Can Obama do it?

Submitted by Gabriel on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 3:59pm. Tags:

Books and Film

Wow, can this really happen? For a long time I simply assumed that Clinton would become the nominee, or Edwards if she faltered. I just didn't think that Obama had enough support for the long haul.

Now come news that after Iowa Obama may be leading Hillary by ten in NH. If true, Hillary will have a very hard time getting the nomination.

Nationally, Obama has increased his spread over Mitt and Giuliani and this was before the Iowa caucuses.

And look at the energy. Over at Redstate they talk approvingly of a Romney event with about 250 participants. Compare that with the traffic jams Obama is creating.

What do you think of all this?

This place is my vacation.

Gabriel's blog
Login or register to post comments

The Media needs to take a chill pill.. (#72798)

by uh_clem on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 12:10pm

Regarding Obama's "decisive" victory in Iowa, let's not get carried away. A candidate needs 2025 delegates to win the nomination. That's two-thousand-and-twenty-five, for those of you taking notes.

On Tuesday, Obama nabbed 16 delegates from Iowa. Hillary grabbed 15 and Edwards took 14. Sixteen to fifteen to fourteen is hardly a commanding lead in a race to over 2000, despite the breathless attempts by the pundits to pump it up into something more than it is.

And don't get me started on how McCain came out the big winner because he came in a distant fourth. WTF?

Short version: the pundits are in an echo-chamber and behaving as if they've inhaled too much nitrous oxide.

(

)

Those candidates are all really stupid then (#72869)

by stillnotking on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 3:59pm

spending millions of dollars and many months campaigning in Iowa, when they should be in California where all the delegates are. :)

Primary campaigns are not like general elections. The evolving nature of the race, and the incremental revelation of results, makes capturing the "dynamic" all-important. The perception of who's in front at any given time has a tremendous influence on future results. Whether that's fair or unfair, right or wrong, I wouldn't presume to judge, but it is a fact and the media are right to treat it that way.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

(

| parent )

Its a long road and its the meanest (#72773)

by Gramsky on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 8:34am

game in town... but he has started well...

(

)

I'm ready. (#72758)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 2:52am

Obama was and remains my happy second choice (oh how I love having one). I would very much like to have 2009 be the year the US has an African-American President, especially this one.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

)

I Would be happy with any of the dems top three .... (#72761)

by Davinci on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 3:10am

In fact I have changed my view on Hillary and She is my second choice... I was impressed with her command of facts.. I am still concerned with the corporate influence but they should have some voice. Obama being my first choice has some corporate influence.. Edwards is more in line with many of my views or throwing red meat. I am starting to think that he would be a good A.G. In fact I think he has the right background to focus on the issues facing us more from there. Still I would be happy with the first A.A. president or the first women... Both would bring more long term impacts than we give credit...

Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your

(

| parent )

In a Word, Yes (#72712)

by Harley on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 5:54pm

Obama is in position to be the one candidate who offers us a fresh approach to the future. Fair or not -- hell, accurate or not-- this frequently succeeds, particularly at times in our history when folks are sick and tired of the status quo. Obama vs. McCain? That's new vs. old by definition, and new usually wins. Just ask Bob Dole.

To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard

(

)

He can and he will (#72578)

by stillnotking on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 6:02pm

If the Republicans are foolish enough to nominate anyone but Giuliani or McCain, he'll be the next President. He might even beat McCain.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

(

)

McCain is the most electable (#72583)

by Wagster on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 6:15pm

But Giuliani, I think, is one of the least electable candidates on the Republican side.

If it's Obama-McCain, 46 vs 72 becomes a big issue.

More Wagster!

(

| parent )

Giuliani is eminently electable (#72586)

by stillnotking on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 6:21pm

Especially after a few strategic "terror alerts" on the campaign trail, and a Republican convention that is yet another paean to 9/11.

The Giuliani campaign slogan would be "Sure, he's an a**hole, but he's your a**hole." (Unofficially, of course.) It would probably work; a startlingly large number of people are willing to vote solely on the basis of which candidate is perceived as more of a hardass. Why do you think Karl Rove spent so much time and effort making G.W. Bush look like a fighter pilot and John Kerry look like a wuss? Rove may not have gotten his Permanent Republican Majority -- larger forces conspired against him there -- but he did know what the American people want in a Presidential candidate.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

(

| parent )

If Americans are stupid enough... (#72686)

by Wagster on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 12:15pm

To think a tough guy pose is going to keep us safe, well, they'll deserve Giuliani. I just think that's played out and they've learned their lesson.

More Wagster!

(

| parent )

Better a hardass than a.... (#72679)

by Bernard Guerrero on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 11:29am

....candyass, s. :^)

The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer

(

| parent )

The key words there being (#72691)

by stillnotking on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 2:03pm

"perceived as".

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

(

| parent )

I can think of a couple of candyasses... (#72687)

by Zelig on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 12:52pm

...who would love to kick a few hardasses asses, you know, just for grins. ;-}

Me: We! -- Ali

(

| parent )

He's Got A Much Better Chance. . . (#72575)

by M Scott Eiland on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 5:34pm

. . .than anyone else with his political experience would have (among those currently in US politics who I am aware of, in any event). He's optimistic, friendly, and generally comes off as a decent human being. As I noted in a prior diary thread, my father--who rarely has anything good to say about Democratic pols--has admitted that he finds Obama very likeable and that he'd certainly vote for him ahead of Huckabee. That being said, he doesn't have a particularly impressive resume up to now, and he definitely comes off as naive. Also, HRC will be coming in with bare knuckles in the next month or so--we'll see how he deals with it.

(

)

I think (#72564)

by Darth Cuddly on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 4:42pm

we haven't heard much from Bill yet and I think his influence is underestimated. One of my questions is what happens to the black vote if Hillary wins the primary.

I'm curious on what the effect of race will be in this election. How many won't vote for him because he's black? How many will vote for him because he's black? How many are going to be turned off by race baiting?

It's not only redundant, it's also repetitive

(

)

Of course he can do it (#72559)

by HankP on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 4:21pm

as to whether he will or not, that's a bit cloudier. The one thing I do disagree with many liberals about is that he is somehow immune from smears and other political tactics. I don't care who the nomineee is from either party, expect to see the same old s&^% dragged out this election.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

)

Differ (#72579)

by Wagster on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 6:03pm

Remember when Souter was nominated he was called the stealth nominee? There just wasn't much of a written record to attack. That's the advantage of not having been a Governor or having a long senate voting record... there's less of a target to shoot at.

Of course he's not immune. Of course the Reps will do their darndest to muddy him, but not all targets have the same stickiness.

More Wagster!

(

| parent )

Bad example (#72637)

by HankP on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 11:49pm

how did Souter work out for the Republicans?

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

He got confirmed nt (#72648)

by Wagster on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 3:07am

...

More Wagster!

(

| parent )

Yeah, I know that (#72650)

by HankP on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 3:38am

I mean, how happy were the Republicans with how he's performed on the court? That's the problem with a thin to non-existent record - surprises can go both ways.

I blame it all on the Internet

(

| parent )

I think it is great (#72557)

by heet on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 4:13pm

I still believe he is extremely electable in the general, moreso than Hillary and Edwards. I'm not all that concerned about the common "lack of specifics" complaints. Any such plans rolled out on the campaign trail are very unlikely to survive contact with Congress and will also certainly evolve with time and additional policies.

His dramatic rise can only be explained by complete disgust with our political leaders.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen

(

)

Recent Diaries