Read other letters about this article
No, the reason why we lost in 2004 was because the party was in shambles and couldn't make up its mind as to what it wanted to represent. Kerry was the choice of a party that didn't know to sell itself.
Why are you treating the "person who can win" and "the person who will lead America best" as two separate entities? Who in their right mind would vote for someone they really believed was a loser?!
Hey, if a dumbass can get elected twice, why not someone who's actually more competent, with more experience than anyone else in the field, and who enjoys good relations with many Dems? All I'm saying is that beating McCain will not be a walk in the park. I wish it wasn't so, but I'm not fooling myself.
Obama's not some young punk upstart anymore. He's someone who's actually winning over voters who normally lean Republican. Coastal victories do not a president make!
From Slate:
Tonight's results crushed that argument. Even if you don't count Obama's caucus victories in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, and North Dakota, he shattered his previous white-vote ceiling in 11 other states. In eight states, he crossed the 40 percent threshold. In Connecticut, he tied Clinton among whites. In California, he beat her. In Utah and Illinois, he won commanding majorities.
I don't mean to oversell what Obama accomplished tonight. It's easier to ascend from the 20 percents to the 40 percents when you've got only one opponent left. It's easier to climb from 30 percent to 40 percent than from 40 percent to 50 percent. And it's easier to win support from white Democrats than from white Republicans. But when you look at Obama's numbers tonight and compare them to Jackson's numbers 20 years ago, you're looking at a sea change. This is not a diversity-training exercise. It's a nationwide primary to choose the next president of the United States. The American color barrier, at its highest level, is collapsing.