Bar, maybe Ron Paul, I’m struggling to think of a worthy Republican either.

I doubt there is a cigarrete paper between you and I about what the objective is. The point I think, is not just about winning the Presidency, but it also has to be about winning both leglisilatures, I think. What is your take on that?

Or maybe I am misunderstanding the situation! Either way I agree, I’m not saying he is inexperienced as such, and any man…let alone an underdog with questions about how far prejudices in a country may stop him…that can get as far as he’s done shows that he has the ethos required to go in to the job. I wasn’t trying to down play what he’s done, merely to state that traditional experience, that of “I’ve been here for years and so I’m clearly the best person for the job” as if insider knowledge is all that makes you a good commander-in-chief, is not all it’s cracked up to be. Indeed in this circumstance I’d argue it’s a hindrance since the public are obviously impassioned, even through the way McCain has been arguing he is a different type of republican to Bush, to have someone that isn’t afraid to shake out the cobwebs.

Obama, it seems to me, has an excellent CV. There is little or no point in reprising it here, but it is one of solid achievement and advancement. Without, apparently, giving up on what he started out with.

And at the highest levels of US society available to him at that time in his life.

I actually think his ‘experience’, in the sense of meeting the challenges that faced him, is somewhat better than that of HRC.

Not to mention the fact that he actually seems to be able to run a successful campaign, whilst hers is stuttering.

I used to admire his rhetoric, then I admired his commitment, now I admire his organisational skills. I doubt he’d have got anywhere without all three of them

Elsewhere, someone mentioned that, despite all that, he could still end up as a lame duck President if he can’t get the 60%+ he needs in the Senate and the House to push his legislation through.

I think that might be the real issue?

Thanks for the link to Horse Race Blog. I had thought the ‘momentum’ arguement was already proven, prior to Wisconsin, now I’m having second thoughts. Quite persuasive!

Is it not however the case that, where the Obama meme gets a chance to flourish, over a bit of time, that it takes root and grows?

In other words the better candidate is making the better ‘presentation’ and where time allows, folk are swung by that?

Performance on the stump matters, maybe.

Elaine, thanks. Happy to discuss issues both on liberal conspiracy, or on my world after bush blog if and when comments come in there!

On Wisconsin, have been very impressed with analysis by Jay Cost on the Horse Race Blog, which has really got behind the numbers during the race, and often showed how the immediate media orthodoxy about several results hasn’t really stacked up. His Wisconsin analysis suggests a significant development, confirming the shift from a tight race to Obama being favourite.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/02/how_obama_won_wisconsin.html

Previous results have often been about electoral demographics in particular states, ie more about whether the state is a better bet for Obama or Clinton than about shifts in their relative voter base.

Obama has done well with black voters, higher-income white voters, young voters while Clinton has had strong support from white women, lower income voters, Hispanics and the traditional Roosevelt Democrat coalition (except black voters).

However, the breakdown of the Wisconsin result suggests that this was not about that, but about Obama performing much more strongly with groups which were leaning towards Clinton. If that persists, it is bad news for the Hillary Clinton big state strategy as the momentum of losing ten in a row is hurting her, which makes holding on to early March more difficult.

Incidentally anyone else think that this election is an exact reprise of the final season of the West Wing- with Hillary as Russell and Obama as Santos. The idea that Obama is policy lite I think is actually wrong- he has the policies (McCain is much more policy lite he has almost no economic policy for example and got elected as Byron York argues here because he looks like a commander in chief. It isn’t that the Republicans know what McCain would do, but that they feel he would be a good commander in chief because of his experience of war etc. Obama does have the policy detail, most people who vote against Obama vote about character and its lack of experience that they are really talking about.

This is about whether the Democrats want to win or not, and if they do…which I assume Clinton must even if she loses this race…then they have all of the cards in their hand to really shape a win.

But play down Obama as much as you like, the man is ahead of McCain in the overall head-to-heads and is fairing very well in purple state head-to-heads as well which only goes to show his command over the independent voters, people that mean a whole lot more to both sides than petty demographic struggles.

Technically, Obama did campaign in Florida by quite extensive use of TV campaign ads within Florida. His campaign team has said that they couldn’t ‘unbundle’ Florida from the CNN package they had bought.

Other states were also in violation of the DNC rules and their punishments were not so draconian.

However, I agree that these decisions were bad when they were drawn up - arbitrary and inconsistent in treatment of various states and very problematic poltically to disenfranchse millions of voters. They were bad then, bad now but the fight should have been carried out when they were made. Now either these bad decisions have to be accepted or some weird and wonderful ‘replay’ is required. Clinton should withdraw this proposal; Obama should be censured for violating the campaigning ban,

If Ife and Lee will ‘happily’ vote for John McCain, I must ask what your commitment to Obama’s policies means: I see some small but signficant differences between Obama and Clinton on policy but clear blue water between them and McCain.

If you both find it convenient or amusing to straightforwardly use the Rove handbook - by adopting their oft-repeated labelling of Clinton as Shillary — what does Obama’s post Rovian politics mean to you?

What really makes me laugh is how Mr. Obama’s supporters believe that his victories in red states will translate into wins come November. Who are you guys kidding? There is no way that Mr. Obama could ever win a significant part of the South, no matter how many African-Americans and yellow dog democrats turn out. As for the West, Mr. Obama has large negatives among Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans which may move a Democratic stronghold like California into a contested area.

Do you really think that the Republicans are going to pull their punches like Ms. Clinton has? Ms. Clinton has had to try beat Mr. Obama without angering the African-American voters who the Democrats need to win in November. The Republicans will not have this problem.

Finally, whatever happened to the issue of sexism in this country. With everyone so fired up about the first African-American president, the issue of the first woman president has been dampened. (The Democrats need a good turn out among women voters to win in November too.)Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, one of the two core Democratic constituencies (African-Americans and Women) will be very upset at having lost their historic opportunity.

Today Mr. Fidel Castro resigned as President and as Chief of the Cuban Military Forces. For all his notoriety and rule as a dictator, he has the vision to say he wants Cuba to be led by the younger generation. Perhaps as he approaches the Pearly Gates, he has acknowledged that his dictatorship is probably not the best for Cuba in this day and age. Hillary should follow suit. This is a new century with new generations beyond the rule of babyboomers and our country needs a NEW President of the younger generations; one who will truely move our country forward. We do not need to remain under the “rule” of old and stagnant politicians! It is time to turn the page and start a new chapter in our own lives and in the betterment of our country for our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. “WE THE PEOPLE” want a President who truely believes in “A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE”! Mr. Obama is that President!!

.