Town Square

Post a New Topic

Obama Should Withdraw From Race

Original post made by pam on Mar 23, 2008

obama cannot win florida or ohio or pennsylvania against mccain. so, why is he still in the race? why doesn't he do the decent thing? i also think that mccain stands a 50-50% chance in california. what are the democrats thinking? i sure would not wan to be one of the superdelegates who has to deliver the bad news to barack. given the realities of his base - youth and upper middle class types, how does he even come close to mcacain, who is likable and a moderate?

Comments (31)

Posted by Tim, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 23, 2008 at 7:19 am

Just trying to stir things up, hey.

Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 23, 2008 at 7:54 am

It seems my prediction, that this election would not be won by brilliance but lost by stupidity, is accurate.

Posted by perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 23, 2008 at 9:18 am

agree. under any other circumstances, mccain would lose.

looks like a no-brainer for mccain, which I am bummed about. I actually would have preferred the country learn its lesson again under another Carter.

Instead, our country will be like the frog sitting in a pot of water that is heating up..he doesn't know it is too hot until he is cooked.

I was hoping for a situation, like under Carter, where we could be more like the frog which is thrown into too hot water, realizes it and jumps out before it is too late.

mccain will just continue the slow march to boiling.

Posted by Me Too, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Mar 23, 2008 at 11:16 am

Pam, I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. ;-)

Seems like a few short months ago, McCain was dead, Guiliani a shoe-in (esp in California), and Hillary the president-in-waiting. How the worm has turned. Rather than game the outcome based on rear-view mirror analysis, let's just look at the candidates and pick the ones that seem best.

Posted by Get Real, a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Obama has an excellent chance of winning. Nationally, he consistently polls slightly ahead of both McCain and Clinton. If anyone should drop out, it's Hillary-- who statistically is very unlikely to win more electoral votes than Obama. Backlash will be huge if the super delegates go against the will of the people.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 23, 2008 at 12:49 pm

It is time to go back to the smoke filled rooms and a genuinely open convention. This push to lock up the nomination early is like sex on the first date - after that, then what?

Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 23, 2008 at 8:03 pm

how come nobody want to weigh in on whether obama can win florida, ohio, and pennsylvania against mcain? it doesn't matter how many delegate votes obama has; what matter is "can he beat mccain". it would be instructive to hear from obama supporters who can name what "red" states obama would win in november against mccain. oabama's run has been a nice little camelot fantasy, but he's not ready for prime time. this has to go all the way to august; that's what the superdelegates are for. we will se many of them ready to change their minds back to hillary by then

Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 23, 2008 at 8:32 pm

McCain is a good man, I don't like his Iraq position, but he is saddled, good man or not, with being the Republican heir to Mr. Shrub's last 8 years in office. Ohio and Pennsylvania both had incumben Republican senators who were voted out of office in 2006 as a rebuke to the Shrub administration.

Once the summer season passes, as the economy worsens with no sign of getting better any time soon (sort of like the times as Viet Nam wound down), McCain will find himself saddled with two big problems: he is weak on economics, i.e. it is not his strong suit, and he will be painted by the Dems as more of Shrub. No matter how he tries to distance himself from Shrub, he will not entirely succeed, and when he does make such attempts, he runs the risk of alienating the factions in the GOP who haven't liked or trusted him from the get go.

I also think that he actually will start to encounter some age discrimination. He seems fit, but already there are reports that some in his age cohort are questioning if a man that age really ought to be starting the job that takes such a toll on the office holder.

Walter is right, the Dems have an uncanny knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I actually think Obama is a much stronger opponent for McCain than Hillary, Pam. She has let ol' Bill out of the dog house again, and already his latest barking is pissing people off. They are both very smart, capable people, but something about the Clintons is toxic to many of us. I voted for Bill, but I really have had enough of those two.

Whoever gets elected will experience a huge economic and foreign policy hangover from the last eight years of the country being run by an alcoholic. Re-election is not assured, just as was the case with Carter.

Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 23, 2008 at 10:10 pm

i don't agree that mccain will lose because of associations with shrub. yes, the economy is going in the tank, and mccain will surely suffer age discrimination, but is age discrimination trumped by sex or race discrimination? i think it is, and both possible democrats have one of these issues. americans elect on the basis of likeableness. i detest shrubs policies, but there is something about the guy that 'clicked' with middle america. I don't see obama clicking with middle america (who are fond of wise old war heros). yes, hillary would have an uphill battle against mccain, but hillary can stump with the best of them, and she proves over and over that the more you wee of her in a two person race, the more you tend to like her. mccain and the gop will blame this economic mess on the democrats who have been controlling congress for the last two years (almost); that may seem like folly, but it will work, because most of middle america doesn't pay attention to detail. obama will never be able to identify or be "liked" sufficiently by working class america, to win. there are many reasons for that, some of them detestable (like racism). to the average working class person, obama will (and does) come off as rather effete. we're talking about essential guy reactions here, not policy. obama simply has no chance, at a gut level. at a gut level he is beatified by the press, youth, and upper middle class types...that's not where most of the votes are. it's over for O, with HILLARY having the best shot if she plays her cards right, and the dems don't implode again.

Posted by so, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 23, 2008 at 11:23 pm

So pam, are you urging the democratic party to ignore those pesky primaries and just overrule the voters. Now combine that event with the voter's trust issues involving Hillary, and I think you have a McCain Landslide.

Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 24, 2008 at 4:11 am

"Are you better off than you were four or eight years ago" seems to be the benchmark since Reagan used the phrase against Carter. I think Pam gives "middle America" a bum rap by suggesting that the recent Democractic Congress will be blamed for all the current and impending economic troubles. The GOP controlled Congress most of the years Shrub has been in the White House (and part of the time Clinton was in office.) The Dems really have gotten very little done since they took power a little over a year ago, but that also means they did not cause much of the current mess. I think people's memories go back a bit longer than perhaps Pam suggests.

I was in Orange County for a family wedding earlier this year, and the husband of my neice, around 35 years old, and I were talking about the state of the campaign. I don't know the guy too well, he more or less fits the description of the sort of religious right type that are commonly found in that part of Southern California. When we got to Obama, the first thing he said was "I don't have a problem voting for someone who is black, but I bet a lot of people do." Translation--"I won't vote for a black man." I don't know how common such an attitude is these days in a generation that does not remember MLK or the turmoil in the Sixties and before, but it scared the you know what out of me to hear him talk like that. Pam may be right, we have not come nearly as far as we in this little intellectual oasis like to think we have.

Posted by DNFTT, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 24, 2008 at 6:35 am

It scared you to hear someone talk like Obama's preacher, only nicer? Obama's preacher of 20 years not only declares that all whites are racist, he damns all of America for it.

oh well, why bother...DNFTT

Posted by Yes, I AM better off than 4-8 years ago, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 24, 2008 at 6:49 am

7 years and 8 months ago we were in a REAL recession, not a "feared" recession, like now. Gore, the dems and the media were lying to the people about how great the economy was, when anyone with any stock ( most of America) was watching their stocks drop and unemployment go up.

Yet, because most people believe what they read or hear in the MSM, there was a belief that we were "fine". Even those who were laid off, and I knew a few, didn't believe we were in a REAL recession, insisting that their lay-off, their company, was a "fluke".

Then, in January,2001, when the recession was officially declared (taking a full 6 mmonths to determine for some reason), suddenly it was Bush's fault, though it was declared 10 days before he was sworn in.

We were already down 30% in our stock worth.

Then 9/11 hit, which results brought our net worth down to 10% of just a year earlier.

Because of the economic cuts etc, we barely missed bancruptcy, and have come back to stronger than ever before, along with our entire economy, which came back to stronger than in the late 90s when it was so "great". All this in spite of the effects of 9/11 and the uncertainty and fears, and the constant harping by the media and democrats about a "fear of" a poor economy.

Doesn't anyone realize that our unemployment, our GDP, our real earnings, our debt as a percent of GDP, our percent of home ownership ( a mark of the way 69% of those living "under the poverty line" own their own homes, because the "pverty line" standard was based only on income, not net worth, in deciding poverty extimates in this country back in the 60s) our percent of MINORITY home ownership, ALL have gone up in real dollars in the last 7 years, in spite of 9/11 and fighting a war in 2 countries?

Stop being fooled, people.

The current "fear" of recession is still that, and has been that for 7 years..a "fear". As anyone who has studied any amount of economics, or even history, knows, the FEAR of an economic downturn can CAUSE an economic downturn, and the dems and media have been trying very, very hard for 7 years to wish it into being, because, frankly, they simply want power, not what is best for the country.

Posted by Yes, I AM better off than 4-8 years ago, a resident of Midtown
on Mar 24, 2008 at 6:52 am

And stop being fooled by those who use simply NUMBERS of people who don't have this or that..always translate it into percent of people in the nation who ...whatever. This is why our unemployment rate is bsed on percentages, not numbers. No matter how good the economy is, the NUMBERS of unemployed will always go up, becuase the number of people in the population increases yearly.

Posted by trudy, a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 24, 2008 at 7:17 am

Amusement of the day - watch a youtube video of Hillary describing some of her "35 years of experience" of arriving under incoming gunfire and, of course, no welcome ceremony in Bosnia, and then film of the actual event, showing the welcoming ceremony, and unconcerned people standing around including the little girl brought to meet her.

How was Hill gathering experience after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993? Well, according to her newly released schedules, Bill went to NY to visit the site, and Hillary a photo shoot for a cover article on her for Parade magazine.

What is that experience again that qualifies her to be President, I thought I saw it around here, but I can't seem to find it?

Posted by Depressed, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 24, 2008 at 8:09 am

Pam is right, the polls show that John McCain will win against either Hillary Clinton or Obama. Unfortunately, the democrats have done it to themselves yet again. They have picked candidates in line with Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry - losers. The super-delegates will line up behind Obama because he is leading in the delegate count.

Unfortunately, Democrats always pick candidates that are too far to the left to attract all the middle of the road independents. With McCain we can look forward to 8 more years of the Iraq war and both Europe and China leaping ahead of the US economically. The dollar will continue to sink.

Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 24, 2008 at 10:59 am

the Dems still have a chance with Hillary, because if she's 1 on 1 with mccain in debate they can debate issues from a moderate stance. really, people keep thinking of hillary as an extension of bill clinton, but she's not. it may seem undemocratic to let someone with less than a 4% lead in delegates be overridden by another candidate, but it will be just plain stupid of they let obama, who has wins in states that are gop states, get into the finals with mccain. obama has shown that he does not appeal to the little guy, he's already perceived by the little guy as effete, and to the ignorant as someone who congregates with black racists. it's tragic, but grom a pragmatic point of view he simply cannot overcome what has been put out there. remember, this is about winning in november, it's not about which candidate can spout the best hopes and dreams (that will not be realized, anyway, because "hope and dreams" are not manufactured out of thin air

also, we are clearly not better off than 8 years ago - you can't be serious. we have an income war that threatens social cohesion. In
2004 the 130,000 top wage earners earned more than the bottom 120,000,000; in 2005 the top 300,0000 wage earners earned more than bottom 200,000,000; 1/10 of 1% of or population own 43% of financial assets, with the bottom 20% (or 60,000,000 people) owning 20% of financial assets (mostly in their cars). the dollar and our nation have lost hegemony. yes, personal wealth has tripled since 1955, but when you look at the relative gains made my certain sectors of the population, it's not pretty. we're a messed up country - $10 million dollar weddings in a time of war? obscene. we have a real education crisis education crisis, with test scores dropping since the late 70's, and they continue to fall - - education is key in forming human capital - - we'd better wake up or the whole country will go down in outsized wealth for a few and social immobility for the masses - - there's no moral center - just look at the sub prime crisis - it's moral and ethical and financial disaster - - as long as you get rich, little else matters, it seems - -teaching community, hard work, and respect for other has gone by the wayside - - getting rich quick will tear us apart - - it's irresponsible to leave this debt to our children

Posted by Me Too, a resident of Meadow Park
on Mar 24, 2008 at 11:00 am

I'm looking forward to President Obama...

Posted by Danny, a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 24, 2008 at 11:05 am

Obama should stay in the race because he's the most inspirational leader in decades. Also, McCain? Likable? Moderate? Chance to win California? Thanks for the Monday morning laugh. Are you taling about the same guy who wants to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran; keep U.S. soldiers in Iraq for 100 years and continue the irresponsible fiscal policies of the past administration (which has now brutally damaged the economy and led to record-high gas prices).

Another Republican president would send our country in divisive a tailspin it may never recover from. Only the inspiration of Obama can revitalize the pride and dignity this great nation has lost since the war-mongering, greedy and bigoted Republicans stole office in 2000. Out with the tyrants!

Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 24, 2008 at 11:10 am

"Obama won huge praise for the speech he gave addressing his relationship Wright and the state of racial relations in the country. But in this case, as a political matter, the audience that counts is general election voters — not Democratic primary voters, party leaders, editorial writers or television commentators. Two months is a long time, and it is simply too soon to say if the political imprint of an acclaimed speech by Obama will begin to fade, overcome by the potent images of Wright at the pulpit.

Superdelegates are, by nature, political animals. They appreciate the potential political price if they are perceived as overturning the will of voters, and blocking what so many Democrats view as a historic candidate. They are also hungry to win the White House and, in many cases, more committed to the success of the Democratic Party than to the fortunes of any specific candidate. "

Web Link

you are going to find out in the general election just how much of a moderate john mccain is, no matter who he faces...hillary is the democrat's best chance to beat him, and you haven't answered my question about what happens when obama loses oh, pa, and fl to mccain, because he will - where are the electoral votess - obama's supporters are dreaming, all the way to helping another gop contender into the white house - you've all done it again

Posted by Me Too, a resident of Meadow Park
on Mar 24, 2008 at 11:16 am

Pam, is that the same approach that showed Hilary couldn't be beat? Oops - looks like he beat her. Funny thing politics.

Posted by pam, a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 24, 2008 at 11:37 am

obama and his dreamy-eyed supporters, seemingly inured to the realities of american electoral politics and political pragmatism - Web Link i've had enough of the camelot democrats, messing us the democratic party year after year, so badly, that we end up with neocons in office -- it's really something to see democrats knocking the clintons, as bill left us with a balanced budget and international respect - the clintons are not the camelot ideal, thank god - the just get the job done, and point america in a moderately liberal direction, and then all hell breaks loose with gore, kerry, and now obama - hillary has got to be the one, or mccain will be president

Posted by Me Too, a resident of Meadow Park
on Mar 24, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Keep spinning it, Pam.

It's funny, Hilary's "crying" in New Hampshire was similar. When you saw the clip, it seemed clear what made her cry was the thought that she was SO much better but might not win.

As the old quote from the movie Broadcast News goes, "It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room."

Vote for Hilary if you like Hilary. Vote for Obama if you like him. We'll let the ballot counters sort it all out.

Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm

the ballot counters in november are the ones i'm worried about - hillary made a great speech today in pa - she should win that state by 10-15 points - spin is in

Posted by Dummocrat, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Mar 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Pam darling, do you have a thick chick crush on the little pear with the ham-hock thighs?

Posted by joel, a resident of Stanford
on Mar 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm

The problem with Obama is that he is engaging in great deception.

When you court the pro-Israel constituency while, at the same time,

you accept foreign policy advisers who are unanimously anti-Israel and perhaps even Jew-hating (Samantha Power, Robert Malley, Zbigniew Brezhinski, and Anthony Lake) you aren't telling the truth.

And there are so many other ways Obama does not tell the truth about what he really thinks.

We know he supports black liberation theology, just read some of the racist policies of this group and you will see what the future holds with obama

Posted by triumph of hope over experience, a resident of Professorville
on Mar 24, 2008 at 2:53 pm

My one comment is that Mr. Obama brought HIS CHILDREN to sit in the pews of Pastor God Damn America.

THAT is as a searing indictment of Mr. Obama's judgment as it gets.

That he willingly brought two young minds, his own children, to be "educated" by Pastor Wright says all you want know about where Mr. Obama's heart is.

Posted by sue, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Mar 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Hitchens on Obama in Slate Web Link

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests.

But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu.

It would be interesting to know whether her charismatic grandson made her aware that he was about to touch her with his grace and make her famous in this way.

By sheer good fortune, she, too, could be a part of it all and serve her turn in the great enhancement.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm

The horse race among the various candidates (Clinton, Obama, McCain)is interesting, although not quite as exciting as a close finish at Bay Meadows.

My belief is that any of the three candidates will not pull defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. If any one them did so, it would be a major defeat for freedom and hope for the Western world.

I can only attribute the various political polemics to the desire to get elected, at any cost. I believe neither Clinton nor Obama will pull out...they are just telling lies, in order get elected. However, I will vote for McCain, becasue he is telling the truth.

Posted by joel, a resident of Stanford
on Mar 24, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Web Link

If we are going to have a conversation about race let it be based on EVIDENCE not pretty speeches

The U.S. Justice Department provides a breakdown of homicides by the race of both the victim and offender. Looking at the data for 2005 (the latest year available), we find that whites committed 48.0% of all murders and blacks committed 51.2% of all murders.

However, whites outnumber blacks in the population. In fact, non-Hispanic whites are about 69% of the population and blacks are about 13% .

These statistics alone, that blacks are 13% of the population but commit 51.2% of the murders, indicate that blacks commit a seriously disproportionate number of murders.

What we would like to find specifically is the likelihood that a given person is a murderer. The Justice department also provides overall murder rates. In 2004 (last year of available data), 5.9 people were murdered out of every 100,000. Since some of those were multiple murders, let's assume that only 5 people of every 100,000 were murderers. That is, the chance that some person you see on the street will murder someone this year, knowing nothing else, is about 5 in 100,000.------

That is, the chance of just any person you see on the street murdering someone this year is about 5 of 100,000 (assuming you see a random sample of people).

The same chance of a white person is 3.5 of 100,000.

And the same chance for a black person is 19.7 of 100,000.

That means a black person is 5.6 times more likely than a white person to be a murderer.

It is totally rational for a any person (including Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama's grandmother) to fear a black person more than a white one.

In fact, you should fear them 5.6 times more.

Posted by pam, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 24, 2008 at 5:37 pm

this is a ridiculous misreading of statistical data, because it selects out sector demographics and generalizes from them. it's actually a hasty generalization that uses a statistic to make a racist argument

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,731 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,948 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,106 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 6 comments | 1,100 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 689 views