Now however, fissures have undeniably appeared in the armor of the Messiah. Following the revelations about Rev Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama lost the white vote to Hillary Clinton in every single primary thereafter except for Oregon. In fact, given the way he limped across the finish line, one has to believe that he would probably have lost the primary fight had the Reverend Wright issue come to the fore earlier in the season. The problem is that ALL of these things, Michelle Obama's ill advised campaign remarks , Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and last, but certainly not least the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, have caused people to actually LOOK at Barack Obama and therein resides the flaw. For the more people see of the Senator, the thinner he wears on them. The "spellbinding" speaker quickly disappears once he moves away from the teleprompter, and when questioned on the specifics of any issue now that primary season is over, the Senator displays a decided lack of command of the facts.

Realizing that their man's resume` is thinner than a dessert wafer, the Obama campaign orchestrated an overseas trip in an attempt to cast him in the role of head of State and make him look presidential. It has failed miserably. The "bounce " Senator Obama experienced has seemingly disappeared less than a week since his return and even when his poll numbers vs. Senator McCain were at their best he never broke 50% and in my opinion he never will.

Look, I agree that this is a Democratic year. However, with the exception of George H.W. Bush who really won Reagan's third term, no party has held the White House for more than two consecutive terms since FDR and Harry Truman. So if history is a guide, the Democratic nominee should win, but this presupposes that the Democratic nominee is at least plausible as President. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the American people don't feel that Senator Obama is. He is a 46 year old man asking to be given the biggest, most important job in the entire world and he has no signature achievement to show as qualification for the position he now seeks. I predict that there WILL be a backlash against Republicans this year, but it will not manifest itself in the Presidential Race. Instead, despite the dismal performance of the Democratic Congress, the American electorate will express their dissatisfaction with Republicans by handing the Democrats increases in their majorities in both houses while entrusting the Presidency to someone they feel has both the experience and judgment to comprehend and discharge the duties that devolve upon that office, Senator John McCain. At the end of the day, I do not believe the American people will assign the toughest job in the world to a man who has lead a charmed life, is still trying to find himself and has never held a real job.

Now for just a second, let's analyze his appeal to voters. He definitely has several votes from Republicans. Reason being is that there is no other candidate that can win the presidency from that party. The Republican Party had no choice. They selected McCain. I personally believe they should have chosen former mayor of New York, Rudy Guliana. But that's another article. McCain has no appeal to Independents, minorities, women and even some of the people within his own party. Let's face it; no one really can connect with McCain. His persona isn't that of a president. He doesn't even unify people.

In retrospect, Obama has grasped many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. This brings me back to my ultimate question. Can Barack Obama capture the White House? I say, you darn right, he can!" We are at a historical moment in America. He even appeals to white men. He will win a percentage of Republicans. I believe that they will crossover and vote for Obama. This man is a unifier; he's intelligent, shrewd and popular with the American people. Obama represents all color lines. He suffered brutal attacks from Hillary Clinton during his vie for the Democratic nomination. Each time, he was able to get back on his feet. In addition, many of Hillary's main delegates, supporters and the like came out of nowhere to endorse Obama. Now that was definitely historical! Several historical events have been set. It is time for America to set a main historical event. We will have our first president of African -American decent. He is Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. In answering my question, Obama will win the presidency!

Senator Clinton did not win the nomination, but she was a strong candidate, and as she said, now it will not be, so out of the ordinary, to have a woman or an African American, run as President. Mrs. Clinton had, as she had mentioned many times before, received seventeen million votes, in the primary election, which was extra-ordinary. Every time that fact is mentioned, I think to myself, but, there are two hundred million Americans, in the United States, and the Obama campaign and the Democrats in general, have been registering and will be registering, new voters, revitalizing old voters, converting Republicans to Democrats, and basically energizing young people, as has never been seen before. So my point is, by November, there will be many, many more potential voters, who will determine the future of the country.

Senators Obama and Clinton, held a private meeting on Thursday evening, at the home of Senator Diane Feinstein, in Washington, D. C., after eluding, the press corps, leaving them waiting on a plane for Senator Obama, who never showed up, and having the plane take off, while Senator Obama was on his way, to a meeting with Senator Clinton, in an undisclosed location, quite shrew, on both their parts. The meeting lasted for about an hour according to reports, and both left the meeting laughing, so it evidently went as well, as could be expected.

On Saturday, Senator Clinton, stated that she would do everything she could, to make sure that Senator Obama, will be the next President of the United States, and she encouraged her supporters, to go forward and back the Senator, as strongly as they had backed her campaign. She praised Senator Obama, for being strong, and tenacious. She said she was determined to see Senator Obama, walk through the doors of the White House, in January, 2009. Senator Clinton suspended her campaign, and threw her total effort behind, the presumptive democratic nominee, she mentioned that the party was a family, and that she and Obama, had much more in common, with each other, than either of them had in common, regarding policies and issues, with Senator John McCain. Senator Clinton, stated, that she would be joining with Senator Obama, in believing and saying, “yes we can!”

This speech was one of, if not the best speech, Senator Clinton, has ever made during her campaign, it was very well received, by her supporters, and by those who watched it. It was gracious and seemed very sincere, and as one person noted, she probably could not have made this speech, with the same fervor, on Tuesday evening, as she did on Saturday. She united her supporters behind Senator Obama, as best she could, now Senator Obama will have to reach out continuously to those, who were looking to Senator Clinton for leadership, and let them know that he is listening to them and he will promote their issues and allay the fears and concerns, that they have. This was a great first step toward the further uniting of the Democratic party.

The Obama campaign showed its gratitude immediately, by issuing a statement, that he was thrilled, to have her support, and putting up a large advertisement, on the Obama web site, thanking Senator Clinton, for her endorsement and her support. It now appears, that all is well in the family, and they are all ready, to go forward and win in November.

Instead of talking about his pastor, we should be discussing his qualities as our next president. We should be trying to find out about his leadership ability, style, his stance about the war, economy, balancing the budget, and foreign affairs. The average American, even in the Ghetto, could care less about his pastor. More importantly, Obama's former pastor. They want to know, how am I going to get to work to make the little money that I am making or how am I going to feed my children? What is the government going to do about Healthcare for my children/family? These are the key issues the average American is concerned about. I encourage everyone, don’t listen to the hype! We don’t care, he’s not our pastor. And if he was, let his church deal with that. There’s nothing different about him than the Catholic priests molesting little boys.

Barack Obama's call is for “change in America” and he proclaims to be the agent of change. No more of the old Washington "politics as usual" is his refrain. None of the ineffective "old" ways of doing business in our capitol. No more partisanship; he will reach out across the isle to get things done, to initiate "change". We need something and someone new there he insists. We need "change" and he is the one to bring it. Fast! There almost seems to be a new "change" befitting the audience at every campaign stop.

But what does that all mean? What types of change? How radical will those changes be? How will he accomplish them? Most importantly, how much will those changes cost us as individual taxpayers? These are just a few of the questions we must have answers to before we can decide if Obama is the right choice for the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Herein lies the rub. Obama has given us few all inclusive details of the nature of the change he says is coming, if elected. In fact, that is the very nature of Obama - we know so little of what to expect for we know so little about him which is substantive. We do know he is an artist with words and gives moving and persuasive speeches. That we do know. No, they aren't "just words", I suspect; it is his way of saying those words which motivates us to him. It makes us feel better to listen to him and his positive, uplifting message. We need more. Hillary says so all the time when she reprimands him for giving “speeches and not solutions.”

A very confusing thing about Barack Obama is that we know so little about him, really. Oh, we hear all the good things and high honors he accomplished while attending Harvard, how he was on the streets of Chicago "organizing?", his tenure in the State Legislature of Illinois. He has been in the United States Senate for two years. Hardly enough time to understand the complexities of getting things done on Capitol Hill. However, as he says, “…long enough to know the ways of Washington must change.”

Do any of these things - or all of them totaled up - qualify him to lead the most powerful and influential nation in the world? Hillary says, “No!” So do others which is why the "Clinton Machine" has used "experience" throughout her campaign comparing her level of it with his lack thereof. Her speeches and the "Clinton Machine" ads are unrelenting in bringing this to the attention of the voters. It, finally, may be having an effect as voters put aside their emotional attachment and take a second look.

Obama has made recent gaffs that may have cost him Texas and Ohio. He got tied up with the NAFTA issue to the point he plainly stated that he would rescind that nefarious trade agreement and start over. Then, supposedly, someone from his campaign organization met with Canadian government representatives to poo - poo that statement as just "campaign rhetoric". Not to worry, they reportedly assured Canada. NAFTA was safe. It was made public as a fact. Obama denied it at first and then it turns out there may have been an element of truth to that story. Hillary leaped all over it. I am not certain what the real truth in that matter is. If Obama really believes he can and will rescind NAFTA, he'd best clarify his stance - and soon. He seems to have backed off that issue as too volatile and that hurt him in Ohio. (Again, The Clinton Machine led by Hillary, jumped all over it.)

One change, and gaff, he has been unequivocal on is that he will end the Iraq war and bring the troops home almost immediately upon taking office. A comforting idea. Not easily done in the near future without disastrous consequences. No matter your feelings on the war or how we got there, abandoning the current battle will leave Iraq in turmoil, set the dogs of radical Islamism loose, and set fire to the vast oil rich Middle East in all probability. Ending the war and withdrawal of all US forces is a noble goal; it must be accomplished with extreme care. Barack has promised a "change" here, too: precipitous withdrawal disregarding the consequences. (McCain will nail him to the wall on this issue alone!)

Barack Obama began his campaign for President with the well founded assumption that the American people were disgusted with the status quo and wanted "change". He was so right in his belief that the American people by and large have lost all faith and confidence in Washington politicians. There is malaise in the land evidenced by the slightly over 20% approval rating given to Congress by the American people in poll after poll. It isn't getting better as promise by the Democrats when they took office a year ago. It, in fact, has gotten worse aided and abetted by the petty political posturing and squabbling on a daily basis in our nation's halls of government. The American people lack faith in our elected officials getting anything done for them. They are disillusioned that promises made have not been kept. There is the notion to "throw the bums out!"

Obama has capitalized on these feelings and has swept through the country winning primary after primary against the assumed automatic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and has fared exceptionally against the once thought invincible "Clinton Machine". He leads in all categories of numbers based on his popularity and his filling a need in the populace for something new in Washington - anything but what we have, a new face in the crowd, someone bold and young with new and refreshing ideas. That has sustained him to date. Can it last?

Words in themselves will not suffice for him to maintain his momentum and lead. My suggestion to Barack Obama, if he is to convince me of his being "the right choice", is to be specific about the changes he proposes, detail them and outline how he will accomplish them, be honest in laying out the costs, and, of all things, be sincere . He must show us where the money will come from for these changes. There is no doubt that what he proposes will be stingingly expensive in the short term. And divisive.

He must rethink some of the statements he has made including the rescinding of NAFTA and the strategy of precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The worst thing that could happen to him when, in the initial first days in the White House, he has to renege on these changes, or try to explain away not being able to get them initiated. He would be damaged by that and the voters who chose him would second guess their vote for him as "the right choice".

Barack might heed what one time Presidential aspirant, Adlai E. Stevenson, no slouch when it came to politics, once said: “Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he has to eat them.”

The Democrats should and must win this election after suffering two embarrassing defeats at the hands of the incompetent idiot that is George Bush. To lose to such a character is an utter disgrace. Some people may attempt to blame the people of this nation for such a catastrophe to occur. I disagree vehemently and am, in fact, angered by such notions. The blame rests instead entirely on the leadership of the Democratic party. To lose in the way in which Al Gore did is acceptable. To lose by nominating John Kerry, a candidate who stood no chance of winning, being a far too left leaning extreme liberal from Massachusetts, is unacceptable. The leadership of the Democratic party is nominating their favorite candidate instead of the candidate who stands the best chance of winning and in doing so allowing somebody like George Bush to get elected.

The Democratic party leadership needs to put away their ultra-liberal agenda, which they have no hope of ever enacting, and sacrifice their selfish personal whims for the good of their party and the good of the nation. They must instead try to connect with average Americans, and particularly voters, who are slightly more conservative in nature. This means nominating a more moderate candidate who stands a better chance of winning. This is not the election to experiment with an extremely liberal woman nominee from New York in Hillary Clinton, or a liberal, so-called black nominee from Chicago. Barack Obama is black in skin tone only. He lived his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia in the presence of mainly whites and few blacks.

He then went on to Harvard. I would even go so far as to say that John Edwards has more in common with the average black person than does Obama. He comes from modest backgrounds and worked tirelessly to get into a public university. The town where John Edwards grew up had a much higher portion of blacks than anywhere that Barack Obama grew up. And Edwards stood up and supported the integration process and reached out to the black community when he was younger at a time when it was not socially acceptable for whites to do so.

My main contention in this paper is that plain and simple John Edwards is the most electable Democratic candidate. And to me that is all that matters because any Democrat's policy is better than that of any of the Republicans. It is easy to see why John Edwards is the most electable candidate. He would win all the states that Obama and Clinton would win in the electoral vote (which is currently all that matters) plus other states that they would never compete in. Edwards would win all the same liberal strongholds that Democrats always win, which are for the most part the northeast, the pacific coast and the states surrounding the great lakes. He would in addition, however compete in more conservative areas such as the South, the Midwest and the old northwest (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois).

John Edwards would most certainly win in his home state of North Carolina, which is more than either Clinton or Obama can say, and I predict he could win Arkansas, a state whose U.S. congressman are all Democrats, whose senators are all Democrats and whose governor is a Democrat, as well as Louisiana, a state that also has a large Democratic base. People seem to right off the South as a Republican stronghold. This is not true in my mind. The Democratic party is and always has been the party of the South. The Democrats just need to nominate better candidates to gain support there.

I hope it is now clear to anybody who has read this article what the Democratic party's strategy should be. Nominate John Edwards and win the election. The results do not lie. The last three presidents that were Democrats were all from the South (Johnson, Carter, and Clinton). I no longer want to see victories for the Ultra-conservatives who only want to conserve their own power and well being, or pathetic defeats suffered by the Ultra-liberals who stand no chance of winning.

It is instead time for a victory for the common American. I do not believe that the common American is found far to the left or right in the political spectrum, but somewhere in the middle. That is why I believe John Edwards, a populist, (socially conservative, yet liberal in providing government service to struggling Americans) best represents America's voters and should be nominated by the Democratic party to win the next presidential election and help the common American.