Profiles of potential Obama's Vice President

can be found here:

http://www.theleftanchor.com/

I think reading the profile of Jim Webb has helped me realize he might
not be a good fit (particularly combined with Sabato's analysis that
Webb would not help Obama win Virginia).. I also have to fully agree
with the profile on Sebelius that she would not help win Kansas.. and
the profile discounting Wesley Clark..

but read the one about Strickland... I really am starting to think
that of all the possible choices Strickland has the most upside -
namely Ohio's electoral votes.. Of course thats not entirely surprising as I thought so at least 5 month ago!

Its over but no one realizes it? (if a tree falls and no one hears it...)

I'm rather exasperated with this election. I look forward to some time away from the politically charged and rarefied Washington DC air.

I think what is most frustrating is that the election has essentially been over since mid February and yet we continue to have these distractions on issues of race or elitism. By all logical interpretation Hillary Clinton needs to make up the difference to a large extent with super delegates and - in spite of all the distractions- Barack Obama is now within 20 super delegates of Hillary with less than 300 outstanding of which about 60-70 are off the table as they are add-ons which will largely reflect the vote from their states. In fact, what we are consistently seeing is that the super delegates far from coming to Hillary's aid have been consistently coming out in support for Obama which is why he has narrowed the gap which a few months ago was over 100 delegates. This original gap in super delegates responded largely to DNC super delegates appointed by the Clintons and perhaps their feeling some sort of debt. Can Hillary win the outstanding non add on super delegates 170 to 70 and win the remaining pledged delegates by 50? Judging on what we are seeing it simply challenges all logic to believe so. Moreover, can she even come close enough to revive the issue of seating Florida and Michigan in a way that is convenient for her? We are seeing even during the depths of Obama's campaign that he is still winning over the unpledged super delegates.

Therefore, considering the proportional representation used to allocate delegates, considering Obama is up about 155 pledged delegates this means Hillary has no chance. I suppose Obama could crater and his super delegates defect but what we are seeing is in my opinion a huge waste of time and energy which only serves the interests of John McCain and a Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2012. Obama has been the defacto nominee for two months now and people need to wake up instead of swallowing the media line. Some may not like it- including understandly those who need to sell newspapers- but it is simply too late to do anything about it! Sure, if we had known back then what we know now about Barack Obama maybe democrats would not have voted for him but we did not know it and thats just the way it is... Hillary picked up between 8-10 delegates in Pennsylvania. Technically she was further behind after Pennsylvania than before it voted given there were 158 less delegates from which to make up the difference. She did gain a little over 200,000 popular votes but the notion that being ahead in the popular vote should she somehow get there means the rules of the game don't apply seems nonsensical. It would be like saying that the team that won a close basketball game did not deserve to win because the crowd cheered loudest for the losing team. No. What matters is what happened on the court during the game played with agreed upon rules. The fact the crowd/popular vote may reflect a wish something different had happened does not change the score or electoral outcome.

Also one last point: while it is true that Barack Obama faces resistance from certain segments of the democratic party it is also likewise correct that there are many people who could never bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead of framing the issue in terms of "Why can't Obama close the deal?" as many media pundits/simpletons do why not raise the question of "Why can't Hillary close the deal?" After all Hillary began the election with every conceivable advantage and yet here we find ourselves today- April 30- and she not only could not close the deal but finds herself behind resorting to far fetched scenarios to even justify a continued presence in the campaign. That the media has elected to go along with this is not surprising as their job......... is to sell newspapers after all!

Or at least thats the way I see it...

Open letter to Michael Gerson at the Council on Foreign Relations

You wrote "Young Obama's strongest arguments are focused on the failures of the past. The older man, by insisting on victory, is more responsible and realistic about the future."
How is it realistic to insist on "victory" when you don't even define what victory is?

It is precisely the term "victory" that is unrealistic and the ones employing it are the unrealistic ones! Wake up or we will be in Irak for no good reason bleeding ourselves dry for 30 plus years!

"Realism" would be to ask what "victory" exactly means and whether its achievable instead of simply stating "we must win!!!".. realism is to proclaim we won and skiddedle out of there- responsibly and in a measured manner of course- so that we can focus on the real challenges facing our nation. Realism is to accept what is self-evident to the eye willing to look!

Wake up Gerson! You are showing yourself to be extremely naive and "young" in accepting that "victory" is attainable. Honestly if this is the best the Council on Foreign Relations can do these days you guys might as well close up shop because all you did in your article is repeat the same old tired conventional "wisdom" and we know where that "wisdom" got us....

best,

serge in dc
ps remember "young" can be penetrating (einstein was young when he had his breakthroughs and so are most people when they make their mark) while "old" can be ossified... i don't know you but you're looking rather "old"...

Barack Obama is dead on

i will say that i have been saying what obama is essentially advocating for a few years now.. the great mistake vis a vis irak was not so much going in as the failure to simply declare victory once we got rid of saddam and just plain leave..

the world could have laughed all they wanted but we would have been rid of saddam - who by no means was our friend- and spared ourselves unecessary loss of blood and treasure not to mention creating a breeding ground for terrorists..without our long term continued massive presence there its hard to imagine that al qaeda would have given two farthings about the place..

morton kondracke- by no means a genius i readily admit- sums it up in these words:

Judging by his agile performance at Tuesday's Iraq hearings, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) now is opting for the famous George Aiken formula from Vietnam days: Declare victory and get out.

Or, rather, as an update on the late Vermont Republican's 1966 idea, Obama would declare the situation in Iraq "manageable" and drastically reduce American forces -- possibly, he suggested, to just 30,000.

Of the three presidential candidates displaying their intellectual wares in questioning Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Obama surely was the most subtle and shrewd.

Then of course Kondracke messes it up by toeing the national party line that Obama is wrong because we can't leave now! No we must stay forever! Poor Morton just misses the point of what Obama is saying entirely: if we dont' define success in a measured realistic manner we will be there until the year 2034..by that point of course the US will have been bled so dry by this continued fiasco that we'll be begging Argentina to send us soybeans at a subsidized rate so our impoverished citizens can put food on the table!

For the rest of the article check it here