JFK, FDR, Reagan, Clinton, and Barack Obama???Ability to move mountains, and/or crowds of groupies? You're forgetting Adolf Hitler, and Fidel Castro. et al. I think that's what we tend to gloss over and ovelook. This charming, charismatic youngster hasn't been tested yet. Debating with someone in the same party who has to be careful not to leave any serious bruises or damage the party is one thing. Doesn't the real test come after the real contest starts and the candidates for both parties have been decided?

Many people around the country are falling in love with Barack Obama. Yet here is a candidate who is for the most part, an unknown.

Here is a link that might shed some light on Obama when he was in the Illinois State Senate.

http://tri-blog.livejournal.com/227845.html#tri_blog227845

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
Doesn't the real test come after the real contest starts and the candidates for both parties have been decided?

Surely it must. The Democrats have a choice. Choose a woman whom nearly half the country would not vote for in any circumstances and who current polls show could very well lose to McCain, or choose the inexperienced one who has brought many new voters out to vote and who current polls show would beat McCain by a street.

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
current polls show would beat McCain by a street.

Some polls of likely voters have McCain edging out Obama. Polls, however, tend to lag real sentiment because they are a few days old. Obama, on the upswing, may now be the clear odds-on favorite.

Frank made some great points. However, in answering the topical question, "Is Hillary's Campaign in Trouble?" it appears that it is.

Until next Tuesday, at least!

And that poll was even more relevant (the night after the election) than any poll taken today. We're getting about eight months ahead of ourselves!

I'm telling you, it's going to be Newt Gingrich

quote:

Doesn't the real test come after the real contest...

The real test is running the country. I guess it's a problem in any democracy that the candidate who can capture (or even shape) the imagination of the voters in an election race may not be the best actual leader. Countries are maybe best run by dull and awkward technocrats, or reclusive philosophers, but we'll probably never get a chance to find out for sure.

If I were Obama, I'd be worried about a kind of 'Britney syndrome' - the media is just as happy tearing down those it has previously built up, and Obama is certainly the media darling at the moment.

From a neutral (if professional) point of view:In the last debate he looked the part and she didn't.She didn't inspire confidence. A potential leader of the free world, in the most important and tense moment of her whole career. who bothered to complain that a debate was unfair because she got most of the questions first? Aren't world leaders supposed to be made of sterner stuff? It's what a British politician terms "throwing his (or her) toys out of the pram".

All Obama had to do was look gracious, diplomatic and statesmanlike.He may be none of those things but she made him look that way by comparison.She seemed all moods and manners by turns.She made it easy for him.

He had a brilliant line about distortions and slurs, but how his side wouldn't whine because 'that happens' in campaigns.Brilliant:it's 'she cheats and slurs' plus 'don't pay any attention. She doesn't know any better, poor soul ( because she represents the old way, which I'm sworn to change)' plus 'I am above such things'plus 'as we all are, aren't we' plus 'I'm diplomatic ' plus covertly complaining about it. And all in about ten words Beat that!

He is an absolute master of subtle put- downs like that.He's a class act.(He might make a lousy President, but he's got the class )

Excellent point, Fred, and the US has over 50 years of choosing obvious style over obvious substance in most of the presidential elections. I really hope Obama has the substance to match his style, because I don't see Hillary or McClain beating him. In my opinion, if he rolls over Clinton next week, she'll drop out, and McCain will just have to enjoy his all-expenses paid tour of the country and take a lot of pictures, because that's about all he'll get from the campaign. (The sad part about McClain is that he gets to spend the rest of his life thinking about how he kissed up to people he hated and still didn't get to be President.)

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
If I were Obama, I'd be worried about a kind of 'Britney syndrome' - the media is just as happy tearing down those it has previously built up, and Obama is certainly the media darling at the moment.

The case could very well be made this is exactly what is going on with Hillary right now. And once that Barack Obama & John McCain are indeed officially the established candidates, I foresee the media tearing down McCain as well. I can remember a time he was considered a media darling.

Well, my money is still on McCain to win. It might help if he didn't plainly and deliberately misread or misunderstand what Obama says and then address the distorted version With Obama that kind of clumsy punch goes flying in but just leaves your chin exposed for a few sharp jabs. He's very quick to turn it to his advantage.

By the way,with reference to the last debate, is the expectation and collective ignorance of the American electorate so low that asking Obama and Clinton who the next Russian President is, is seen as either testing or a proof of knowledge of world affairs? Since she couldn't pronounce the name, it may just be. (Over here we do hope not, but history is not on our side).

If Hillary's campaign was in trouble - at the least, she was backed against the ropes - it made splendid recovery yesterday, taking the two big prizes (Texas and Ohio) and 3 of 4 states.

We have a race on our hands.

'Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said:

"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."..'
news.yahoo.com

Hillary's problem is it is not just Ohio deciding this. And she is still behind Barack Obama on the delegate count.

But if in the end, Hillary is the nominee, Obama as her VP would be a plus. But if he is the nominee, he should look elsewhere for a VP. Hillary has too much baggage.

LR....My view as a Democrat:

Hillary/Obama - maybe in HER world...which wouldn't win (and I would probably have to vote for the Republican)

Obama/Hillary - HE wouldn't even GO there (at least I hope not!)

Yes, I'm a Democrat - and yes, I voted for Bill Clinton. I did not, however, vote for Hillary Clinton, although she came with him. I do NOT consider her 8 years in the White House as EXPERIENCE...and just pretty much cannot stand her. Couldn't stand her then, can't stand her now!

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I'll be so thrilled! If Hillary wins, however, I'll have to think long and hard.

We've got a ways to go yet...but I'm behind my guy...OBAMA all the way!

Now that giz and ami have decided to go all the way with Obama, Michelle will be watching him like a hawk.

BILOXI, Mississippi (AFP) - Barack Obama's camp on Tuesday called on his rival Hillary Clinton to fire history-blazing supporter Geraldine Ferraro, after she put the Illinois senator's stunning rise down to his race.

---------------

Ferraro, who sits on Clinton's finance committee and has spoken at her rallies, sparked the firestorm when she was quoted by a California newspaper as saying: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080311/pl_afp/usvote

'...13 percent of the primary voters [in Mississippi] identified as GOPers, and nearly 80 percent of them went for Clinton...' www.thenation.com

This is the kind of thing that strikes outsiders as bizarre - in the US primaries, voters of one party can take part in the choosing of the other party's candidate. (Was Bush actually chosen by hordes of giggling Democrats - "No one will want to elect this numbskull" ?)

With the Republican race being settled, and those of a Republican tendency at a loose end, are the Democratic primaries likely to be significantly influenced by Republican votes?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by newnickname:
'...13 percent of the primary voters [in Mississippi] identified as GOPers, and nearly 80 percent of them went for Clinton...' www.thenation.com

This is the kind of thing that strikes outsiders as bizarre - in the US primaries, voters of one party can take part in the choosing of the other party's candidate. (Was Bush actually chosen by hordes of giggling Democrats - "No one will want to elect this numbskull" ?)

/QUOTE]

Not less bizarre than having primaries is !

That depends on the state. Some, like my state of Washington, only allow you to vote for the candidate of YOUR party. You must declare which party you support. I think it's a colossal waste of money, frankly. In my county, a fairly large, sparsley populated county, all voting is done by mail. That means that in primary elections, you're sent two ballots. Vote on one and trash the other. And in national elections, you get three ballots (at least).