I'm not American, but I'm nonetheless watching this fellow with great interest -- Pierre Trudeau's observation about sharing a bed with an elephant is apt. Added: Actually, it's particularly apt since I like Obama in much the same way that I like Trudeau, and he might conceivably have the same sort of mass appeal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its not really a STEP so to speak. You do not HAVE to create a presidential exploratory committee, you can, and it certainly indicates a strong interest in possibly committing to the race.
Its more of a formality that some candidates choose to undertake. With so many people already talking about Obama running, he does not really lose the element of surprise by announcing this.
If he concludes that he should run, or the opposite that he should sit this one out, neither outcome will surprise me. Obama seems like a very level headed person who tries to make GOOD decisions.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
As long as my thread title analogy works, I'm content. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Its not really a STEP so to speak. You do not HAVE to create a presidential exploratory committee, you can, and it certainly indicates a strong interest in possibly committing to the race.
Indeed -- there was one candidate this year who started a commitee, then chose not to run (was it Bayh?).
--j_k watches Obama with interest
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
Your analogy works, all right. Stretching isn't a legal requirement before a race, but it sure is a good idea. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I (obviously not just me)got an e-mail from him this morning. It was a great e-mail - outlining how he got to considering this and talking about the challenges we are facing as a country. It ended with this:
quote: We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.
This won't happen by itself. A change in our politics can only come from you; from people across our country who believe there's a better way and are willing to work for it.
Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things.
So even in the midst of the enormous challenges we face today, I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you.
And that's why I wanted to tell you first that I'll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.
In the meantime, I want to thank all of you for your time, your suggestions, your encouragement and your prayers. And I look forward to continuing our conversation in the weeks and months to come.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
"I stand for the rights of puppies and kitties to be cute! And baby seals! And rainbows! And unicorns prancing! A vote for me is a vote for something good!"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
lol Twinky your analogy works just fine, just trying to make sure folks don't jump the gun and say he is IN the race.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:just trying to make sure folks don't jump the gun and say he is IN the race.
Speaking of jumping the gun...
quote:"I stand for the rights of puppies and kitties to be cute! And baby seals! And rainbows! And unicorns prancing! A vote for me is a vote for something good!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nah Sax has a point. He's throwing a LOT of flowery language at us, and a lot of in general good feelings and positive platitudes, but I haven't seen anything concrete from him yet.
Which is fine really, I don't plan to hold him to anything until he actually declares his candidacy, but until then the kind of language that Sax mocks is all we're getting right now. He's the Cloud Nine Candidate.
Thing is, I think that's what a lot of Americans want right now. They want to be energized, they want to be excited, and they want to believe. Obama might just be that guy, and he's made himself into the most dynamic possible candidate without spending a cent. That's impressive, regardless.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am impressed with Obama's expressed ideas and opinions. However, he's not done anything as a federal politicianto make me respect him other than expressing ideas and opinions to the extent of the collective 'happy finish' that goes on in some circles whenever he's mentioned.
Time will tell.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Nah Sax has a point. He's throwing a LOT of flowery language at us, and a lot of in general good feelings and positive platitudes, but I haven't seen anything concrete from him yet.
This was my thought as well. But then again, I haven't done tons of research on him. I bought his book The Audacity of Hope today hoping that it expounds on his vision of things. If anybody has read it, does it do this?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I've read it, and yes, it does. Although if you're hoping for a fiery polemic, better look elsewhere. Obama goes into his opinions deeply, but as in his speeches, he places a lot of emphasis on crossing partisan lines and working to understand the other guy's point of view. That happens to be a major selling point for me, as I'm also a self-described liberal with very strong opinions, but who is tired of the sniping and reliance on rhetoric over reason coming from both sides of the aisle.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would hope that he would be above running a negative mud-slinging campaign. He seems like he'd be above it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In the history of politics, no one yet has really proven to be above mud slinging, and I'm not sure I want them to be.
First of all, all positive campaigns are nice, but the crucible of a mud slinging campaign allows us to see the downsides of a candidate. We NEED to see that side, to know if we're making a mistake or not. Pros and cons are part of the decision making process, not just the pros. I just wish they'd give us relevent negative information. I want to know when and why a candidate changes their mind. If it's because of good information, then I support them. If it's because they were paid off, or because it was politically wise, then I don't. But I still want to know about it.
I don't want all positive campaigns, but I hate what we have now. I want something more balanced and smart, and with some level of faith that the American people aren't completely stupid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The RNC is bending over backwards to try to get some good negative angles on him. The current showing is poor: Rush Limbaugh started calling him "Odumbo" and criticizing his ears, because he mistook a clip of Obama joking about his ears as being legitimate sensitivity on Obama's part over the size of his ears. And that was .. about it.
And they call him 'inexperienced,' but that's kind of a weak charge too.
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
I find it interesting that Clinton's "I tried marijuana but I didn't inhale" made a supposedly big argument against him, but Obama's admission in his memior that he used both marijuana and cocaine when he was a teenager isn't showing up in anyone's mudslinging... yet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't really think calling someone with Obama's level of government experience inexperienced is weak. Seems extremely accurate to me, Samprimary.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. If we were looking at a prospective brain surgeon or rocket scientist or whatever, we probably might call them inexperienced with only two years on the job, too. Especially if they were in a roster with people with decades of experience.
The real question is whether or not being inexperienced (which Obama clearly is as a member of Congress) is a bad thing, or a good thing. That's a question I'm not sure of, yet.
'Odumbo' is just plain stupid, but it's Limbaugh so par for the course.
As for the RNC bending over backwards to get some good negative angles yet...perhaps the current showing is poor because it's so early? They need to wait until the candidates are winnowed out so they can focus their efforts...just like the DNC will be doing.
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
It's hard to get decades of experience holding public office.
I suppose Hillary's experience as First Lady counts for something, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't really think it does, Martha. It's not an elected position. One would have to be quite exceptional (in my opinion, anyway) for performance in a position such as First Lady to count for much in my own personal book.
And, for better or worse, it's not so hard to get decades (or even decade) of experience holding public office that we don't have many in state and national government in that position.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
On the other hand, our current administration has decades of foreign policy experience - all it did was make them arrogant. Maybe someone with less experience would be more open to listening to a variety of opinions instead of only paying attention to who already agrees with you and dismissing dissent.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I've read it, and yes, it does. Although if you're hoping for a fiery polemic, better look elsewhere. Obama goes into his opinions deeply, but as in his speeches, he places a lot of emphasis on crossing partisan lines and working to understand the other guy's point of view.
Glad to hear it details his views. I think Obama's charm to most people is his ability to cross partisan lines. I'm far from a strong liberal- I've voted for Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats. Obama's broad appeal is his greatest asset. He can get the swing votes in a general election- something Hilary would have no hope of.
quote: I find it interesting that Clinton's "I tried marijuana but I didn't inhale" made a supposedly big argument against him, but Obama's admission in his memior that he used both marijuana and cocaine when he was a teenager isn't showing up in anyone's mudslinging... yet.
I think it's because it's nothing new anymore. It was a little suprising that Clinton had done marijuana. It was more scandalous that Bush had done marijuana, cocaine, and been a raging drunk. But I think we've all gotten used to the idea and its no longer that shocking.
quote:I don't really think calling someone with Obama's level of government experience inexperienced is weak. Seems extremely accurate to me
Well I think Obama will have had more time in public office than W. Bush did before running for president. Obama was an Illinois senator for eight years, then a US senator for the past two years . That's more experience than Bush's six years as Governor (two of which were spent campaigning). I don't remember anybody saying that Bush was inexperienced.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Obama served in the Illinois state senate for eight years before running for his current position. He also worked locally as a community leader for about ten years before that. I don't think anyone is denying that he's relatively inexperienced on the national level, because he is- although I think the Abraham Lincoln argument is an effective counter. But if you're talking government experience in general, as you seem to be (and my apologies if I misunderstood), Obama does have experience... far more than Hillary.
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
Rakeesh, I meant that Hillary knows far more about how to be president, having been First Lady, than she would if she hadn't. I did not mean that we the public know any more about what kind of president she would be.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Whoops, my last post was meant to be a direct response to Rakeesh.
quote:I think it's because it's nothing new anymore. It was a little suprising that Clinton had done marijuana. It was more scandalous that Bush had done marijuana, cocaine, and been a raging drunk. But I think we've all gotten used to the idea and its no longer that shocking.
It's more than that. Obama volunteered the information about his drug use, which (a) got it out way before anyone could craft an attack around it, and (b) showed a level of candor that few politicians are willing to show. The net effect is that the story actually improves his public image as an honest guy who, like anyone else, has made some bad decisions in his life but has moved beyond them. Clinton's mistake was in his rather clumsy rebuttal ("I didn't inhale"), which came off as evasive, and rather than deflecting public suspicion, only made it a story that lasted longer. Admittedly, in the end, it didn't really hurt Clinton all that much, but its handling was a public relations flub.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't remember anybody saying that Bush was inexperienced.
This matters because...?
Let's assume that no one said Dubya was inexperienced at the time (I don't assume that, but lets): it would not change my belief that Bush had limited experienced (inexperienced) at national-level politics when he was elected President.
One could also say that experience as a member of the executive branch might be more relevant to the office of the President than experience as a member of the legislative branch. I'm not saying that, but I am saying it's an idea that deserves consideration.
quote:On the other hand, our current administration has decades of foreign policy experience - all it did was make them arrogant. Maybe someone with less experience would be more open to listening to a variety of opinions instead of only paying attention to who already agrees with you and dismissing dissent.
What other hand? I view Presidential candidates on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that experience, or lack thereof, should be a deciding factor or even necessarily a factor. What is done during that experience should be. What is said should also be a factor, but less of one.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Obama needn't worry about GOP barbs just yet. First he'll have to face the onslaught of the Clintons. When the first mud is slung, you'll be seeing dirty Democrat hands before you see any others. I, for one, am looking forward to a nasty Democrat Primary, especially if Sharpton enters the race. Hillary is going to stand by and lose this thing to an upstart without puttingup a serious fight.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Does anyone (other than Mig, of course) have hopes that the next presidential race will be somewhat less nasty and contentious, or is that just the way American politics works now?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think that if Hillary wins the Democratic primary, we're in for the nastiest race ever. I personally think it is unearned, but I have never seen as much vileness and hatred directed at a single person as is with Hillary.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Agreed; I think Hillary has the potential to be nearly as divisive as Bush has been.
--j_k
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm not one to put a whole lot of weight on experience.
To debunk the two examples offered: Would I want a brain surgeon who has twenty years of experience, or one who graduated at the top of his class just two years ago? Well, has the older surgeon kept current, or has he fallen into habits and routine? Are there practices he is not as aware of, or new theories/procedures that he hasn't studied?
Same with a rocket scientist. Twenty years experience means your computer experience started in the 80's. A new graduate may be just as capable, or even moreso, with handling the applications needed for the job.
To me, experience in "politics" is not necessarily a good thing. Is Strom Thurmond any better of a candidate than Obama because of his vast experience? How about Ted Kennedy? I don't think that years doing a job makes you any better at that job. It may make you a better "player" of the political "game" - but the objectives of that game are reelection and pork far too often.
I can forgive someone far more quickly for inexperience than I can for experienced incompetence or corruption.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I agree that that's probably true, although like Amanecer, I'm not sure that it's entirely earned. What about Obama, though?
And, on a broader scale, what are the chances that we'll get candidates from either side that are interested in conveying what they're about rather than sloganizing themselves and anti-sloganizing the opposition?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not one to put a whole lot of weight on experience.
To debunk the two examples offered: Would I want a brain surgeon who has twenty years of experience, or one who graduated at the top of his class just two years ago? Well, has the older surgeon kept current, or has he fallen into habits and routine? Are there practices he is not as aware of, or new theories/procedures that he hasn't studied?
Same with a rocket scientist. Twenty years experience means your computer experience started in the 80's. A new graduate may be just as capable, or even moreso, with handling the applications needed for the job.
I specifically didn't offer those two examples to demonstrate that experience should have superior weight in the question, but to point out that Obama is inexperienced. I don't understand why I'm still belaboring it at this point...I thought it was pretty clear.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here's his web site if you're curious about his views and about what he has been doing:
I'm curious about Obama in a few respects. One of the tangential goods that he brings to the presidency is that he could possibly attract the best and brightest to go into public service.
Remember after 9/11 when Bush Administration told everyone that the most patriotic thing we could do was to shop and don't question his policies. And at best, the Administration will suffer dissent not because it may be helpful, but because they have a legal obligation to do so, and we should be lucky we have such a freedom because that's what seperates us from the terrorist states.
One hopes, and this is a big hope to pin on such skinny shoulders, that if Obama peels back that veneer of cynacism surrounding the government, Obama will draw some of our better people into public service. That means better public local officials, better teachers, et al. I think the current Administration has done well in convincing some of our best young people to join the defense and the oil industries, I wonder if a side benefit of having Obama as president is that more, better people will be supportive of other community and social concerns.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Maybe it would help make black people not believe that white America was out to get them?!?
...
I'm only joking a little. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
White America isn't out to get us, you all are just so busy helping yourselves that we get the short end by accident. And every now and then, we get the occasional lecture that it's the American way to help yourselves and give someone else the short end, and since that lesson never takes for deep reasons of morality and history, we end up in the same place as we started.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Remember after 9/11 when Bush Administration told everyone that the most patriotic thing we could do was to shop and don't question his policies.
I don't remember the second part happening. I remember many people attributing it to him, as well as many of his supporters saying things like that.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
At the time, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld were both speakers on behalf of the Administration.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:White America isn't out to get us, you all are just so busy helping yourselves that we get the short end by accident.
As opposed to the selfless generosity and social conciousness constantly on display by other racial segments of the United States, of course.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Yep.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Rak, I just used those examples because those were the two I remembered from reading the thread. I know that you aren't saying that inexperienced=bad.
I was just trying to illustrate that experience doesn't have too much bearing on my decision-making process - as it could would work against a person as much as for them.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think that if Hillary wins the Democratic primary, we're in for the nastiest race ever. I personally think it is unearned, but I have never seen as much vileness and hatred directed at a single person as is with Hillary.
That's right, because Preseident Bush has been treated with such loving compassion from the left. The treatment of Hillary has been horrible. I wish Jon Stewart would stop picking on Hillary and start making a few jokes at Bush's expense, that Michael Moore would just leave her alone, I wish they's stop making movies about the assassination of Sen. Clinton, and I wish people would stop making jokes about her intelligence. No, wait, none of that has happended. It's been Bush who's been the target of unending vileness and hatred. You may not mind thatr so much, but don't act as if political character attacks only come from the right.
Irami Osei-Frimpong wrote:
quote: Remember after 9/11 when Bush Administration told everyone that the most patriotic thing we could do was to shop and don't question his policies.
No I don't remember this. I remember that they urged people to shop and go about they're daily business, but I don't recall anyone in the administration saying that it was unpatriotic to question his policies. Frankly, I think your imagining this. Please provide a link to the statement or quote from when this was made.
This whole Obama love fest is fascinating to me. It seems to indicate not so much a support for the guy as a sense that democrats are disparate for anyone but Hillary or any of the other established party stalwarts. Are democrats that disatisfied or disillusioned by thier leaders that they are willing to follow an unkown commodity? Sure seems so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are democrats that disatisfied or disillusioned by thier leaders that they are willing to follow an unkown commodity?
As unknown as, say, the Governor of Texas? Or less known than that? Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I don't recall anyone in the administration saying that it was unpatriotic to question his policies.
When the new anti-terrorism legislation was being prepared, Ashcroft said:
quote: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I figured you wouldn't have much of substance to back that up, Irami. Typical for your comments on race, really.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Are democrats that disatisfied or disillusioned by thier leaders that they are willing to follow an unkown commodity? Sure seems so.
Given the number of conservatives on this board that are willing to support him? I doubt it.
--j_k
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There isn't a big white cabal figuring out how to stick it to the darkies, rather it's a complicated money and influence scheme that's come into existence for reasons of familial ties, religion, social customs, and golf score, none of which is tantamount to racketeering, but is exemplified in Bush's ascendancy to the Presidency and the vices of this scheme are shown through what I consider to be his less than stellar performance. And since, for the most part, I think that people should conduct their private businesses however they see fit, I'm not one to complain until white people use the force of law and policy to penalize black people for not conforming to their scheme, where in my view such complaints sound like, "If they just sold their souls like good white people, we would be a uniformily great nation."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You must traffic in souls a great deal, to be so knowledgeable about how and when people sell them.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I see them being bought and sold all the time. I think most people are blind to such transactions, and the few who can see keep their lips sealed.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry about the derail. :/
♫ Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, why dont we? We all know that people ♫ are the same where ever we go There is good and bad in everyone, We learn to live, we learn to give Each other what we need to survive together alive. ♪
*lights lighter* *sets cd on fire*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Then I guess you attach a much lower moral signifigance to the idea of 'selling one's soul' than I do, or perhaps a much higher moral signifigance to certain activities.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'ld vote for Obama if I was American.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists — for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.
A call for honest debate doens't sound unreasonable or like an assualt on anyone's patriotism. He's not saying that its unpatriotic to crit the government. It's a stretch to misuse this quote to say otherwise. But its easier for some to accuse this administration of using McCarthy tactics, i.e., to mud sling, than to confront the issues presented head-on. Which is how the left misused this quote when it was first made, and appears to continue to do so.
Tom, the Bush analogy is not apt because Bush was the frontrunner, party insider, and presumed nominee for a year before nominated. Bush was in the position that Hillary is in now. Your point would be better made if the GOP had choosen someone other than Bush.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:It's been Bush who's been the target of unending vileness and hatred. You may not mind thatr so much, but don't act as if political character attacks only come from the right.
Bush gets made fun of tons, no doubt. And while I think of late more of the attacks focus around his policies than his character, there have been tons of uncalled for character attacks as well. But that's true of virtually every candidate in the past 20 years. Sad as it is, munslinging is expected. With Hillary, I think the attacks go deeper than that. It's not just the pundits or extremists that hate her, it's also the every day person. My own family hates her with a passion that is almost unfathomable given their fairly moderate views. To be honest, I think a lot of it has to do with subtle sexism. People like women that seem softer than men. Hillary is a career woman that is abrasive and hard. She is the embodiment of a rejection of traditional gender roles. I think that's what makes people personally dislike her on a level that is unmatched with other politicians.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I think really she just gets on my nerves, Hillary Clinton. Every time I see her speak she irritates me; and I don't have that reaction to, say, Nancy Pelosi. Might just be she's not very likeable.
But I like Barack Obama a lot. I have a signed photograph of him that my aunty got for me.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I know my father can't stand her - but that's mainly because he ties her to Bill, who he also can't stand, and feels she was very heavily involved in shady dealings in Arkansas and the White House.
Though, I must say, he hates Ted Kennedy more - and has a special dislike for John Kerry, too. Oh, and a pretty healthy distaste for Chuck Schumer and Donna Shalala.
He's actually pretty neutral on Obama, though, and has even agreed with him on several things. Which I just find simply amazing.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I think really she just gets on my nerves, Hillary Clinton. Every time I see her speak she irritates me; and I don't have that reaction to, say, Nancy Pelosi. Might just be she's not very likeable.
This happens to a lot of people. I think it's because Clinton looks and acts like, well, a politician, and she's a very public figure. As a result, there's a belief that she's been right in the middle of the political muck we've seen these past few years.
--j_k
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just out of curiosity, does anyone think that 24 has had any positive impact on the possibility of a black man being elected to the presidency?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My general feeling is that Hilary Clinton is not terribly honest. That bothers me. I haven't done extensive research and I haven't pinpointed as to why I think that, but all the scummy things the Clinton White House did, she seemed to be involved in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Obama needn't worry about GOP barbs just yet. First he'll have to face the onslaught of the Clintons. When the first mud is slung, you'll be seeing dirty Democrat hands before you see any others. I, for one, am looking forward to a nasty Democrat Primary, especially if Sharpton enters the race. Hillary is going to stand by and lose this thing to an upstart without puttingup a serious fight.
I doubt this, to be honest. The Democrats already went through this once, two years ago, and they aren't going to repeat that mistake so soon. I think Hillary is going to have a very, very tough time, because frontrunners always have a tough time holding onto the lead. I just don't see them repeating the field of nine fiasco from two years ago. If Sharpton enters the race, he won't be invited to any debates that take place, at least I hope not. He's a loudmouth with zero chance of winning the nomination. Obama and Clinton, should they both run, would obviously be in it, and given their similarities in platform, it will come down to personality, where I think they'll both stay positive.
All the little fish are unknown quantities.
If you want to see some mudslinging though Mig, you won't have to look any further than the Republican primary race. Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and whoever else gets into the race, especially if any really big really conservative names enter, are going to gnaw at each other. McCain as the frontrunner will take heat from the next most religious conservative candidate saying he isn't close enough to evangelicals. He'll hit back saying they are inexperienced in the military and will slam Giuliani's personal life (as I think he'd be wise to do). It gets nastier if really conservative really religious candidates enter the race, as they can slam statements McCain has made in the past about evangelical institutions while silmultaneously ripping him for trying to cozy up to the same people he used to slam.
I've seen Colbert and Stewart both rip Democrats in recent months for bungling chances to do the right thing, and ever since they took over Congress, even in the last week, I've seen an uptick in their jokes about Democrats. I think they focus on the people in power, as most pundits and comedians like them do. People in the hot seat have to be prepared for the fire.
And for years, Republicans and Bush administration officials made statement after statement about criticism being the same thing as being unpatriotic, and how that led to aiding and comforting terrorists. I'm glad that's mostly gone now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And for years, Republicans and Bush administration officials made statement after statement about criticism being the same thing as being unpatriotic, and how that led to aiding and comforting terrorists. I'm glad that's mostly gone now.
When has President Bush said that criticism of his policies, in and of itself, was unpatriotic?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't recall him ever saying it personally, but then I never said he did. And not any policy, only those relating to defense measures.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
What I like about Obama:
He is a powerful speaker. He sounds good on paper He is very charismatic He knows what it is like to be down in the dumps
What I DONT like about Obama:
During his DNC speech, he went on a crazy tangent about racism.
As far as I could tell, he hasnt accomplished anything noteworthy
His voting record goes against what he is saying about "Bi-Partisanship"
That being said, I think he would be a more effective president than Hillary. She rubs me (and a lot of other people) the wrong way. I dont agree with her politics or her methods.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
1) President Bush, nor none of his people ever said that speaking against him was unpatriotic. Several conservative mouth peices hinted at it, but all knew that such a statement was political suicide.
What President Bush has proven so far is that he has mastered the skill of listening to, but not accepting, other opinions. See his insistance on locking out all protestors or people with divergent opinions, from all of his political rallies, up to and including, setting up mandatory protest areas great distances from where he would actually be. See the 9/11 commision and the Baker commission reports which he pleasantly admires, then totaly disregards.
That is his perogative as President, when he also controlled congress. Now, not so much.
2) Rakeesh, you thing that because the Democrats found somebody new who is exciting and mostly baggage free, it proves the Doom of the Democrats?
Your logic is that since we are turning to somebody new, we must hate the old.
Let me try another conspiracy theory on you. The Republicans have been running Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination since 2000. They know they can beat her, can rile up enough hatred to stomp her into the ground. This new guy, this Obama could actually be difficult to beat, so it is the duty of every good Conservative to convice the Democrats to drop Obama and join the doomed Clinton wagon.
Now, if you could only find some way to "swiftboat" Obama like they did McCain, why we'd be set for Jeb in 08.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Huh? When did I suggest that, Dan?
Posted by GiantReturns (Member # 9349) on :
I tend to listen to Conservative radio stations even though im Liberal. Im am suprised I didnt hear one bad thing said about Sen. Obama and when they brought his wife into the conversation they praised her(as i found out she also had a law degree from Harvard). I think why people like him so much is because he's a great speaker and sounds like he knows what hes talking about unlike an idiot I wont name. Granted hes not going to talk about the big issues nor should he at this point in time. Be assured if he does decide to run once and if he lays his plans out they'll be ready to rip him a new one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
He does talk about big issues - at least what I consider big issues.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I saw this on another forum, courtesy of ontheissues.org. It's a partial snapshot of Obama's voting record and past statements, presumably intended to sketch his views insofar as they're known.
quote:
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Battles legislatively against the death penalty.
Supports alternative sentencing and rehabilitation.
Quoted from his book, Dreams of my Father, "Junkie. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then, anyway. I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory. I had discovered that it didn't make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate's sparkling new van, or in the dorm room of some brother you'd met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. You might just be bored, or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection. And if the high didn't solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism. "
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program.
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.
Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan
So, if you guys don't want him as President, can we have him? I can assure you that we'd love him here in Canada. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure what mindset one has to have to support illegal alien participation in the Social Security program, a program which is in bad trouble already...
That said, I agree with the rest of it, more or less.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
My knowledge of your Social Security system is extremely limited, but wouldn't having illegal aliens pay into Social Security be helpful if the [current] problem is demographic in nature?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Of all of his positions, that is probably the one that is going to be the most trouble for him if he talks about it--and he will almost certainly be forced to talk about it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If they get paid, they have to pay into it. What they currently cannot do is collect.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I thought that a consequence of their status as illegal aliens was that they were paid "under the table," so to speak, and didn't pay taxes (and hence Social Security).
I take it my conception of the situation is flawed?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree that if they pay into it, they should get to collect. I do not agree that they should pay into it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sometimes they get paid under the table...sometimes they get fake SS#, and so pay into it.
I do not believe that the correct solution to the problems with Social Security is to permit massive immigration (legal or otherwise) to solve the little pyramid scheme's problems.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Often illegal immigrants will get fake papers.
My dad hires a lot of immigrants, and they diligently require everyone to have documentation. He's also pretty sure that at least some of the documentation is fake, based on what he has overheard about their personal lives.
However: It is illegal to discriminate based on race or national origin. It is an invasion of privacy to look into your employee's personal lives. Investigating this leaves him open to all sorts of liability, and the birth certificates and SS cards looked legitimate. What do you think he should do?
In this case, it is very likely that illegal immigrants are paying into social security. They may or may not ever collect.
quote:I do not believe that the correct solution to the problems with Social Security is to permit massive immigration (legal or otherwise) to solve the little pyramid scheme's problems.
I actually think it's a great idea. Industry will follow the ready labor, and where labor goes, the high paying white collar jobs will follow. Allow lots of immigration, and you get cheaper labor so industry stays in the country, which means a tax base for schools, and you get a worker base so old people can retire.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: So, if you guys don't want him as President, can we have him? I can assure you that we'd love him here in Canada.
Illinois will keep him, thank you very much. (Hands off) Even though we are spoiled with good Senators.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Katharina,
That has to do with increasing legal immigration, which I am in favor of.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm with Rakeesh on this one... In fact, even if we have a guest worker program, I still think they (and their employers) shouldn't have to pay in (of course they wouldn't be illegal at this point either). I think only US citizens should contribute and receive SS benefits. However, with a streamlined citizenship path, it shouldn't be an onerous effort to become a US citizen.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was going to say, "You have to be careful about looking at a candidates voting record." Then I read the list and thought, "Woa, what a good record!"
I fell into the very trap I was warning against.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It seems like that's an easy thing to do, with this guy. I haven't heard him speak, and I'm not American -- all I've done is read about the guy, his background, history, and what policy-type information I can find, and I find myself liking him almost involuntarily.
[Edited last clause.]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What are we supposed to use to judge a politician if not his voting record and his speeches and statements?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
We can always judge them by their prowess at video games. I'd bet Obama would be a Tauren Druid. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What are we supposed to use to judge a politician if not his voting record and his speeches and statements?
I didn't say "don't" I said, "be careful."
We have a rich history in America of using bills candidates supported or opposed as a reason to like or dislike them on their own merits, without any consideration for motive.
Compromise is a huge factor in legislative process. If I was told "Candidate A voted for a 1% increase in income tax!" and nothing else, I would see that as an unfavorable thing. If I was told "Candidate A agreed to support a bill that increases income tax 1% so that his bill to improve education spending could obtain its funding." My dissent would immediately turn into support.
While true that somebody who is not consistent on anything and votes however the wind is blowing does nobody a service. Still if people were judged purely on their acts instead of taking intent into account, do you agree our jurisprudence would be lacking?
edit: Clearly Obama is too lanky to be a Tauren, he is obviously a human mage.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Now, now, clearly Obama would be a Tauren Druid on an RP server, thus making him one of the characters most dedicated to nobility and peaceful balance.
A Forsaken Rogue could make strip steaks out of him in no time, but I speak from experience that those guys are jerks-and we've got quite enough of them in politics anyway! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just think it's a shame that somebody who appears to have a sheen of integrity and displays a willingness to think about issues and formulate a reasoned response to them is so incredibly novel that we immediately consider him presidential material.
Don't get me wrong: out of the field of available candidates, only Obama and Dennis Kucinich seem to share those qualities (Edit: and I'll add Al Gore, who doesn't possess as much integrity as I'd like but still seems to have some), and I DO think they're both as qualified for the office as any president in living memory. But my politics don't always align with theirs -- they're both more than a little to my left -- and I sincerely wish that the combination of forthrightness and thoughtfulness that both candidates display were the rule rather than the exception among the people being considered for the highest office in the land.
[ January 20, 2007, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hillary is in. Bill Richardson is likely to announce next week, and he's the one I've been rooting for since the end of the 2004 election.
I can't stand Kucinich. Something about him just screams "WRONG!" and "UNPRESIDENTIAL." Could just be the little old lady that was stumping for him at the Democratic caucus 2 years ago that annoyed me, the way she lept on unsuspecting voters like a cougar on a jackrabbit, as my friend and I stared on in shock. We weren't a whole lot better, we were stumping for Howard Dean, but we didn't maul them in the process. I just find him annoying.
I'm hoping the top three candidates become Obama, Clinton and Richardson, which will leave me happy no matter who I vote for, but Richardson has a long way to go before he overtakes Edwards in the polls, who is also running. Kerry reportedly hasn't decided yet, which is crazy, as he should NOT be running. Gore I think has said he won't run, though I think he'd have a fighting chance. And there's a dozen dark horse candidates on both sides that will try to raise their profiles in the next 9 months or so.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I've been watching Kucinich on C-SPAN for the past week, which is pretty much the first time I've noticed him. So far I have to say that I would vote for almost anyone over him.
*shrugs* Indiana's primaries are in May, it doesn't matter who I support in the primary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Something about him just screams "WRONG!" and "UNPRESIDENTIAL."
Now that's a well-reasoned opinion.
Seriously, though, I felt the same way about Keyes, so I know what you're talking about.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hey I never said it was scientific or anything. It's a gut reaction added to the accumulation of speeches I've heard him give.
By Keyes do you mean Alan Keyes? Ran against Obama for the Senate? ::shudders::
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It is illegal to discriminate based on race or national origin. It is an invasion of privacy to look into your employee's personal lives. Investigating this leaves him open to all sorts of liability, and the birth certificates and SS cards looked legitimate. What do you think he should do?
I think he should, after hiring, check the social security information with the SSA and make sure the numbers match the information given and are valid. The SSA allows you to do this free of charge and it takes just a few minutes to key in the information and check it.
Of course, there are rules such as the ones you mentioned - it can only be done after the job is offered and can't be used to pre-screen employees (as that might be discriminatory) and all employees must be treated the same - and the proper steps must be followed if there is a discrepancy. You can't use a discrepancy in the SSN info to be the sole grounds for dismissal. But this way you can check and make sure you haven't been given falsified papers. I think it's the proper thing to do, and what I would encourage all employers to do. Keep in mind it isn't just a good idea to help find false papers, but it also makes certain your legitimate employees have their information correct and can save you problems later if you didn't find that a number had been keyed in incorrectly until it was time for tax forms to go out.
Sadly, not many employers will take these steps because they just don't want to. They are fine with hiring illegal workers and will take papers they are pretty sure are fake as long as their own behind is covered and if they're ever investigated they can say "But they had papers!" (In this I'm speaking of businesspeople I know, not of your Dad because I do not know him or know how he runs his business.) I do unfortunately, know other contractors who operate this way in the construction business around here. I've heard construction firm owners bragging about how they'd hired illegals with social security cards that were in sequence - they were perfectly aware the cards were forgeries but they didn't care. (by the way, even my twins don't have numbers in sequence and they were applied for at the exact same time)
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It's a gut reaction added to the accumulation of speeches I've heard him give.
I find that to be as appropriate a basis as looking at voting record.
Richardson announced he is forming a committee. I don't find him as compelling as I find Obama, but I'll give him a chance and I'm glad he is in the race. It's possible that Richardson has all of the potential as Obama, but just wears a more subtle veneer.
quote:They are fine with hiring illegal workers and will take papers they are pretty sure are fake as long as their own behind is covered and if they're ever investigated they can say "But they had papers!"
That's a deep character flaw, pervasive, and I think it may be an outgrowth of either having a business culture that is too legalistic or the reasons why people shouldn't hire illegal immigrants haven't been given enough air time.
[ January 22, 2007, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm THRILLED that Bill Richardson is running. And I think he's a serious contender. He has a history of balancing his state's budget, is a supporter of environmental reforms, business friendly (I think), and more. He's a highly popular, successful governor, and I think he'd make a great president.
I look forward to seeing Hillary, Obama and Richardson as the top three candidates a year from now.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm THRILLED that Bill Richardson is running. And I think he's a serious contender. He has a history of balancing his state's budget, is a supporter of environmental reforms, business friendly (I think), and more. He's a highly popular, successful governor, and I think he'd make a great president.
Bill Richardson is the only national politician that I've ever actually met. I lived in his congressional district in northern New Mexico in the late '80s, and I attended a town meeting - the concern was mining trucks and their impact on the mountain roads we all had to drive on.
I was impressed with Richardson, but only in his slickness. He set up the meeting, the committees, the follow up - everything - in such a way that he could not lose.
I was very young, and was very naive about the workings of government, but I was really disappointed that he was so unwilling to commit himself and so adept and making sure he couldn't be held accountable if things didn't go the way his constituents hoped.
Now that I'm a bit older (but not really more experienced politically), I understand that it's just "how things are done". But I don't like it and I don't think I could ever support Richardson as a candidate. In fact, for the rest of the years I lived in NM (I moved away shortly before he moved on from the House), I certainly never voted for him again.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I was impressed with Richardson, but only in his slickness. He set up the meeting, the committees, the follow up - everything - in such a way that he could not lose.
I was very young, and was very naive about the workings of government, but I was really disappointed that he was so unwilling to commit himself and so adept and making sure he couldn't be held accountable if things didn't go the way his constituents hoped.
That's the sense I get from him. Actually, I've seen him give a few speeches on television, and the only time I found him convincing was when he was shilling for his salsa. He seemed like a "blah" guy with "blah" ideas.
Maui Babe showed more wisdom and conviction in her last paragraph than I've heard out of Richardson's mouth. I don't mind Richardson as a member of the cabinet because he seems level-headed, but I'm waiting to see something that makes me think that this guy should set the tone of public policy in this great nation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I also liked, oh what was his name, I think he was the former governor of Washington, but he didn't seek reelection because he wanted to spend more time with his family. I want to say Gary Locke was his name. Democrats saw him as a rising star, and I was impressed with the speech he gave in 2003 in rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union Address.
But I look forward to hearing from ALL of the candidates. I want to hear more from Clinton and her new rumblings on health care, I want to hear, well, any ideas from Obama, I can't recall hearing anything specific yet from him.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I heard that same rebuttal, but I wasn't impressed. He has that same blah quality that reminds me of Richardson.
I wouldn't mind Chris Dodd getting in the mix. Whereas Locke and Richardson seem to have to push to seem visionary, Dodd strikes me as a guy who is restraining himself, waiting for the right time to tell the world what he really thinks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've heard almost nothing from Dodd. I've only heard a single speech from Locke, and mostly stories ABOUT Richardson, rather than hearing him actually speak, so I can't tell about any of that.
Two people I KNOW I won't be voting for are John Edwards and John Kerry. Kerry had his shot, and for better or worse, lost. And I never liked Edwards. I don't have to worry though, even if both run, they'll never get the nomination.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I also finishsed his book a few weeks ago. I think he has some ideas that I like, some ideas that I think would be disastrous, and is generally far more liberal than I am. But at this time, I think he'd get my vote. I want out of Iraq and I want public healthcare- which happen to be two of his biggest issues.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Catch the interview with Barak and Michelle Obama on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Feb. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on CBS. Excerpts:
quote:...asked..if growing up in a white household had caused him to make a decision to be black, Obama replies, "I'm not sure I decided it. I think... if you look African American in this society, you're treated as an African-American. It's interesting though, that now I feel very comfortable and confident in terms of who I am and where I stake my ground. But I notice that... I've become a focal point for a racial debate," says Obama.
...when asked...whether she fears for her husband's life as a black candidate. "I don't lose sleep over it because the realities are that... as a black man... Barack can get shot going to the gas station," says Michelle Obama. "You can't make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen."
Will being African-American hold him back as a candidate? "No.... If I don't win this race it will be because of other factors --[that] I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go that they can embrace,"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I need to figure out a plan to get as many canadians to pretend to be Americans long enough to vote for Obama.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)