A View From The Press Box

What, me worry? Yeah, plenty!! (Full disclosure, lifelong Democrat here.)

First off, I'm glad to have two worthy candidates and that the primary process has not been spoiled for the later-voting states.

I'm especially happy that the primaries played out as they're supposed to, without the media talking heads annointing a candidate as soon as the caucuses ended in Iowa!

But you touch on so many worries! So much time and money spent bashing each other instead of the opponent is not helping anyone except Senator McCain.

I fear that Obama may be ultimately be unelectable given the level of racism that unfortunately still exists in this country. It is just gut-wrenching to have to say that.

I fear a "back-door" maneuver such as you described that will be viewed as a move to disenfranchise an extremely promising and inspiring minority candidate.

I fear that with Senator Clinton, there will be no substantive change in the way business is done in Washington.

Guess I'll have to lie down in a dark room until this is all over, huh???!

Great topic, as always!

My view is similar, but more optimistic.

Obama, if he ends up (as he probably will) as the candidate, somehow needs to convince voters that he's not too "ethereal" as I heard a reporter say last night.

What I take that to mean is that he's a Kerry-Dukakis elite liberal who's sure to lose. The fact that Hillary has exposed it will give him the time to work on it before he takes on McCain, who will be tougher on him about that than Hillary ever was.

In reality, it's all hogwash, because we don't know who these candidates "really" are as people.

From Obama's point of view, he has to make the step to greatness (talking to the American people as a whole)
in order to win.

I agree with you about the perception that if Hillary gets the nod despite Obama leading in all the relevant numbers, it will look smarmy.

But I don't agree with you that there will be this wholescale desertion if, because Hillary can hold the center in any event. Where are those left of her going to go?

She would embrace Obama and be successful at winning them back.

In any event, this is a fascinating process and an important period in our history.

I'm not worried about McCain. He has no rational plan on the war or for people's pocketbooks, and he doesn't have a thimbleful of the charisma or energy that Hillary or Barack have.

The one caveat to Barak if he wins the nod--he needs to learn from the Clinton's winning strategy of going for the center. That means dropping the protectionist garbage and talking real economics.

As of now, Hillary, in my view, is much more likely to beat McCain than Obama is, because she knows how to get the swing voter.

Obama has to grow in the next few weeks in that direction. Given his great speech on race after the Wright controversy, I think he's capable of it.

If Hillary is given a pass on touting her experience, then Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, and Laura Bush all had elected office experience. Being married to the president does not qualify as experience, nor does it make her any more ready to take the office.

She has shown very poor judgment on major issues (such as the war in Iraq). Yet she will not hold herself responsible. Hillary is absolutely no different than the current Beltway politicians.

One huge difference is that Mr. Obama has gotten the attention of the populace. He has raised money without special interests when Hillary can only raise money through special interests.

This truly makes Barack unique. He will have to make deals in Washington, but he is already familiar with that process as a U.S. senator.

Hillary has had some very questionable transactions in her past. Has everyone forgotten her commodities success with Mr. Tyson, where she miraculously turned a small investment to $100,000 in a day?

Obama represents a real change and has energized the young voters. We do not need someone who appeals to the older voters only. We must engage the younger generation. It is their future which this election will most impact. Neither the Senator from Arizona nor the one from New York have the youthful voters interest on their minds.

Reality check: I am a life long Republican who is voting for Barack Obama.

We need new ideas and youthful leadership for change. The time has come to start moving out the old line of thinking. Hillary clearly does not represent that as she has resorted to the old style of campaigning.

Mr. Obama can fight the Republican Swift Boat strategy by staying above it. For those who would fall for that strategy, they would vote for McCain anyway.

All the pundants are touting Hillary's win in Pennsylvania as proof of her ability to win the general election. Her own people are using past elections (Dukakis and Bill Clinton) as examples of how if you lose Pa. and Ohio you can't win the general election.

What no one seems to understand is you can't compare the success or failure of a single person campaign to that of a full ticket campaign.

Of course, Obama will select a VP that complements his strengths and help fill in some of the perceived gaps. So, if he may have a weakness with "blue collar" workers, you can bet his vice president won't.

Those arguments from the Clinton camp don't hold water as far as I'm concerned.

Frankly, I'm tired of the campaign already. It takes me three years to forget how much I hate hearing every candidate say they have ideas and want to change things without showing us a clear plan of their own.

There is too much wasted breath out there telling us what is wrong with everyone else's plan or lack of a plan. How about showing us something and stand behind it?

If the plan is to lift more money out of my pocket to subsidize those who choose not to work, I am against that. If the plan is to have my health care controlled by the same people working at the DMV, I am against that, too.

I want to see a candidate illuminate what his/her plan is so I can determine if it will be good for me. I want to see that it is well thought out and has a chance of working.

In absence of that, I'll vote for the candidate that believes in America, is not ashamed of America and will defend America.

The economy is controlled by consumers and businesses. Let's keep the President focused on what he/she can actually change.

It is sad, but all three candidates leave very much to be desired.

Obama is fluff. I doubt his rhetoric could do anything to sway the dinosaurs that inhabit the Congress.

Clinton is running on the it's-my-turn platform. She is the same tired playbook of the 1970s. It doesn't work.

McCain is not sure he is a Republican. He acts like Mexico is the 51st state.

Where is Harry Truman when he is desperately needed?

This is the best of times, and the worst of times. All three candidates currently campaigning are to the left of center and frankly, none of them are really very appealing as a leader.

Obama and Clinton are situated way left, near Stalin. They clearly want the federal government to control everything, including health care, and excluding or minimizing national defense.

Even with like-minded majorities in the House and Senate, they will be lucky to get half of their wild promises (most of their platforms are wobbly, as they haven't said what they will do) accomplished.

Obama hasn't won many states since Super Tuesday despite the press falling all over itself in love with his "charisma" or whatever it is they see in him.

Get a transcript of one of his speeches and read it. Empty rhetoric that does not even promise much other than change or hope.

Clinton has more than enough baggage to make her negatives far greater than any "experience" she has. Neither Democratic candidate can win the required number of delegates from all the primaries and caucuses before the convention in August.

The party elite, otherwise known as superdelegates, will take all the votes in all the primaries and throw them out because they will now get to decide.

Hold on to your wallet if one of these two gets elected because you will get hammered with more taxes and bigger government (think local DMV but on a much larger scale done federally).

McCain is about the most liberal Republican and the only real difference between him and the other two is that he will take a measured approach to Iraq while the Dems will say that they need to move the troops out shortly after Jan. 20, but will find some excuse why they won't do it (like poor communication about the real nature of what is going on there from the outgoing Bush administration).

Almost everything else is the same.

I lived in Canada for 28 years and saw the deterioration of its government-run health care (done provincially, but really controlled though transfer payments to the provinces from the federal government).

It was a great system up to the 1980s. Then they saw rising costs and the best doctors leave the country for greater opportunities in the U.S. during the '90s. Doctors and nurses and everybody in the health care field become employees of the government.

Health care in Canada now has many limits, built-in delays for doctor visits and heavy restrictions for
frequency and severity of what is covered. It is not unusual for patients to be put on a waiting list to get required surgery and have to wait 16 to 20 weeks or longer. Similar surgeries can be performed within days here. Premiums are typically about half of what HMO plans charge in the U.S.

So don't believe any candidate's promises for "universal health care" without showing us how it will be done better than Canada, because I don't believe it can be done.

Frankly, I am a little tired of hearing statements such as 'the level of racism in our country" as the reason Obama can't win.

Considering that Mr. Obama, a complete novice in Washington politics, is soundly beating the candidate who many assumed was the presumptive Democrat nominee, and is garnering large swaths of white voters in every state, I'd say that the level of racism in this country isn't as high as some may think.

If Mr. Obama loses the general election, it may have more to do with him having an extreme liberal voting record and zero history of the so called bi-partisanship he claims he will bring to Washington.

Since it does not appear that there is any way that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination, I feel that the only way that Obama can pull it off is if he selects Hillary as his V.P. running mate. Could be a tough pill to swallow for either of them but politics, at times, does make for strange bedfellows.

SAM RESPONDS:
A natural response, for sure, but I don't see it happening. I fear Clinton would end up like Dick Cheney, trying to run the White House. Bush welcomed that, it appears, but Obama would not. It would be more likely if the roles were reversed, with Obama the junior partner still with a lot to learn, but given all the animosity lately, I don't see that coming off, either.

It does not strike me as a tragedy if McCain should become our next President.

This may well become yet another election where the American people vote, not for the best candidate, but for the lesser of two evils.

That said, I don't see any miraculous change occurring should either Clinton or Obama be elected. Neither has, in my opinion, the finesse to move the country forward to where we need to be.

Both have polarized so many people in their own way, through untruths and statements that show they cannot be counted upon to give us a factual accounting at the starting gate, much less when in the high office.

Hillary pulls a Bill & Monica parody when asked about Bosnia, and Obama back pedals on some racial issues that put many people on guard.

For me the choice has become much clearer...I hope!

I am enjoying the recent press from the "non-politician" candidate that is trying to redefine "bitter" and "cling to."

I hope everyone is paying attention to all comments and information from candidates rather than clinging to their original feelings about a candidate.

Much like dating, it takes time to see a person's true colors and peel away the values you wishfully project onto them. (See Carl Jung's discussion of anima and animus projection)