Can Obama Get His Mojo Back?

Having just heard the report by Ms. Hansen/Ms. Anderson, I can not help but have fear the Democratic Party will shoot it's self in the foot again. The Republicans must be chomping at the bit, just waiting for Ms. Clinton's Delegates to possibly cause chaos at the Convention. If this comes to fruition, it will only prove to be politics as usual. It will not be about the Will of the People, which the Republicans have proved, with possibly the Democrats falling in tow.
Ms. Clinton not winning the populus nomination is her own fault, her commitee and that of her husband, Bill, sadly. Rather than stick to topic of things wrong with Our Nation and how to correct them, it became personal and childish. Now, because of Ms. Clinton's failure to win, her delegates might cause a ruckus. Again, thinking of one rather than the Whole. It could be Politics as usual, Washington Politics, Dirty Tricks Politics.
Obama/Biden, offer an opportunity for real change, will we really be afraid to let it happen, letting McCain/Republicans work for the good of a few, and screw the rest of Our Nation??

Sent by Michael Scott Taylor | 10:55 AM ET | 08-24-2008

The only convention speech I plan to listen to this week in whole is from Bill Clinton.

Mrs C. will get another bite at the apple in four years. My contribution to that end is voting McCain this November. I hope at least 20 percent of Hillary supporters do the same.

Sent by Scorned | 12:02 PM ET | 08-24-2008

Ms. Anderson you wrote: "On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama has lost momentum." And in the tone of the rest of your article one can almost hear a triumphant Tiger Woods style fist pumping "YES!"

In this election cycle of Obama coverage you are not alone, which makes the question, why isn't the Karl Rove operation chaos dirty tricks on behalf of John McCain as cause factor number one for the glorious Obama momentum slip the more compelling story such a compelling story? Whatever Mr. Obama does is wrong after it was brilliant. It's all becoming so Jim Crow Jr.

You wrote: "Polls show the presidential race is a statistical dead heat. As we go to press, Obama has not announced his vice presidential pick. Still, the rumored contenders are one-day wonders who will not change the game." Ms. Anderson, at this writing we all know who the VP pick is and at your writing did you not know that Joe Biden was among your list of "one day wonders?"

New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney, David Brooks and AP's Ron Fournier are all but churning out free campaign ads for John McCain. Not to mention Fox News and unmentionable right wing shock jocks dilivering their daily doses of mind numbing bile and racial disrespect.

So the attack Obama convention eve playbook calls for demeaning his handling of his Veep pick as the most direct route to maintaining Dem disunity. Annnnddd here she comes. But those of us intellectually curious enough to choose NPR over Rush, Hannity and BillO keep wondering why? And with all due respect with seeming little to no regard to our political realities and the human suffering inflicted in our name by the Cheney/Bush adminstration you fail to disappoint. The big deal is still not the man who had the nomination wrapped up in Feb.'08 regardless who he determines is his best running mate?

You wrote: "But it would be a very big deal if Hillary Clinton is his running mate. Clinton's name on the ticket would be a game-changer. Sure, she would bring excess baggage but she would also bring excitement - and 18 million votes.

"Sure she would bring excess baggage."

Ms. Anderson, eh,... like the eating your cake and still having your cake thing, if Hillary and the majority of her supporters are now supporting president Obama the extortionary threat is no more. The "18 million" are no more. Logic and simple math says give it a rest. The 18 million dog won't hunt.

Your words: "With Election Day a little over 70 days away, the Democratic Party remains divided." (yeahh!)[inferred] NBC News reports:

"Yet perhaps the biggest factor keeping the presidential race close has been Obama's inability to close the deal with some of Hillary Clinton's supporters. According to the poll , 52 percent of them say they will vote for Obama, but 21 percent are backing McCain, with an additional 27 percent who are undecided or want to vote for someone else."

My words: Obama's ability played no part? Or we could say "Given the unprecedented opposition to his success from the right and left perhaps the
biggest factor keeping the presidential race close has been an unbelievabaly brilliant and well managed campaign or something akin to the miraculous, or divine cosmic companionship hovering around Barack Obama.

What's with the "put Hillary on the ticket or else" bully spaek? Or else what?

One last question. Why all the hate? Is it because in the mind of Barack Obama and millions of non Hillary obsessed voters the election of America's 44th POTUS was never about electing the first Black male or the first White female president, but rather the best possible president to bring about the change we all long for and the rehabilitation of our body politic, wrecked by too much republican rule plus eight torturous years of Cheney/Bush.

So why all the Obama hate? Really?

Sent by Bob Cross | 12:07 PM ET | 08-24-2008

I am worried about the Clinton supporters who now have to vote for another candidate. Voting for McCain out of spite would be foolish, as would blindly supporting Obama. Add to this uncertainty the possibility that a "ruckus" might be raised at the convention just to protest seems to be the most foolish. Ms. Anderson seems to find some pleasure in the thought of such a distraction, and if there are those out there with that intention, then we are in trouble. I try each season to engage in the political process only to be dissappointed each and every time with the abundant display of self importance over the good of our country. If there is such a display of sour grapes at the Democrtatic convention, I will probably give up on our political process and our country. Please don't encourage people to act like children with a poopy diaper. Thanks.

Sent by Jeff Morton | 12:53 PM ET | 08-24-2008

What is often lost in the Obama discussion is that he has the best of both worlds...white and black parents...and since the world is predominantly of color, it seems to be that his ethnicity IS valuable at this time, but it's still only an aside to the fact that he is a bright man, a university professor, a senator, young, healthy and energetic...seemingly a good father and husband...and if that's not enough for us, remember he will be surrounded by a core of knowledgeable and seasoned advisers. For those who worry about his lack of experience(not true...read his biography), my response is we've had 8 years of the politically experienced (a second-generation president, seasoned politicians like Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld) and look what they done to this country and the world. I'll take my chances with the New Guy! For those who are concerned that he is bi-racial...look deep within...that's YOUR problem. Don't make it OUR problem! It is a matter of applying what is KNOWN to what is NEEDED! We desperately need CHANGE!

Sent by Not Afraid | 4:29 PM ET | 08-24-2008

The "national poll" close race is very misleading, but we know the press (or its business offices) loves the horse race. What matters is the state by state polls. Check pollster.com which gives a state by state breakdown. There are presently states with 260 electoral votes strongly democratic or leaning democratic. There are over 100 electoral votes in "tossup" states which include Virginia, Montana, Alaska and North Carolina. Even strong republican Texas is only 8 points for McCain. New York and California are about 18 in favor of Obama. Republicans won't even bother there. If "Scorned" is having his or her big angry fit in those states it won't matter. It could work that the "close national poll" will keep the young Obama supporters motivated, especially when they start to hear the inevitable and true stories of vote suppression on the part of Republicans. Maybe the press will even cover that.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 7:32 PM ET | 08-24-2008

Yeah,screw the rest of the nation. You know if it were the Latinos being screwed or the Blacks being screwed you would all be concerned about riots. But what the heck fellows, it's just a bunch of women....

Sent by The Silver Swan | 10:19 PM ET | 08-24-2008

Diehard Hillary supporters: just a bunch of grumps who've lost the lust and spark for change? Come on you're not that old! Hey, if your spitefulness means you must endorse the constipated view of the world then by all means vote McCain.

But don't forget to bring a lot of reading material...once your locked into that room it will be one long haul before someone capable comes round to open the door again. Isn't it worth putting aside emotions and pondering what the consequences for this shift might mean for our future and those of your children?

Sent by lostinamerika | 10:30 PM ET | 08-24-2008

This is rich! I actually got through two posts before a wild-eyed rant about Karl Rove as the root of all evil was posted. One day we wil be able to discuss such things without personal attacks and gross predjudice; but apparently not this year. Mr. Obama has gotten fouther along without specifics than any candidate I've ever heard of, even further than Bobby Kennedy. The "pass" from a helpful media will presumably expire between now and November and then some issues might actually be raised.

Sent by Steve Austin | 7:25 AM ET | 08-25-2008

All those 18,000,000 ardent Hillary supporters, why don't you just throw a dollar in her hat so that she can get rid of her debt and then just go away. Stop pimping the womens' movement for her lost. She ran a flawed campaign.

Sent by JMakeda | 10:54 AM ET | 08-25-2008

" This is rich!" Dear Steve, Rove is one of the prime architects for the disaster we're in...guilty as charged and to be duly noted by future historians.

And to say, ...further than Bobby Kennedy. Whew! Now that's what I call really in bad taste, and quite revealing for whence it originates. Certianly not from this planet.

It's refreshing to see the press got some of it's balls back, at the very least they've taken note that the winds of change are stirring and from what corner they emanate...

Sent by lostinamerika | 11:39 AM ET | 08-25-2008

In the 2008 presidential election, I'm sure experience is going to be a big issue. Does putting an inexperienced person in the White House (like for example George W. Bush) automatically lead to an abysmal administration?

It's my opinion, largely based on Scott McClellan's insider book (What Happened) on the Bush administration, that it was not Bush's political inexperience that lead to all the problems we've seen with the war in Iraq and the economy. Bush's flaw was that he governed from his gut feelings rather than from evidence and analysis.

Reading the politically more-experienced Barak Obama's book (The Audacity of Hope) it is immediately obvious that Obama will not surround himself with yes-men and ignore the facts. Obama is an intensely collaborative individual.

No, Barak Obama will not be another George W. Bush.

Sent by Kevin | 1:20 PM ET | 08-28-2008