It appears that I was not far from the thoughts of many people when I wrote my previous blogs about Obama. Listening to some TV pundits, and reading a few columnists in today's paper, I found the same sentiments about which I had written.

So to continue in that vein, there are a couple of subjects needing remarking. The first is the dysfunctional Democrat party. Its caucus system and primary system is totally screwed up, re: awarding of delegates in both, and time allowed for voting in the former. From what I remember, the idea of proportioning delegates came from Jesse Jackson in 1980, which, as we find, was an unfortunately accepted suggestion.

The other comment is about what the primary and caucus wins for Obama really mean. Since most of his wins in both the caucuses and primaries come from exceedingly heavy support from black voters and/or independents, does that represent the majority of Democrat voters, and/or all voters in this country? Or does it represent the raising of the hue and cry from one group of ethnic voters combined with the idealism of young and very liberal voters? The two groups are not the same – one is black voters voting for a black man – the other is a group of voters who believe that life can be changed like linking to another web page. Both reasons are not sound – neither from a realistic nor pragmatic point of view.

Obama's main topics are “I was against invading Iraq”, and now, apparently, possibly the economy, though it's hard to tell. His Iraq statement is currently meaningless, because, if he should be nominated and elected, what he was against, in the safety of not being a Senator who would have had to vote on the issue (an he hasn't voted on much of anything else during his term in office), doesn't mean a diddly thing. He will need a very strong understanding and appreciation for what has to be done – of how to remove troops – which will take at least 5-6 years – in a way in which America will both save face and not be under a threat from those running Iraq.

It's really aggravating that the American people cannot be told the truth, for fear of losing elections. When Bill Clinton mentioned that if it were not for LBJ, Martin Luther King's desire for the Civil Rights Act would not have gone through Congress. That statement, as correct as it was, was considered “dissing” black Americans, who used it as an excuse to leave the Clintons and vote en masse for Obama. Mentioning that, however, brings up the charge of racism, which, of course, has Democrats cringing in fear. Truth has been the tool of the righteous, but these days, the only righteous appear to be those who deny truth.

The Democrats have an opportunity to regain the White House, but like many football teams, it's the last couple of mistaken plays that cost the game. Unless the Democrat voters understand that reality is more important that hopeful dreaming, it's liable to be a long, long road to Tipperary.