Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I'd love to see this man run. He's well-spoken, articulate and I agree with a lot of his positions. Plus, he's the first politician in a long time that inspires people. To me, he's not the "lesser of two evils" but someone that I actually would like to see as President. Come the primary in early '08, he gets my vote.

I like what I see so far too.

Theres similar threads here:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=38903.0

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=37829.0

Personally, I like him plenty and hes easily the most talented politician since Bill Clinton.  Hes inspirational on a John F. Kennedy level.  Hes a freshman senator as hell remind you, but he hasnt proven to be much of a leader in the Senate.  And I dont like his Democrat-criticizing centrist posturing.  To me, his experience level is a non-issue, and I think hell use the approach I think he should use to counter that criticism - fellow Illinoisan Abraham Lincoln had only had state legislative experience and one term as a representative before becoming president.  Im concerned about his ability to win, but nevertheless, hes a close-second to John Edwards for my choice.

 

He's one of the few rising stars the Dems have to their name these days. I really like the guy. Sharp, well-spoken, intelligent man. But I don't think he's got the experience, not so much in terms of legislative experience or ideas - very little of that is required to be President, as Bush Jr and Reagan have proved - but in that Karl Rove & Co will be able to rip him to shreds in the slander wars, based on his lack of time in government, and the chance that he wouldn't have a thick enough skin on him to fight back. That, and I can't see a visible minority ever being elected president of the USA, not during my lifetime anyway. I'd love for Obama  to prove me wrong though! I say give him another few years...  '08 is going to be a rugged time to take over the presidency anyway, after the mess Bush has left behind...

is he anti-gay marriage?

no don't worry , you can get married ....








oh man ! that was funny !!! ? wasnt it ?

hes against the term "gay marriage", but is pro civil union/benefits if I'm not mistaken.

hes not even been in the senate 1 term, what makes him qualified to be president of the United Sates??? a good orater is all that he is..

Bill Clinton was never a senator, or a member of the house.

Hillary has only had one full term in the Senate.

Learn a little about the guy, and his policy and ideas, before you chalk him up to simply being a good public speaker...

The problem with Obama is that no one can say for sure his stance on alot of issues.  He's very vague most times (as are most politicians).  Clinton was the governor of Arkansas and had executive experience.  While Hilary herself was not, she had 8 years of living the executive process as well as 6 years of being a very public senator.  I don't think Obama will be able to handle the scrutiny that the Clintons and most Dems will put him under once the primaries get serious.  At this point I think Hillary is going to be the Dem's front runner and using Obama is a possibility as a VP.  Gore is a sleeper candidate if he runs, but I think he's alienated too much of the population to be a real contender.  Hillary has done a great job of moving to the center to try and remove the "liberal" stigma. 

In the end I think it's going to be Hillary with Obama and McCain with Guiliani (sp?).

If i were American, i would probably vote for him.  Mainly because i dislike just about everyone else who's in the running, and this guy looks pretty astute.

Unless there's a big change in the GOP they won't get one vote from me.  I could see me voting for Clark or maybe Edwards, but I doubt it.  I'm just going to throw away my vote and go Libertarian the whole way through.

True, to an extent.  He's made some stump speeches, though, and there's a lot of meat to them.  In addition...the guy has about a year to make his case and get word of "the rest" of his stances out there.  Not knowing for sure what his stances are doesn't preclude his ability to govern...just his ability to get elected.


Actually, I've found just the opposite.  I think he's much more open, and free speaking, than most politicians.  He hasn't had the opportunity to address his position on a good number of issues...but that will change quickly if/when he announces an intent to seek the party nom.  But I've never found him to be vague.


Granted.  But that's not what was said.  And one term in the senate is a pretty good litmus, all things considered...and it's been an active first term.   He does have experience in government and public service.  He has a legal background, and probably a better understanding of the constitution, and constitutional  law than our current president.  He also has a history, both in his State Senate and in the US Senate of working both sides of the aisle.


From all accounts, the guy has no skeletons.  That's what makes him such a good choice to be at the forefront of the party.  He's not a far left wing liberal, he's kept his nose clean, and there's not much, reportedly, for the Repubs to scrutinize.


I think both those tickets would be the parties best.  I do agree that Obama could benefit from more seasoning (I'm not sure he NEEDS it, though), and a run as VP would set him up well for a future run at the Oval office.  And I think he might, if he lost in the primaries, accept a #2 position...especially considering his ideology and Hillary's aren't too far afield.  McCain and Guiliani, I think, is a longshot of a ticket.  I think it would be the best ticket the Repubs could field, and that may sway Rudy..but I suspect he has no desire to play 2nd fiddle to anyone...not at this point in his career.

Alot of people are advocating a McCain and Rice ticket, but I think it would be suicide.? McCain has done a good job distancing himself from Bush but still being labled a Republican.? Quite a feat considering 4 years ago every Rightwinger was calling him a Rhino.? Cause Bush has fucked up so bad, he gave McCain the edge he needed and McCain played it perfectly by not attacking Bush.? As of now McCain is the only candidate the Republicans can offer that I'm interested in.? He was my second choice after Alan Keyes in the 2000 election.  Anyone who has shit to do with Bush is tainted goods.

We definitely agree on that.  McCain vs Hillary would give me pause.  I'm not sure, at this point, who I'd vote for.   The sticking factor would probably be who McCain chose as his VP...and only because of his age.  McCain/Rudy would pretty much be the only repub ticket I can fathom that has a chance at garnering my vote...and a pretty good chance at that.  Though a Hillary/Obama ticket would be just as strong.  For the first time in quite awhile I think the US would be in a win/win situation instead of a lose/lose situation.

I don't understand the popularity of this man, personally. I still know very little about him, and am not sure why he appeals to some people - but to each their own

I think the Democrats are scared of having to nominate Hillary, so they're starting the buzz about Obama

I believe McCain is going to be the next president of the United States and don't be surprised to see either Guiliani or even Lieberman get the VP nod, once the primaries are through and sorted out.

I hear Kerry is considering another run, which I think would be a disaster - That man should go away already

hes not going to be another war crazed man is he?

 ???

Yes, in 2000.  Hes been a staunch Bush ally for the past three years, except for one or two issues, and his media-peddled maverick status has suffered a bit.  Given how much the media loves the guy, thats quite a feat. 

(http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/1-mccain_bush_hug.jpg)



The establishment may support him, but base conservatives still dont care for him. 


Cant argue this.  McCains my bet for the nomination, but hes certainly not a sure shot. 


I recall you saying something about aligning with extremists...

MOST republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush... Bush brought down the Republican party with his "fuckups"

really, im not too fond of anyone on either side at this point..

the "term"???

so the answer to my question is YES.

I guess it is.  Did he just lose your vote?

Hes also been very vocal about sending MORE troops to Iraq and has pandered to the religious right.  I used to be a big McCain fan until that - talk about a sell out.  Still, as one person has said, I view 2008 as a win/win.  The next pres will likely be fairly moderate.

So what do the democrats in here think about Obama's view on gay marriage?  I have been called a biggot in this forum for expressing the same view.

I was 18 at the time and the flat tax was (and still is) very appealing.? I just remembered him being very well spoken at the first debates.? I wouldn't vote for him now, but at the time I thought he was great.? When he went the way of the dodo I supported McCain.? And for the first 5 years Bush as well, but you can only give someone so many chances and so much leadway.? Kind of how I feel right now with Axl Rose and Chinese Democracy.

personally i feel there should be gay marriage, but is it a hot issue for me? far, far from it.  in the big picture of things, for me, this is about as important an issue as flag burning and abortion - its just not really that important at the moment given everything else going on in our country and abroad.  Issues like the economy, Iraq, terrorism, healthcare and the environment to name a few are what I'll look at when I decide who I'm voting for in 08. 

I THINK Rudy G. is in favor of gay marriage, does that change Repubs views of him???

As for Obama, I really don't know a ton about him - I have read a few interviews and exceprts of his book and he strikes me as someone who could be a great leader, very intelligent and a great speaker - but it'll take more then that to lead America into the next decade so, we'll see.

I don't think hes kept his nose clean...literally.? I think it was his first book where he mentioned he experimented with pot and coke.? But we already have two presidents who have dabbled in both so I don't think it will effect him too much.

Every election it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. So what's it going to be?






A little secret...(It doesn't really matter that much). :o

nice attempt at spinning your original reply.

actually, i like obama even more now.

i don't recall guliani ever saying he is for gay marriage. was this a recent change on his stance? because i remember hearing him state his support for civil unions. but he's a politician so nothing would surprise me. ?

I attribute most of his popularity to being a relatively young, handsome, exciting speaker with an inspiring story and equally inspiring rhetoric.  Personality obviously goes a long way, and hes easily one of the most likable politcians there is.  As Ive said before, I dont know of any conservatives that genuinely dislike him beyond the fact that hes a Democrat.  It seems that theyre currently begin to train themselves to dislike him as his candidacy becomes a reality.
eve


Why would they be scared to nominate Hillary?  If they didnt want to nominate her, they wouldnt have to, theyd simply nominate someone else. 

If youre referring to the grassroots whod rather not see her nominated, I propose that Obamas buzz is independent of Hillary.  Hed be getting this buzz if she wasnt running simply because they genuinely like him. 


I have a hard time seeing Giuliani on any national Republican ticket.  I also doubt Republicans will look outside the party for the VP nomination - Lieberman might have a place on the dopey Unity '08 ticket if one actually comes to fruition.  McCain may be the nominee, but like I said, hes not guaranteed anything.  He might have been unbeatable a few years back, but I dont believe thats the case now.

i choose republican as the less of two evils, therefore i dont like this guy. however i am a former supporter of Bush and he has let me down greatly, as he has with most other republicans. I will however vote for republicans my whole life because that its the way i sway, and the party i prefer. i dont find this guy handsome At all and just wish someone could point out to me what part of him is handsome exactly? which by the way should NOT determine who you vote for, unless you dont give a shit and your just voting to say you voted, and then you vote based on things like looks, and so forth.


and now let the bashing on me begin...

Im sure the 109th Congress made things better for you...maybe youd like to share some of its merits with us?

The Democratic 110th has yet to begin, but the improvements have already begun:

Democrats Freeze Earmarks for Now
Leaders Want Lobbying Changes Enacted


By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 12, 2006; A03

Democratic leaders declared a temporary moratorium on special-interest provisions known as earmarks as they attempt to cope with a budget crisis left by the outgoing Republican-led 109th Congress.

Congress adjourned early Saturday, having completed work on two of the 11 spending bills for the 2007 fiscal year that began Oct. 1. As a short-term fix, lawmakers extended current funding levels until Feb. 15. But the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees announced yesterday that they would extend current levels until the 2008 fiscal year begins next Oct. 1.

The alternative was to attempt to finish work on the spending bills when the Democratic-led Congress convenes in January, a dreaded prospect that could have derailed Democratic legislative efforts and stirred up policy battles around the same time that President Bush is due to submit his fiscal 2008 budget to the Hill, along with a large supplemental spending request for the Iraq war.

The new chairmen, Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.) and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), said in a statement: "While the results will be far from ideal, this path provides the best way to dispose of the unfinished business quickly, and allow governors, state and local officials, and families to finally plan for the coming year with some knowledge of what the federal government is funding."

They also said they would place a moratorium on all earmarks until lobbying changes are enacted. Those special spending provisions included in the unfinished fiscal 2007 bills will be eligible for consideration next year, the chairmen said, subject to new standards.

"We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress," the chairmen said.

The unfinished bills account for about $463 billion in annual spending and include just about every domestic program other than defense and homeland security.

The announcement appears to be a victory for conservative budget reformers, such as Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.), who circulated a petition last week calling for a resolution that would extend funding through the rest of the year, but without earmarks. That petition, however, called for all domestic programs to be funded at the lowest levels called for in either the House or Senate versions.

In contrast, Obey and Byrd indicated that they would seek adjustments in spending levels to satisfy Democrats and moderate Republicans who were upset by the austere funding bills passed by the House Appropriations Committee. In particular, the measure to fund labor, health and education programs fell billions of dollars short of the Senate-approved levels, and the levels that even many House Republicans said were acceptable.

The biggest victory would be for those lawmakers who have crusaded against earmarks, or home-district pet projects. Virtually all of the bills that pass the Senate and House appropriations committees contain such projects. For the fiscal year that began in October and will end Sept. 30, the slate will be wiped clean.

Obey and Byrd noted that the last time Congress passed all appropriation bills separately and on schedule, and got them signed by the president in time for the next fiscal year, was in 1994, the last year they both served as chairmen. In November 1994, a month after the 1995 fiscal year began, Republicans won control of Congress.

For more or less every year since the takeover, the GOP has struggled to produce a smooth succession of spending bills, creating strained relations between the more ideologically minded Republican leadership in both chambers and their more practical-minded appropriations colleagues. Most recently, the Senate has been the stubborn obstacle, with Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) refusing to advance spending bills during a hard-fought election year.

Those tensions bubbled to the surface on the House floor as lawmakers wrapped up their business early Saturday. "The breakdown of regular order this cycle, indeed the failure to get our bills done, should be fairly placed at the feet of the departing Senate majority leader," said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), the outgoing House Appropriations Committee chairman.

Lewis noted that his panel passed each of the 11 subcommittee bills out of the full committee by June 30, and, with the exception of a giant bill that funds health and education programs, all of the bills off the House floor by the July 4 break. The Senate also passed each of its bills out of the full committee, only to see them run aground on the Senate floor.

Obamas latest statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WJsuM19-8c&eurl=

At the conservative blog Redstate.com, blogger Rick Moran writes:

Obama: The Empty Vessel

I have not written about my home state Senator Barak Obama previously to this. Generally speaking, I don't write about obscure left wing politicians much anyway unless they do or say something hilariously stupid. But this recent boomlet for Senator Obama seems to have taken everyone by surprise. And still more than a year away from the first Presidential primaries and caucuses, it amazes me so little information has been disseminated about this likable, thoughtful man.

First, it must be said that a Democratic corpse plucked from a Chicago graveyard could have won the race for Illinois Senator in 2004. You might recall that the Republican nominee Jack Ryan was forced to withdraw 4 months before the election following revelations contained in child custody documents relating to Ryan's divorce from actress Jeri Ryan (the sexiest Borg in the Star Trek Universe) that he forced the comely actress to go to sex clubs with him. The court records were retrieved by the Chicago Tribune and a local TV station in one of the most shameless examples of yellow journalism this city has seen in a while. As it turns out, Jeri Ryan released a statement saying that she still supported her ex-husbands candidacy while Jack Ryan was summarily dropped by the state party.

Casting about for a replacement, the desperate Republicans turned to "Da Coach" Mike Ditka, former Bears coach, restaurateur, motivational speaker, and the biggest loose cannon of a mouth this side of Howard Dean. Striking out with Ditka, the party considered everyone from former Senate candidate John Cox to the weird and wonderful Ted Nugent; former Amboy Duke, solo rocker, bow hunter extraordinaire, and second amendment absolutist.

In the end, they settled on Alan Keyes, a former ambassador and at the time, a major spokesman for the hard right. Keyes, an extremely articulate and passionate speaker, began to put his foot into it immediately by saying that a vote for Obama would be a "mortal sin." He compared abortion doctors to terrorists, he said that "Christ would not vote for Barak Obama," and homosexuality was "selfish hedonism."

Obama was so far ahead by October 1st that he campaigned for other Democrats across the country, contributing millions to their campaigns. On election day, John Kerry polled 55 percent of the vote while Obama destroyed Keyes by winning more than 70%.

In the last two years. Obama has proved himself a typical freshman Senator, mainly keeping his nose to the Senate grindstone while maintaining a relative quiet demeanor. However, glancing at his votes on key pieces of legislation, one sees a cautious, thoughtful approach to a wide variety of issues from the economy to homeland security to the War in Iraq.

Is Obama really a new "New Democrat?" Tough on our enemies, tender hearted to those less fortunate, more protectionist without throwing free trade to the dogs, welcoming of immigrants, and on liberal touchstone issues like health care, taxes, and poverty programs someone capable of embracing new ideas and new solutions?

Or is he just a typical lefty who has been running for President since he stepped foot in the Senate and has deliberately positioned himself with his pronouncements and votes as a centrist candidate?

Obama is an empty vessel. Not a Clintonesque figure in that he tries to appeal to all voters in some way but rather a welcoming icon who invites the voter to take something away and make it their own as far as how they view the man. Is this dishonest? Or is it great politics?

At this point, it would be hard for Americans to say. That's because we have no real sense of the man's character. His personal story is among the most compelling in American political history. A man proud of his black African heritage but who grew up with his mother's white family, if there was ever a more likely candidate to bridge the racial divide in America he has not emerged as of yet.

His state Senate voting record was decidedly liberal. He was perhaps best known for his stand against the death penalty in Illinois - an issue that was to prove him prescient when it was discovered several Illinois death row inmates were actually innocent. Governor Ryan took the extraordinary step of ordering a moratorium on executions until a review of every death row inmate's case was completed. Obama has also fought to eliminate racial profiling which has not endeared him to homeland security advocates who believe that profiling passengers at airports is absolutely vital in protecting civil aviation.

Obama opposed the War in Iraq, giving a rousing speech to a downtown Chicago rally in late 2002 that many observers believed was the most inspiring anti-war message they had ever heard. But Obama is no knee jerk pacifist:

    ?I noticed that a lot of people at that rally were wearing buttons saying, ?War Is Not an Option,? ? he said. ?And I thought, I don?t agree with that. Sometimes war is an option. The Civil War was worth fighting. World War Two. So I got up and said that, among other things.? What he said, among other things, was ?I am not opposed to all wars. I?m opposed to dumb wars.? Invading and occupying Iraq, he said, would be ?a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.?

And indeed, Obama supported the War in Afghanistan. And he voted against establishing a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, believing that we can't leave Iraq until the situation is stable:


Clearly not a typical liberal on the war.

Nor on homeland security. He voted yes on re-authorizing the Patriot Act but nay on extending the Act's wiretap provision. But he is not a civil liberties absolutist, believing we should balance intelligence reform with Bill of Rights protections. He is for increased military spending and expanding the army.

In short, an interesting (or calculated) mix of hawk and dove. Again, an empty vessel that we, the voter, can fill up with whatever we wish to see in him. Do his positions on these issues denote thoughtfulness? Or a singular ability to sniff out the center and adhere to it like glue?

On other issues important to Democratic interest groups such as labor, teachers, blacks, Hispanics, and bureaucrats, he has a pretty standard liberal voting record. But there are interesting exceptions, such as his more balanced view of free trade. While voting against CAFTA, he also advocates "fair trade" practices, requiring other countries to enforce the labor and environmental laws that many nation's like China and Mexico honor in the breach. While this may seem typical liberal pablum, he makes a point when speaking to labor groups to say that he knows that all of them support free trade - a brave pronouncement before the most protectionist group in America. He explains it this way:

Straddling? Or "triangulation? Or is it a position born of thoughtful reflection and heartfelt belief? Obama invites you to choose.

Is this what makes him such a threat to a run by Hillary? My good friend Richard Baehr, National Political Correspondent for The American Thinker hits the nail on the head:


We see this dance by the media every four years. Bored with writing and talking about the same old faces, the media seeks out a darkhorse candidate and elevates him for a short while to prominence - only to then amuse themselves by tearing him apart piece by piece once they've decided he is not worthy of all the glowing coverage.

In Obama's case, there is the added significance of race to be considered. Will the Senator's blackness protect him from the usual smear tactics practiced by politicians from both parties? This is a fascinating question and one that won't be answered unless or until Obama runs. Being able to ignore the criticism of his GOP rival during his one statewide campaign, Obama never had to develop a strategy to deal with political attack dogs. And since Alan Keyes himself was black, no one could accuse him generating attacks that were racially motivated.

My own sense is that Obama would be crazy not to employ his race as a shield in any campaign he undertakes. Just about any criticism that comes his way can be twisted and manipulated into the appearance of an attack on the candidate's racial heritage. Perhaps not figuratively. But a clever campaigner can always bring the subject around to race. Will such a tactic appeal to the American sense of fair play? Or will it backfire and look like pandering?

And what of the media frenzy that would surround an Obama candidacy? The first African American with a legitimate shot at the White House is a storyline too compelling not to have the media do everything in their power to see that it comes true. We will be treated to daily features about racists who are opposed to his candidacy as well as the hope generated by his run in the inner cities. It certainly would make great copy and would be irresistible in the end. No wonder Hillary is worried. Even she would be diminished in the media shadow boxing that would accompany an Obama candidacy.

At age 42 and still just a first term Senator (who sailed to electoral victory with nary a rough spot to challenge him), Obama's decision on whether or not to run is not the issue for him. In an already crowded Democratic field, he would emerge as a likely alternative to Hillary - someone who many Democrats believe cannot win the general election. Will the empty vessel Obama be able to entice enough voters to place their faith in whatever they want to see and believe about this man?

We're going to find out sooner rather than later, I'm sure.

---


And some of the replies confirm what I said earlier:

if obama is such a good speaker and brings love to everybody , let's send hime to hezbollah , when he is done with that we can send him t tehran , or we can send him to iraq , to squash the sunni shite fight , or we could send him to speak with kimg jong il .


Hell a 1 term senator portraying himself as commander in chief ...... absurd

This criticism of experience is a specious one to me.  Only governers and vice presidents have experience comparable to a president (the exception, as Randall Flagg noted, is Hillary Clinton).  I dont see what edge two or three terms in the senate provides a candidate.  It doesnt have much to do with the job of a president.  In fact, one might argue that congressional experience could be a negative quality, as a candidate is more likely to be disillusioned and entrenched in a "politics-as-usual" environment where loyalties to political players and special interests thrive.  Then theres historical considerations:


As absurd as a one-term congressman?

(http://www.fadedgiant.net/assets/images/lincoln_abraham_photograph.jpg)

Ulysses Grant, like Zachary Taylor and Dwight Eisenhower, had no real government experience.  John F. Kennedy had little more than one term in 1960 when he was elected.

What I meant by "keeping his nose clean" is he's not caught up in any "hidden" scandals.  The 2 or 3 different "things" that have been discussed about him (his drug experimentation, a real estate deal that looked bad, as examples) he's copped to immediately or brought them to light himself.  It makes them much harder "fodder" for Repub attacks.
 

Booker,

Loved the article (though I'm not crazy about the author's "empty vessel" spin) and it's factual presentation of Obama's history and portrayal of his beliefs are one reason I like the guy (NOT just because he's likeable).  The author wonders about Obama's motivations....and that's where my disagreement with his "spin" stems.  I don't think Obama is playing politics.  I think he's being honest and earnest when he espouses his beliefs and I don't think his voting is "calculated", in the sense that it's solely done to base a run at the presidency.

I agree..before I'd vote for him I'd need to hear more from him.  I don't think the vessel is empty, per se, I just think no one has really looked DEEP inside to see exactly what it's full of.  The top layers seem to look good, IMHO.  We'll have to see whats in the sediment at the bottom.

A british perspective:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6173373.stm
Hopefully interesting to you guys.? He sounds good to me (i've given up on british politics :confused:)

you forget to mention the man has NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER...lets face facts, with a name like Barack Hussein Obama...thats right Hussein is his middle name,,,can you imagine people down south or in the midwest driving around with "Obama 08" stickers??? get real....he will never win in this country.....not yet anyway...mabye in 2016 or something like that....

I think you are right his name is against him America won't vote for that name.

8 years in the Illinois state legislature.

2 years in the U.S. Senate (4 by 2008). 

Instead of repeating (and badly exaggerating) this banal talking point, why dont you explain what a few more years of legislative experience has to do with an executive position?  Then reconcile that with the fact that Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 in the U.S. House of Representatives. 


So what? 

While I will openly admitt that tenure in the legislature doesn't qualify one for President, Democrats were accusing Bush of being unexperienced because he had only operated at the state level.  People are going to find ways to pigeon hole any candidate, and they should.  Our public officials should be under great scrutiny.

Obama doesn't stand a chance.  He's black, young, relatively new to politics and has Hussein as a middle name.   Worst of all, Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning against him.  Maybe in 2016 America may be more open to a candidate such as Obama, but I see Obama suffering the same fate as Dean.   Alot of hype leading up to the primaries and then failing miserably against the big wigs.  Edwards and Clinton will tear him apart.

Can you cite some examples?


The hindrances you list might not mean as much as you think in the primaries.  This constant talk of his middle name is downright stupid and while its done under the pretense that its an issue for other people, it really seems to be an issue for yourself and the others who keep bringing it up and making it an issue.  And while you might be justified in acknowledging those perceived obstacles, you do so without also acknowledging  that Obama happens to be an extraordinary politician.  John Kennedy as an Irish Catholic running for president in a far less tolerant time shouldnt have won, but he was extraordinary.  Political talent (combined with the subsequent fawning media) can overcome those relatively minor hurdles, and while hes not guaranteed victory, he at least stands a chance.  Should he win, Bill Clinton will be campaigning for him.  The same goes for any Democratic nominee. 

I'm not going to find links for critiques of Bush.? I vividly remember the arguments in 2000 as that was my first presidential election.

To be honest, I didn't even know OBama's middle name was Hussein until someone said it here.? Quote Kennedy all you want, but Kennedy one, had a questionable election, andtwo  had a huge support base because he was catholic.? Thirdly, I think you're hyping up the anti-cathoilc sentiment.? How many catholics that ran before Kennedy were denied?? Were there vocal people who claimed electing Kennedy would be electing the pope, yep, but they were a minority.

Obama won't get elected because he's a minority and no one knows shit about him.? The man is very vague and using a lot of rhetoric.? What is known about him is going to castrate him when he comes under scrutiny from both sides.? He's against gay marriage and is in favor of gun control.? He's gonna gimp himself that way.? I'm not going to argue Obama anymore, because you're living in a pipe dream.? We can reference this topic 16 months from now when time has proven me right.

False.




I'd like to see that, since you have not been right about anything else.

SO what?? I am with you on that one, his name shouldnt hurt him,,BUT IT WILL... you are insane if you think it wont.. Say Dick Cheney's middle name was Hitler, are you telling me the left is not going play that up BIG TIME?? It would hurt him, and you know it would.. you are not very realistic if you think this country is ready to elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama....seriously how do you think he will do in the South?? he will get destroyed...You have to remember that the typical American voter is a fucking moron, and that name is all they are going to need to turn them off, nevermind the fact that he is a minority... would i vote for him? maybe..depends what the election looks like in 2008, but you are nuts if you think the country is ready to rally behind him, just because the left wing media is kissing his ass does not mean a thing..he has avoided all tough questioning and is never tested in interviews..seriously I think the democrats have to rethink their whole strategy in 2008, if their 2 top candidates are a woman and a minority.... Am I saying a woman or a minority would not make a good president? of course not...but I am certain they have no shot of winning, no matter how badly republicans are screwing up...not yet in America....not yet

Oddly enough, I expected this.  Without an example, its nothing but a strawman argument to me.


How you learned of it is irrelevant to my point.  By bringing it up, youre the one making it an issue.


First, I didnt quote Kennedy.  Second, you dont think Obama will have a huge support base because hes black?

Im not hyping up anything.  The fact is that until Kennedys election, there had never been a Catholic president (Alfred Smith was defeated in 1928) and many Protestants were weary of a Catholic candidate.  You observe that they were the minority (good observation considering he was elected); are you implying that the of people who will vote aganist Obama because hes black or because of his middle name are in the majority?


What a fatuous suggestion this is.  What did the entire country know about Bill Clinton in 1990?  Basing a candidates electability on what the entire country knows about a candidate two years before an election is pretty short-sighted, isnt it?  Its also questionable considering that candidate won his Senate seat with 70% of the vote, receives a large amount of media coverage, is among the leaders in various polls, etc.  If hes chosen as the nominee, Im pretty sure his profile will rise just a bit (even though hes already one of the highest profile politicians there is), and more people will be familiar with him and his message.  Thats the point of campaigning.


Yeah, no politician could succeed with those qualities.  But speaking of vague, what are you basing this conclusion on?  What is he vague about?


What does this mean?  He cant win because he doesnt support gay marriage and supports gun control?  ???


I thought it might because of your inability to support your points. 

Again, so what?  Virtually every Demorcratic nominee will lose the South.  If he could win every Kerry state and Ohio or Florida, he would be elected.

He'd never win Ohio, and I doubt he'd win Florida.

If we're still in Iraq in 2007/8 (which we will be)...I'll bet your ass he'd win Ohio.   ;)  Can he beat Hillary to get the nomination?  That's the question.  Either way it would be cool.  Either we could have Obama as president, or Bill as the First Man.   8)

Of course he wouldn't win in the south...an African-American democrat doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in the south. 

Obama would be a great president. 

I'm from and live in Ohio.? Ohio is a very conservative state, pro gun and they passed Issue 1 in 2004 which banned same sex unions.? Obama might do well in Cleveland, but he'd certainly fail in the majority of the state.? Ohio has a very rural population that shares many of the same values of the South.

just wait until he is challenged...remember the media is kissing his ass right now...once the right gets a hold of him...it will be game over...just ask John Kerry and Al Gore...both of their political careers are OVER...

Sure they'll try to swiftboat him, but the people were not having any of that the last election, and they sure as hell won't be having it in 08, when we are still in Iraq.

dude, it costed Kerry the election, what do you mean people werent having any of it??  it questioned his integrity and Dan Rather getting busted for making up the whole Bush National guard story didnt help either.....DOnt forget they are not running against Bush this time, they will have real competition....The left out to rethink there options, a minority and a woman... I would not have much confidence in that...I might vote for Barack or Hillary, but i know the majority of this country wont...

Challenged on what?  What could be this great challenge that a politician as talented as Obama cant handle?


Ask them what?  What happened to Gore and Kerry that will happen to Obama?  Youre speaking in platitudes and implicitly saying that that no Democratic nominee could win because the right would get ahold of him and end their career.

And Gores political career is only over because he wants it to be.  Its very possible that the nomination could be his if he chose to pursue it.


John Kerry lost it by 2%, winning more votes than Gore in 2000.  Bill Clinton (a gun control proponent) won it in both of his elections.

Ive already expressed my doubts about Obama winning, however I dont believe he has no chance whatsoever.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Ohio also a manufacturing state?  Do you think unions are taking kindly to the current administration's anti-union, pro-big business, pro-sending jobs overseas stances?  How about the current administration's coddling of the ultra-rich?  I would say the majority of Ohio folk are middle class that would appreciate a cut in taxes at the small expense of the ultra-rich.  The problem?  The Republicans are massively funded by the ultra-rich who enjoy the tax benefits of a Republican administration. 

Also, many more American soldiers will have died by '07/'08, and what for?  To protect us from an imminent threat?  Obama will be poetry in motion come debate time.  He's intelligent, classy, and should strike fear into the hearts (if they've got them  :hihi:) of the Republicans.  :peace:

As more and more people get shot on the streets, as more and more folks realize that the folks in the cities are moving into their suburbs, I do believe the majority of people realize moderate gun control is needed.  The NRA is just as radical as the people who want all guns made illegal.  To me, the gun issue is not a big issue at all.  People want food on their plates, a steady job, time with their families, and less worry about war and crime.
Obama can help make these things happen.  :peace: 

I am talking about the last election that just took place. Nobody was buying the swiftboat tactics anymore. Rove was so sure that they were going to win and he could not have been more wrong.

I'm not saying they are running against Bush, but Bush is setting them up to fail once again. We will still be in Iraq, and more than likely they will still be viciously attacking the other side with lies and swiftboat techniques, which obviously the public has grown weary of. They want real answers to big problems we have now. The same ole shtick ain't gonna get it any more.

A minority and a woman represent a lot of people in this country now, not just women and minorities. Fox is right: put Hillary and Obama together and you have something huge.

you act as though republicans are the only ones to use "swiftboat" tactics...democrats are just as underhanded and dirty in their tactics, and they OWN the mainstream media.  The mainstream media is not going to help them anymore because it is a aging dinosaur, with the internet, cable news and blogging neither side will have a stranglehold on the media ever again...If it werent for these things the FALSE Bush National Guard story that Dan Rather MADE UP would have never been exposed for what it was....You have to understand you need the majority you cant just rely on NYC and California to win elections for you, thats why the Democrats never win, im from NYC and I can tell you the South will NEVER vote for Obama or Hillary...ever, and you cant even rely on NYC because if Giuliani gets the nod, which is unlikely, but if he does he will hammer both of them in NY...and he will take the south because even though the south might not like him, he is a white male and thats all they will need...wake up...the country is not as progressive as you think it is

"Liberal Media" is another boogieman du jour created by the right wing. It's right up there with flag burning...

Every time I ask for examples, I never get one, not one.

Rather reminded me of the LAPD in the OJ case: he tried to frame a man that was already guilty. A foolish way to end his career, it is hardly an example of "left wing media" bias however. I was given that example before, but that isolated incident hardly backs the rights laughable conspiracy theories about the massive (and apparently unsuccessful, since the right ran this country into the ground for years) left wing media machine.

It has nothing to do with "being progressive." It has to do with people being tired of being served shit sandwiches over the next two years. Iraq is a big old shit sandwich, and we will still be there in 08. Like Bud Fox said, the democrats have a secret weapon named "The republicans". Nobody even replied to that post, but he's dead on the money. As more body bags come home, other options will look more and more appealing. These guys can try to distance themselves from Bush all they want, but I doubt it will work. Rove was so sure about the last election, just like you are now. I bet he wished he had his mint flavored shoes on at the end.

You have got to be kidding me.? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  You never support your baseless accusations and comments that you wage against me.? I always ask for examples and you just hide away.

I can give you some examples of the left wing media bias...turn on your fucking TV!!! The Duke rape case is a perfect example...THE DA who is a huge lib and the media crucified those kids at DUKE without any evidence whatsoever...they were just trying to nail the "rich white boys" and what happened??? it was all a LIE!!!! where is the media coverage now?? but that is just a recent one,, i have more..

1.The New York Times put the Abu Ghraib prison scandal on their cover over 60 times, compared with an average of less than 5 times from every other paper..

2.Walter Cronkite has openly admitted to slanting the news to the left over the decades that he was at CBS.

3. Edward R Murrow was another man who went after Mcarthy without ever showing both sides of the story..

4. All of the Vietnam coverage in the 1970's, the press labeling it Nixons war when Johnson was the one who got us in..

5. The Bush national guard story...caught red handed there Danny boy..

6. 60 minutes is still on the air....enough said....

here are some of the worlds most known journalists who have been giving us the news over the years...and their poltical views

1. Peter Jennings-lib
2. Walter Cronkite-lib
3. Edward R Murrow-lib
4. Charles Gibson-Lib
5 Ed Bradley-lib
6. Mike Wallace-lib
7. Bob Woodward-lib
8.katie Couric-lib
9. Dan Rather-lib
10. The whole 60 minutes team

You see I am a broadcast major, i produce tv shows that run thougout the tri state area here in NYC...IT is common knowledge that our business is run by democrats, our professors dont even try to hide it...it is a given, If you cant see the bias in news,,you are not payin attention....There is a liberal spin on virtually every article written in the New York Times...I know I read it every day...If have only given you a few of the thousands of examples I can give you...I have over 65 books at my disposal on the subject, so if you really want I can go on for years on this....As much as Fox News is slanted to the right,, ABC, CBS. NBC, MSNBC, and CNN are just as much to the left....