What We Have to Change First

Thanks for dedicating your latest post to me :>) I don't know what I did to deserve it, but I am truly honored.I have said from the time he won a Senate seat that Obama would be a good presidential candidate. He is articulate, seems intelligent, and he has something to say.However, he is barking at shadows when he complains about the economy. I doubt that anyone can come up with too many reasons to complain about this economy.Here is why Obama will not win (and this is my Simon Cowell version).1. He has too many skeletons in his closet. He has a past, and his past will come out.2. He is running against Hillary. And Hillary will be hard to beat.3. He isn't saying anything new or different. Jobs, education, health care, the war in Iraq. People want to hear something different, and he is singing the same song.4. He is still too liberal for much of middle America. A candidate cannot win if he cannot carry the states in the middle (geographically).5. He is a sitting Senator. America has not elected a sitting Senator in nearly 50 years.5. His name is Obama. That's not George, or Thomas, or William, or John. America isn't ready for a candidate with a name that rhymes with Public Enemy Number One. And since many people who vote are morons, that will matter, and matter big. Hey, in Tulsa there were red necks vandalizing the Buddhist Temple after 9/11. They're just too stupid to know the difference. If it ain't Baptist, it ain't right.6. He is black. And that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If there is a white candidate who isn't a complete moron, he will get the win. It may not be right, fair, or moral, but it is a fact.So, am I right?

Jason,I dedicated it to you because I saw your "I don't want to hear another word about Barak Obama" comment on Freeman's blog right before I published this.And I think you're probably right, but I still have hope.

Here is why he has a chance:1) He's black2) He is young and a very good speaker3) He is running against Hillary ClintonI don't see Hillary winning any election and I hope the Democrats see that. Any half-way decent Repub will be able to get every conservative group on the banwagon to beat Hillary, but Obama would cause serious problems.

An interesting article by Steve Chapman comparing Obama to Powell is here.

I respectfully disagree, Kenny. People talk about the subtle racism that exists just below the surface of American culture. I believe that if a left-leaning black man runs for president, that racism will show its ugly face in a major way. And not just from right-leaning people. I believe that Hillary and John Edwards will look the other way while their supporters facilitate the deep-seeded distrust that voters feel for those of a different color.My feeling is that John Edwards will run away with the nomination, and possibly with the general election too.Let me say that I am not opposed to a black president. I fully supported David Palmer's candidacy, and he is both black AND a Democrat :>)

Living in the South I do not doubt the racist nature of our country. However, the base of Obama will not be in those who would not vote for him because he is black. He will appeal to a rapidly growing minority community and to many that will not vote for Hillary. Maybe it is just me, but I don't even see Edwards as a threat.

I heard Hillary's camp dug up the fact Obama was educated in a madrassa for four years as a child and has not revealed it. How might this impact his candidacy.

Since we don't live in a theocracy, Article VI, section 3, of the United States constitution states that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Be he a Muslim (which he is not) or a Christian (which he is), neither would have much intrinsic relevance to me (independent of actions) unless an unlawful, violent splinter group of either religion were involved.

I meant what will voters think of this muslim connection - not whether or not he can legally run.

I know...and I meant that voters should attach no significance to it (though, admittedly, voters often make decisions that aren't based on the most significant facts...or to put it another way, what's insignificant to me may be significant to you).

CNN debunks false report about Obamalink

Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.

But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971."This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."