. It will be unfortunate for American women if she is first. She deserves something I agree. If not for Hillary's ability to do the dirty jobs we would have not been able to like Bill so much.
–––-
Huh? So….you're saying we should have a pure, virginal woman president? How Victorian of you.
6 January 2008
at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

markoo (Anonymous) says…

I'm not an Obama supporter myself, but it's hard not to see the drastic differences in the energy and enthusiasm people have for Obama versus Hillary:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/20…

Maybe it's Bubba, maybe it's too many corporate lobbyists in her back pocket (granted Obama has a few of his own too), maybe it's her ridiculous wavering answers on her vote to invade Iraq and her recent vote on Iran, maybe it's because folks don't want our country to be controlled by two families for 24-28 years, maybe it's because she's perceived not to be that much different than Bush on a number of issues. Hell, maybe it's all or none of these things, and perhaps not all hold merit in the first place, but whichever the reason(s) her perception just doesn't influence people towards a positive light as it once did.

People want change from the last 7 years. Perhaps that “change” is different depending on whether you identify with Republican or Democratic values and philosophies. But that perception of change is anything but Hillary right now, and I don't think that's merely the fault of the voters incorrectly assessing what Hillary stands for. She takes much of the blame for that perception, whether she or her supporters want to admit that or not.
6 January 2008
at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Well, funkdog1, our society does expect women to be different from men.

Where is the response about Obama looking like a deer in headlights? The man speaks wonderfully well with his rehearsed, written for him script, but give him a surprise question and his mouth drops open - I don't remember that happening with Clinton. She is smart, sassy and smooth! I didn't know Jack Kennedy, but Obama is no Kennedy.
6 January 2008
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

If you are for Obama or Clinton, Socialism is NOT the answer. We don't need another dictator like Clinton running this country.

6 January 2008
at 2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

Funkdog1: “Overdoing it a bit on the horse race metaphor, aren't we?”
It's clearly the only way some people understand politics. It's a lot easier than having thoughtful things to say about Iraq or health care.

Ronda: “Well, funkdog1, our society does expect women to be different from men.”
So? You don't have to reinforce those expectations with your personality analysis of the candidates. You can take a stand against the gender stereotypes, but that would require that you break out of your horserace reporting. It sounds like you like Clinton primarily because she's winning. Also, give an example of Obama looking like a deer in headlights. We don't have to argue a claim that you haven't sufficiently proven. Point me to a youtube clip of him in the headlights.

“Obsama?” Grow the hell up Marion. You're just embarrassing yourself.
6 January 2008
at 2:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

raiderssb (Anonymous) says…

Clinton is smart, sassy and smooth - not even close - Ms. justbegintowrite. Are you one of those old, frazzled, crusty white women who think Hillary is their savior. Does she “look” like America? Gosh, let us hope NOT!! She won't win the nomination because she is not new, not fresh, and people plainly just don't like her, or trust her. Keep you head buried in a hole, and support Hillary, you only got one way to go - DOWN. Further, Barack Obama's spontaneity is real and very powerful - no deer in the headlights there. What you see puzzles me because MOST people do not see it that way. Further, at least his marriage is REAL and not fake for the sake of POWER, as Hillary and Bill remind us everytime we see them grinning for power.
6 January 2008
at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Barclay (Anonymous) says…

You “go” BigPrune!
6 January 2008
at 3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

raiderssb - not old, sometimes frazzled, white, non crusty.

She looks like America to me.

I wish she would have left Billy boy too, but sometimes strong women overcome adversity. If she could face America and go on living during that part of her life, she can face anything. She is a brave woman.
6 January 2008
at 4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

markoo (Anonymous) says…

BigPrune, is corporate fraud, jobs moving overseas, corporate welfare and handouts, labor exploitation, tax cuts to those who need it the least, a birth tax placed upon our next generation thanks to our Administration's asinine economic policies, trillions in debt to other countries like China and continuing to rise, retroactive immunity to phone companies that willfully and illegally wiretapped our phones with our Administration, and Executive branch that believes it has absolute authority via signing statements, illegal surveillance, and deliberate ignorance of the other two branches (speaking of dictatorships), 47 million uninsured (1/6 of our population), health care corporate profits supplied by benefit denials, Big Pharma controlling the sale of medications and not competing with anyone (rather socialist isn't it?), attacking a hapless dictator based on false pretenses of WMDs who had nothing to do with 9/11 while we let the bastard who DID attack run free in Tora Bora, diplomatic skills that are equivalent to a 7-year old on crack, and a tarnished image and reputation worldwide that will take a decade to rebuild…..

is this your idea of an “answer”? Because that's exactly what we have now, and the broad majority of Americans are ready for something different. Unfortunately for you, the majority of Americans tend to side with those darn “socialist” ideas of the Democrats on the majority of issues, from the economy, tax cuts, Iraq, Iran, civil rights and liberties, the environment, stem cell research, abortion, social security, health care, etc. Sorry that you're in the minority on this, but branding and attempting to smear these issues that the majority of Americans want alongside of the Democrats as “socialism” is a very tiresome and old trick of the Conservatives.

By the way, speaking of socialism, guess which party has a president who presides over the biggest and most expansive (and intrusive) governments? (Hint, it's not a Clinton).
6 January 2008
at 4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

max1: But what does all of that have to do with the candidates' *personalities*? Who is strong? Who has faced adversity? Who looks young? Who's winning the big race? Didn't you get the memo on what *really* matters?
6 January 2008
at 5:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Anyone who believes Barack Hussein Obama can not win the democrat nomination and then general election is simply not paying attention, or is desperately trying to ignore reality. When Iowa democrats, overwhelmingly white, rural, and the buckle in the “bible belt,” voted for Barack the popular wisdom that America isn't ready to elect a black man as President should finally be put to rest. His victory speech on January 3, 2008 was the most charismatic performance by an American politician I have personally witnessed.

Although I won't be voting for Mr. Obama, I definitely think he should be the Democratic nominee. The press loves him and he is far more appealing and electable than either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Edwards. A solid victory in New Hampshire, where he leads in a number of the polls, might just seal the deal.
6 January 2008
at 5:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

Sigmund — So, who are you voting for?

6 January 2008
at 6 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unklemonkey (Anonymous) says…

“He isn't seasoned. He isn't experienced.”

And neither is Hilary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but before she became a Senator, the only political experience she had was being Bill's wife. Before that, she was a lawyer.

For the record, I am not a Republican by any means, and I have not decided who I will support. It may, in fact, be Hilary. I just am not sure about her electability, not as a woman, but because I think there are some moderates/undecided voters who don't like Bill.

After seeing last night's debates, I like Obama and Richardson.
6 January 2008
at 6:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

No Funkdog I think you missed my point. All you need to know is one simple fact. Hillary turned her failed attempt to reform health care into higher buy off price from the insurance companies.
6 January 2008
at 6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

Hillary is a sell out. No It is not Victorian values I am drawing from. My reasoning is not about what I expect, It is about what is going to happen once sworn in. She will play same kind of game all the men before her played. Hillary's perceived strength of hardball inside know how is in reality her weakness.
6 January 2008
at 7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

powershopper (Anonymous) says…

The author's opinion appears to be based purely on opinion, conjecture, and presumption. Though short and sweet, I don't see any fact to back up her assertions.

It appears to me that Obama's campaign has picked up speed and is showing no signs of slowing down.

cnnusatodaygallup: Obama 41% Clinton: 28%…
rasmussen: Obama 39% Clinton 27%…
cnnwmur: Obama 39% Clinton 29%…
6 January 2008
at 7:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

Marion - Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think one is required to be a lawyer to sit on the US SUpreme Court. In other words, I think we have had non-lawyers before. Not in recent history, however. I also agree that the scumbag Slick-Willie would be an extremely poor choice. Frankly I am tired of the Clintons, etc.
6 January 2008
at 7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

Would billary just go away, i am sick of looking at them and even more sick of listening to them. They are worst, yes worst then george the warmonger!
6 January 2008
at 9:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

max1: I thought Miller's post was superficial because it didn't engage any substantive issues. It was all about the horse race. I didn't think your post was superficial — I was just using you to jab at someone else.

I think we're in agreement about Obama.

(but, to be fair, I don't think Hillary's '92 “60 Minutes” appearance is terribly relevant — it was over 15 years ago and too much was made out of it then)
6 January 2008
at 9:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I agree my post was superficial. I was just talking about race horses and everyone went off about politics. Go figure!

6 January 2008
at 11:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

Obama = Globalist
7 January 2008
at 12:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bitterfalls (Anonymous) says…

I want Dubya re-elected. We need a good revolutionary revolt in order to throw the entire government out and start over. Just one more year of Dubya should provide the critical mass we need.

Lincoln was a Whig
7 January 2008
at 12:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

Scary huh? Things must be getting very bad. :)
7 January 2008
at 1:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

janeyb (Anonymous) says…

“When this guy speaks he makes you feel the way Dr. King and Kennedy did. Hillary's old battle ax …”
*************************
I am supporting Hillary for president, but I do like Obama very much. Maybe we should keep quiet about the Dr. King/Kennedy thing. They were great men who didn't fare too well in America. I wonder if Obama felt a cold chill when overplayedhistory hit the enter key for this comment?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“My opinion of her has nothing to do with her being a woman either. The first woman president needs to be of higher fiber ethically.”
************************************

This statement comes with Bush and Cheney in office? The only high fiber connected with them is the fiber supplement Cheney has to take each morning so he won't have to strain too hard and stop his heart.
7 January 2008
at 5:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rockchalk42 (Anonymous) says…

janeyb … according to the news Cheney's fiber supplement doesn't always work … but fortunately for him they always seem to get his heart going again

Obama would be good for our country … but in Kansas it doesn't matter what you think because they'll (the rest of Kansas, save for Wyandotte) rubber stamp their 6 votes (woo-hoo!) for McPahuckulisonney.

Globalization is (has been) inevitable, get over it. So American doesn't need some pants-wetter isolationist to politely step out of the way for Europe and eventually China (maybe India) to surpass our economic preeminence.
7 January 2008
at 7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

Miller: “I agree my post was superficial. I was just talking about race horses and everyone went off about politics. Go figure!”

Nice! Maybe if I would've got more out of the post if I knew more about the equestrian arts.

And I'm not singling you out as being uniquely superficial. I just think journalists have fallen down on the job by their horse race reporting. At least you didn't describe the election using a lame high school metaphor like some of our media:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/20…

Are the primaries over yet?
7 January 2008
at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Thanks for the link, temperance. I enjoyed reading something worse than what I wrote!

What is wrong with an analogy once in a great while. I won't use another one this year. Not a promise.
7 January 2008
at 9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

I sure Obama Is aware of the target that would be on his head. Especially if temptation and pay offs don't work. How much does Hillary receive from the insurance lobby?
The time is right she is just the wrong woman. Face it, and find someone for 2012 who has not been the first lady. If John McCain Had not caved to his Party's will, it would of been hard to tell the difference between him and Hillary.
This election is a battle between the will of the people vs. lobby control. Hillary is on the wrong side of that battle. Sucks for us the winning side is usually the wrong side. This election the people need to win that battle or the people's faith in the system will be completely gone. Please slap me for using the word faith. A word that inherently has blind ignorant connotations to it.

7 January 2008
at 9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

karmaxs3 (Anonymous) says…

If any of you think for a second that ANY candidate for President~Dem or Rep~isn't owned by someone….well….wake up and smell the polluted air we breathe. (banning smoking does nothing)

Are you really so delusional that you believe anyone seeking the power and position of President of the United States is really doing it “for the people”? hahahahaha. Good one.
7 January 2008
at 10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

Ronda (if I may): I don't think your writing was bad whatsoever, and you certainly deserve credit for sticking your neck out with a bold election prediction, and for jumping into the comments to defend yourself. The comment thread shows that your post generated a lot of interest. I'm just hostile to campaign coverage that seems to focus on the trivial: Hillary's cackle, Edward's haircut, Huckabee's hick-ishness, Giuliani's cross-dressing photo & divorces, etc. I want to hear about: Iraq, 47 million without health insurance, signs of a recession, our dependence on foreign oil, and the budget deficit.
7 January 2008
at 11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SirReal (Anonymous) says…

Wow, this is classic racism - “He doesn't have the lineage behind him that would be required” - wow I really cannot believe LJ world hasn't deleted this yet. Geez! blatent racism!@
7 January 2008
at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kubacker (Anonymous) says…

Obama will get the Democrat's nomination but he'll be crushed in the general election, because any candidate of any party who favors open borders and/or amnesty, by name or in effect, is going to get absolutely stomped.

The Washington elites, Harvard Law Review types and Yale graduates who have been running this country into the ground will find this out when all the dust from the monumental November train wreck finally settles.
7 January 2008
at 12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

It will be interesting to see how all this works out in a few weeks. Obama does give, “good speech,” however. He uses some of the old tricks from Cicero just like JFK did.
7 January 2008
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Thanks temperance. I am glad to see such an ongoing debate among people I consider of higher intellect than myself; at least politically speaking. One of the nice things about an election, or a horse race, is that most people seem to pick someone they want to win - for whatever reason. Sometimes it is something so subtle they may never know the actually reason themselves. I have heard many women years back say they were voting for Clinton because of his good looks. Horrible reason to vote for someone.

Lineage to me means many things that include, but are not limited to, - ancestors, wealth or poverty, class, etc., etc., Different words mean many different things to different people. I was a big Jessie Jackson organizer many years ago and I would love to support Colin Powell should he choose to run. I go with the person I think would run our country the best regardless of party, color, religion.

Again I thank all of you for sharing your knowledge, links, personalities, likes and dislikes here. It is one of the things that makes Lawrence so cool! Excuse that term.

made_in_China - I agree that Obama gives a great speech, I also agree with whoever said all of the candidates will have pay back to someone, some organization.
7 January 2008
at 1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

max1: Giuliani is the candidate that terrifies me the most, and I agree that the Bernard Kerik connection is relevant. He wanted to have a known criminal with a mob connection as the country's #1 terrorism fighter!

Tying this to my other comments on this thread, I'd add that our national media have failed us insofar as the people who know that John Edwards once paid $400 for a haircut far outnumber the people who have even *heard* of Kerik.

Have you seen his new ad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iFhG…
7 January 2008
at 1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bilabila (Anonymous) says…

there is definitely a need for change in Washington. However, it has been said before that D.C. is hard to change, especially when you keep getting people in office that answer to special interest groups. maybe some women feel a need to support Hilary because she is a woman. For me you will have to do a little better than that. Being a woman is not going to be an automatic to get my vote. There is something to be said for Edwards never taking money from lobbyists and PACS and only time would tell if we didn't see them moving into the whitehouse with him….however, it is my belief that Clinton didn't stand by her “man” for no reason. That woman is as shrewd a politican as they come. She has had her eye on the whitehouse since they moved in their family the first time. She has taken the steps and walked on whoever she needed to to get there. I find it interesting that there is all this mudslinging going on….when the bottom line is….the enemy is the Republican ticket. 8 and 4 years ago even Democrats were not united and didn't have a grass roots support system….this time around it is different. I have joined the Obama campaign as an intern and believe that is where my vote will go. No matter who ends up winning our nomination…let's hope that by the time we get there all their names have not been dragged through the mud so much that we don't feel confident with our nominee. Come out and show that it matters to you in February….be in line at 7pm on the 26th for the Kansas Caucus and support your candidate. I will be there for Obama but will listen to all views. I hope that people will consider the fact that if they are leaning towards the Democratic candidate that in November 2008 Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, or someone out of the woodwork could be your candidate and will help to make change.

7 January 2008
at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Osbama? Well, how about that. Republicans finally have Osama on their mind, as well as who they will lose the White House to. If they had concentrated on Osama instead of oil in Iraq, then perhaps they wouldn't have to worry about Obama.

Osama or Obama — either way you look at it, the Republicans come up short.

Obama, should he win the party's nomination, will certainly be elected President. People are tired of the way things have run the past many years, and they are even more tired of the sense of entitlement from old white crackers who think it fun to insult people based on their race, gender, or non-Anglo sounding name.

The need for change has never been greater. Obama will win.
7 January 2008
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fu7il3 (Anonymous) says…

I really don't think anyone is going to beat Obama in the primaries. Clinton couldn't swing the women's vote in Iowa and almost came in even with Edwards. If Clinton doesn't get the women's vote, she doesn't have a chance. Republicans will not vote for her in the general election. If Clinton is nominated, the democrats will lose.
7 January 2008
at 3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bilabila (Anonymous) says…

I certainly hope that voters will educate themselves on the candidates more than what the gender of a candidate is. There certainly will be no real change in the way this country perceives gender issues if the only reason someone gives a vote to Hilary is because she happens to be a woman. Sorry folks but gender is not going to be a deciding factor for me. and it looks like that is how the majority feel. to be honest, if anything plays a major role in this election it may be the increase in African Americans that show up to the polls…and even though Hilary did her best to get in good with the people of the South, she is no replacement for someone who is. Having said that, I hope that anyone that chooses to come out and vote will do more than look at skin color, gender, or status. It will be a sad day for the American Political System if that is how this election is won.
7 January 2008
at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fu7il3 (Anonymous) says…

Isn't that pretty much how elections are won already? A lot of Republicans vote for Republicans no matter what. A lot of Democrats will vote Democrat no matter what. Most votes go down party lines with very few going to the other side. It's all just a popularity contest. I am just being realistic. Clinton will not get conservative male votes. I didn't say it is right, I'm just pessimistic.
7 January 2008
at 4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

He will never win because he is a youngster, did cocaine, almost shot up heroin, is black and is stupid about world affairs. That's the plain and simple truth. He is a fake and a bunch of hype from the Democratic National Party.
7 January 2008
at 5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

davidnta (Anonymous) says…

Nah, he will win. Republicans are stupid and the Democrats would have to royally f*ck up if they are to lose.
7 January 2008
at 7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

daryll (Anonymous) says…

I agree SirReal this blog is racist and should not have been published. Ronda, if you have the guts to respond, what exactly do you mean when you say Obama “doesn't have the lineage behind him that would be required to go the distance”. Lineage means ancestry, so please explain how Hillary's ancestors require her to be a president but Barrack's ancestors do not.
7 January 2008
at 8:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kchuskerfan (Anonymous) says…

Hillary (Call me President Rodham) will not carry the south. She left skid marks in Arkansas when she ran to New York and put on the Yankee's hat. She had not gone back to visit and is not well thought of. Bill was a Bubba. He carried the south. The last election.. No way the yuppie, John Kerry would carry the south. (Yes, there was an actual candidate's name for the Dems last election. Although he was better known as “Against Bush”) The more Obama looks able to actually win, the more women and black vote will swing his direction. Hillary is losing her base, and has some serious issues. She'd better try kissing up to Edwards fast, as Edwards is the only person that may be able to carry the south from Obama. That will be the swing, Edwards 15-20% and who it goes to.

7 January 2008
at 9:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Lineage to me means “class”. It means generations of upper class. Nothing to do with race here, except in your mind perhaps. Edwards doesn't have the lineage either in my opinion. Doesn't make him a lesser man, just makes it more difficult for him to go the distance due to lack of generations of great wealth backing him.

It doesn't matter what someone's color is in the meaning I am using of the term. I am talking about horses for heavens sake - last I noticed there were no “white” thoroughbreds
7 January 2008
at 9:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

rockchalk:
“Globalization is (has been) inevitable, get over it. So American doesn't need some pants-wetter isolationist to politely step out of the way for Europe and eventually China (maybe India) to surpass our economic preeminence.”
––––––––––––

First of all, Isolationism is different than non-interventionism…learn, then speak.

Second, Globalization is not “inevitable”. In fact, it is doomed to certainly fail, mainly in terms of economics and the environment.

National sovereignty is not some fad than needs to be re-evaluated, as prescribed by the Council on Foreign Relations and their Presidential Candidates such as Obama.

America must keep it's sovereignty and representative government provided for by the Constitution.
8 January 2008
at 12:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

daryll (Anonymous) says…

Ronda,
First, your blog is titled:

“Why Obama Will Never Win” and is not about horses despite the metaphor.

Second, according to Merriam Webster Online:

Lineage (noun)
1 a: descent in a line from a common progenitor b: derivation
2: a group of individuals tracing descent from a common ancestor; especially : such a group of persons whose common ancestor is regarded as its founder

Racism is seldom overt and frequently alluded to just like your “metaphor”. Also, if you're going to write in the newspaper I suggest you look up the meanings of the words your using prior to publication. The word lineage is a pretty easy one.
8 January 2008
at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I had looked it up, thank you for the lesson, however. I used it appropriately in the context I intended.

Here again, your interp of the word and meaning behind the word is quite different from my own. Descent from a common ancestor doesn't make me think race, unlike yourself.
8 January 2008
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

darlly & SirReal:

Rhonda is absolutely correct about “lineage.” One can talk about racial lineages, but the concept of “race” does not inhere in the word, and people using the word “lineage” are not inevitably referring to “race.” I didn't see the word “race” (or “racial,” or “ethnic”) in the previously cited Merriam Webster Online definition. In context, she was clearly referring to a class lineage that Romney and Clinton share and that Edwards and Obama lack. You might take issue with that claim, but it's not racist.

Read it again: “Neither he or Edwards have the lineage behind them that would be required to go the distance.” Are Edwards and Obama of the same “racial lineage?”

Jesse Jackson organizers tend not to be white supremacists…
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/at-ra…
8 January 2008
at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

Finding_Uranus: “He will never win because he is a youngster, did cocaine, almost shot up heroin, is black and is stupid about world affairs.”

I know. We've never elected a young president who did cocaine and was stupid about world affairs. Never happened before . . .
8 January 2008
at 10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I appreciate your insight, temperance. It never fails to amaze me how each person's perception of a word, or its meaning, is different depending on that person's background.

It is no wonder that people have a difficult time communicating.
8 January 2008
at 6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

There is a downside to Barack Hussein Obama's sudden leap in the polls, he becomes the only target for the press on the democratic side. Be assured that they won't have to look far as I am sure the Clinton machine will be more than happy to do the leg work for them. The press loves him now, but will they feel the same in a month, six months from now?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/video/playe…

I have never seen press coverage of a politician so unfailing positive, except perhaps for “The Peoples Princess.” Knowing the desire of the press to sell papers, and how well scandal and falls from grace can do that, I can't help but believe that he is too early making himself a target of a very fickle media.

9 January 2008
at 7:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

temperance (Anonymous) says…

Sigmund: “The press loves him now, but will they feel the same in a month, six months from now?”

No, they'll savage him six months from now. Right now, Clinton is playing the role of Howard Dean (cry = scream) and Obama is Kerry. At this point in the primaries 4 years ago the press turned against Dean and was okay with Kerry for the time being …until he became the front runner… Six months from now we'll be hearing about scary “madrasses” again.

http://foxattacks.com/blog/24004-bill…
9 January 2008
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

I observe how much the press flip flops with the candidates and wonder how much this affects voters. What do you think about this fairly new trend in reporting?

By new please remember I am over fifty, so I speak of the last twenty or so years. It seems as though it is happening more and more each political year, however.
9 January 2008
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Look, I'm gonna trust Larry David when it comes to Obama.

“Haven't we had enough with Bushes and Clintons and Bushes,” Larry David said. “The country needs a shower, a good, long, hot shower. That's what Obama is, a hot shower. So fresh you can smell him, delicious.”
9 January 2008
at 9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TongiJayhawk (Anonymous) says…

If Hillary doesn't win, any chance she could become my financial advisor? I would love to turn $1,000 into 100,000 in 10 months!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage…
9 January 2008
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Uhlrick_Hetfield_III (Anonymous) says…

Obama is going to lose because Bill has come to the rescue, and he is very, very good at what he does. I watched him the other night as he described Obama's campaign as a fairy tale. He is very convincing and about as good an orator as there is and even if you know he's lying through his teeth he comes off as being highly credible.

Bill owes Hillary big, and this is the payoff. He'll shake up her campaign staff, and perhaps run it himself from the shadows and she'll win.
9 January 2008
at 11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EXks (Anonymous) says…

FrankenHillary returns! She's alive! She's alive!!
9 January 2008
at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…

Obama would be a nice change for this country. He seems eloquent and well-composed. It's sad that the neocons are using his Muslim past as a means to discredit him, but educated voters will see through that and vote for him based on who he is right now. I think it's foolish for the Repubs to bring up stuff that happened in grade school or the religious beliefs of a person's family members. I like Kucinich first and foremost, but I'll go with Obama since he's more electable.
9 January 2008
at 11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Unirick_Hetfield_III

I very much agree about Bill Clinton and his ability with speeches and people. He is intelligent, charming, smooth. He is a wonderful orator and thinks well on his feet, as does Hillary.

They make for a winning team and have just begun their battle with Obama. Obama is a terrific person and I am thrilled to see so many young people who care enough to come out to voite because of him. I do feel it is not his time - perhaps in eight years.

I would love to see a Clinton/Richardson ticket.

9 January 2008
at 12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

The country needs a shower, a good, long, hot shower. That's what Obama is, a hot shower. So fresh you can smell him, delicious.
9 January 2008
at 12:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EXks (Anonymous) says…

Our country definitely needs a change after twenty eight years of Bush I, BJ Clinton and Bush II. Queen Hillary ideas are stale, she has the same old Clinton guard running her campaign. The 1990's, been there, done that, and over it!!
9 January 2008
at 12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Sigmund: “I have never seen press coverage of a politician so unfailing positive”

This written about a story titled “Why Obama Will Never Win.” Brilliant.
9 January 2008
at 3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Cute beatrice!
9 January 2008
at 4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Beatrice, the point being Ms. Miller could not be more wrong. Barack Obama can easily win as long as the press continues to fawn over him. BHO has given the press a lot more access than Mrs. Clinton and this has hurt her and helped him. If I had to bet I would wager that the GOP would rather run against her than him and for good reason. Pres. Clinton can complain all he wants about uncritical coverage and BHO's “Fairy Tale” campaign, but that sells papers, generates web site hits, and sells ads. Besides, what was “Camelot” but a fairy tale, or who was Di but a Princess?
9 January 2008
at 5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Sigmund, where do you feel the press should draw the line? I don't know your age group, but I am curious as to what your thoughts are about the differences in today's coverage of a politician as opposed to years past.

How much control does the press have over public opinon? Where does it end?
9 January 2008
at 5:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Sigmund, many of the articles I have seen on Obama have been critical, at least in part. For instance, few articles of any length fail to point out his relative lack of “presidential” experience — as if there is somehow special training for the job — and there have been a slew of negative reports on the support given him by Oprah.

On the other hand, Chuck Norris is on the platform when Huckabee makes his speech after winning in Iowa, and that barely seemed to register with the press. What gives? If a celebrity endorsement is considered unimportant and slightly annoying at best, then where is the negative press on Mr. Norris? (The only thing I can think of is that the reporters are scared he will open a can of whoppass on them.)

What it probably boils down to is largely determined by what a reader is looking for in the first place. If you don't like Obama, or Huckabee, or Clinton, or whomever, then you look for the negative things said about that person to reaffirm your own opinions. It seems outrageous when positive things appear, and the more you (or I) dislike a person the more annoying and seemingly out of place any positive comments seem.

So is it the press being overly positive, or is it the reader seeking the negative? And vice-versa. For example, I think the press is unjustifiably negative far too often when discussing Senator Clinton. I doubt you would agree.

Just a thought.
9 January 2008
at 7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

I think you both raise very good questions and make interesting points. For the most part I am talking about the “popular press.” The thing that bothers me about the coverage of this race, on both sides, is a lack of thoughtful and critical analysis of a politicians policies in favor of more superficial. Candidates are treated as celebrities and the news shows treat the process like a sporting event. March Madness, writ large.

Articles on celebrity entourages are easier to write and get more readers than a discussion of the cost benefit analysis of “universal healthcare” or “border enforcement.” I don't solely blame the press as they respond to what gets them the most readers and viewers, the public has their part in all of this. There are more in depth material out there, but you really have to look for it and its often not an interesting read.

The problem with representative democracy is we often get the government we deserve. But as the old saying goes, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. Let's hope we get better than we deserve this time around.

9 January 2008
at 9:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

beatrice, I note that Norris is seated behind Huckabee, but his presence seems more supportive as opposed to Oprah who is giving speeches and capable of drawing huge crowds. Perhaps Oprah is more popular than Norris, and I suspect this to be particularily true with respect to women, new and young voters, as well as black voters - people Obama is trying to target. Do you agree?

Sigmund, the press is more superficial in today's world in many respects. What reasons are behind this? I wonder if the likelihood of finding facts, and being bombarded by news at every turn, overwhelms the press in trying to constantly come up with a “newsworthy item or an item of interest”. There is such an abundance of news everywhere one turns.

I feel that journalism has become similar to virtual television. People want to interact with the news, they want to surround themselves in it, become a part of it as it takes place. It is a challenge to keep news exciting enough to keep viewers watching, or reading. I don't know that this is a bad thing, just something to be aware of as the rest of the world changes around us.

One news worthy item seems to become spun in a multitude of takes and twists, viewed from every angle.

What Good Is Journalism: “…the percentage of respondents to the Gallup Poll who rated journalist's ethics high or very high declined from 33 percent in 1976 to 21 percent in 2004.” A poll in 2003 showed that 59 percent of respondents thought news organizations are politically biased., 35 percent thought news organizations got their facts straight, and 55 percent thought they didn't care about the people they report on…”
9 January 2008
at 11:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Part of the superficiality is driven by technology. Companies have more media bandwidth to fill and too little content. Often the same message repeated ad nauseum and echoed by talking heads, writers, and bloggers. What appears to be “information overload” is in reality the same trivia repeated over and over.

Today I caught 10-15 minutes of a show which speculated on who the “hottie” was standing behind Huckabee at last nights concession speech. (It was either Chuck Norris's wife or Chuck Norris's daughter or Huckabee's daughter because she was too cute to be his wife, and what a disappointed for America that would be at any inauguration). Another show, again for 10-15 minutes, talked about how attractive Mrs. Obama was but she couldn't put together a simple sentence to save her life and that the campaign had to insure every appearance was scripted. Another program commented on the fact that John McCain appeared tired and had trouble reading his victory speech.

So today I listened to nearly an hour of “news and commentary” and got only one bit of information that is actually useful when choosing a President. Todays “journalism” is McNews. It's everywhere, cheap, tasty, but full empty calories. Do you want to SuperSize that?
10 January 2008
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Sigmund, thank you for taking the time to comment on this.

Why do you think this has happened to the media?

How do we begin to change this pattern? (I know the obvious answer is to begin writing articles about things that are actually newsworthy as opposed to looks, whether someone is tired, etc.)

When do you perceive this trend began?

Is this more a statement of society in general, or is it about the news media?
10 January 2008
at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

The trend began on a modern level with the televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy, where people commented on Nixon's five o'clock shadow and sweaty brow. It has been down hill since — just think about all the bad press Clinton receives for her looks. Policies? What are those? We want to know what she is going to wear to the ball!

justbegin, Norris has been touring around with Huckabee, giving speeches at every stop. Lets just say that Oprah is a bit better at public speaking, which could explain why she gets more air time. That, and the fact that she is still popular with groups of people who aren't 14 year old boys.

Unfortunately, like McDonalds and Walmart, we can't stop the McNews. We are no longer an inquisitive nation. We are complacent and get what we deserve. That is why we were happy to vote a “C” student into the White House, and we care more about who the boss before him was diddling in the closet than we do about the deficit. Words and symbols become more important than action.
10 January 2008
at 4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Is it that we are not an inquisitive nation, or simply that we have access to news at every turn? I agree that America has become a fast news nation similar to fast food nation. We are obese with news, but not the right, nutritional type.

The American fascination with “the boss before”, never fails to amaze me, especially when that same thing went on with most bosses before him. I am not saying it is right, but enough information already!

What news stations/newspapers/magazines maintain standards that match your expectations?