I also liked this, from Obama's speech:Just sayin'.
"Abraham Lincoln once said, "I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. But I also like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him."
There is no doubt that we are a nation that is deeply proud of where we live. But it is now our generation's task to live in a way that Stanley Dunham lived; to live the way that those heroes at Walter Reed have lived; the way that all those men and women who put on this nation's uniform live each and every day. It is now our task to live so that America will be proud of us. That is true test of patriotism - the test that all of us must meet in the days and years to come."
Amen.
I mean, yeah, I don't want to be over-confident or anything, and I've lived through enough bone-crushing Democratic defeats and Karl Rove Swiftboating shenanigans to fully appreciate that no victory can ever be 100% certain. (And here I must repeat that if our war criminals in charge pull off an attack on Iran, all bets are off. Period. And yes this is something to worry about.) It's just that there's a reason (okay, several reasons) that Obama has defeated Mz. Inevitable and since McCain stood about a fraction of a chance of beating her, well, I think you see where I'm going here.
3 comments:
Americans, by and large, can't be THAT STOOPID (can they??)
Ummmm.... Yes, they can.
Remember that about 30 percent of the population still thinks that George W. Bush is doing a heckuva job as president. And if an additional 20 percent can be fooled into believing that John McCain is somehow different than Bush, then we have got trouble.
(sigh) I realized as soon as I typed that sentence that I was in trouble. But, what the hell, it's my blog and I can make an ass of myself if I want to! Heh. I stand by my point - I'm not saying it's going to be a cakewalk for Obama, but I just don't see how any side-by-side comparison of the two can be anything other than really bad for McCain. That 20% margin is going to have to be won with heavy-duty Republican chicanery, and I just think at this point it's out of their league. Not only have they damaged their brand too much, but Obama is a far better candidate than both Gore or Kerry were, and McCain is - I hate to say it - not as good a candidate as GWB was. I should qualify that: GWB is a shit of a man, but he was a good candidate, whereas McCain is a marginally better man but, I think, a worse candidate.
I agree.
It is interesting to note that John McCain has raised only about $5 million in Texas. Both Obama and Hillary seperately have raised more (in Texas!). By comparison, John Kerry raised about $4 million in Texas in 2004 compared to G.W. Bush's $27 million.
And while I am being contrarian about the obtuseness of the mass electorate, I also think McCain and the Rs are going to get smoked in November.
I'm just hoping that the crystal clear superiority of Obama as a candidate will be enough to mostly offset the votes he will lose over the race issue.
They like to slam Obama now for acting like a saint and "walking on water", but he has to be that way because the bar has been set that much higher for him because of his race. The same way Jackie Robinson had to be not just good but extraordinarily good as a ballplayer and be willing to swallow his pride and ignore the insults and people spitting on him throughout his career.
Post a Comment