We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.

The same was said about Bush back 2000 and look what happened.

How old are you?

The closer:

"What's at stake in this election is literally the future of our nation."

Oh.

As for if that makes said person a better President in this incredibly dangerous time...

Did Iowan Republicans cross over and support Barack? Just asking.

what motivated colonists fighting an empire, a generation that liberated europe, and the marchers in selma ...

I dig Obama's tying all together all that's best about America ...

Before anyone gets excited over a new, enlightened America - one that can support a real and worthy African-American candidate, ask yourself this question: Who do the Republicans want to run against next November?

Did Iowan Republicans cross over and support Barack? Just asking.

I don't know about Iowa Republicans, but it's sounding like the Iowa independents came out in force for Obama. Bauhaus, tell ya what, if lily-white, middle-America Iowa can look at Barack Obama as a presidential candidate and not just an African-American presidential candidate, maybe we enlightened elitists in Seattle can do the same.

Another thing. Maybe instead of asking ourselves who scumbags like Karl Rove want to run against, we ought to be asking ourselves who would make the best president.

What's remarkable about Democrats is, the more they've tried to overthink candidates' electability, the less electable have been the candidates they've wound up with. (See John Kerry.)

We call that a whoopin where I come from.

Ya obamamos!

It depends on who the eventual Republican nominee is. If it's Fuckabee, we're golden. Independent and libertarians will flock to Bloomberg if that asshole (Fuckabee, that is) is the nominee. If it's anyone else, it'll be tougher.

I agree in principle with everything you say, Cressona, but a couple of things. If you knew my background, I think you'd rethink the elitist label.

I think Obama is marvelous and I'm ready and eager to support him if he's the nominee.

I want to vote for whom I believe in as well. Nader's supporters in 2000 stand in testimony to that philosophy. But if you think strategy isn't a part of a successful presidential campaign, you be D-R-E-A-M-I-N'.

The Republicans were foaming at the mouth to run against Kerry in 2004 - a Northeastern liberal swimming in money (not that Bush isn't swimming in money, but he has that movie set ranch in Crawford and talks like a half-wit - a lot of people find that appealing for whatever reason). When Kerry received enough delegates to clinch the nomination in May 2004, I knew - against all hope - the election was over for the Democrats.

If Obama won the Iowa caucuses with 38% of the vote from real Iowan Democrats, then I'm moved because this country has taken a huge step toward a more just society.

In an election where the repug nominee is known (i.e., a sitting president like Bush in 2004), then, sure, that might happen. But in a wide open field in both camps? Think about it: to mess with the dems you'd have to give up your voice in your own party's decision. And how many folks are willing to try and screw the other party while losing any say in who their party nominates?