PingBack from http://soccer.blogspace4you.info/?p=19050

Barack Obama is supported mostly by young people who have never paid a mortgage or private school or Ivy League tuition. They do not yet possess the wisdom to know the difference between ideology and the experience that is required to do the hard work that is necessary to change this nation. Obama campaigners have seduced them into thinking that the work will be easy. He'll just waltz in and Republicans and Democrats will be at his command. Fairy tale. Change is hard, even for the most experienced candidate, Hillary Clinton. Obama clearly has no concept of this as evidenced by his mantra that he and the American people will make change together. How many voters are going to be invited to the White House to discuss policy (or anything else) once the election is over?  That's why I'm voting for a candidate (Clinton) who has proven to have the interests of parents who--although we love and support our often misguided children--know what is best for them and how to help them achieve their goals.  To do this, parents need to be able to pay the $50,000 and up in college tuition that is required to produce tomorrow's leaders.  Our husbands need to be able to make enough money to enable us to remain at home so that we can go to PTA meetings and check homework and tuck our kids into bed at night. We need to be able to take our children to good doctors when they are sick (oh the Bill Clinton years). Mrs. Obama expressed an understanding of these sentiments when she gave the CNN interview last week in which she revealed that she plans to be home with her children and was not at all thrilled about Barack running for president. She's going along with it. We'll see how long that lasts. I know where she is coming from.  When you read between the lines you can hear her saying to Barack. "I need you here with me and the children."  I recall saying those words to my husband when my children were small and he had to travel. My childen are both Ivy League students today. I could not have done it without him. Well, maybe I could have but I don't believe that I would be the happy well-adjusted black female PhD canddate that I am today.  The change that Obama should be concerned with is the change that will occur in his family's life. The handwriting is already on the wall, but he obviously does not have the judgment to see it or he has decided that being at home with his own children during their formative years is not as important as his personal aspiration for the presidency. I have no doubt that his wife will enlighten him when she has finally had enough. Have you noticed that Mrs. Obama rarely smiles? Women have excellent intuition and we often have to guide our men in the same way that we guide our children. I'm advising mine that Hillary Clinton is the right choice.  

IT WAS A DRAW>>>>>NO CLEAR WINNER!   UNDERSTAND?

Hey, Laureate?  Barack Obama's supported by this Ivy League alum, who worked two jobs during undergrad and had only several loans, grants and one parent's retirement paying his tuition.  We all know what happens when we ass-u-me, yes?

And your situation is not Michelle Obama's situation.  Please.  Making that comparison completely invalidates your point, seeing as YOU DON'T KNOW MRS. OBAMA.  I believe it takes more than a 8-minute interview to know someone and their motivations.  Leave his family out of it and let them handle their own family business.  And who cares about whether or not Mrs. Obama smiles (which she does a lot more than you give her credit for)?  Is this really something that a Ph.D. candidate is factoring into her vote?

Dr. Harris-Lacewell makes this point perfectly.  I too am worried about the judgment of the Democratic voters if they truly think Hillary Clinton can win a general election in this country.  At least when her husband ran for re-election in 1996 against a fervent opposition party, he had a track record as president to run on.  Senator Clinton only has what she has achieved as a legislator - and while I don't downplay those accomplishments (I voted for her in NY State when she ran against Lazio), I certainly don't see where you get off claiming Obama doesn't have a plan to address your education concerns when he's talked about education and his reforms ad nauseum.  

Beware of longing for the Clinton years, BTW.

Michelle Obama is not only brilliant - she has a light up the room kind of smile - she is beautiful and gracious. Does that matter - yes it does. You can debate that all day.  It matters!

Kudos Scientific!

To Laureate:

Tsk, tsk, tsk . . . Nice way to stereotype and make false assumptions.  I am young (relatively:), degreed, pay both a mortgage and ridiculous student loans and support Barack Obama.  I am neither naive or uniformed.  Perhaps my "youth", allows me to see past your cynicism.  

You talk about judgment (or the lack thereof) and speak of longing for the Clinton years.  But where was Bill's judgment?  The list is long: Rwanda, Welfare reform, Mandatory minimums, sex in the oval office (and not with his wife), etcetera, etcetera.

Age does not automatically equal wisdom.  And just because you've been there, doesn't mean you should stay there.  Clearly Hillary Clinton is a credible candidate who could do the job.  But shouldn't  we ask more from our President than just being capable?  Are our standards so low?  Shouldn't the President reflect the best of us, our hopes and dreams?  That is a quality that I think has been missing much too long in any President that I've been old enough to vote for (including Bill Clinton).  But for her marriage to Bill, would Hillary be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination?  Of course not, because we would not know who she is and there is nothing especially compelling about her individually independent of her association to Bill.

Barack has created his own narrative that is different and a striking contrast to the politics that Hillary and her ilk represent.

Laureate,

You have failed to examine who actually votes for Barack. Look carefully at the data. Barack is pulling voters from all categories, his ability to attract young voters is just an additional plus.  Besides, attacting young voters is the only way that the democratic party and our nation will progress.  Leaders of the future have a right to be engaged.

I am a Barack supporter with a PhD.  I pay a mortgage  and school tuition for my daughter.  I believe that Barack offers the vision necessary to move into a more hopeful future.  This is a wonderful example for his daughters and millions of other children like them.

PingBack from http://www.marclamonthill.com/mlhblog/?p=4877

Senator Obama is a genius.  He has built a (some would say) grass-roots organization that changed the face of politics in the United States.  Now, it is foreseeable that an African American can win, despite Bill Clinton's comments.  Now it is also acceptable even to white America to believe that candidates (Obama and McCain) who reach toward the middle of the political spectrum can win as well.  Despite all the rhetoric, we don't need Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton back in the White House again.  Remember, McCain has been in the middle for a long time.  (I thought he was an independent back in the day? (80's?)).  Either way, I voted for Bill Clinton but now I no longer believe that he did as much for the African American community as he gets credit for.  Plus, he gave a larger tax break to the rich than George Bush.  It is also true that Hillary Clinton gets more credit than she has paid for because she is Bill Clinton's wife.  When we argue experience, we are saying that someone who served in the Senate for seven years is ultimately more qualified for the presidency that someone who served three.  The problem is that some presidents never serve in the Senate.  Mitt Romney would argue that a Governor has the best experience for the job because state government is run the same as Federal Government.  This line a debating in futile.  Senator Clinton's work with children is commendable the same way Senator Obama's work in the communities in Chicago is commendable.  Some would say why elect a President who never served in the military?  Actual experience with strategic planning/military operations is a straight line to Foreign policy if you ask me.  Maybe we need Colin Powell back in the White House.  How about the deficit and spending in this country.  This isn't a major concern because no on cares unless they are the ones in foreclosure.  These $600 refund check are being paid for out our hinds but we welcome the money.  Gov Romney is a business man, why not elect him?

Forgive me if my post sounds overly cynical.  I purposely wrote it that way to highlight the fact this country is in need of some (radical if I can say that) changes.  I was for Huckabee until the last couple of weeks.  If we are all truthful on the matter, Obama is the only one who can really bring change about.    

Super-Tuesday proved that more than just young people are voting for Obama.

Laureate:

I think it is fine that you want to support Hillary Clinton as you have every right, but there is myopic view about Barack Obama.  Honestly, both Clinton and Obama have their pros and cons and it really should be more about their ideology.  Whatever the outcome of this race, it has changed the trajectory of how campaigns are to run in the future.  I enjoyed the fact that young people have come out to vote because they feel excited and willing to become in the political process.  I believe Obama has affected the American people in way that have finally decided to do something, get involved, and become engaged.  What I do not understand when change become a kind of fairy tale?  Have we become that skeptical and apathetic of another that comes along and suggest a different way, or have we accepted business as usual until it no longer matters?

In addition, Obama does say anything about change being easy as it rarely the case.  I think we have lived in semi-coma that we do not have the hope to believe that anything could change, so we continue to stay within our comfort zone and stick with the status quo as we now that is constant and that it stays the same (it doesn’t help us, but maybe it will not hurt as much).  We did not pay attention to while Bill Clinton was running for President he allowed the execution of Ricky Ray Rector to stand, and he did not mind sacrificing (in the literal sense) a person for his personal ambition to the White House.  We also did not pay attention to the fact that the poverty rate rose during the second term of Clinton’s administration, his signing to deregulate The Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which is the pre-cursor to the sub-prime mortgage scandal.  Then there is NAFTA that has become a huge problem for Americans and Mexicans.  

Now we are learning that Mrs. Clinton has lent the campaign $5 million and her top campaign workers are foregoing salaries. This seems to signify to me that there are some management problems within the Clinton camp.  Of course, this will not change the minds of people who will vote for Mrs. Clinton as it becomes a matter of choosing the lesser evil, but this time we have choice of we want for President of United States.  Whether you vote for Clinton or Obama, it will certainly be a historical moment.

Well-said, Dr. Melissa Harris-Lacewell. "Many voters in these bright blue states don't get it. They

seem unaware of the Republican-base galvanizing power of a Clinton ticket." Bullseye, Dr.

Harris-Lacewell is dead-center, totally accurate. Clinton will mobilize Republicans to vote

in droves like no one else. Her negatives hugely outweigh her positives, while the opposite

is true of Obama--Obama's great appeal has always been that he knows how to unite people, whether over a cup of coffee or over the entire country. Generally speaking, men are not

voting for Clinton and they are voting for Obama. And that would just crush us in November, should Clinton be the nominee--vast majority of men would vote for McCain, he'd split the women's vote, and that would give McCain the victory. What amazed me, being in Malaysia and

looking at Super Tuesday from 10,000 miles away, is Obama's ability to crush Clinton

in states like Minnesota. And Kansas. And Idaho. Obama appeals to Americans in the heartland like no other Democratic candidate since RFK. He would be a much, much more formidable

candidate against McCain than Clinton.

   I respect all the views on this site and wish all stateside well. But having spent 21 months in the Iraq War, in Kurdistan, Northern Iraq, Baghdad and Western Iraq, I trust Obama a heckuva' lot more than anyone else running for President, to end the Iraq War and get the US out of the massive

ditch we are in, in the Near East. Obama has the core traits for effective command---and the first word in commander-in-chief is commander--in spades: candor, humility, listening skills, and courage. May Obama prevail. And roger that, I ain't tired neither, this is a long patrol and you only survive a long patrol by staying deep in the fight. Keep chopping at that tree, Obama, it will fall.

long life and blue skies,

Mike Tucker, Counterterrorism & Guerrilla War Specialist

and author of RONIN: A Marine Scout/Sniper Platoon in Iraq

 Some have tried to spin it that Hillary "stopped Obama's momentum" in California.   Not so at all. The Caqlifornia vote was way too early for Barack to become known by the average (not politically focused) Californian.  The state encourages early absentee voting, and ballots went out 4 weeks before Feb.5.  2 million cast early ballots, & these gave a 20-pt. lead to Hillary; about like she was running in January.

   Then there's the whole Hispanic thing.  In spite of what Seregio Bendixen was saying in Fla. (like Latinos were some monolithic racist voting bloc)  the  majority of Latinos in the West  get their news from Mexican sources. Not because they don't speak English, but because it is culturally more appealing & perhaps easier to follow if Spanish is your first language. US TV & radio has really never invested in full-service Spanish language programming.  There is an excellent Los Angeles daily, La Opinion, which endorsed Barack Obama, but as far as turning on your TV or radio after working a double shift, if there is any mention of news it will focus on figures with international notoriety.  Therefore, MUCH of the Latino community has not been able to get much info on Barack Obama.   But guess what?   When they do learn his positions & get to see him, just like Black & White voters, they like what they see.   I hope the Obama campaign puts a lot of commercials on Spanish language radio in Texas.   I am trying to register to leave comments at a few Texas news services, but it's looking like the Dallas-Ft. Worth area is not set up for the blog/comment exchange that prevails everywhere else.

"Have you noticed that Mrs. Obama rarely smiles?"

Hey Laureate,

I would rather look at Michelle Obama not smiling any day over Hillary Clinton forcing herself to smile in front of people she doesn't want to be around until an election year (minorities, other women not named Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton).

This presents a problem since both countries want to get your tax dollars (or euros) based on the same income

Extracting acetaminophen from ultracet.