The Race is just beginning
 

THE race is over: long live the race. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have reason to feel sanguine as they contemplate the long contest ahead against John McCain and the Republican Party. The current Republican president’s approval ratings are in the dumps, in part because the economy is weak—the unemployment rate rose to 5.5% last week—and in part because the war in Iraq, despite becoming less bloody recently, remains unpopular. Many voters say the country is on the wrong track.

And the Democrats have, at last, nominated a man, Mr Obama, who sends crowds into paroxysms of joy. In contrast his opponent, Mr McCain, appears lacklustre at the moment: he has taken limited advantage of the prolonged division among the Democrats.

Yet, as the next stage of the battle for the presidency begins, it is far from clear that Mr Obama will find the coming months easy,

{continues}
https://www.economist.com/world/na/d...ry_id=11524787

And does anyone think this has real legs? Could a run for the White House by Bob Barr steal votes away from McCain or Obama for that matter and cause one or the other to lose. I think Barr may be more conservative than McCain!

Should be an interesting role that is played on the national stage. I wonder if they will let him in on any of the debates. Highly unlikely.

https://www.economist.com/world/na/d...ry_id=11414375

Let's follow the money!

http://www.followthemoney.org/

Hasn't Obama raised, like, more money than anybody, ever?

Well I know he had raised a whole lot more than Hillary. It should be on here: http://www.opensecrets.org/

I am going to be very happy to find out how well the NAACP runs the country. This is the rubber meeting the road. He's going to win hands down, and I am not sorry because I want the patriot act dissolved. I want gitmo closed etc. Hopefully he will be able to do any of that. Maybe I will vote. He's not an idiot and I will be happy to see anyone in office that is not the idiot I have seen for the past years. It's really getting me down. I quit all political activities after his inauguration again. I cried at 8:30 in the morning when I had stayed up waiting for the announcement and woke up to find he was president again, a terrible fear I had, realized. I rarely cry. I then created a large inauguration protest, then I quit everything. I lost all hope. Maybe I am looking for hope again, and maybe I am going to be disappointed. I am happy with anything that does not illustrate that level of complete incompetence and general paranoia, again.

"Keep Hope Alive!" jessie jackson.

Still, that was nothing compared to the morning we awoke to find Robert Kennedy dead. I cannot properly portray the enormity of that loss (first John, then Robert) once we knew all hope was lost. What did we get as a result? Nixon.

Day after Nixon was elected, walking through a large open atrium, I remember wondering if things could get worse. Still that was not as diminishing as the day Robert died. After Robert’s death, well, no losses could be worse. And then things got worse. Just not all at once in one day. Nothing since compares to that stunning loss; as if we had nothing more to lose. Even 11 September never became so oppressive. Even 11 September never created so large a one time feeling of loss. After Robert’s death, it only got worse. More proof that you could not trust anyone over 30. It got worse. But no one day shock has been as tragic as the day Robert died. Yes, the day John died was even more tramatic. But we never had another event as tramatic. 11 September comes close. 11 September never resulted that same feeling of loss; only in a feeling that the nation had something to resolve.

Guess you didn't have any family there, then.

That's odd, given your narrative on everything else, I actually would have thought you were in favor of RFK's assassination, just as you were in favor of the assassination of Lebanese politicians recently.

It was arguably the first "blowback" result of US policy in the middle east. Arguably the "first shot" of which 9/11 is a continuing series of events in the same long struggle.

(Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian, angry at RFK for his support of Israel during the Six Days War.)

I seriously doubt that RFK was the only U.S. politician that supported Israel during the Six Day War, so why would he have been the only one singled out for assassination by Moslems?

What about Nixon, who sent military aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973? For all of his other faults, I would venture that Nixon is the only U.S. president to ever fully support Israel.

They didn't get him.

I am not sure that you could go back that far. Certainly a case can be made that since the late 80's an organized effort by islamic jiahdists to kill anyone not muslim has been well documented.

That posted reasoning is flawed. RFKs death was not about blanket Israeli support. Sirhan Sirhan was angered because RFK endorsed a fighter plane sale to Israel - not about a war. It could have been most anything. Underlying anger and conflict was increasing everywhere to include Vietnam, the sexual revolution, rock and roll, leaders so divorced from the people that 'you can't trust anyone over 30', an oppressive cold war that had no apparent resolution and sudden revelation that even bomb shelters were useless, civil rights and overt racism, Israel’s overt attack on the USS Liberty with 50+ dead and no America response, etc. Divisions in America were growing so deep that even every 'most popular' music (Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elvis) were never nominated for Grammys. Even music represented a threat to existing 'powers that be' – further demonstrating the growing rifts.

RFK was not killed over a Middle East war. That fighter sale was simply an excuse. RFK was killed because deep seated divisions were surfacing all over America in both little conflicts and in violence, arson, and bombings. The Edmund Pettus Bridge and George Wallace were just more examples. Were the Beatles dangerous? Yes according to our parents. RFK was too much at the center of most every growing rift.

Sirhan Sirhan only did what was becoming common especially in 1968. Violence was necessary to promote change - in minds of so many. We would even burn down our own cities just to promote change? It makes no sense today. In the 60s, it made perfectly good sense to so many that in Chicago, "The whole world is watching". Even overt police violence was increasing. Change represented by RFK became a perfect target for any angry person for or against change - from segregationists, hawks, or even the SDS or SLA. RFK's death summarized a serious problem in the entire fabric of America which is why it is called the tumultuous 60s.

Ohio National Guard marched on Kent State and randomly shot students (who were not even demonstrating) with live ammunition because violence had become acceptable. The same reasons that killed RFK also refused to investigate a Kent State massacre. Kent State students were even refused service in restaurants and gas stations. RFK was simply a most egregious example of a nation slowly going to war with itself. It was not about the Middle East. Sirhan’s gripe was rarely discussed. Obvious among all then were the growing divisions throughout America that included the two 'super faults' – Vietnam and racism. RFKs death really was about those growing divisions, anger, and disenchantment that would only get worse with Nixon.

RFK was shot by someone under 30.

Which I figure as evidence you're a toe-tag Democrat. Personally, I've never been a toe-tag anything.

Get a load of this guy: he wants to be accepted as a thoughtful, knowledgeable man, yet he remains incapable of spelling -- or of detecting a spelling error as he types. It's enough to make a man mutter yet again about thalidomide cases.

Which resolve you've done nothing to further, as your last couple thousand postings show, and your failure to pursue or even desire our winning the war shows even more clearly. Comes of unreasonable prejudice against Republicans, something else I do not suffer from. You're not capable of realizing unreasonable prejudices only make you into an idiot.