Neither of these politicians make strong candidates.

[ginchinchili]

Clinton came into this carrying a lot of baggage, much of it unfairly propagandized by the RW with the help of our compliant and complacent news media, but in politics what is believed becomes a reality. Some she brought on herself.

In Obama's case, he's just too inexperienced at a time when the last thing our country needs is a neophyte in the White House. The main reason he's done so well is because people are so disgusted with the Bush presidency that they were easily won over by the voice that best preached "change." The problem with that is that as time goes on, his candidacy becomes tougher as the novelty of his candidacy wears off and people start looking closer at the man and the challenges we would be asking him to face. He has very little to back up his words.

I don't believe race makes much difference with a majority of Americans, unless it appears to matter to the candidate. The revelations about Obama's "father figure" Rev. Wright, i.e., some of his anti-American quotes and some of his associations, and Obama's own quote about rural, white, blue collar Americans will raise the race flag in the minds of many Americans. This would have an impact come election day. How much no one can say for sure, but it wouldn't be helpful. America may be wanting change, but the is the same country that elected George W. Bush to a second term less than 4 years ago.

I'm afraid the Democrats chose poorly at a time when they should have been focused on choosing the strongest candidate, probably Joe Biden. Any Democrat elected to the White House, backed by the Democratic Party, would bring change to Washington, but only if they can get elected.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I believe that we have an excellent candidate

and he will make an excellent President.

My question is how can we on the one hand proclaim America to be a good and a God fearing nation, yet on the other encourage and even promote the idea that an individual cannot become President simply because he is ½ Black?

The world is watching, and thus far, our United States is threading on shaky grounds.

The values our soldiers have fought for in every war, the notion of liberty and equality are now coming under question.

When one thinks of all of the progress that we were supposed to have made, the question is now, are we willing to take 20 steps back to score political points? Is this what we want for ourselves in the 21st century? To have the world conclude that we, living in the United States of America, are nothing but a people perpetuating a fraud.

Rev. Wright isn't running....and both McCain and Hillary have said and done things far worse than Obama's "Bitter" comment.

[ginchinchili]

3. Your post seems to suggest that race would be the only thing keeping Obama from winning.

Don't you find that problematic? Particularly since there is a much greater percentage of whites voting for Obama than blacks voting for any other candidate. I thought my post addressed this point, but if that's your opinion, so be it.

[FrenchieCat]

5. That's really the only thing being promoted.

Whether through morphing Rev. Wright as though he is Obama....or folks overacting about something Obama said, basically because they, who took offense, believe that he isn't one of them.

So yes, I believe that most attacks against Obama, that folks say make him a "weak" candidate, are attacks directly related to his skin color.

[ginchinchili]

8. I see, the [i]you're either with us or a racist[/i] stance.

Supposing Hillary went to the same church for 20 years and the pastor was a father figure to her. Supposing that father figure had a friendship with, and even flew to, say, Germany with David Duke. Supposing that pastor made many disparaging remarks about areas in the country that were run primarily by blacks. Don't pretend that that wouldn't be an issue in this race and that it wouldn't be an issue with you. Supposing Hillary was asked why she's having a hard time winning over African Americans and her answer was that they were afraid of anyone different than them, as they bitterly cling to their religion and their guns. Hillary's candidacy would be finished.

I don't support Obama because he doesn't have the necessary experience to be president, not because I'm a racist. I'm not.

[democracy1st]

20. Have you researched Historically how much experience Presidents have had?

you should do that sometime,it would surprise you

[rocktivity]

2. You forgot McCain.

He's not a saint, he's not competent, and he's not scandal-proof. Either of these candidates are better than him.

:headbang:
rocknation

[ginchinchili]

4. McCain certainly has his weaknesses, but he's better than Bush.

Even Obama acknowledged that. That's a fact that the Democrats have to worry about. Again, this is the same country who elected Bush to office for a second term less than 4 years ago. I don't believe that Clinton or Obama can't beat McCain, but it's far from certain and it should have been a cakewalk for the Democrats. It could have been.

[FrenchieCat]

6. McCain, under close scrutiny, cannot win.

There is something about him that reflects a certain lack of health and vitality and ties it directly as a reflection of this country. Most Americans are not hankering for a sick United States.

[ginchinchili]

10. You mustn't have been around for the 2004 election.

If the Democrats assume, as you do, that McCain can't win, then they hand McCain a big advantage. If Bush could win, McCain can win. Don't kid yourself.

[cali]

11. 2004 is not 2008. Bush was, like it or not, a war president

at a time when most Americans supported the war. It was less than 3 years out from 9/11 when campaigning started. And there's one thing that's going to count against him without the MSM even focusing on it: His age. Just anecdotal but I have a good friend who's 76, and the most active person of her age I know. She runs a physically demanding business. We were talking about it today, and she was saying that she thought that a lot of older people would really have doubts about his being able to perform such a grueling job. In any case, though McCain can win, comparing him to bush is spurious.

[ginchinchili]

12. My post was a response to someone who stated that McCain can't win.

My point is that you must always consider the political landscape of the nation and if someone as poorly qualified as Bush can get elected, under any circumstance, an improvement over Bush can be elected by the same people. Hardly a spurious extrapolation. And in case you have forgotten, we are still at war, in effect we're engaged in two wars, and where McCain's support for the Iraq war will certainly hurt him, possibly cost him the election, Obama's total lack of foreign policy experience or military experience could also hurt him. It's a big reason why I didn't support him from the start.

[cali]

13. Agreed that McCain could win but let me point out

that the war was popular then and is extremely unpopular now. Bush was a sitting president during a popular war when 9/11 loomed large. McCain is not a sitting president. he doesn't have those built in advantages. his odds of winning aren't actually that good. And Obama has now been in the Senate for over 3 years, so it's an error to say he has a total lack of fp experience. True, he needs a running mate with strong foreign policy chops, but in any case, unlike 2004, the main issue will not be foreign policy or the war, but the catastrophic economy, and on that issue, McCain is distinctly at a disadvantage.

[ginchinchili]

14. The truth be known, all 3 of these candidates are at a disadvantage,

which was my original point. The war and 9/11 won't work for McCain like they did Bush, but these issues tend to work better for Republicans in general and McCain has both extensive military experience and foreign policy experience, though I maintain that McCain's support for the Iraq invasion is his greatest weakness in this election, and he has many. Obama being in the Senate for 3 years doesn't automatically give him foreign policy credentials. As I said, we have 3 weak candidates, even if you like Obama.

[cali]

15. that's not the truth. it's your opinion. there is a difference.

returning to facts, the electorate trusts dems on the economy by a substantial margin. I disagree that either Obama or Clinton can be summed up as weak candidates. Compared to who? John Edwards, who couldn't even win a primary in Iowa where he had 100% name recognition? Dodd? Biden? You aren't a strong candidate if you can't appeal to dems in the primaries.

[BlooInBloo]

7. (shrug) Another "few bad apples" liar.

[msongs]

9. real liberals/progressive are out of the race, leaving 2 dems imperialist insiders. pick one nt

[barack the house]

16. He's a stong candidate as we are the ones we've been waiting for, together we're strong.

[JI7]

17. Biden and his "clean articulate black man, indians and 7-11"

and other similar comments would make him easy to attack than Obama. and Biden has one of them every other day. every day would be about what he really meant to say.

[bklyncowgirl]

18. Every candidate in this race had his/her handicaps--some were insurmountable.

Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards all voted for the war in Iraq. That cut them out of consideration for many Democrats and made Obama an attractive alternative.

The guys with the long depth of experience, Richardson, Biden and Dodd, never were able to connect viscerally with enough voters (and donors) to make a serious challenge. Richardson's less than stellar debate performances hurt him score points in the free media he needed so badly. Oddly he seems much more at ease as an Obama supporter than he ever did touting his own candidacy. Kucinich, as always, was never considered a serious candidate.

Edwards could never overcome his Iraq war vote. The cheap shots about his haircut and his house hurt him. Moreover he did not add more experience to the table than Obama or Clinton. I liked his populist rhetoric but could never get over that IWR vote.

Both Clinton and Obama started out with a base that would vote for them out of ethnic/gender pride and were able to add to that base. That's politics and provided they can avoid fatally wounding themselves in this primary marathon, the Democrats will have a strong battle hardened candidate in November. At least I hope so.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. I mostly agree

Neither candidate is pushing for universal single-payer health care, it's not on their tables. I doubt either candidate will be able to extract us from the middle east.

Those are my election "hot buttons", and both candidates fall flat. Neither issue is related to gender or race.

I'll vote DEM, just because they are not McCain. But am I getting excited about either of them? Nah.