| Posted: 12 March 2008 at 7:43pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Well, Thom, it's what Malcolm X called "tricky white man logic".
I kid! I kid!!
I guess my math was off on that one - it was a gut-reaction post - but even by your math, if you remove the black voters, it's not like he's suddenly way behind - he's not running on a black vote - he's running on a "he's the best guy for the job" vote.
So, my appologies about the math. And yes, an unknown white candidate may or may not have that kind of run against Clinton - but despite his make-up, Barack was not unknown - I've been pulling for him to be President since I saw his address at the 2004 DNC, and the people of Ill have been for even longer than that. I think he's past the fresh young turk stage, and into the full-on major candidate stage - even before this campaign.
By the way - that's part of the joy of supporting him - over my lifetime - I've been eligible to vote since 1992, when I turned 18 - I've seen all these great potential rising stars in the Democratic party, who either didn't run for President (Cuomo, Richards) or didn't get past the primaries (Dean) and it's just been discouraging - holding my nose to vote every election - I didn't support Clinton or Gore or Kerry - but they were what I had to deal with, so I did it.
Obama - when I heard that speach at the DNC - I remember the moment - I was driving my car through SF's northbeach, listening to the speach on KGO 810 - I had to pull the car over - I couldn't believe what I was hearing - the guy on the radio was perfectly summing up what I wanted to hear out of a Democrat - I was floored - I went right out and began researching the guy, and after reading his book (at the time - his second book came out later) I thought - this guy needs to be President! But based on my past false hopes, I figured it would be like all the other candidates that I pinned my hopes on who either didn't run or who screamed themselves out of the race - but then, By God, despite it all, he did run!
I'm an Obama man to the bitter end.
By the way - here's a funny note that was sent out by the Obama campaign today:
When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."
When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.
When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.
When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.
When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.
And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
But the facts are clear.
For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.
I agree!
|
Topic Closed)
