That's a terrible endorsement, verging on tokenism. His face is brown, thus good public relations. Just awful. What about policy? Experience? This is identity politics at its worst and most offensive.

BAM! They hit it good. Like I tried to post earlier, the global appeal of Obama is something huge for a country that needs to regain its position after Bush. With Obama just the sight of him will show the world that something has fundamentally changed, and that is before he even opens his mouth. Of course it won't make everyone love us overnight, but it will send a big signal that things are changing and there is still hope.

Anyway, this endorsement will definitely help in Cali. Damn, Obama is having a hell of a day today with endorsements, two big labor unions, MoveOn, a representative from Connecticut, and now this, just to name some of the major ones. All Hillary got was Ann Coulter.

BluePuppy, give it up, seriously.

They didn't just talk about his background, they also mentioned he has all the substance that Hillary does, and brings more to the table that she can't. I think it was a good endorsement, and I think the identity thing should be said, and is definitely fair game after Hillary used her "electing a woman would be change" argument again at last night's debate. If this is awful "identity politics" then Hillary's comment was just as bad. At least this wasn't only about race, it was about where he was born, where he grew up, his family, quite a few things.

Bluepuppy, I thought you changed your ways. Well at least the LA Times endorsement is honest, unlike the NY Times endorsement. They claimed that obama allegedly had no specifics about his policies and programs. What a bunch of BS. All they had to do was go to his website for specifics. No wonder they screwed up on the lead up to the war in iraq. Talk about lazy.

Of course I did the read the whole thing and I disagree that they are "a hairsbreadth apart" on policy issues, especially health care. Obama is now attacking Hillary from the right
on health care, so I think that's substantive difference. And if the Times is giving the same weight to policy and skin color, then I still believe it's tokenism.

This is a great endorsement. // Sue

Well conceived and well delivered endorsement of Obama.

LA Times is a great endorsement, not because it will garner Obama many votes, but because it robs HRC from claiming a sweep in Southern California where many Latinos live. Rest assured the board at the LA Times did not come to this decision lightly.

In realistic terms, Kennedy and MoveOn endorsements are much more significant because they come with a funding and political infrastructure that can be tapped.

LA Times,however, also helps the momentum. The Clintons pushed to have the superduper Tuesday as a means to prevent momentum from building up for anyone else (so they reasoned).

The problem is that no one knew that the electorate was so fed up with a dynasty rule (which is coming more and more to the front of the discussion), that a popular alternative would allow the Clintons little wiggle room for the same front-loaded primary reasons.

Chickens have come home to roost!

This is an offensive and shallow endorsement, much like what Obama got in Nevada for his pandering with Reagan and Republican niceties. Worse really. This is more of the racist, vote for him because he's Black, garbage we've seen from Oprah and others in recent weeks. It is so devoid of ideas and says we can put a pretty face out there and win back our lost reputation. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. This is a loser endorsement for Obama, bad for the party, and very bad for the country.

Boy is Obama building up momentum. You get the sense that everyone thought they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, as if she were an incumbent. But recently it seems that people have realized that they do have a choice. The more people see of Obama, the better he does. The more people see of Hillary, not so much.

In an election where the candidates' positions aren't that far apart (save for one major indefensible vote), people are leaving behind the candidate who inspires exactly no one and tries to divide even her own party, and instead are gravitating to the candidate who wants to lift all of us up and raise the bar for our country.

KevinQ wrote:

"It is the classic bottom-up politics vs. top-down politics. The more informed and interested everyone is, the happier and more populist the results will be (another reason why honesty is more important than political gamesmenship)."

Well, Kevin, I think you are wrong and are making the mistake of transferring your feelings onto the general population. Sure, younger and/or more idealistic activist types love this sort of utopian vision of society but it is just that - a vision, not a reality.

The reality is that most of the population doesn't want to be involved in politics. They don't want to make legislation, they don't want to design economic policy, they don't want to draft health care agreements, they don't want to negotiate treaties. They want competent professionals to do this. They are too busy taking care of their own lives.

Citizen voters are like corporate stockholders. They don't want to run the company. They want to elect people they trust to run the company and they don't want to be bothered too much by the day to day struggles of the corporation. If they stockholders don't think the company is run well, they'll throw them out.

Want to know why Clinton and McCain are still the frontrunners in this campaign despite the strongly unfavorable (favorable) press bias to Clinton (Obama)? This question from the Fox News poll tells you all you want to know:

(asked of all types of voters)

Who is the most likely to be ready to lead the country on day one of the presidency?

Clinton 34%
McCain 31%
Obama 17%
Romney 8%

Kevin, you want romance from politics. So do most bloggers, journalists, and pundits. Most voters just want a well run government that doesn't give them too many headaches and lives up to its obligations without adding too many new ones. My advice to you is to find romance with another human being instead of a political vision.

That's mushy language. Like Obama, it sounds beautiful but in the end it's as solid as a wisp of smoke. Praising Reagan and saying that Republicans were the party of ideas for last 10-15 years; attacking Hillary from the right on health care; attacking Hillary for stumbling on the question of driver's licenses for illegals while having done the same thing; promising to meet with world dictators in one year without pre-conditions; using Republican talking points on social security; basing your campaign on one speech from 2002 but not having taken any leadership since then on getting us out of Iraq; hedging on affirmative action, etc, etc. This is a pandering Chicago politician with shady ties who will say and do anything. He's become a rorschach for those who want a certain kind of politician , but in the end there's nothing there but a self-promoting biography candidate , as the Times insists. That's why there's a class divide in this election. I'm sticking with lunch-bucket Democrats.

Michael A, thank you. That's what I've been telling the "but he lacks specifics" people the whole time...they should do their homework. Nowadays with the internet and all there is really no excuse for not knowing what your candidate stands for - unless it's Hillary Clinton, who does not really stand for much unless it's politically expedient to do so.

test comment (fingers crossed)

The question is; After Hillary slamed both Bush One and Bush Two on last night's debate, is Bill Clinton still considered a member of the Bush family, and will Barbara still call him son?

Does Hillary still admire and respect John McCain, as Bill Clinton told us she does;

Which of course leads to this question:

If Bill Clinton can go around bragging about being considered a member of the Bush family, and Hillary can claim to be a big admirer and respecter of John McCain, then where the hell do the get the right to complain about Senator Obama saying something nice about Ronald Reagan?

Obama is NOT attacking Hillary from the right on health care, they have reasonable policy differences, but understanding that mandates don't work, and not wanting to saddle low income people with the burden of getting health care even if they still can't afford it after their tax credits and whatnot is NOT a conservative position. Obama has very reasonable concerns about the mandates, and Massachusetts is having issues right now with their system precisely because of their mandates. Now this 15 million uninsured argument form the Clintons is a bullshit statistic, not based on any fact, and it is disingenuous to the extreme for her to say that a mandate (completely unenforceable, look at auto insurance and the millions of people who drive everyday without it despite the government mandate) makes hers universal and somehow better than Obama's.

Of course I did the read the whole thing and I disagree that they are "a hairsbreadth apart" on policy issues, especially health care. Obama is now attacking Hillary from the right
on health care, so I think that's substantive difference.

--------------

so to reinforce your point, rather than debate differences, you start talking about the talking about of healthcare policy?

Read the LA Times endorsement in full, people. It's a beautiful argument, and is far from the half-hearted (back-handed) endorsement he recieved in AZ.

This is a great endorsement, well worth anyone reading in any state voting on Tuesday, and beyond.

(I'm a strong Obama supporter, obviously.)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/122.aspx

Now that's an endorsement....

I think this is a very good endorsement indeed, especially as it highlights the common sentiment among Democrats: They'd ALL be good presidents. If I could vote, I'd vote for any of them over any of the Republicans, (though I personally despise Clinton) and I do feel that they have comparable positions. Also, quite frankly, just because the mainstream Left says something DOES NOT mean it's true- in this we are no different from the Right. During the NH debates, I thought Obama's point on Clinton was very good- forcing people to buy health care when they can't afford it is neither practical nor particularly progressive. I live in Massachusetts, and so there's an awful lot of media coverage on the disastrous universal health care instated by Governor Romney, and I know just how bad it's going to get (I've yet to see a major difference between Hillary's plan and the Massachusetts one, though I concede that I am fairly ignorant about both).
And, though I've rarely seen Hillary supporters talk about it, there's more to the presidency than Health Care and Economic Stimulus (I'd be delighted if a Hillary supporter could prove me wrong and we could have a conversation about the other issues).
Barack Obama has been relatively honest (far more than any other politician playing at his level), and he, unlike Hillary Clinton, understands the power of words- a power that Ronald Reagan had, a power that JFK and RFK and MLK had, a power that FDR had, a power that Abraham Lincoln had. He understands, unlike Clinton, that this race isn't about hammering legislative defeats down the throats of the Republicans, it's not about experience, which will be more than available to the President an any event- it's about the ELECTORATE.
Hillary Clinton campaigns off "beating the Republicans". How does she expect to work the legislative miracles she promises by yelling Fight, fight, fight!? If she wants to build a working relationship with these people- and she'll have to-, she had better stop the "battle" rhetoric. (Arguably, that applies even more to John Edwards than her, but it's a valid criticism). This obvious and blatant partisanship will alienate conservatives and right-leaning moderates, and unite the Republican machine against her. In any case, it's clear from the results of the 2006 election and the weak Congress that's followed that the Republicans are going to stall the Democrats for as long as possible, possibly hoping to make the liberal movement look ineffective or inefficient. Screaming "I have experience and I can fight" won't help one bit"

On the other hand, Obama knows precisely what to do with that. He'll get as many Republicans, Independents, and so on supporting him as possible. He'll energize the Democratic base- in turn energizing the Democratic congressmen, some of whom are as much to blame for the weak Congress as the Republicans- and get a united, cohesive movement of support behind him. It'll be much harder for Republicans to stall and hold out when the Government is again a symbol for hope and unity, and when the Democrats are seen as being civil and classy and Republicans are viewed refusing bipartisanship and cooperation.

How do we know this isn't just a fairy tale, to use President Clinton's words? Easy. He's already done it. Record turnout in Iowa, towns running out of Democratic ballots in New Hampshire (where Obama only narrowly lost), the fact that Republicans are terrified they're going to lose in SOUTH CAROLINA for the general election- much of this can be credited to Obama. His appeal to youth touches me in particular, and will help raise a new generation of millenium progressives.
Others on this site have already mentioned it- "Obama Republican" has a nice ring to it.

I don't know about the importance of any newspaper endorsement, but this one does hit on one of the (many) reasons why I'd like to see Barack Obama become the dem nominee and next POTUS...

A democracy is only as strong as the citizens who are involved in it.

Our country has been gripped by an overwhelming apathy and cynicism towards politics for the better part of 40 years.

Barack has shown repeatedly that he inspires people (especially young people) to get inolved and pay attention. This can only be a good thing. When people stay involved and pay attention, politicians stay accountable...at least more accountable than lately.

I want our democracy back...Barack has brought in so many new voters and the excitement has gotten people feeling good about our democracy again.

All of this, plus he has great ideas, specific plans, foresight and judgement...and he has actually read the Consititution. Bonus...

Hillary cast a "well reasoned" vote to let Bush attack Iraq, and she recently cast another "well reasoned' vote to do the same to Iran. Get real. Obama was the one who did the well reasoned thing, and came out against the stupid idea of invading Iraq.

Test.

Oh my bleeping God,

Putting a black face in the White House that's hung around Moslems will defuse anti-American passion?

So instead of hating us for our freedom or our lately screwed up policies, they hate us for our white faces and our lack of kindergarten face time with their religion? So Republicans were right after all?

"He brings with him deep knowledge of foreign relations", as summarized by 3 years in the Senate working on old Russian warheads with Lugar & thinking it best to let Pakistan clean up its mess on its own. I can only imagine the LA Times' contempt if Hillary had chaired a subcommitte on European Affairs that didn't meet for a year. You know, I'm willing to play friendly and kind of forget it, but then the LA Times brings it up as a selling point?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/

Desider

Well-written, thoughtful endorsement.

Kudos to the Times.

This is an amusing endorsement at least. The author's endorsement gives the reason in a nutshell why the argument that Obama will attract significant numbers of disillusioned Republicans is a fallacy.

Republicans tend to be crunchy people. If you ask Republicans if they would want a president who is like a poem with limitless possibilities or a president who is like a solid, well-reasoned essay, I think very few would choose the former.

Desider, I think you're oversimplifying the LA Times point somewhat; they're not saying that his ancestry and history are his only foreign policy selling points. That said, I agree with you that they do present the argument rather simplistically in the endorsement.

I would represent it slightly differently. After GW, it's critical that the U.S. present a more friendly face to the world. Like it or not, people respond to stories and archetypes. As a drawling Texan, GW perfectly fit the world's preconception of an imperialist American cowboy. I think he even played it up intentionally for an international audience. Obama is the exact opposite. He's a modern, erudite, multi-ethnic new American. That will have innate appeal to the international crowd, Europeans and Middle Easterners alike.

But more importantly, he's charming. Europeans in particular love him. Charming presidents, like Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and even Reagan, have a lot more success in international diplomacy. There is no political incentive for foreign leaders to work with GW b/c with rare exceptions, foreign citizens hate him. Obama seems to be adored, and so foreign leaders will be incentivized to work with him.

Foreigners of course like Hillary Clinton much more than Bush, but I'd be shocked to see foreign crowds flock to her the way they did to Bill and would do to Obama.

Desider, I think you're oversimplifying the LA Times point somewhat; they're not saying that his ancestry and history are his only foreign policy selling points. That said, I agree with you that they do present the argument rather simplistically in the endorsement.

I would represent it slightly differently. After GW, it's critical that the U.S. present a more friendly face to the world. Like it or not, people respond to stories and archetypes. As a drawling Texan, GW perfectly fit the world's preconception of an imperialist American cowboy. I think he even played it up intentionally for an international audience. Obama is the exact opposite. He's a modern, erudite, multi-ethnic new American. That will have innate appeal to the international crowd, Europeans and Middle Easterners alike.

But more importantly, he's charming. Europeans in particular love him. Charming presidents, like Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and even Reagan, have a lot more success in international diplomacy. There is no political incentive for foreign leaders to work with GW b/c with rare exceptions, foreign citizens hate him. Obama seems to be adored, and so foreign leaders will be incentivized to work with him.

Foreigners of course like Hillary Clinton much more than Bush, but I'd be shocked to see foreign crowds flock to her the way they did to Bill and would do to Obama.

Desider, I think you're oversimplifying the LA Times point somewhat; they're not saying that his ancestry and history are his only foreign policy selling points. That said, I agree with you that they do present the argument rather simplistically in the endorsement.

I would represent it slightly differently. After GW, it's critical that the U.S. present a more friendly face to the world. Like it or not, people respond to stories and archetypes. As a drawling Texan, GW perfectly fit the world's preconception of an imperialist American cowboy. I think he even played it up intentionally for an international audience. Obama is the exact opposite. He's a modern, erudite, multi-ethnic new American. That will have innate appeal to the international crowd, Europeans and Middle Easterners alike.

But more importantly, he's charming. Europeans in particular love him. Charming presidents, like Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and even Reagan, have a lot more success in international diplomacy. There is no political incentive for foreign leaders to work with GW b/c with rare exceptions, foreign citizens hate him. Obama seems to be adored, and so foreign leaders will be incentivized to work with him.

Foreigners of course like Hillary Clinton much more than Bush, but I'd be shocked to see foreign crowds flock to her the way they did to Bill and would do to Obama.

So, only those who endorse Hillary are doing the right thing, is that what you are claiming. If Hillary had gotten the LA Times endorsement you would have been bragging about it. Those sour grapes are giving you a sour disposition.

As a software developer, I've got to agree. I'm sure that you're developers are working hard, but they really screwed up. The changes were clearly not tested properly before they were released. And the timing, just before super tuesday, was abysmal.

I can't even keep the main TPM page open because some javascript function is eating up all my cpu.

Give up, since it isn't an endorsement that favors their precious queen they will try to distort it and attack it in any way possible. Yes, it was a well-reasoned endorsement, and spot on. If I have learned anything by now it is that it is pointless to try to reason with these people, especially BluePuppy, who is perhaps the most shamelessly zombified of all of them.

For those who haven't read it, here's Hillary's floor speech on the AUMF:
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

It's hard to read it and come away with the idea that she was deluded about Iraq or that she was encouraging Bush to go to war or believed that war was the obvious conclusion for this vote. Someone at DailyKos looks at the issues as well as surmises that the promises from Rice and others that they would push diplomacy as most convincing - especially since Hillary says it herself at the time, and notes the isolation and removal of Milosevic by his own people as a much better template to follow, and warns of the precedent of unilateral action by others (China, Russia, India) in removing leaders they disagreed with.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/1/15738/00109/33/447441

Someone at realdemmoderate notes that:

While the AUMF against Iraq did authorize the use of force, it did so by requiring that Bush show to Congress that:

“reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”

http://realdemmoderate.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/why-clinton-wasnt-wrong-on-kyl-lieberman/

Considering that it took Bush 5 months to go to war, only after inspections resumed and Hussein did indeed play some non-cooperation games as vouched by Blix (argue as you want whether this was worth going to war, but the point was he would stop stalling and blocking) it was not a slam dunk vote.

What's worse is that Obama declared in his brave 2002 speech that Hussein was absolutely no direct danger to the US or its allies, even after 4 years of no inspections, implications of bio and chemical weapons in intelligence report, 9/11 and anthrax scare (would like to know who was behind that anthrax), etc. If guys with box cutters could bring down the towers, someone sponsored by Hussein with $10 billion/year of oil-for-food money a year could conceivably have a chance of hurting us, no? So in the end, Obama will get labeled as someone who doesn't take security very seriously, certainly not a good position in 2002 and not that great in 2008.

Desider

test post

TheraP

As someone who loves words - prose and poetry - I'm enjoying this election tremendously, these endorsements, his speeches... It’s very fitting as I became an Obama fan as a reader of his book, before he ran for any office.

I endorse Obama as well. Si se peude.

I suppose I should also bring up the painful fact that invading Iraq wasn't near the problem of not leaving quickly.

Desider, here's one article that talks about Europeans' fascination with Obama: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4101774&page=1

Caveat: It's obviously unscientific and really only demonstrates that the European press loves him. Nonetheless, it's a great contrast with what the European press thinks of Bush.

I'm not going to argue that Obama has anywhere near the foreign policy experience of Clinton, nor do I discount that fact, but I do believe that Obama's international appeal is a true advantage.

"He'd be nice to have a beer with" is derogatory characterization of charisma, and I think that you underestimate this quality, which Obama has and in which Clinton is deficient. Charisma affects popularity which affects the ability to get things done, both domestically and internationally. A domestically popular President can put more pressure on congressional opponents, and an internationally popular President can put more pressure on foreign leaders.

Now charisma is certainly not the only factor and not even the chief factor in determining popularity. A charismatic leader who makes disastrous decisions will ultimately be hated, as amply demonstrated by GW himself (who isn't even that charismatic). But a charismatic leader will
endure the problems and downturns more effectively than an uncharismatic leader. Contrast Reagan, the "teflon president", with Bush I. Bill Clinton retained his popularity amid the Lewinsky scandal, in part b/c the economy was doing well, but in part b/c people just like the guy. I fear that if Hillary becomes President, anything that goes wrong will fall on her head. If that happens, Republicans, who will be reluctant to work with her in the first place because their constituents hate her, will score big time with the voters by sticking it to her. Even Democrats won't fall in line behind her if voters are unhappy with her.

I know I'm digressing into domestic politics, but I think that the same calculus applies internationally. If the US president is popular abroad, foreign leaders will be more likely to court the popular will by going go along with him or her. And if not, they will score points by sticking it to the US imperialists.

As to your point that other counties will "suck up to the US", that's Cheney-speak. It might have been true during the cold war when they were dependent on us, but it hasn't been the case for over a decade. Every foreign leader (with the exception of Sarkozy) who has gone along with us has paid for it in popularity: Blair, Howard, Musharraf, Aznar, Fox. Those that have stuck it to us have gotten boosts: Zapatero, Shroeder, Chavez.

Much of this is Iraq, and much of this GW, but there is also a predisposition to view us as arrogant imperialists. Because of his story and his charisma, Barack is in much better position than Hillary to counter this tendency.

Desider, here's one article that talks about Europeans' fascination with Obama: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4101774&page=1

Caveat: It's obviously unscientific and really only demonstrates that the European press loves him. Nonetheless, it's a great contrast with what the European press thinks of Bush.

I'm not going to argue that Obama has anywhere near the foreign policy experience of Clinton, nor do I discount that fact, but I do believe that Obama's international appeal is a true advantage.

"He'd be nice to have a beer with" is derogatory characterization of charisma, and I think that you underestimate this quality, which Obama has and in which Clinton is deficient. Charisma affects popularity which affects the ability to get things done, both domestically and internationally. A domestically popular President can put more pressure on congressional opponents, and an internationally popular President can put more pressure on foreign leaders.

Now charisma is certainly not the only factor and not even the chief factor in determining popularity. A charismatic leader who makes disastrous decisions will ultimately be hated, as amply demonstrated by GW himself (who isn't even that charismatic). But a charismatic leader will
endure the problems and downturns more effectively than an uncharismatic leader. Contrast Reagan, the "teflon president", with Bush I. Bill Clinton retained his popularity amid the Lewinsky scandal, in part b/c the economy was doing well, but in part b/c people just like the guy. I fear that if Hillary becomes President, anything that goes wrong will fall on her head. If that happens, Republicans, who will be reluctant to work with her in the first place because their constituents hate her, will score big time with the voters by sticking it to her. Even Democrats won't fall in line behind her if voters are unhappy with her.

I know I'm digressing into domestic politics, but I think that the same calculus applies internationally. If the US president is popular abroad, foreign leaders will be more likely to court the popular will by going go along with him or her. And if not, they will score points by sticking it to the US imperialists.

As to your point that other counties will "suck up to the US", that's Cheney-speak. It might have been true during the cold war when they were dependent on us, but it hasn't been the case for over a decade. Every foreign leader (with the exception of Sarkozy) who has gone along with us has paid for it in popularity: Blair, Howard, Musharraf, Aznar, Fox. Those that have stuck it to us have gotten boosts: Zapatero, Shroeder, Chavez.

Much of this is Iraq, and much of this GW, but there is also a predisposition to view us as arrogant imperialists. Because of his story and his charisma, Barack is in much better position than Hillary to counter this tendency.

Bobby Kennedy, Jr. is incredibly solid on the environment. I've always thought Bobby was the best of the Kennedys.

Sorry. Is this working yet?

Both Hillary's and Obama's health insurance plans suck, by the way. Single payer, or give it up.

Desider,

I'd rather have a beer with Hillary Clinton anyway. She's actually supposed to be a lot of fun to hang with, from all reports. Barack Obama strikes me as just a little too stiff to make a very good drinking buddy.

Shorter Matt Weaver: "Has anyone seen my white privilege?"

You know, I was just thinking about the first couple of years of another charismatic young President who had to learn on the job. In addition to aspirations, we got the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the beginning of our involvement in Vietnam, the Diem assassination, the concept of an elite military force dedicated to suppressing insurgencies throughout the world, and Robert McNamara and the statistics of attrition. Meanwhile, he waited over two years to introduce the Civil Rights legislation he campaigned on and waited until 1963, when he was forced to confront George Wallace, to put the force of the federal government behind Civil Rights.

With respect to the LA Times editors--you have got the endorsement right, but the reasoning behind it very wrong—wrong enough that it might be a poisoned chalice.

It is wrong to suggest that Obama represents something due to his race. Beyond this, it is wrong to suggest that that type of "soft power" (with apologies to Joeseph Nye) is what is needed to win people over in the world that “hates” America. The anger in the world towards the unprincipled US foreign policy is much deeper than you imply, and therefore a mere face full of soft lines will not change it.

The correct reason to endorse Obama is for his intelligence and reasoning on not going to war with Iraq in the first place. This was not an accidental judgement, but one that was tempered by his experience as a Christian American boy growing up in Asia among Muslims. He is alone among US leaders who can genuinely separate Muslims from those who are of that faith, who happen to be terrorists. He is thus alone in being able to guide America away from an unwinnable war with a religion of over a billion people.

No American leader has ever felt the world up close and personal as has Obama. He might be lyrical in the iambic pentameter (if that explains his hesitancy in debate and soaring heights in speeches!), but his substance and solidity are obvious to see as they are grounded with life defining knowledge that the world, however poorer, is not America’s enemy.

Obama is a fortunate offer to the American public in these extremely troubled times. Even if Obama is has been blown to the canvass by virtual colonies of young bees, who feel something very different, I am not sure the mature American public or its elite know exactly why this is the person for the times.

Sincerely,

Jayantha Jayman
Research Assistant Professor
Institute of Global Cultural Policy
Binghamton University

Billy, I think you get to the core difference between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. Some of us are ready to gamble on greatness at the risk of failure. Others would rather play it safe with competence.

I really don't mean to imply any judgment in that comment. At this time in our history and in my life, I would rather throw the dice and aim high. I've never experienced a JFK or an FDR. I've never had a leader who has inspired me. I think that our nation has lost direction, that we need to find ourselves, and that we need a leader who can help us do that. But I respect people who feel that we can't afford to take that kind of risk right now, and I know that Obama carries more risk than Clinton.

Odinga says Obama is his cousin - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm

Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga has said he is a cousin of US presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Mr Odinga told the BBC's The World Today that Senator Obama's father was his maternal uncle.

Mr Obama's father - a Kenyan also called Barack - met and married his American mother when they were students at the university of Hawaii.

Mr Obama has previously been identified as a distant cousin of Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Mr Obama's father came from the same Luo community as Mr Odinga.

The Kenyan leader made the statement in an interview in which he discussed foreign interest in the political turmoil in his country.

He said Mr Obama had on Monday taken time out of campaigning for the New Hampshire primary to call him twice, to express his concern, and to say that he would also be calling Mr Kibaki.

Mr Obama's parents separated when he was two and later divorced.

His mother subsequently married an Indonesian, and the young Barack lived in Jakarta for some years before returning to the United States.

He saw almost nothing of his birth father, who moved back to Kenya and later died in a car crash.

But he entitled his autobiography Dreams from my Father.

The underreporting of Denver Post endorsement also pisses me off big time. Denver is a small city compared to LA butis not Denver the host city? Why no reporting?

The underreporting of Denver Post endorsement also pisses me off big time. Denver is a small city compared to LA butis not Denver the host city? Why no reporting?

My earlier post got recorded as guest. While normally I would leave it be, the point of it was an objection to another unidentified post. (Maybe the poster had same problem I had keeping logged in to submit a post?) My post:

Unnamed "guest" (afraid of using your own, real name?) writing about 'white privilege'. I do not think race has any role in choosing a candidate. Suggesting otherwise is patently racist.

By the way, for those waiting for Richardson's endorsement of Obama, well, don't hold your breath. I see reports that Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson are spending Sunday together in New Mexico watching the Super Bowl. I serious doubt Richardson would turn around and endorse Obama before or after such a visit reportedly between friends.

The idea that there's some risk with Obama is just a fearmongering talking point from the Clintons.

If anything, there's more risk with Clinton based on her foreign policy record and statements.

(FYI--BELOW IS THE LETTER I SENT TO THE LA TIMES AFTER READING THEIR EDITORIAL)

Poisoned Chalice for Obama?

With all due respect to the LA Times editors--you may have got the endorsement right, but some of the reasoning behind it is at best unclear--unclear enough that that it might be a poisoned chalice for Senator Obama.

It is wrong to suggest that Obama represents something due to his race to the world. Beyond this, it is wrong to suggest that that type of "soft power" (with apologies to Joseph Nye) is what is needed to win people over in the world that “hates” America. The anger in the world towards unprincipled US foreign policy is much deeper than is implied in the LA Times endorsement. Mere soft lines on a powerful face, or its invitingly familiar colour, will not change how the US is perceived abroad.

Yes, the correct reason to endorse Obama is for his intelligence and reasoning in avoiding war with Iraq in the first place. His was not an accidental judgement, but one that was tempered by experience as a Christian American boy growing up in Asia among Muslims: thse are life forming experiences. Therefore, after humanising Muslims, Obama could not have joined the stampede to support the Bush Doctrine. Futher more, when we do consider his Kenyan heritage, he could not have stayed on the side lines, as did the Clintons when Canadian General Roméo Dallaire requested a few thousand soldiers to stop the genocide in Rwanda.

The Clinton's might have helped to solve Northern Ireland, as they were connected to the Emerald Island. In terms of today's problems, Obama is the only connection to the people whom too many Americans today think are their enemy. Crucially, he is alone among US leaders, who can genuinely separate Muslims from those who are of that faith, who happen to be terrorists. Obama is thus alone in being able to guide America away from a war that is widely perceived as being against a religion.

No American leader has ever felt the world up close and personal as has Obama. He might be lyrical in the iambic pentameter, however his substance and solidity are obvious to see, grounded as they are with life defining knowledge that the world, however much poorer than America, and however much less free than Americans, is not America’s enemy. Obama knows the world wants economic development and it wants the freedoms American are taking for granted.

Some might see Obama as a providential offer on every count to a God fearing American public in these extremely troubled times. Nonetheless, even if Obama has been plastered over the Rockwellian canvass in Iowa by virtual colonies of young bees, who instinctively feel something very different about this man, I am not sure the more mature American public or its elite know exactly why this person for these times, as one might say the American mind was closed.

Jayantha Jayman
Research Assistant Professor
Institute of Global Cultural Studies
Binghamton University

Hello Ghenghis,

I'd like to comment about that so-called European fascination with Obama.

There were only two correct pieces of information in it. 1) Yes, the world is watching and PRAYING that another Republican won't be put in office.

2) The German editor said, "We want to know more about Obama." 'wanting to know more' does not mean 'enthralled'. The rest of the article is just spin.

I read the French and British press regularly and I can tell you with certainty that Europeans are not "thrilled" with the sudden rise of Obama. First of all, let's make the very CRUCIAL distinction between media fascination (what's new and unknown sells) and the average European reaction. Europeans tend to be less naive about the political process and the media's ability to manipulate voters...in France, we got stuck with the right-wing Sarkozy (whose popularity is already plunging in the polls after only months in office) because the Socialist party (which usually puts up a very strong challenge to the center right) had nominated an attractive, photogenic (but hopelessly inexperienced) woman...Segolène Royale. Her candidacy seemed to come out of nowhere...she was the media's darling before the runoff election and could do no wrong...it wasn't until after she secured the Socialist's party nomination that the media dogs began tearing her to tiny little pieces...and it all fell apart.

Just yesterday, I was questioned by a group of French civil servants (who traditionally lean to the left politically) about the American elections. Above all else, they seemed puzzled. Who is this fellow Obama? and why on earth would Americans seem so eager to dump a candidate who has the intelligence and the experience to handle the job of president? In their eyes, it's just too big a gamble. Of course, Europeans haven't been exposed to the RELENTLESS Hillary bashing that the American public has, but they understand just how high the stakes are for the entire world.

Yes, Obama is a likeable candidate. Yes, he's politically correct. Yes, he's a fresh face and has lots of charisma. All this will last about for about 3 weeks if he becomes the nominee. Don't get me wrong. His heart and head is in the right place, but he will lose against McCain...CNN, MSNBC, Time Warner and associates will see to it. I thought that the "Swiftboat Veterans against Kerry" debacle would have taught us something about how the game is played (and won).

Test post

Today in Minneapolis where it is very, very, very cold, 20,000 people are going to drive downtown - it's Saturday, so getting into town is a bit of a hassle, and parking is tough: the ramps are expensive - to fill Target Center to hear Obama.
Tickets were gone in 90 minutes. They turned away thousands who tried to get them by going online. I was one of them. I missed out. I'm going downtown anyway, to stand outside, and be counted.
Nothing like this has even been seen before in Minnesota. And Minnesota is very, very, very white - even when it's not snowing.

testing. Wow..
your web designer is not so talented.

IMPORTANT ISSUE !!!
Hillary's Health Care Plan Would Create 47 Million 'Universal' Law Breakers !

BEWARE !!! Hillary's so-called 'Universal' Health Care Plan is to make it AGAINST THE LAW FOR ANYONE TO NOT BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE (LIKE AUTO INSURANCE)That's not health care....that's just a law (that's what mandate means) !!!!! Under Hillary's health care plan everyone who breaks her law and does not buy their own health coverage (if not offered through their job) would be fined and wages could be garnished. Also, everyone would have to prove that they already have health insurance (show an insurance policy) before they could get a new job if that new job does not offer coverage.If people could afford health care they would have it already! To make it a mandatory law will just make people who are unable to afford the coverage (could be $300-$400 per month/per person) afraid to go to the hospital when seriously ill in fear of getting caught breaking the law (without coverage). Then we'll end up with millions of people simply hiding the fact that they don't have coverage....instead of receiving the true health care they need. TERRIBLE !!! DON'T BE FOOLED AMERICA !!!!!

"All Americans Would be required by law to purchase health insurance" reports CBS News Chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA NEED TO KNOW THIS ABOUT HILLARY'S PLAN. THE LAST THING THESE 47 MILLION PEOPLE NEED IS TO BE CALLED LAW BREAKERS BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO POOR TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE. AND A TAX CUT FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER COVER THE TRUE COST. PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE FACTS !!!

"The media often refers to Hillary as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I wonder if Obama's support would fall simply by adding his middle name in references to him: Barack Hussein Obama?"

Yes, they refer to her as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton'. Not 'Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton', her full name. Rodham is her maiden name.

It might be too late for this to work in favor of Obama, but La Opinión, the biggest Spanish-language daily in the Los Angeles area, has just come out in favor of Obama. English version here.

Ted Kennedy may have endorsed Obama, but the Bobby Kennedy wing has endorsed Hillary.

Great Hillary Clinton rally going on right now in LA on C-Span!