Who thinks Obama can still pull it off?

[halfprep455]

I know this question has probably been asked before in this forum but who still thinks that Obama has a chance of winning the nomination? I personally hope he wins I'm tired of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. I also really don't want to have to vote for McCain b/c I can't stand Clinton. It looks like Obama might win South Carolina but I think the Clintons are trying to portray him as another Al Sharpton.Lets hope that he can carry a few states on super Tuesday.

[yg17]

I think he still has a chance...


And give me a break, Hillary is not worse than McCain or any of the repubs running.

[KingYaba]

Obama certainly has a chance. It's the Edwards camp who are in trouble.

[Ugg]

I live in CA and vote by mail.

This last week I got my ballot and sat down and for the first time, took a good hard look at the candidates. There's a lot I like about Obama but he's too centrist for my tastes and his lack of knowledge about foreign affairs scares me. We've had seven years of "Fortress America" mentality and that's enough.

Hilary got my vote.

[Unspeaked]

If you take "super delegates" into account, Obama has no realistic chance.

Hilary will probably win because she's the choice of the "establishment" (John Kerry not withstanding).

I think what John Edwards decides to do as far as when to pull out, who to throw his support behind and what opportunities to pursue may still be the huge X factor in this, but at this point Obama isn't as close to Clinton as the media likes to report...

[themadchemist]

If you take "super delegates" into account, Obama has no realistic chance.

Hilary will probably win because she's the choice of the "establishment" (John Kerry not withstanding).

I think what John Edwards decides to do as far as when to pull out, who to throw his support behind and what opportunities to pursue may still be the huge X factor in this, but at this point Obama isn't as close to Clinton as the media likes to report...

I still don't think this will go to a floor fight at the convention, because that doesn't look good on television and is thus bad for the party. If it doesn't go all the way to the convention, the superdelegates will just break to the winner. If it is really close and it does end up going, then the delegates will matter. But remember, many of the superD's haven't spoken yet and you can be sure that more than a few will support Obama.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Im not a big fan of Hillary and am leaning OBama here in S.C. but who better to undo all the crap Bushco did the past 8 yrs?

[mrkramer]

I hope Obama is able to come back, but I am starting to think that he doesn't have much of a chance anymore.

[IJ Reilly]

Three primaries, all very close. I don't see how either candidate can be called out. Even Edwards still has an outside chance.

The Democratic Party in California has allowed unaffiliated voters such as myself to vote in the primary. I'm going for Obama -- so I cancelled out Ugg. ;)

[atszyman]

...his lack of knowledge about foreign affairs scares me. We've had seven years of "Fortress America" mentality and that's enough.


This would bother me, but Obama seems smart enough to have good advisors rather than surrounding himself with a bunch of "yes-men" as our current leader does. I have faith that the cabinet would be staffed with many qualified individuals who will compliment him and more than make up for any inexperience he might have.

Of course by the time the primaries get to TX, it will probably be all but decided, and the chances of TX going Dem in the election are about as good as Kucinich getting the nomination.

[Lord Blackadder]

Ohio's primary isn't till March 4, but I'm probably leaning towards Obama. We shall see.

I agree that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all still in it - and the GOP has by no means decided yet either.

[kainjow]

Ohio's primary isn't till March 4, but I'm probably leaning towards Obama. We shall see.

I haven't been able to find this out yet, but do you know if in Ohio we have to be affiliated with a party to vote for someone?

[Lord Blackadder]

I haven't been able to find this out yet, but do you know if in Ohio we have to be affiliated with a party to vote for someone?

Off the top of my head I believe you do - but you can register as a party member when you vote IIRC.

I think I'm still registered Republican because I vote for McCain in the primary back in 2000...

[Unspeaked]

Even Edwards still has an outside chance.

I agree that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all still in it - and the GOP has by no means decided yet either.

I agree Edwards is still theoretically in it, but his only chance at this point is to pull off a Super Tuesday miracle akin to Bill Clinton in '92 and I just don't see how that can happen with his lack of momentum - he's being all but ignored by the media and even his own party.

The Time magazine cover was nice, but it can only take you so far...

[IJ Reilly]

I agree Edwards is still theoretically in it, but his only chance at this point is to pull off a Super Tuesday miracle akin to Bill Clinton in '92 and I just don't see how that can happen with his lack of momentum - he's being all but ignored by the media and even his own party.

The Time magazine cover was nice, but it can only take you so far...

If Clinton and Obama keep beating up on each other, who knows?

[Lord Blackadder]

Edwards is probably hoping that Obama and Clinton get into a nasty mudslinging match that damages both of their images...that's the only way he'll make up lost ground as far as I can imagine.

EDIT: IJ beat me to it....

[themadchemist]

I agree Edwards is still theoretically in it, but his only chance at this point is to pull off a Super Tuesday miracle akin to Bill Clinton in '92 and I just don't see how that can happen with his lack of momentum - he's being all but ignored by the media and even his own party.

The Time magazine cover was nice, but it can only take you so far...

Unlike Clinton in '92, Edwards doesn't have a convincing, optimistic narrative for the media. There's no logical story to string together that would suggest that the Edwards campaign is still in this, no "comeback kid" phenomenon.

[Macky-Mac]

Obama is probably the odds on favorite for the nomination......in 2012 that is.......unless Gore runs and then it could be wide open.

As for this year, time is running out. Obama has to start winning big or it's over. Certainly he'll win the South Carolina primary this saturday, but then he has to do really well in Florida on tuesday in order to have much hope of success on "Super Tuesday" the following week.

[IJ Reilly]

As for this year, time is running out. Obama has to start winning big or it's over. Certainly he'll win the South Carolina primary this saturday, but then he has to do really well in Florida on tuesday in order to have much hope of success on "Super Tuesday" the following week.

I don't understand this analysis. Obama wins Iowa. Clinton wins New Hampshire (by a nose). Nevada is a virtual tie, with delegates probably being awarded equally to Obama and Clinton. So why does Obama have to start "winning big or it's over?"

[Macky-Mac]

I don't understand this analysis. Obama wins Iowa. Clinton wins New Hampshire (by a nose). Nevada is a virtual tie, with delegates probably being awarded equally to Obama and Clinton. So why does Obama have to start "winning big or it's over?"

well, tis just my view of the situation.....YMMV......but wanna put a wager on it?

Super Tuesday is now less than 2 weeks away and by the end of it, half of the states will have had their primaries. As of today, Clinton already has more delegates than Obama and Edwards combined (a tally). (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html) Big states such as Florida, New York, New Jersey, California and Illinois will all have voted by the end of Super Tuesday.

At the moment only Illinois is looking like an Obama state (polls often are wrong of course!). If Obama's not in the lead after Super Tuesday, where's he going to get the votes to win?

I think Obama supporters tend to look at New Hampshire and only see the small margin of Clinton's victory, however the majority of the reporting was about what a dramamtic comeback Clinton had made given the expectation of another big Obama win after his huge win in Iowa. The momentum Obama gained from Iowa faded significantly and now, unless he starts winning fast and big, he's stuck as an attractive but second place challenger to the front runner.

[atszyman]

well, tis just my view of the situation.....YMMV......but wanna put a wager on it?

Super Tuesday is now less than 2 weeks away and by the end of it, half of the states will have had their primaries. As of today, Clinton already has more delegates than Obama and Edwards combined (a tally). (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html) Big states such as Florida, New York, New Jersey, California and Illinois will all have voted by the end of Super Tuesday.

The only problem with that chart is that the Super Delegates can still change their minds, so those numbers don't necessarily mean anything. The current Delegate count has Obama ahead by 2 for pledged delegates, with the rest "leaning" one way, but still able to change their minds. The race is still very much in flux and while the Super Delegates may be indicating a preference a strong momentum shift by any candidate could change a lot of their minds.

[KingYaba]

I fail to see how Clinton "won" the debate between the Three.

Obama does have a point about Reagan. I think Clinton just wants to stir emotion and controversy because Obama recognized a Republican actually had the right idea ;) He appealed to both sides and I think that was his point?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Clinton is making a mistake using the Reagan thing. Reagan was well liked and I voted for him and so did millions of democrats.

[Pittsax]

I fail to see how Clinton "won" the debate between the Three.

Obama does have a point about Reagan. I think Clinton just wants to stir emotion and controversy because Obama recognized a Republican actually had the right idea ;) He appealed to both sides and I think that was his point?
He never said Reagan was right about any of his ideas, just that he was able to bring both parties together with his vision of America. The fact that the Clintons have twisted that into somehow being an endorsement of Reagan and "Reaganomics" is crazy.

I think Obama still has a chance, but only if he stops chasing Bill Clinton around and goes back to his initial message that won him the primary in Iowa.

[dsnort]

Obama is an appealing candidate in that he seems to speak from his convictions. He is reminiscent of the Jimmy Stewart character in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Unfortunately, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was a movie, and in real life I fully expect to see Obama tread under the grinding wheels of the establishment, in this case, Hillary. Welcome to "Politics American". Where what you say is more important than what you are, or what you believe.

(In case you're curious, I happen to believe that ALL the candidates for any office believe EXACTLY the same thing. That you should vote for them.)

[KingYaba]

He never said Reagan was right about any of his ideas, just that he was able to bring both parties together with his vision of America.

Isn't that what I said? :confused:

[halfprep455]

I sure hope Obama gets the nomination. If Hillary dies get it though, I will probably end up voting for McCain. I can't stand the Clintons. Their way to corrupt, polarizing, and has no core values. I might not agree with McCain 100% or even 75% of the time but at least he is honest and has core values.

BTW, Im tired of people saying that Hillary has 8 years of experience b/c she was in the Whitehouse. Well so did the pastry chef, does that qualify him?

[themadchemist]

I sure hope Obama gets the nomination. If Hillary dies get it though, I will probably end up voting for McCain. I can't stand the Clintons. Their way to corrupt, polarizing, and has no core values. I might not agree with McCain 100% or even 75% of the time but at least he is honest and has core values.

Corrupt? Give me a break. They are a lot of things, but corrupt isn't one of them. And don't give me this pardon business--it might have been a little sketchy, but it was well within Clinton's circumscribed powers, and on the scale of "corruption" as set by some of Mr. Clinton's fellow presidents, he's sitting pretty.

[halfprep455]

All I know is that I will not vote for a Clinton under any circumstance. Even if it was between her and Huckelberry, I would probably just sit at home and not even waste any money on gas to get to the polls. This woman has no core beliefs what so ever. She will say anything to get elected. She would even go to the right of Sam Brownback if she knew it would win her the oresidence. She is a poll president and that is NOT what America needs.

Obama '08

[themadchemist]

All I know is that I will not vote for a Clinton under any circumstance. Even if it was between her and Huckelberry, I would probably just sit at home and not even waste any money on gas to get to the polls. This woman has no core beliefs what so ever. She will say anything to get elected. She would even go to the right of Sam Brownback if she knew it would win her the oresidence. She is a poll president and that is NOT what America needs.

Obama '08

Oh, I don't disagree. She's a hack job. She doesn't have core beliefs. She does awful things like supporting legislation to ban flag burning, supporting the Patriot Act, and putting together a health care plan that looks like Mitt Romney's Massachusetts garbage--

But she's not corrupt. And she does have redeeming qualities. That said, I'm supporting Obama, despite his also long list of drawbacks, mistakes, and displays of mild cowardice.

[Ugg]

All I know is that I will not vote for a Clinton under any circumstance. Even if it was between her and Huckelberry, I would probably just sit at home and not even waste any money on gas to get to the polls. This woman has no core beliefs what so ever. She will say anything to get elected. She would even go to the right of Sam Brownback if she knew it would win her the oresidence. She is a poll president and that is NOT what America needs.

Obama '08

Obama doesn't have a chance and you know it. He blew it by entering the race this time around. He should have waited until '12.

Something tells me that there are a lot of people out there with the same bad attitude that you have and the turnout this fall will be very low. That's definitely good for Hilary. I think enough middle of the roaders have had it with the bible thumping group. Huckabee is a bigot and Romney doesn't have the guts nor the charisma to carry off his religion and McCain is simply too old.

Obama is nothing more than a republican in sheep's clothing and he is clueless about world affairs.

I may not like everything about Hilary but she can certainly find Malawi on a map and that's what this country needs more than anything. Someone who has a clue about world affairs.

[yg17]

All I know is that I will not vote for a Clinton under any circumstance. Even if it was between her and Huckelberry, I would probably just sit at home and not even waste any money on gas to get to the polls. This woman has no core beliefs what so ever. She will say anything to get elected. She would even go to the right of Sam Brownback if she knew it would win her the oresidence. She is a poll president and that is NOT what America needs.

Obama '08


And do you want another republican in office? Hillary is much better than ANY of the republicans running.

McCain is still for the war. That's reason enough to not want him as president.

[halfprep455]

First off, I will bet you everything that Obama would be smart enough to nominate someone who has very good knowledge about world affairs, unlike chimpy and Rice. I am also willing to bet that Obama has just as much foreign policy knowledge as Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends wife. I also still don't see how Hillary has any more experience then Obama. So what she spent 8 years in the Whitehouse. What did she even do in her husbands administration anyways. She dosen't even have a whole lot of campaign experience. She ran for Senate in the Bluest state in the nation. BIG ACCOMPLISHMENT!! woot woot! If the DNC wants to nominate someone who was close to Bubba, then I suggest that they nominate Monica.

In fact, McCain has more foreign policy experience then all of the candidates combined. So if you want to choose a candidate based souly on experiance, then I suggest that you choose McCain.

BTW, what is all of this crap about Obama being a Republican in sheeps clothing. Do any of you actually believe that he is some Manchurian candidate who wants to get the Dem nomination so he can hand the election to the Republicans? Or is this about him mentioning Regan?

[themadchemist]

Obama doesn't have a chance and you know it. He blew it by entering the race this time around. He should have waited until '12.


I think this is the opposite of right. He has a much better chance this year than in '12. And think about it, if a democrat wins this time around (a strong likelihood, you'll agree), then he'd have to wait until '16 to mount a credible campaign.


Something tells me that there are a lot of people out there with the same bad attitude that you have and the turnout this fall will be very low. That's definitely good for Hilary. I think enough middle of the roaders have had it with the bible thumping group. Huckabee is a bigot and Romney doesn't have the guts nor the charisma to carry off his religion and McCain is simply too old.


If you look at primary and caucus turnout, it is remarkably high, especially for the Democrats. And if you consider polling on the level of satisfaction that people have with their party's candidates, Democrats are very happy with their candidates. Republicans are less so. Myself, I'm not yet crazy about the Democrats.


Obama is nothing more than a republican in sheep's clothing and he is clueless about world affairs.


This statement suffers from exaggeration. Obama is certainly not a Republican. He's running a campaign of political compromise, that's for sure, and he's taking the tepid middle of the road on a lot of important issues. It's a lack of guts, which is perhaps necessary to a degree, but I think he's taken it too far. He's much, much better than Republicans, if simply you consider what he would sign and what he would veto. While he might not champion some important, core liberal causes, he doesn't oppose them, and he certainly has positions that are well to the left of all of his Republican counterparts.


I may not like everything about Hilary but she can certainly find Malawi on a map and that's what this country needs more than anything. Someone who has a clue about world affairs.

I consider myself relatively well-versed in history and foreign politics, at least for a layman, and I can't find Malawi on a map. I've even been to Africa, too (though, admittedly, a different part). One can look up where Malawi is, if necessary. And while knowing where some of the bigger players are has its merits, understanding some fundamentals about diplomacy, some key points and events in history, and how to obtain varied counsel when considering complex problems--these are what you look for in a President. Obviously, President Bush's pre-election (and post-election) grasp of foreign policy was pathetic, but one need not have an encyclopedic knowledge of world geography or even of history to make a strong president in terms of foreign policy.

You've gotta be smart and curious and open-minded and level-headed. I think Obama probably qualifies, as does Clinton. What gives me pause is not whether either of them can locate any given country on the map, but what they are saying about our interactions with countries we can all locate. Obama's talk of sending troops over the border into Pakistan does give me pause; it sounds like a sure recipe to further destabilize the region.

But on the biggest foreign policy question of the next Presidency, what we do in Iraq and how we do it, no one really has any good ideas. Biden had an idea, it wasn't going to work, but it was an idea. The fact is--it's too late to predict good outcomes in Iraq, unless we really just shoot the moon and by some miracle the Iraqi government gets its act together and people decide to stop killing each other. We opened up latent ethnic tensions in that country and created a crucible of political unrest that is ripe for exploitation in the form of a brutal civil war. Chances are, no matter what the next President does, we'll either stave off that war with large troop numbers in Iraq or accept the inevitable when we leave. It's a depressing situation, but I doubt even Otto von Bismarck would have been able to figure this one out to any satisfaction.

[halfprep455]

And do you want another republican in office? Hillary is much better than ANY of the republicans running.

McCain is still for the war. That's reason enough to not want him as president.

I would much rather have McCain in office over any of the Clintons. I just can not stand them and their lies any longer. Im tired of the same two families running this country into the ground. I am at the point where I would prefer ANYONE over Bush or Clinton. Besides, even if McCain was elected, unlike Bush he is honest and he would be checked by a Democratic majority in congress.

Unless Bloomberg runs and is a viable candidate then hes got my vote.

[yg17]

Bill was one of the best presidents we've had lately. The economy was at its best and for once, we had a surplus. He didn't get us into a needless war, he didn't spy on Americans and take away our civil liberties. I don't care if he got a BJ from an intern. That's not my business.

I want Obama to win too, but if Hillary wins the nomination, I will have no problem voting for her. She is not as bad as some people think.

[MikeTheC]

Just remember one thing...

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3889/hadbarackobama01lc1.png

[solvs]

I fail to see how Clinton "won" the debate between the Three.
When undecided voters are asked who won, they overwhelmingly choose Edwards. Then say they'll vote for Obama anyway. Yeah, I don't get it either.

I would much rather have McCain in office over any of the Clintons.
I used to be a McCain supporter, but he's long since lost me. The straight talk express is gone, he's left with cheerleading for the war and pandering to the fundies he used to condemn. Hillary panders too, and she doesn't have much experience. She also leans more to the right on the wrong issues than I like. But, and I never thought I'd say this, I'd still vote for her over him at this point. I know, had you told me that a few years ago I would have laughed in your face, but she's still the lesser of the evils, at least between her and anyone on the GOP's side. I will definitely hold my nose while voting for her, but it's more what she won't do than what she will that I have a problem with, and we can certainly trust her (well, her people) with the reigns more than him and his people. And it gets worse as you go down the GOP line.

I don't exactly support the Dems, but will be voting against the GOP, and if she pulls the same crap (the Repubs more than likely will at least try, and as we see we can't trust the Dems in Congress to stop them) nothing says we can't criticize the people we vote for, which I certainly plan to do.

[diehldun]

Well for the life of me, I can never understand John Edwards, claiming he "would protect the future of the middle class". This is the man who pays $400 for a haircut and makes $800,000 to make a speech about poverty in America. He could not possibly be more removed from the middle class or lower class. Rarely does one find a politician so astonishingly out of touch with reality.

Anyways, my bets are going to Hillary, and yesterday's New York Times endorsement would certainly help (I thought overall the write-up was very well written). And I do agree with NYTimes: I think John McCain is going to get the Republican nomination.

[mactastic]

All I know is that I will not vote for a Clinton under any circumstance. Even if it was between her and Huckelberry, I would probably just sit at home and not even waste any money on gas to get to the polls. This woman has no core beliefs what so ever. She will say anything to get elected. She would even go to the right of Sam Brownback if she knew it would win her the oresidence. She is a poll president and that is NOT what America needs.

Obama '08
Just remember, McCain will say anything to get elected too. Or have you forgotten how he condemned Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance" in 2000, then hugged him at Liberty University in preperation for his '08 run?

Talk about no core beliefs. But go ahead and think Hillary is the only one like that if it makes you feel better.

[mactastic]

Well for the life of me, I can never understand John Edwards, claiming he "would protect the future of the middle class". This is the man who pays $400 for a haircut and makes $800,000 to make a speech about poverty in America. He could not possibly be more removed from the middle class or lower class. Rarely does one find a politician so astonishingly out of touch with reality.
Please. The Mittster pays $300 for make-up jobs, but no one ever complains about him being out of touch. Why's that, I wonder?

And since when is it a crime to spend your money how you see fit?

Anyways, my bets are going to Hillary, and yesterday's New York Times endorsement would certainly help (I thought overall the write-up was very well written). And I do agree with NYTimes: I think John McCain is going to get the Republican nomination.
Most likely.

[IJ Reilly]

BTW, what is all of this crap about Obama being a Republican in sheeps clothing. Do any of you actually believe that he is some Manchurian candidate who wants to get the Dem nomination so he can hand the election to the Republicans? Or is this about him mentioning Regan?

I think it must be, which only goes to show how well disinformation campaigns work.

[diehldun]

Please. The Mittster pays $300 for make-up jobs, but no one ever complains about him being out of touch. Why's that, I wonder?

And since when is it a crime to spend your money how you see fit?


Most likely.


John Edwards' campaign has revolved almost entirely around "saving the lower/middle class". His actions would dicatate otherwise.

[themadchemist]

John Edwards' campaign has revolved almost entirely around "saving the lower/middle class". His actions would dicatate otherwise.

So in a field of candidates that will inevitably involve the wealthiest, the best-educated, the most privileged in society, we demand that political rhetoric of our candidates should cater only to their personal interests and lifestyle?

I'll take mild hypocrisy over callousness and delusions about the status of the average American any day.

[Ugg]

I think it must be, which only goes to show how well disinformation campaigns work.

His record, brief as it is, says it all.

[mactastic]

John Edwards' campaign has revolved almost entirely around "saving the lower/middle class". His actions would dicatate otherwise.
What actions has he taken that hurt the lower/middle class? I'd say paying a hair stylist that much certainly helps the lower/middle class person who cut his hair.

[IJ Reilly]

His record, brief as it is, says it all.

I don't follow. I was referring to Bill Clinton's disinformation campaign about Obama's Reagan remark.

[Virgil-TB2]

I know this question has probably been asked before in this forum but who still thinks that Obama has a chance of winning the nomination? I personally hope he wins I'm tired of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. I also really don't want to have to vote for McCain b/c I can't stand Clinton. It looks like Obama might win South Carolina but I think the Clintons are trying to portray him as another Al Sharpton.Lets hope that he can carry a few states on super Tuesday.I think it's pretty clear that Obama actually has the best chance at the moment. It's Hilary that has the uphill battle.

That being said, I sure hope he doesn't get the nomination as he is the most conservative "almost a Republican" democrat to get that close in a long long time.

What the US needs is a change of direction, not more conservatism.

You're post is indicative of how conservative he is if you are actually considering voting for an incompetent war-monger like McCain instead of voting for a Democrat at all.

If you were a real democrat you would vote for any Democratic candidate over a Republican one, and if you are a Republican that is would only vote Democrat because it's Obama then that proves my point also.

[Virgil-TB2]

I live in CA and vote by mail.

This last week I got my ballot and sat down and for the first time, took a good hard look at the candidates. There's a lot I like about Obama but he's too centrist for my tastes and his lack of knowledge about foreign affairs scares me. We've had seven years of "Fortress America" mentality and that's enough.

Hilary got my vote.I think it's strange that they don't team up. If the Democrats really want to win and really want to do what's best for the country, why doesn't Obama go for Hillary's VP?

They could clean up. :)

Somehow I think Obama is too much of a "man's man" to do it.

[Virgil-TB2]

I agree Edwards is still theoretically in it, but his only chance at this point is to pull off a Super Tuesday miracle akin to Bill Clinton in '92 and I just don't see how that can happen with his lack of momentum - he's being all but ignored by the media and even his own party.

The Time magazine cover was nice, but it can only take you so far...I don't think Edwards is really trying at all.
He has "I want to be VP" stamped all over him.

Every time the wind sways a tiny bit towards Obama, Edwards disses Hillary, every time Hillary wins a primary he does the same to Obama. Seems like an obsequious, glad-handing, preening idiot to an outsider like me. He sidles up to whomever is in the lead on any given day and holds their hand (figuratively).

It's too bad he doesn't have a powerful wife with Presidential aspirations, he would make a perfect "First Man" also.

He looks pretty and smiles well. :)

[Naimfan]

To answer the question of the thread title: Not me.

He is as done as the Secretary of Lookin' Good.

[yg17]

Anyone think tonight's win will change anything? I personally think it may give him a huge momentum boost going into Super Tuesday. The people who were questioning his lack of experience may have a change of heart after seeing how much support he has elsewhere.

[zioxide]

YES WE CAN

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ

[yg17]

YES WE CAN

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ


Yep, I was watching that on TV and screaming along with the crowd :D


I could watch that man speak all day. He's just an amazing speaker. The thought of a president that can speak in complete sentences just excites me :D

[halfprep455]

Its a miricle we might actually have a president who can actually complete a sentence. Go Obama! No more Bushisms!(Nuqulear, teeeerists, Im the commander guy, ext.)

[zioxide]

Its a miricle we might actually have a president who can actually complete a sentence. Go Obama! No more Bushisms!(Nuqulear, teeeerists, Im the commander guy, ext.)

Fool me once, shame on....... shame on you.. you fool me you can't get fooled again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A)

[trebblekicked]

Yep, I was watching that on TV and screaming along with the crowd :D


I could watch that man speak all day. He's just an amazing speaker. The thought of a president that can speak in complete sentences just excites me :D

anyone who can inspire youtubers to write in complete sentences has my vote.

[yg17]

anyone who can inspire youtubers to write in complete sentences has my vote.

I think a president would be able to make peace with every single country and end poverty and famine around the world before being able to accomplish that