Saturday, January 26, 2008

Political Blogging - Obama's Fourth Win

If delegates are what decide nominations then Barack Obama won his fourth straight showing last night in South Carolina garnering 25 of 45 unpledged state delegates. Though poised to win the state contest, few expected such a routing where Obama carried 55% of the popular vote compared to Clinton who claimed only half that much with 27%.

During the commotion of the South Carolina returns it was announced that Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late president John F. Kennedy, was endorsing Obama’s candidacy. The op-ed will run in the Sunday edition of the New York Times, movingly entitled, “A President Like My Father”.

Update: Ted Kennedy will be endorsing Barack Obama's campaign, making the announcement Monday in Washington D.C., before the State of the Union. The news comes even after MSNBC pundits perdicted that the very senior Senator would stay out of the race. Obama now has both senators from Massachusetts supporting his campaign. Senator John Kerry threw his support behing Obama three weeks ago. Massachusetts holds its primary on February 5th.

The Obama victory speech was much like his Iowa speech; stirring, inspiring and quintessentially, hopefully. Again consider that unpledged delegates are what win nominations this will be the fourth straight victory for Obama: who won in Iowa, tied in New Hampshire, won in Nevada and who has now swept South Carolina.


As Florida has no delegates, the next contests will be on February 5th where over twenty states will hold primaries.

With such momentum behind Barack Obama it is hard to foresee an end to the campaign even after the dishing out of super-Tuesday delegates. Will Edwards play the kingmaker?

Lastly, Governor Crist of Florida has endorsed McCain, seemingly sealing the deal for John McCain’s run in Florida where Mayor Giuliani pegged his presidential promises on winning. The endorsement also fueled speculation that Crist might be John McCain running-mate if he captures the nomination.

4 comments:

Hellernot said...

I understand your enthusiasm but dare I temper it with the fact that the polls still show Paula Jones’s ex-boyfriend’s wife with a large lead—nationally? Sure Osama (Kennedy’s word—not mine) has the momentum but these things tend to change.
I further understand this deep desire to have the R’s nominate McCain but it’s time for some honesty in that regard. The only reason MSM is pushing for that is they realize if it is McCain then the conservatives will go play golf and say to hell with it. I think that would be a shame----the same as I wrote to you in 2000 when it looked like the D’s were going to implode---I told you at that time that I thought that would be a shame.
You see I’m real big on this whole two party thing. I not only think it healthy but absolutely essential. Besides I’m nothing if not consistent.

Karin said...

I just have a few words - not neccesarily on this particular posting but on the blog in its entirity. I was told to search for this and with certain enthusiasm I was hoping for blogs about religion - catholisism (with which I will soon be involved), atheism (which I have yet to accept), and the inbeween "agnostic" (with which I have the least explaining to do since I was raised southern baptist)

Seeing this is no surprise since I know you're loving the election year and love political debate. I have only one thing to say about all this (and no I will not be voting) - I don't think we should EVER have women who stay with cheating husbands, men with muslim relatives or names, or southern baptists running for any type of government position. Well, except for the military or school system.

Either way as long as they all leave me the hell alone and keep abortions legal - I'm happy :)

The Catholic Atheist said...

Dear Carolina readers:

Thanks for the dampening effects of healthy moderation, seriously.

First, Hellernot:
John McCain is the closet conservative the same as Hillary saying she's a moderate (watch if she's given the all powerful second term).

However, I think you'd fine that McCain is a viable candidate; see this amazing answer he gives (I'm not saying I agree with it)on immigration - its brilliant rhetoric. ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-nVJGsTdKU).

Second, Karin:
I am sorry my blog disappoints. Most of my articles have and are on Catholicism and Christianity, writ large, but recently it has also been an outlet for my political zeal. If you check out the blog entries that do not say, 'Political blogging' you may be a bit happy with the content. May I recommend "Jesus Is Not 'Real'", "Rooting for Religion", "Where have all the Crosses Gone?" oh, and especially, "Why Not Catholic?".

Turning to your vibrant and vivid political consternation may I just implore you in a loving and familial way to still vote.

Also, I agree I want them to keep abortion legal. Nevertheless, your criteria for nixing a presidential candidate seems unduly broad.

1) Though I worry about infidelity, I also worry about the rise of 'no-fault divorce' about the permissible dissolvability of marriage. Marriage being more contract than covenant; when a contract is broken legal justice is to be rendered, if a covenant is broken it is to mended and renewed. (That's my Catholic side coming out).

2) You also mention that 'men with Muslim relatives or names' should be disallowed to run for public office. This is a tricky statement. First, it is important to remember that Islam shares many of the same texts as Christians (and Jews), specifically the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures). Because of this many Islamic names crossover with 'Christian' names; e.g. Adam, Seth, Zachariah, Abraham, Aaron, Dan, Ezra, Jacob, Samuel.

Further, your reasoning (though not espoused explicitly) seem to be contradictory; why no Muslims, but Christians are fine, but then Christian ministers not? Are 'regular' Christian just not as religious fervent as Muslims? It paints a huge generality. Plus, Obama is Muslim he's Christian, he attends a Church in Chicago, which I have visited.

Also, the first Muslim was elected into the U.S. Congress in 2006.

Finally, I will probably get back to writing about theology and the Mother Church as soon as the democratic nominee has been secure - though way things are going that might be awhile.

Thanks for reading! Please feel free to tell me why I am wrong and a bleeding-heart liberal.

Hellernot said...

You see—there is hope! “Leave me the hell alone” is the mantra to the Republican cult. It is amazing that when people (over 40) are pressed on this—it is what they always come back to—“Leave me alone government!” And really what is so wrong with that? (Think Fair Tax)
I can’t agree about McCain—I believe he left the closet several years ago but I do agree about Anita Broderick’s rapist’s wife. One term is still way too scary and two is absolutely unthinkable. (I still can’t imagine Bill Clinton back in our White House—won’t he at some point run out of women to victimize?)
Also your right about “no-fault divorce”—it is out of whack—but I really don’t know that the system before was really any better.
You may be a bleeding heart liberal but if Karin doesn’t know it yet---I know better than to challenge you on those things biblical—I’ll wait for your first Fair Tax post or your first Civil War post---I’ll be all over that!