The Next President of the USA will be?

[Dzldoc]

TV

I saw this on TV!

Heckuva Job Brownie!

[Suz]

TV

I saw this on TV!

Heckuva Job Brownie!

Oh lord, I will never forget that. But not as much as YOU'LL never forget it :'(

[Hotplant]

TV

I saw this on TV!

Heckuva Job Brownie!

I saw a tape where they were all joking about that. bush...the Big Douchebag.

[wanna be drummer]

Well Im not saying the race isi over like you seem to think. It is far from over. I would consider McCain more experienced. Obama. What has he done? What does he know? why do you think he got 91 percent of the black vote in Mississippi?? Gee, I wonder? He is getting race votes and that is clear as day. Is that right? dont assume Florida wont count in the long run. And dont assume that the popular vote cannnot be made up. Look at Texas and Ohio. It isnt over. I think McCain wants Obama to win though because the numbers indicate if he does, the Clinton voters will either stay home or cross the line. If she wins, more Obama voters would rather have her than Mccain. that is what they are saying on television. Its not what Im coming up with out of thin air. If he wins, I may sit it out. I dont think him or Mccain are what I want. The Republicans in my opinion have thrown McCain to the wolves, and are counting on either Obama or Hillary to not be able to clean up this mess and then they come back with a stronger candidate in 4 yrs. They feel that this nominee will pay at the polls for Bush;s mistakes and they figure they are going to lose anyway so lets send out the ones that are expendable.

Does the "black" vote really matter that much? He's getting more white votes than Hillary is too. The black population isn't big enough to put him in front on their own.

[bigstickbonzo]

Well Im not saying the race isi over like you seem to think. It is far from over. I would consider McCain more experienced. Obama. What has he done? What does he know?

Experience? Experience???? What fucking experience does Hillary have that Obama doesn't??? Married to an ex-President?? That's not experience. That's priviledge. The Senate? She has two years on Obama where she did absolutely nothing but smile and wave and shake hands because she was Hillary Clinton, ex first lady to that bastard cheating husband who she forgave, saving her political ambitions in the process. You've yet to prove your case why she has more experience over Obama. From what I've seen, what makes Obama so dangerous to Hillary and her supporters is his charisma and cool collective presence when he addresses a crowd. He commands the attention of the people when he speaks, something she didn't try to do until it was clear she'd have to put in the time for this campaign back in January.

why do you think he got 91 percent of the black vote in Mississippi?? Gee, I wonder? He is getting race votes and that is clear as day. Is that right?

Oh, I get you now. You're upset because Bill Clinton was viewed as the "First Black President" and Hillary should have these votes because all the news stations said she would but now doesn't because the blacks are jumping on the "black wagon" with Obama?

dont assume Florida wont count in the long run. And dont assume that the popular vote cannnot be made up. Look at Texas and Ohio. It isnt over. I think McCain wants Obama to win though because the numbers indicate if he does, the Clinton voters will either stay home or cross the line. If she wins, more Obama voters would rather have her than Mccain. that is what they are saying on television. Its not what Im coming up with out of thin air. If he wins, I may sit it out. I dont think him or Mccain are what I want. The Republicans in my opinion have thrown McCain to the wolves, and are counting on either Obama or Hillary to not be able to clean up this mess and then they come back with a stronger candidate in 4 yrs. They feel that this nominee will pay at the polls for Bush;s mistakes and they figure they are going to lose anyway so lets send out the ones that are expendable.

McCain receiving Bush's endorsement is the turn off many central-liberals were hoping for because, the independent vote will now swing favorably to Obama. Hillary has little chance at catching him in the overall tally of delegates at this point. And if you look at her on television, she's tired. Beat. Rundown. Whereas Obama, who might be himself, looks assured and determined to win the White House.

[Dzldoc]

Mississippi has the largest black population of any state as well so it may seem lopsided. Most of them are rural folks as well and I tend to think it's more dislike for hillary . I work with and know a lot of black folks from MS and they are more conservative than one might think.

[wanna be drummer]

Mississippi has the largest black population of any state as well so it may seem lopsided. Most of them are rural folks as well and I tend to think it's more dislike for hillary . I work with and know a lot of black folks from MS and they are more conservative than one might think.

And yet 90% of them vote Democrat.

I think they're centrists at heart, who follow Al Sharpton's posse, wherever they may be

[bigstickbonzo]

And yet 90% of them vote Democrat.

I think they're centrists at heart, who follow Al Sharpton's posse, wherever they may be

I think they swing Democrat because of "Civil Rights" issues from the past and present. Unfortunately, many probably fail to realize nearly every racist politician that ever came out of the south was a Democrat. More than 3/4 of the KKK were major contributors the Democratic Party in the South. But that's irrelevant here.

Al Sharpton should be hung from a tree. Not because he's black, he's a disgrace to their heritage. For being a phony member of the church, exploiting people and receiving enough endorsements to drive a black Ferrari. String up Jesse Jackson too, he's no better. They both are big reasons why the African-American community is currently lost. Their two most outspoken leaders are frauds.

[Bonham]

Why is it when I provide a link to a guy who has evidence to support Obama being unfaithful, most of you people ignore this evidence and start attacking him personally?

Oh, he's biased, or, judging from him using words like "Zionist" we know exactly what kind of person he is. Well, how can you alienate and demonize people like him? At least he makes a point, and he would not make an essay on the man if he did not know what he was talking about.

I suggest you Obama fans go back and reread it. And if you don't believe what you're reading, you see those underligned words? They're for you. Just because someone caught Obama out, you accuse the Mann of bashing him. Like he said, he likes Obama, just not what he's become, and he is unclear how he got to that point.

[Dzldoc]

Probably so, I'm a Reg. Dem. but I can't remember the last time I voted for a Dem.

I think it was The one in jail

[Bonham]

What does it matter anyway? You, We, Us.. we're all fucked anyway. No matter who the president is now; most of them are riding the same wagon, and you don't realise it.

And even if I wasn't informed, why the hell would I think Obama a likely candidate? Let alone Hilary, jesus! I mean the guy uses "hope" to win over his dumbed down supporters. We all hope, but hoping and doing are two different things.

I know, let's hope you get a decent president. Let's hope we get a decent primeminister. Let's all hope because hoping gets us places.

[bigstickbonzo]

Why is it when I provide a link to a guy who has evidence to support Obama being unfaithful, most of you people ignore this evidence and start attacking him personally?

Oh, he's biased, or, judging from him using words like "Zionist" we know exactly what kind of person he is. Well, how can you alienate and demonize people like him? At least he makes a point, and he would not make an essay on the man if he did not know what he was talking about.

I suggest you Obama fans go back and reread it. And if you don't believe what you're reading, you see those underligned words? They're for you. Just because someone caught Obama out, you accuse the Mann of bashing him. Like he said, he likes Obama, just not what he's become, and he is unclear how he got to that point.

Because being unfaithful automatically makes you a bad leader. I think history will clearly show otherwise, but nonetheless it shouldn't be overlooked by any means.

[Bonham]

Because being unfaithful automatically makes you a bad leader. I think history will clearly show otherwise, but nonetheless it shouldn't be overlooked by any means.

How can you trust a man who says "we need to continue war in the middle east", but also says "If elected as president I vow to end the war in Iraq"?

Boy, he must be on crack, huh?

Edit: So he has his supporters in two categories. He has the pro-war and the anti-war. He tells them we must continue the war in the middle east, which isn't even a war anyway, it's an occupation. And by saying that, he's given some of the people comfort in knowing their country is safe from attacks because they're blowing up "terrorists" in their own country.

And he says that if he's elected he will vow to end the war, and in saying this he's keeping a lot of other people sweet and giving them that big word again, "hope". Hope in that their children will come home. But of course that's never gonna happen because it's an occupation and the US is there for a reason. I shouldn't say the US, I should say Bush.

[bigstickbonzo]

How can you trust a man who says "we need to continue war in the middle east", but also says "If elected as president I vow to end the war in Iraq"?

Boy, he must be on crack, huh?

"We need to continue war in the Middle East" most definitely refers to Afghanistan, a place most Democrats will agree we belong to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I think you assume too naively "Middle East" refers to Iraq.

[Bonham]

"We need to continue war in the Middle East" most definitely refers to Afghanistan, a place most Democrats will agree we belong to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I think you assume too naively "Middle East" refers to Iraq.

Well the Middle East includes Afghanistan and Iraq, and the US is in both. Except, in one there is a war going on, and in the other there is an occupation of that country. So, maybe Obummer should be more specific.

[bigstickbonzo]

Well the Middle East includes Afghanistan and Iraq, and the US is in both. Except, in one there is a war going on, and in the other there is an occupation of that country. So, maybe Obummer should be more specific.

You're wrong. In both cases, they are wars that failed. Iraq is an occupation. Afghanistan is a war forgotten by the United States.

[Bonham]

You're wrong. In both cases, they are wars that failed. Iraq is an occupation. Afghanistan is a war forgotten by the United States.

Ok, but you just told me that Obama was referring to the war in Afghanistan, so how can I be wrong when you claimed this first? And of course one of them is a failed war, I never said anything about them being successful, because like I said: The invasion of Iraq was an invasion and occupation, not a war. And the war in Afghanistan is still on going, because the Brits pulled out of Iraq to focus their energy there. But where are all these Taliban? I never see anything on the news about Afghanistan.

[Hermit]

And if he [Obama] gets the nomination I will cross party lines and vote for McCain

If he [Obama] wins, I may sit it out. I dont think him or Mccain are what I want.

It seems you're rather confused and don't know what you want.

..other than you seem to want Hillary Clinton as the next POTUS.

Apparently you need to think things through a bit more

..in the event she doesn't get the dem nomination, eh?

It might help if you read Obama's bio. If you read his bio and don't recognize his extraordinary intelligence, insightfulness, determination, and incredible people skills.. that doesn't mean he lacks those qualities, it merely means you probably lack discernment.

The most cursory of summaries: Barack Obama transcended being raised in broken, poor family. Against the odds, he got into, and graduated magnum cum laude from, Harvard law school. He was the President of the Harvard Law Review (the first African American to hold that position). He opted to not seek a high paying job as a big-time lawyer and instead went into the poor neighborhoods of Chicago and worked in a low-paying job as a community organizer, where he impacted peoples' lives for the better. Again against all odds, he ran for US Senate and won. As a senator he's helped pass ethics reform legislation, and has stood tall in defense of civil liberties and human rights. He's a best selling author and Grammy award winner. His Rocky Balboa presidential campaign has boldly taken on the Apollo Creed Clinton political machine and is whooping em.. and he's doing it on grass roots support and no big-money contributions from political action committees or lobbyists. He is inspiring an entire generation of Americans. And he had the sound judgment to oppose the Iraq invasion from the outset, for all the reasons that are now commonly accepted as the reasons the invasion was utterly misguided.

Not qualified to be POTUS? Ha! Puh-lease.

Of course he's qualified.

And yet rather than vote for him if he gets the nomination, you're

gonna sit out the election and not vote.. or vote for John McCain?

Dude.

Dig a little deeper, muh-man. Think a little more critically. Exercise skillful discernment. Don't

be so eager to swallow every bit of anti-Obama spin the Clinton campaign dangles in front you.

[Hermit]

And even if I wasn't informed, why the hell would I think Obama a likely candidate? Let alone Hilary, jesus! I mean the guy uses "hope" to win over his dumbed down supporters. We all hope, but hoping and doing are two different things.

I know, let's hope you get a decent president. Let's hope we get a decent primeminister. Let's all hope because hoping gets us places.

No one thinks hope in and of itself gets things done. But hope does inspire people to try to get things done that they wouldn't otherwise think themselves capable of. That's why so many great orators, inspirational figures, and accomplishers of great deeds throughout history have had "hope" as a theme in their speeches (or books, or writings..) and personal motivation.

If you look at Barack Obama's accomplishments, you'd be hard pressed to suggest that he's achieved what he's achieved by merely sitting back and passively hoping. No, he's used hope as an inspiration and motivation to reach beyond what he thought his limitations were.. and to then, against all odds, achieve what he set out to achieve.. and in doing so realize that those seemingly insurmountable limitations were not insurmountable afterall. Hope and hard work; that's what gets things done, Bonham. Barack Obama knows this and so do the millions and millions of people who are being inspired by his message and his candidacy.

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he said:

“In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!" *source*

*Obama 2004 DNC speech, part 1*

*Obama 2004 DNC speech, part 2*

You've read Aaron Mann on Obama, how about reading a little Obama on Obama, eh?

If you're willing, here's an excerpt from the prologue of his book "The Audacity of Hope":

This book grows directly out of those conversations on the campaign trail. Not only did my encounters with voters confirm the fundamental decency of the American people, they also reminded me that at the core of the American experience are a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes our improbable experiment in democracy work. These values and ideals find expression not just in the marble slabs of monuments or in the recitation of history books. They remain alive in the hearts and minds of most Americans–and can inspire us to pride, duty, and sacrifice.

I recognize the risks of talking this way. In an era of globalization and dizzying technological change, cutthroat politics and unremitting culture wars, we don’t even seem to possess a shared language with which to discuss our ideals, much less the tools to arrive at some rough consensus about how, as a nation, we might work together to bring those ideals about. Most of us are wise to the ways of admen, pollsters, speechwriters, and pundits. We know how high-flying words can be deployed in the service of cynical aims, and how the noblest sentiments can be subverted in the name of power, expedience, greed, or intolerance. Even the standard high school history textbook notes the degree to which, from its very inception, the reality of American life has strayed from its myths. In such a climate, any assertion of shared ideals or common values might seem hopelessly naive, if not downright dangerous – an attempt to gloss over serious differences over policy and performance or, worse, a means of muffling the complaints of those who feel ill served by our current institutional arrangements.

My argument, however, is that we have no choice. You don’t need a poll to know that the vast majority of Americans –Republican, Democrat, and independent– are weary of the dead zone that politics has become, in which narrow interests vie for advantage and ideological minorities seek to impose their own versions of absolute truth. Whether we’re from red states or blue states, we feel in our gut the lack of honesty, rigor, and common sense in our policy debates, and dislike what appears to be a continuous menu of false or cramped choices. Religious or secular, black, white, or brown, we sense– correctly–that the nation’s most significant challenges are being ignored, and that if we don’t change course soon, we may be the first generation in a very long time that leaves behind a weaker and more fractured America than the one we inherited. Perhaps more than any other time in our recent history, we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans.

That’s the topic of this book: how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life. This isn’t to say that I know exactly how to do it. I don’t. Although I discuss in each chapter a number of our most pressing policy challenges, and suggest in broad strokes the path I believe we should follow, my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete. I offer no unifying theory of American government, nor do these pages provide a manifesto for action, complete with charts and graphs, timetables and ten-point plans.

Instead what I offer is something more modest: personal reflections on those values and ideals that have led me to public life, some thoughts on the ways that our current political discourse unnecessarily divides us, and my own best assessment –based on my experience as a senator and lawyer, husband and father, Christian and skeptic– of the ways we can ground our politics in the notion of a common good.

Let me be more specific about how the book is organized. Chapter One takes stock of our recent political history and tries to explain some of the sources for today’s bitter partisanship. In Chapter Two, I discuss those common values that might serve as the foundation for a new political consensus. Chapter Three explores the Constitution not just as a source of individual rights, but also as a means of organizing a democratic conversation around our collective future. In Chapter Four, I try to convey some of the institutional forces–money, media, interest groups, and the legislative process–that stifle even the best-intentioned politician. And in the remaining five chapters, I suggest how we might move beyond our divisions to effectively tackle concrete problems: the growing economic insecurity of many American families, the racial and religious tensions within the body politic, and the transnational threats –from terrorism to pandemic– that gather beyond our shores.

I suspect that some readers may find my presentation of these issues to be insufficiently balanced. To this accusation, I stand guilty as charged. I am a Democrat, after all; my views on most topics correspond more closely to the editorial pages of the New York Times than those of the Wall Street Journal. I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans, and insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all. I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody’s religious beliefs –including my own– on nonbelievers. Furthermore, I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can’t help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of how generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our lives.

But that is not all that I am. I also think my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers. I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.

Undoubtedly, some of these views will get me in trouble. I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them. Which perhaps indicates a second, more intimate theme to this book–namely, how I, or anybody in public office, can avoid the pitfalls of fame, the hunger to please, the fear of loss, and thereby retain that kernel of truth, that singular voice within each of us that reminds us of our deepest commitments. *source*

[Hermit]

Mississippi results (thus far)

Obama...1,381..60%

Clinton....876....38%

updated results (99% of precincts reporting):

Obama....253,441...61%...15 (delegates won).. 1394 (total pledged delegates)

Clinton.....154,852...37%...12 (delegates won).. 1242 (total pledged delegates)

a minor gain in delegates.. but a full-on drubbing in popular

votes.. and another state in the win column for the O-train!

[icantquityoubabe]

No one thinks hope in and of itself gets things done. But hope does inspire people to try to get things done that they wouldn't otherwise think themselves capable of. That's why so many great orators, inspirational figures, and accomplishers of great deeds throughout history have had "hope" as a theme in their speeches (or books, or writings..) and personal motivation.

If you look at Barack Obama's accomplishments, you'd be hard pressed to suggest that he's achieved what he's achieved by merely sitting back and passively hoping. No, he's used hope as an inspiration and motivation to reach beyond what he thought his limitations were.. and to then, against all odds, achieve what he set out to achieve.. and in doing so realize that those seemingly insurmountable limitations were not insurmountable afterall. Hope and hard work; that's what gets things done, Bonham. Barack Obama knows this and so do the millions and millions of people who are being inspired by his message and his candidacy.

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he said:

“In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!" *source*

*Obama 2004 DNC speech, part 1*

*Obama 2004 DNC speech, part 2*

You've read Aaron Mann on Obama, how about reading a little Obama on Obama, eh?

If you're willing, here's an excerpt from the prologue of his book "The Audacity of Hope":

Sounds like you have all the answers. We will just have to wait it out. For you to think it will be a walk in the park to defeat Hillary, you are quite wrong. As for the poster above, I am guessing he is either Canadien or British? Why does he care?

[icantquityoubabe]

I believe that the one certain thing that would defeat McCain would to have both Hillary and Obama on the same ticket, regardless of which is the front runner. If Hillary wins some that supported Obama may just sit it out. If Obama wins many will either sit or cross party lines. Do you think it will be easy for either a black man or a woman to beat an established Republican? Kerry and Gore should have won. But look what happened. It can happen again, believe me.

[Hermit]

Sounds like you have all the answers. We will just have to wait it out. For you to think it will be a walk in the park to defeat Hillary, you are quite wrong. As for the poster above, I am guessing he is either Canadien or British? Why does he care?

No, I dont have all the answers; and no, obviously this campaign has been no walk in the park for either candidate. But I do know that Obama is qualified to be POTUS; I know that Obama is in the lead; I know that mathematically Hillary is behind the eight-ball; I know Hillary is using low-brow tactics; and I know that both/either Obama and/or Clinton would be better for America than McCain as the next POTUS.

I also know that "the poster above" (you're referring to Bonham, I take it).. being from "Southampton, England".. is British and not Canadian (D'oh! ). And if you look at all the havoc Dumbya has wreaked, and when you consider that under his rule America is now a country that condones and utilizes torture,.. you might get an idea why people from around the globe would care about who our next president will be.

Hillary or not.. vote Democrat in'08, muh-man.

[Hermit]

I believe that the one certain thing that would defeat McCain would to have both Hillary and Obama on the same ticket, regardless of which is the front runner. If Hillary wins some that supported Obama may just sit it out. If Obama wins many will either sit or cross party lines. Do you think it will be easy for either a black man or a woman to beat an established Republican? Kerry and Gore should have won. But look what happened. It can happen again, believe me.

No one said it will be easy for a black man or a woman to beat an established repub. It wont be easy. But right now the national polls show that Obama would beat McCain by a larger margin than Hillary would. Both margins are small. But you still seem to be in denial of the fact that if Hillary is the dem nominee (or is even on the ticket), republicans will come out in droves to vote against her on election day. They wont be voting for McCain, they'll be voting against Hillary. Republicans simply cannot stomach the idea of Hillary being POTUS or VP, but many can at least stomach the idea of Obama being POTUS. Stop denying that fact and start considering it, bud. It's reality. There's a reason repubs (like Rush Limbaugh for example, who's encouraging repubs to vote for Hillary in their states' primaries) want Hillary to get the nomination. Think about it.

"If Hillary wins some that supported Obama may just sit it out. If Obama wins many will either sit or cross party lines", you say. I totally disagree. When it comes to the dem nomination, I think you and your "I'll sit it out or crossover if my preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination" mentality is incredibly short-sighted (and insane) and not representative of how most democrats feel. Most democrats what a democrat to be the next POTUS, whether its Obama or Clinton. Both have strong support, and both have said they'd support the other if he/she gets the nomination. Both candidates have emphasized that we need a "unified party" going into the general election, and thats what we'll have... if Hillary's low brow campaign tactics dont totally fuck that up for the party, that is.

I've not heard any (well, ok,.. not many anyway) Obama supporters say they'd sit it out if Hillary gets the nomination. However, Hillary is doing a really good job of alienating Obama supporters in general, and black voters in particular. If she doesnt disavow Geraldine Ferraro's race-based comments about Obama and fire Ferraro from the Clinton campaign, Hillary may in fact lose the African American vote and thus doom her chances of ever winning in the general election, should she get the nomination, that is.. which it looks more and more is not gonna happen.

Are you connecting all the dots, bro?

btw,.. I was just kidding when I said "and insane". But the "sit it out or vote for McCain (instead of Obama)" mentality of a Clinton supporter such as yourself is so lacking in any sense or logic that it's truly.. .. mind boggling.

[Bonham]

No one thinks hope in and of itself gets things done. But hope does inspire people to try to get things done that they wouldn't otherwise think themselves capable of. That's why so many great orators, inspirational figures, and accomplishers of great deeds throughout history have had "hope" as a theme in their speeches (or books, or writings..) and personal motivation.

If you look at Barack Obama's accomplishments, you'd be hard pressed to suggest that he's achieved what he's achieved by merely sitting back and passively hoping. No, he's used hope as an inspiration and motivation to reach beyond what he thought his limitations were.. and to then, against all odds, achieve what he set out to achieve.. and in doing so realize that those seemingly insurmountable limitations were not insurmountable afterall. Hope and hard work; that's what gets things done, Bonham. Barack Obama knows this and so do the millions and millions of people who are being inspired by his message and his candidacy.

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he said:

“In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!" *source*

*Obama 2004 DNC speech, part 1*

*Obama 2004 DNC speech, part 2*

You've read Aaron Mann on Obama, how about reading a little Obama on Obama, eh?

If you're willing, here's an excerpt from the prologue of his book "The Audacity of Hope":

I have read Obama on Obama. I read, my friend.

I want you to answer me this. Why does he want the war in the Middle East to continue, but vows to end it if he gets Presidency?

Why not vow to end it now? Do you think if that's how he feels that he'd really end it if he does become President?

Edit: I understand that unless he is President, then he can't really end the war there. But he should support his claim by wanting to end the war now.