Why Barack is Winning

By Bryan Belrad, published Apr 24, 2008
Published Content: 251  Total Views: 78,582  Favorited By: 27 CPs
Rating: 4.7 of 5
Hillary was supposed to be "the anointed one". As the single most well-known person running for President, and a "woman who actually has a shot", she was considered a shoe-in. It didn't matter what her platform was; nothing could stop her.

Nothing except a newbie Senator from Illinois.

She came prepared with 35 years of experience in how to manipulate the system. She was a beloved First Lady, a Champion of the people, and a well-respected leader. She was the one who was "ready from Day One".

She was never ready for this.

Mike Lupica wrote in today's New York Daily News: "Barack Obama has been better organized, raised more money, won more states, gained more delegates and had a better strategy than Clinton from the start."

He came from behind, taking Iowa by storm with nothing but big dreams, big ideas, and hope - hope that after seven years under a political dictatorship whose polarizing core philosophy can be summed up as 'either you're with me, or you're a terrorist', America might at last be ready to end the partisan feud that has lobotomized us for several decades now.

He spoke of ending the rivalry that has become more important to the political process than the purpose for which it was designed: to govern this nation. In a rally on April 18th, he made the point crystal clear by stating that our so-called leaders have devolved into bickering children, competing in an arena where score is kept based on how many blows one can land on one's opponent, rather than measured by how many problems get solved.

Where Hillary is a master of the political game, ready for anything, she never dreamed that she'd be up against an opponent who won't engage her. He plays by his own rules, engaging the people instead, spreading his message of Change. In the game of politics, Hillary is unbeatable. But Barack Obama isn't playing politics; his kind of Change is a change in the nature of the game; his message is that it's well past time to put an end to it.

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 11 of 11
 
 
You are rather naive. How can anybody look at Hillary Clinton and not realize that she turns with the tides. When she's in Texas, she's Mexican. When she's in Alabama, she's a hillbilly. When she's in Florida, she's an orange farmer. At least Obama is himself no matter where he goes. How many different accents have we heard Hillary use. Isn't she the Senator from New York? Hell, I don't even know anymore!!!

Posted on 05/03/2008 at 9:05:18 AM

 
Vanessa - What polls are you looking at? Everything from NBC to Fox all show that Barack beats McCain in nationwide polls, and with a much higher percentage than Hillary. And as for his "faux pas" - if you've actually heard what he said, instead of the out-of-context tidbit Fox News plays, then you'd realize that his statement was dead-on accurate. It was not an insult, or a patronizing assertation of how 'quaint' rural people are, but an example of how important it is to reach out ot all Americans, that we're all in this together, and that we're all suffering together because of the divisions between us. All of which goes to show he is not so naive as some might like to think - he just plays by an entirely different set of rules. He isn't ignorant of how "the game" works; he just refuses to do things that way. Because he is the only candidate who realizes that healing America is more important than making the other guy look bad.

Posted on 05/03/2008 at 6:05:22 AM

 
The tide is turning. Polls show that Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain in November. Barack is untested and doesn't have enough experience. His recent faux pas demonstrate this with stinging clarity. Unfortunately for Obama and his supporters, his days are numbered.

Posted on 05/02/2008 at 5:05:26 PM

 
I think you're reading a bit much into things. He's winning...that's about it. He'll do as much "fighting", "pointless name-calling", and "rhetoric" as the next guy or girl. But he'd be a good president, which might have something to do with why he's winning.

Posted on 04/30/2008 at 8:04:37 PM

 
Sheryl, your not using information from this website correctly. Seems that you are calculating tax by multiplying entire income by tax bracket percentage. This is not how taxes are calculated. Correctly calculated taxes: In a nutshell, income is divided into several parts and each part is taxed at a different rate. According to 2000 and 2007 rules, taxes for 30,000 single are determined as follows: 2000 $3,780.00 plus 28.00% of taxable income over $27,850.00 http://www.va.gov/publ/direc/finance/00ga2_02Bul.htm 2007 $747.00 plus 15.0% of taxable income over $10,120.00 http://www.va.gov/publ/direc/finance/07ga2_09bul.htm Based on those rules 2000 tax is $4,988 2007 tax is $4,109 The net difference before and after cuts is $879, not $3,900. Tax tables can be checked directly: http://www.irs.gov Link for the year of 2000: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt--2000.pdf Correct tax values for income before deductions is listed at http://www.taxf

Posted on 04/27/2008 at 9:04:57 AM

 
Dr. B, nicely done, as usual. More emotional than your usual stuff, but nice.

Posted on 04/25/2008 at 1:04:44 PM

 
Bishop: You did? I'm sorry to hear that. Next time try going to a University.

Posted on 04/25/2008 at 1:04:13 PM

 
Rev. got a Ph.d in Garbage Disposal

Posted on 04/24/2008 at 4:04:44 PM

 
Great article Bryan. And While I do find it strange the numbers Sheryl Young threw out, I believe no one can toss us more changes than we have already had under the ring leadership of Bush!

Posted on 04/24/2008 at 8:04:40 AM

 
OOPS - these figures didn't post in its original format. I had it in columns and took a chance. Odd as it may seem, The higher taxes mentioned fall under Clinton, and the lower under Bush! Anyone interested can check out that website.

Posted on 04/24/2008 at 8:04:40 AM

 
Great article, Bryan. I fear Obama may have a few too many changes in store for us that will throw us for a loop, but good analysis anyway. I totally agree about JFK. By the way, I just found these interesting statistics at www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html: Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008 Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $ 4,500 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K - tax $ 9,000 What do you make of that?

Posted on 04/24/2008 at 8:04:58 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 11 of 11
 
Most Commented On