American political history has been made

[_krose]

So Barack Obama now has the delegates necessary to be the Democratic nominee for president. I honestly believed that a person of African descent (half in his case, but close enough) would never make it this far in my lifetime. Kudos to the Democratic primary voters. I'm not too optimistic about his chances in November, but at least it's progress.

Who knows, perhaps there is hope that an openly atheist candidate (or gay even?) may one day be acceptable to the American electorate. Nah. I'll definitely live never to see that.

[_moksha]

Utah will vote Republican no matter who runs on either party. Even knowing that national Republicans
cannot stomach a Mormon candidate, they will vote Reblublican. Their voting will be more or less a
patterned response. It will most likely be the blues against the reds this time around as well.

I do not think the American people really have had enough of Iraq. More wasted lives and trillions of
dollars are needed to convince them it was a mistake. Even then, Utah will vote Republican.

[_Mercury]

So Barack Obama now has the delegates necessary to be the Democratic nominee for president. I honestly believed that a person of African descent (half in his case, but close enough) would never make it this far in my lifetime.

Why? Curse of Cain or curse of Jessee Jackson?

[_Droopy]

So Barack Obama now has the delegates necessary to be the Democratic nominee for president. I honestly believed that a person of African descent (half in his case, but close enough) would never make it this far in my lifetime. Kudos to the Democratic primary voters. I'm not too optimistic about his chances in November, but at least it's progress.

Who knows, perhaps there is hope that an openly atheist candidate (or gay even?) may one day be acceptable to the American electorate. Nah. I'll definitely live never to see that.

Such a sadly, monontonously typical liberal. No importance whatever is attached to the substance of his beliefs and policies, but only to his identity.

Da Comrade...

[_Scottie]

So Barack Obama now has the delegates necessary to be the Democratic nominee for president. I honestly believed that a person of African descent (half in his case, but close enough) would never make it this far in my lifetime. Kudos to the Democratic primary voters. I'm not too optimistic about his chances in November, but at least it's progress.

Who knows, perhaps there is hope that an openly atheist candidate (or gay even?) may one day be acceptable to the American electorate. Nah. I'll definitely live never to see that.

I think that vs McCain, Obama will do well.

[Guest]

While I find the election interesting, I am very scared at either of these two people becoming President. I haven't decided who scares me more. In any case my vote is moot here in Texas. The Republicans will win the state.

[_Moniker]

So Barack Obama now has the delegates necessary to be the Democratic nominee for president. I honestly believed that a person of African descent (half in his case, but close enough) would never make it this far in my lifetime. Kudos to the Democratic primary voters. I'm not too optimistic about his chances in November, but at least it's progress.

Who knows, perhaps there is hope that an openly atheist candidate (or gay even?) may one day be acceptable to the American electorate. Nah. I'll definitely live never to see that.

Such a sadly, monontonously typical liberal. No importance whatever is attached to the substance of his beliefs and policies, but only to his identity.

Da Comrade...

Actually, Coggins, I think Krose was commenting on the American psyche of tolerance and this newfound ability to look at various candidates outside of white male as being acceptable to run for the highest office in the land. Krose didn't start the thread to talk about a particular candidates position -- he specifically praises those that are willing to vote in a way that in our past was unfathomable.

[_Angus McAwesome]

I think that vs McCain, Obama will do well.

Do well, you say?

Senator Barack Obama, as he becomes his party’s presumptive presidential nominee, is starting to exert his authority over the Democratic National Committee. A first step? New fund-raising guidelines.

Mr. Obama is announcing today that the D.N.C. will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees, which follows the rules he established for his own campaign last year.

“We want the Democratic Party to conform to his standards of openness to reduce the influence of special interests,” Linda Douglass, a campaign spokeswoman, told reporters today before Mr. Obama flew from New York City for a campaign stop in Virginia.

The announcement comes the morning after Mr. Obama helped raise about $2.5 million for the D.N.C. at a Manhattan fund-raiser. Aides said the rules would take effect going forward, but would not be retroactive. (Translation: Last night’s haul likely included money from federal lobbyists or PACs.)

The decision underscores what Mr. Obama intends to make a central theme of the general election campaign with Senator John McCain: reducing the influence of Washington lobbyists and special interest money.

But Mr. Obama has yet to answer another looming question governing money and politics: Will he be the first presidential candidate to decline public financing – about $84 million this year – and the accompanying spending limits?

For months, Mr. Obama has sidestepped that question, backing away from a pledge he made last year to accept public financing if the Republican nominee did the same. He said he would make a decision at the conclusion of the primary campaign, but argued that his record-setting fund-raising operation has created “a parallel public financing system” because of the large amount of small donors.

No major-party candidate has turned down public financing for the general election since the system took effect in 1976. And Senator John McCain has indicated that he intends to accept the infusion of public financing.

While $84.1 million for the two-month fall campaign is a sizable amount of money, Mr. Obama’s fund-raising machine has shown an ability to eclipse the figure easily, raising half of that – or more – in several recent months. Advisers concede he could take a public relations hit if he decides to bypass the public financing, so they are working on a series of new proposals – including today’s announcement about the D.N.C. – in an attempt to demonstrate their commitment to reducing the influence of money and special interests.

Aides have not said when Mr. Obama intends to make his decision.

Last night, before he attended two Park Avenue fund-raising events, Mr. Obama spoke to Mr. McCain for the first time.

“Senator McCain called Senator Obama last night at 7 p.m. to congratulate him,” Ms. Douglass told reporters today. “They had a short, cordial conversation and said they looked forward to having a civil discussion in the campaign going forward.”

An early test of that cordiality could be over the role of money – and special interests – in the campaign.

Obama is actually a much more serious opponent for McCain then the Hildabeast ever could be simply because of his ability to generate large amounts of money. Worse, Obama can do so without having to take money from spacial interests/lobby groups, thus eliminating campaign finance issues being used against him and giving him another contrast against McCain (who's hip deep in the pockets of more special interest groups then you can shake a tree at). McCain is operating mostly on tax money (he elected to take that to fund his campaign), which only grants him about $85 million for the two months leading up to the elections and the GOP (who's responsible for making up the rest of the money their candidate needs) is only sitting on about $40 million currently. Meanwhile Obama managed to raise over $272 million for just the Democrat primaries up through April and is now starting to court Clinton's donors (who raised around $200 million in the same period). Obama could very easily generate over $300 million for the two months leading into the elections, pretty much burying the traditional money heavy GOP and do it without having accept money from special interest/lobby groups.

There's a very good chance we're looking at our first black president.

[_krose]

Such a sadly, monontonously typical liberal. No importance whatever is attached to the substance of his beliefs and policies, but only to his identity.

Not sure what "monontonously" typical means, but I'll gladly (not sadly) accept the compliment of being liberal minded. I try -- спасибо!

However, my actual point here, as Moniker said well, is that we've made enough progress that most of us (at least those outside West Virginia and Kentucky, where a large percentage admitted to voting against him based on race) don't consider Obama's racial makeup as we evaluate his policies and leadership abilities. That's encouraging to me.

-kr

[_Droopy]

Here's what you actually said:

I honestly believed that a person of African descent (half in his case, but close enough) would never make it this far in my lifetime. Kudos to the Democratic primary voters. I'm not too optimistic about his chances in November, but at least it's progress.

Taking a quick survey of the cultural landscape in the early 21st century, with a number of blacks functioning within the highest levels of corporate menagement, government, and the military, and with some three quarters of black American firmly emplanted within the middle class, the statement seems ludicrous on its face.

The head of AOL Time Warner, one of the largest multinational media conglomerates in the world, is black. The CEO of Fanny Mae is black. E. Stanley O'Neal, CEO of Merrill Lynch & Co, is black. The founder and CEO of Johnson Research and Development Co. and the inventor of the Super Soaker, and spin-off companies, and a highly successful aerospace engineer, is black. Our Secretary of State is black. A Supreme Court justice is black. A number of well known Congressmen and woman are black.

Let's just get over the fact that this was a dumb statement loaded with ideological baggage and move on, shall we.

Who knows, perhaps there is hope that an openly atheist candidate (or gay even?) may one day be acceptable to the American electorate. Nah. I'll definitely live never to see that.

Again, following standard leftist intellectual formatting, the qualifications mentioned above are those of politically correct group designation, not substance. But is not hypocrisy rife here? The Democrat Party, who's own barely disguised bigotry against the Christian faith of people like George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, and other conservative political figures, can be very open and accepting when one's faith and belief is ideologically correct.