The more I see Obama, the more I see him as simply bereft of any viable policy, integrity, or balls. I used to see him as a nice guy, if a little naive. But he’s turning out to be quite the card.

Obama now says that Wright’s views shock and disgust him, as if he never figured it out before. If someone is so dense as to have no clue about the radical leanings of a man who he claims to have been his inspirational and spiritual guru for 20 years, then he does not have the judgement and common sense to be a corporate officer, military officer, or any other position of responsibility where being able to judge people’s character - much less president of the USA or any other high government office. The man is simply incompetant, based on what he says.

But let’s say he’s not telling the truth. Indications certainly point that way. Not only is his blissful ignorance of Wright’s leanings hard to swallow, but it’s quite clear that his own wife, from her statements, is 100% in agreement with Wright. How could he get bombarded daily from his wife and not figure out that something was off-kilter?

And then yu have his policies. What a load of idealistic tripe those are turning out to be. But that’s for another thread.

Finally, he talks about being a uniter, and an agent for change. Name one instance when Obama has acted as a uniter in any of his previous jobs. His senate career has been one of solid, hard-left liberalism. McCain has a far better record at working with the opposition rather than against them all the time. Even Hillary does too.

And Change? What has he changed in the past? What gives him the idea that he can change anything?

Is it Hope?

“He that lives upon hope will die fasting.”
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

Despite the fact that polls can have some serious flaws (people often say what they think you want to hear, unless it’s completely anonymous). While the polls from liberal and conservative news sources differ on who’s leading between McCain and Hillary / BHO, there is one factor that they’ve all seemed to agree on: While a considerable number of Hillary supporters will be crossing party lines if BHO is the nominee, the BHO true believers will in much larger numbers vote for Hillary if she gets the nod instead of their man. The “black community” as BHO sees it will vote for anything with a “D” next to their name; and that’s a sad truth.
The BHO faithful seem not to have that great an education in political science. The Republican Party is considerably more ideologically unified than the Democratic Party (Conservatives cover a far narrower spectrum than the Democratic Base). So, short of pulling out a paleo-conservative like Pat Buchanan, the Republicans don’t have to worry about scaring off the moderates. The Democrats on the other hand can far more easily scare off their moderates by catering to their radical left wing. If they good with BHO, there’s going to be an awful lot of “McCain Democrats” out there come November.

You’re probably right about the numbers regarding the popular vote there Mata.
What I would contend though is this: A lot of BHO’s post Super Tuesday victories, the one’s that put him into the front runner slot ahead of Hillary, came in states where BHO’s remarks on Americans being “bitter” and “clinging to guns and religion” would have crashed and burned his numbers; Texas wouldn’t have been near as close as it was. I’m figuring a lot of those people who voted for BHO back before these truths came to light, are feeling rather “bitter” about being fooled by the BHO show, and aren’t likely to fault the super-delegates for flipping their support come convention time.
Supposedly that’s why the Democrats put in their super-delegate system; to make sure that the more electable candidate is the one that gets the nomination. Yes, it’s an oddly “un-democratic” system for the Democratic Party, but in this case it could save them from an utter trouncing in November if BHO is their candidate.