This is topic Senator Obama to run in 2008? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=045613
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
Surprised no one has posted this yet. One of many articles can be found here.

I, for one, am excited at the prospect.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
One of these days I'm going to do a little experiment where I take things Ms. Clinton has said and things Obama has said and test people to see if they can tell the difference. [Smile]
 
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
 
He has this republican's vote.
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
SS, how bout a Clinton/Obama ticket?
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
My current pessimistic mindset makes me think it just doesn't matter.

*kicks a rock*
*mopes*
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
How does that happen? They both run, Clinton takes the nomination and asks Obama on? I don't want him to run.

I want someone else to run, and win, with someone else as VP. Then when they run for reelection in 2012, Obama can come on as the new VP, when his term is up in 2011. Then in 2016 he has Senate experience, VP experience, and he runs away with the nomination and maybe the next election. The problem is coming up with a viable candidate in 2008. I still think Bill Richardson is the man, I think he's more electable than Hillary, even if I think Hillary is the best person for the job.

Hillary, Richardson, Obama, I think those will be the top three names when people get serious about running next November. No other senator has anything close to the popularity to beat any of those three, not as the presidential nominee, maybe as VPs, assuming the other two are okay with going back to whatever they were doing.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
How similar are their voting records?

What they say matters very little-- how they vote, that's a different story.

[Smile]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Their position on the war is different. Senator Clinton voted for it and was a strong supporter until recently; Senator Obama thought it was mistake from the first.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
He has this republican's vote.
Which is why I think he shouldn't run with Hillary. Any conservatives sitting on the fence come election day will vote for not-Hillary if she's on a ticket.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Obama does not need Hillary. He has plenty to run on off his own record. Call it unfair, but he got elected without needing to sell his soul (because the republican candidate royally botched things up). He owes nobody anything and nobody can claim to own him.

I think Hillary would actually slow down his campaign as he would have to deal with all the stupid jokes about being subject to a woman. "Is Mrs. Obama or Mrs Clinton holding the whip?"

Obama spoke at the Democratic national convention last election and you could argue his speech was the highlite. Hillary was not invited to speak. He is smart, down to earth, funny, very much able to convince people from opposing sides to work together, and as far as anybody can tell his record is squeaky clean.

I'd rather see Obama run against Clinton for the Democratic primary. After winning that I honestly think you would see most undecided voters and the slightly more moderate republicans voting for him, as well as 90% of the Democrats in this country. Obviously the extremists would see Obmama as too moderate.

Still holding off for a McCain/Obama ticket and enjoying the media frenzy.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
sorry for double posting but does it make sense to anybody else that Alan Keyes is saying Obama is not an "African American" because his African ancestors did not come to America as slaves?

Is it inaccurate to think that as long as your ancestors immigrated to America from Africa at some point that you could be considered an African American?
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

Their position on the war is different. Senator Clinton voted for it and was a strong supporter until recently; Senator Obama thought it was mistake from the first.
I don't recall Obama voting against anything related to Iraq. There are a ton of Democrats out there that say they are opposed to one facet of the policy or another but vote pretty much for everything layed in front of them for Iraq.

It would be interesting to compare their voting records, Scott.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Are you kidding? Extremists among libearls thing HILLARY is too moderate, but no one who is against her seems to know, which I think is what was being referred to earlier in this thread about Obama's and Hillary's voting records. He's only been in the senate for two years, six for Hillary, she has a larger voting record to live up to.

Still, I'd be surprised to see Obama beat Hillary in the primary. It's part of the problem, everyone says she'll lock it up, but won't get the general election. Whereas Obama has possibly the opposite problem. The problem for Republicans is that if Obama is elected, he'll steal a lot of their centrist voters, but the only reason he should be elected over Hillary is that Republicans have succeeded in painting her as ultra liberal when in fact she's ultra centrist. So, if Obama takes the primary, I think he'll take the general, and really, it's all the fault of the Republicans for smearing Hillary to begin with.

Talk about sins of the fathers...

Alan Keyes is an idiot, and I'm pretty sure he comes off that way, and while I don't know, I'd guess that most blacks in this country agree.

Edit to add: Obama's voting record
 
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
 
I've loved obama since he spoke at the DNC last election. If he runs, he's almost surely got my vote.
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
I'm still angry that Warner dropped out. He was the perfect Democrat candidate (moderate southern governor).
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I honestly don't know who I'd vote for in the primary in 2 years. Hillary, Bill Richardson, Obama, any of the Democratic senators or governors, there's a lot of good candidates for the Democratic side. In the general, only McCain can even come close to getting my attention for the Republican side.

As for Warner -

I like him even more now. The man wants to spend more time with his family and he let the rest of the field know ahead of time what was going on so contributors could go after other people. He's honest, and he knows how to say no for the sake of this family. Some might fault him for turning down a chance to fulfill his civic duty, but I honor his decision to choose his family. Though to be honest, I'd almost rather have someone in the Oval who DIDN'T want to be there. Reluctant dictators are a curious thing.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Lyr: That site... I wish it would be a little more descriptive of what each of those votes mean without clicking on them. "ANWAR Amendment" doesn't say much. It might mean that he voted "Y" to removing ANWAR from a particular bill (that might or might not have passed) or it might have been to add something (anything) about ANWAR to the bill. You don't know unless you click the link.

Also it lists gay marriage under "social issues" instead of "Civil Rights" >< >< >< >< ><
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Yeah the site is a little labor intensive and not very descriptive at points, but it has a lot of good information in it if you look for it.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
A Warner/Obama ticket would have been wonderful- possibly the only way the Democrats could beat a hypothetical Giuliani or McCain-led ticket. At this point, the best I'm hoping for is a charismatic Southern Democrat to take the nomination, and name Obama as his Veep. The vice versa would work as well, but either way, a ticket with Obama in it needs balancing. Unfortunately, with Warner out of the picture, I'm not sure if there are any charismatic Southern Dems left in the running. Bayh is boring as hell, and Hillary is a one-way ticket to another Republican presidency.
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
Lyr,
I respect his decision not to run, but I can't help feeling like it's the civic responsibilty of good people to lead our country. His reluctance only further cements him in my mind as one of the few people who deserve to be President.
 
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:
Their position on the war is different. Senator Clinton voted for it and was a strong supporter until recently; Senator Obama thought it was mistake from the first.
I don't recall Obama voting against anything related to Iraq. There are a ton of Democrats out there that say they are opposed to one facet of the policy or another but vote pretty much for everything layed in front of them for Iraq.
Unfortunately, Obama never had the opportunity to vote against the authorization of force in 2002, since he wasn't in the Senate until 2005. It would have been interesting to see how he voted had he been there at that time.

Added: To be clear, I know you know that; I'm just musing aloud.

[ October 23, 2006, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
quote:
...and Hillary is a one-way ticket to another Republican presidency.
Do you know any Democrats that would vote Republican before voting for her, because the key swing-votes to win in a Presidential race are minorities and women, and she seems to be polling pretty well across both groups.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Giuliani I don't think will capture his party's primary, and if he does, he'll get womped on in the general election. McCain will cause a lot of far right Conservatives to stay home, and if the Dems run a middle of the road contender, McCain won't steal enough moderates from the Dems to make up the difference.

We're seeing in this midterm, the threat is in part a vote against the incumbents, but it is ALSO because liberals are chomping at the bit to vote, we can't wait to get to the ballot box, whereas a lot of conservatives are apathetic, and are likely to stay home.

Giuliani makes conservatives stay home, it's the difference between Conservatives and Liberals in the coming general. Moderates they disagree with make extreme right wingers stay home. Moderates who disagree with extreme left wingers still bring them out to the polls. No, I don't think these are rules, but from what I've read lately, it's a growing trend.

Hillary does NOT guarantee a Republican victory, especially if they run someone who is ultra conservative. Republicans have demons in their voting records that any potential Republican can eviscerate in the next election. It depends on how good she'll be at countering eight years (and more) of Republican propaganda against her. That will determine how well she does.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:
...and Hillary is a one-way ticket to another Republican presidency.
Do you know any Democrats that would vote Republican before voting for her, because the key swing-votes to win in a Presidential race are minorities and women, and she seems to be polling pretty well across both groups.
No, not personally, but I can guarantee you that there will be very few Republicans who would vote for her, regardless of who their own party nominates. There's just too much irrational dislike for her out there. She's also not nearly exciting enough of a candidate for there to be record-setting turnout among Democrats. Obama I could see pulling in voters who wouldn't have bothered otherwise, since he's as close to a rock star as there is in politics these days. Hillary, not so much.

Also, now that I think about it, Warner's decision not to run for president doesn't necessarily preclude his nomination for the vice presidency. Maybe it's a bit of a pipe dream, but we could yet see an Obama/Warner ticket.
 
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
 
I know Democrats that would happily vote mccain before voting Hillary.

fwiw, where did all the Hillary hate come from? is it all related to her national health care thingy she pushed in the first years of Bill's presidency? Everything about people's attitudes towards her seems grudge based (for whatever reason) as well as sexist and irrational...

Obama could be elected IF the upset son of a high ranking terror official stuck in a secret prison tries to blackmail a high ranking US anti-terrorist agent into assassinating Obama on the day of the California Presidential Primary (naturally our heroic agent would turn the tide and Obama would win the day on good will.)

[Smile] Sure would be great to have Palm...err Obama elected, I saw some excerpts online from his new book and I'd really like to read or listen to it.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Giuliani I don't think will capture his party's primary, and if he does, he'll get womped on in the general election. McCain will cause a lot of far right Conservatives to stay home, and if the Dems run a middle of the road contender, McCain won't steal enough moderates from the Dems to make up the difference.
I'm not sure I buy this. McCain may be something of a "maverick" on issues of torture and campaign finance reform, but he's a rock-solid conservative on pretty much everything else. He's extremely socially conservative (including supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design), and is quite vocally hawkish as well. I think he'd be a dream candidate for the far right, because not only does he actually support just about everything they do, he's got the street cred with moderates, deserved or not, to pull in the undecided vote.

Edit:

quote:

We're seeing in this midterm, the threat is in part a vote against the incumbents, but it is ALSO because liberals are chomping at the bit to vote, we can't wait to get to the ballot box, whereas a lot of conservatives are apathetic, and are likely to stay home.
Much as I hope you're right about this, don't count your chickens before they're hatched (or however the hell that metaphor goes). The Republicans have a get-out-the-vote operation that makes the Democrats look like babies, and I'm not actually convinced that Foleygate and low Presidential job ratings are going to translate to higher turnout for the Dems. We'll see in a few weeks.
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Does anyone here dislike Obama and really do not want to see him become president? I don't think I've ever heard a good argument about why Obama would be a bad president or why they don't like him. If anyone has one, please share.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Well, he has a very short record. And since he's a Democrat, and voted with the party on one or more occassions, I presume, he is likely to get tarred as an extremist Liberal.

-Bok
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Lack of experience is the best, and most valid argument I can come up with.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Inexperience is also the only arguement I can come up with. Though we've had a few presidents with little to no prior experience.

Abraham Lincoln was in the senate for 2 years before being elected president.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
And GWB was the Governor of a state were most of the power resides in the Lt. Governer office. How much experience did Carter have?

-Bok
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
What they said. On one hand I like that he doesn't have years and years of political experience (I figure he probably owes less people favors that way). On the other hand, I've been taught time and again to pay attention to how politicians vote, not what they say. And there's just not that much to go on.

My personal thoughts are that the Democrats could do good with someone who doesn't have a huge voting record, but who is intelligent, charismatic, and a leader. I have a hard time seeing Obama losing against any of the named Republican candidates in 2008 to be honest-especially if he is careful to portray himself as very moderate between now and then.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
And if he doesnt go now, its likely he will have to wait until 2012 and then theres chance it will be a harder race. 2016 if a democrat is elected, perhaps even further if the democrats completely flop it up in those 8 years.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
And if he doesnt go now, its likely he will have to wait until 2012 and then theres chance it will be a harder race.
I just had a flash of Science fiction! What, he's going to take somec until then?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
(Edit: to BlackBlade's post) No rush... [Wink]

What do you all think about McCain? I don't really know so much about him and I trust Hatrack more than Wikipedia [Big Grin] .
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
(Edit: to BlackBlade's post) No rush... [Wink]

What do you all think about McCain? I don't really know so much about him and I trust Hatrack more than Wikipedia [Big Grin] .
He's willing to break with his party on issues of importance to him, something that earns him a certain amount of my respect. However, I will never vote for him, because his positions on issues like the war in Iraq, science in classrooms, and gay rights are completely antithetical to my own.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
In what, 2004 I think, he was rated by a group whose name I can't remember, it's a Conservative group, as the third most conservative, according to his voting record, in Congress. The year after he was rated the third most liberal conservative.

Too inconsistent to me, and his willingness to pander to Jerry Falwell's ilk gives him a black mark in my book.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Too inconsistent to me, and his willingness to pander to Jerry Falwell's ilk gives him a black mark in my book.
Could you offer anecdotal evidence for this? Or at least explain what you mean. Nice use of "black mark" btw [Wink]

If you mean that Obama is religious or that he said "I don't think making children say "under God" in the pledge indocterinates them" and therefore he panders to the Falwell crowd, I think thats a mistaken perception.

He seems like a moderate IMO especially since he was raised Muslim, became a Christian as an adult and still supports Gay marriage.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Oops, I guess I wasn't clear, but that entire post was referring to McCain, not Obama.
 
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
I have to say, I don't get the fanboyism for Obama. Is an articulate black man so rare? I'm not sure why he's so remarkable, aside from giving a good speech at last year's DNC. Not that "unremarkable" isn't leaps and bounds more praiseworthy than the average Congressman deserves, but I don't understand why he's so worshipped. If he were white, would be be such a golden boy?

I'm stumping for Gore. Good god, I want that man in office.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Hilary won't be able to pull in the south, and as has been shown, you can't win the presidency with just New York and California. Gore would have been president if he'd manage to carry his own home state.

There was a discussion at college just the other day about Hillary, and you would not belive the emotion she stirs up down here. Well, maybe you could. At any rate, I was in a pretty small minority, being conservative, I was far outnumbered by young liberal voters including the head of the campus Young Democrats club.

And yet I can't tell you a single person who said they'd vote for her. I heard several times something akin to "I consider myself liberal and vote democrat, but I will not vote for that woman."

Course this is Alabama, where people who call themselves liberal are probably conservative compared to other parts of the country and no democratic candidate is likely to be able to carry Alabama, but still I wonder if there are other liberals and democrats across the country who feel the same way and would not support her if she got the party's bid.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
I have to say, I don't get the fanboyism for Obama. Is an articulate black man so rare? I'm not sure why he's so remarkable, aside from giving a good speech at last year's DNC. Not that "unremarkable" isn't leaps and bounds more praiseworthy than the average Congressman deserves, but I don't understand why he's so worshipped. If he were white, would be be such a golden boy?

I'm stumping for Gore. Good god, I want that man in office.
Now there's a thought. What about a Gore/Obama ticket? Old Al's really improved the connotations of his name since 2000, especially shedding most of the "Al Bore" image he had during that election. Plus, he gets a big +5 in my book just for having appeared on "Futurama" so many times. [Big Grin]

Edit:

On the subject of Obama's popularity, it's not just because he's a black man, although that certainly has an effect. It's that he's smart and articulate (not to mention pretty), but also appears humble and sincere. In the current political climate, where the number one complaint against our current government is that they are a bunch of untrustworthy fat cats, the latter attributes count for a lot. Also, although he is unabashedly liberal in his ideals, he is strongly religious and has demonstrated a desire to cross party lines and work with those who disagree with him- another plus in these tense times.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Lalo -

I think so yes, but he probably wouldn't have risen to such prominance. The man is young, energetic, smart, charismatic, and he comes across as honest. That IS fairly rare, regardless of where you are in national politics. He stands out, and I don't care if he's white or black, I like what he has to say.

Belle -

A couple things...

1. Gore lost the entire south, and with the exception of California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington he also lost the entire west. With the exception of those four states, he lost everything south of Illinois and west of Iowa. That's a LOT of states. But he won almost the entire northeast, and those four western states, and a smattering of well populated mid-west states. Democrats don't NEED the south, though they'd be nice to have. For Gore, if he had won ANY state in the entire United States that he lost, he would've won the election.

Hillary just needs to take every Gore state plus one, and Ohio is swinging way back the other way these days, which is at least 21 electoral votes. Besides, Hillary is from Indiana originally (I think), not New York, maybe she'll carry her own state (just kidding!).

I think she'd carry all or most of the northeast, and all or most of the states that Gore got in the west, plus Ohio, and I think that's the ball game, assuming she doesn't pick up anything else.

2. I wonder if all those anti-Hillary folks at the meeting you were at could give reasonable answers for WHY they wouldn't vote for her other than "I just don't like her." Most people, a majority I'd say, don't know her voting record, don't know her position on issues, and think she's a raving liberal, despite the fact that the left wing of her own party really isn't a fan of her.

3. No way of knowing any of this for another year, which makes speculation a combination of really fun and totally futile. This midterm matters. If Democrats take back the house and everyone loves what they do in the next 16 months or so, that's going to give ANY Democrat a rather large boost going into the primaries and election in 2008. If Democrats don't retake it, or retake it and blow hard, then that'll make them less favorable to the people. And so much depends on flubs that Bush makes and how his party and the Dems react to it. Reaction to a do-nothing Congress and the President can decide this next election.

I'd vote for Hillary. I wouldn't even feel bad about doing it. I'd vote for Barack, and I'd feel just as good. I'd vote for Dean, if he ran again, and I'd feel good (less good now than I would have). I'd be hesitant to vote for Kerry, or Edwards. But against a Republican I would anyway, but it would a vote against Republicans, not for Democrats. And I'd vote for Al Gore, though I hope against hope that he doesn't run. I really like the guy, but I don't think he'll win, even with his new image (which I think helps imeasurably). He'll be painted as a radical environmentalist who is out of touch, and I think it'll work.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Lyr, you're right, statistically you can lose the entire south, but if you lose the south you tend to also lose some of those other states, what I'm saying is you can't win just by taking the big liberal states alone.

I don't know why those self-styled liberals don't like Hillary. I really don't, since I'm conservative, I don't plan on voting for any democratic candidate, so it doesn't really concern me. I find it curious. I don't think it's just the female thing, either, maybe I'm deluding myself there, but I really don't think that's it. This was a group composed almost entirely of women, by the way, that were discussing her. In fact, I would venture to guess that it's women who have the most visceral reaction to her.

Case in point - a girl in my class calls herself liberal, and says she hates Bush, and talks negatively about him all the time. When our professor mentioned that sometimes women like Hillary are treated badly because they don't conform to a feminine norm, this young girl says "People don't hate Hillary because of feminine norms, people hate Hillary because she's the spawn of Satan." Everyone in the class laughed, including the professor, then the discussion moved on to other things. This same girl is an ardent supporter of the democratic candidate for governor in Alabam, who is female. I don't really think this girl hates Hillary because Hillary is a woman, there's something else going on. I honestly am not sure what it is.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Part of it is her voting record. She's pro-military for one, which hurts her with a lot of traditionally dove leaning Liberals. She is willing to break with the party faithful on issues, such as cosponsoring legislation with McCain and Newt Gingrich of all people.

She's a centrist at a time when the Democrats are trying to be the Anti-Republicans, so that hurts them. And her voting record backs it up.

Everything else? The natural unexplained, unreasonable gut wrenching hatred of the woman? I have no idea what that is, or where it comes from (though something wants me to blame conservatives, just feels right), and I honestly think that the people who feel that way couldn't tell you either. I encourage all Hillary haters to try and explain your feelings about her here, if you are among us. And I encourage everyone here, when they meet someone with those feelings to EXPLAIN them. If it's anything other than "she's a flaming liberal!" or "she's a woman" or "she isn't liberal enoigh," then I'll be deafeningly surprised.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
Tarrsk: The same idea occured to me. But do you think Gore can escape the "half-elected president" stigma?
 
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
I don't hate Hillary, but I don't much care for her either. I do not get the same honest sincere vibe that I get from Obama, and I do not forgive her for the flag-burning amendment.

Obama, on the other hand, really does strike me as a good guy. He's forthright, he's smart and a good speaker, he's willing to build coalitions across party lines. I tend to agree with most of his positions, and I am really appreciative of his honesty.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dasa:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Everything else? The natural unexplained, unreasonable gut wrenching hatred of the woman? I have no idea what that is, or where it comes from (though something wants me to blame conservatives, just feels right), and I honestly think that the people who feel that way couldn't tell you either. I encourage all Hillary haters to try and explain your feelings about her here, if you are among us. And I encourage everyone here, when they meet someone with those feelings to EXPLAIN them. If it's anything other than "she's a flaming liberal!" or "she's a woman" or "she isn't liberal enoigh," then I'll be deafeningly surprised.
While there are things she has said in the (remote) past about abortion which just made me angry, I think most of it is just bad vibes. Every time I see an interview of hers, she gives off the impression of someone who is putting on an act while being condescending at the same time. That is, it seems to me that she lies about her opinions and does so because she has contempt for her audience.[/2c]
Exactly. Hillary gives the impression that everything she says and does is calculated. Running for senator in New York, opening her to accusations of being a carpetbagger, really didn't help in that department. If she has convictions, it is very difficult to tell what they are (aside from censoring movies and video games, anyway). She's the anti-Obama.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
As far as I can tell, Obama's and Clinton's voting records are almost identical.

http://tinyurl.com/yaytym

http://tinyurl.com/lagkf
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Of course, Obama being black means his votes are special.

Wait, crap, did I write that? Curse my clumsy fingers.
 
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
 
Hillary is from Chicago which last I heard, was not in Indiana.
 
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
 
Obama on habeus corpus

From the VoteSmart page that Lyrhawn linked. It regards a (then) proposed amendment to the Military Commissions Act that would have left habeus corpus in place for detainees. I really liked a lot of what he said.
 
Posted by GiantReturns (Member # 9349) on :
 
First off WoW I could not believe what I heard on the Obama edition of "Meet the Press". I have no doubt now he will be on the ballot and he will be a monster. 2 months ago he was known to people but since then he has become a celebrity. In big thanks to the liberial media everyone nation wide knows and will be singing his name come election time. I'll be the first to say I did not think he was ready for president. It appears not, as stated in the above postings conseratives are even willing to vote for him. I mean seriously people the man goes to take a HIV test in Africa and the whole world watches. He's what Liberals need He's what the U.S needs
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Almost. Out of 169 (according to my calculations) bills that they voted on in common, here are the discrepances:

code:
HilaryVotes.Vote ObamaVotes.Vote	Bill Title

N	Y	Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Y	N	Minimum Wage Amendment
N	Y	Minimum Wage Amendment
N	Y	Thomas B. Griffith, US Circuit Judge
N	Y	Energy Policy Act of 2005
Y	N	Tax Reconciliation Bill
Y	N	Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill
N	Y	Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill
Y	N	Tax Reconciliation bill
N	Y	USEMA Amendment
Y	N	Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006
N	Y	Cluster Munitions Amendment

 
Posted by Dasa (Member # 8968) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
As far as I can tell, Obama's and Clinton's voting records are almost identical.

http://tinyurl.com/yaytym

http://tinyurl.com/lagkf
True.

However, I do not think that politicians should be judged just based on their voting records, as important a criterion as they might be. There might be sheep and idiots who vote the same way as the rest of the people in the party. Does it mean that they should be judged similarly?

What matters most in checking voting records is if there is dissonance between what they said and how they said they voted.

But beyond just checking records, it matters what reasons Senators give for the way they voted and *how* they express those reasons. This is not merely about eloquence but figuring out what a person is really about -- the same way as you know someone from your town.

There is really no other way than instinctive judgements we have gained through experience to figure out things like vision, empathy and ability to respond under crisis. Even likeability is important. After all, if a leader is going to interact with leaders from other countries and persuade them she should at least be likeable. In my personal opinion Obama is far superior to Hillary Clinton in all these areas.

Sen. Clinton also rarely gives the impression of someone who understands where her opponents come from. People can say that everyone should work together till they are blue in the face, but it is a rare breed who understands the commonality which makes this meeting necessary and possible. Obama, in my judgement is part of this rare breed. Hillary, on the other hand, is putting on an act (as much as, in my judgement, Bush was) -- her entreaties just come out wrong. This might not matter in the small nitty-gritties of daily Senate decisions but when it comes to leading a country and *persuading* (and not just working along with) opposing politicians I think these qualities are indispensable.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
So far, Obama has shown himself to have real character (as opposed to the fake "I'm the sort of guy you'd like to have a drink with" character that so many politicians seem to pretend to have), an exceptionally intelligent and reasonable mind, and a conviction to not only follow a given set of beliefs but also to articulate why they are the right beliefs to have. If these turn out to be real traits, rather than political fictions, then I think that would qualify him to be a very strong candidates for the Democrats. It is exactly those qualities that the Democrats were missing in the past election.

I think an Obama/Warner ticket would be excellent. Warner said he is not running for President because he wants to be with his family rather than campaign the next few years, but there has been speculation that he'd consider running as a VP. Warner would compliment Obama's intellectualism with his down-to-earth compromising approach, and it would give a lot of Southern credibility to him.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Obama also has one more big plus: Some people are going to love whoever can prevent Clinton from running, if only for that reason alone.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
That was well said, Dasa. I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but it was well said.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Well, that last bit is certainly true, Tres. It's also true that Ms. Clinton has not a few skeletons in her closet.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Obama is a bad guy. Wait and see.
 
Posted by Dasa (Member # 8968) on :
 
Why do you feel so Lisa?

I admit I could be completely wrong about him.
ETA : But it would be better to know beforehand [Smile]
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Obama is a bad guy. Wait and see.
All politicians are "bad guys (or girls)".

But you gotta vote for somebody.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
::also curious to hear Lisa go into more detail::
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
She's just worried because Irami is working for him [Razz]
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
::also curious to hear Lisa go into more detail::
She won't. She just has an 'icky feeling' about him.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm a bad guy. Wait and see.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
*shoots Scott*

Why wait?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Storm:

What, all of a sudden, you're REPUBLICAN?

Anyway, bullets don't faze me. Only holy symbols and the prayer of the pure righteous.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Heh, heh.

I'm having a flashback to that guy in the Mummy.

*Fumblingly searches through his collection of holy symbols*

Cross!

Dammit.

Pentagram!

Dammit.

Incense!

Da--*crunch*
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
Brother Maynard, bring me the Holy Hand Grenade!
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
::also curious to hear Lisa go into more detail::
She won't. She just has an 'icky feeling' about him.
Lisa, is that true?
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I may be alone in this, but Lisa disliking a politician isn't exactly a black mark against that person for me.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
::also curious to hear Lisa go into more detail::
She won't. She just has an 'icky feeling' about him.
Lisa, is that true?
Link
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Lyr- It doesn't matter whether people don't have good reasons for disliking Hilary. What does matter is that they dislike her, a national campaign isn't going to change that. People aren't going to vote for her. That might be a illogical choice on their part, but the polls don't care.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Huh. Thanks erosomniac. Well, I think I'll trust my gut on this one over Lisa's.

For me there is a slight element of "too good to be true" about him; I keep waiting for the skeletons to start popping out of his closet, or for him to be photographed taking indecent liberties with a wallaby or something. I think that that's just wariness after having gone most of my life without a candidate I could really get behind and believe in, though.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

I encourage all Hillary haters to try and explain your feelings about her here, if you are among us. And I encourage everyone here, when they meet someone with those feelings to EXPLAIN them. If it's anything other than "she's a flaming liberal!" or "she's a woman" or "she isn't liberal enoigh," then I'll be deafeningly surprised.

 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
She ran over my dog.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

She ran over my dog.
I'm sayin'.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
The quote forgot, "She is married to Bill Clinton," and that is enough for me.
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
Senator Obama
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
At times I think I have a somewhat peculiar nature about things like this. I don't care about seeing movies on opening weekend. I don't mind waiting to find out things like sports scores or political results (the idea of needing to call elections as soon as possible mystifies me). I generally prefer a well thought analysis a week or two later rather than instant coverage of a news story.

So, to me, 2006 isn't really a time I'm goign to be making strong predictions about the 2008 presidential elections. We've got two years yet. We haven't even had the mid-term elections.

Besides this, we have two more years of George W. Bush as President. Lord knows what that man is going to do in the next two years, but I'm willing to bet that it's going to have a significant effect on the 2008 elections. It's entirely possible that the only way a Republican could get elected in 2008 would be if, figuratively speaking, they decapitated the current president and rode around with his head mounted on a pike strapped to the campaign bus.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
*Gasp* You mean he changed his mind? How dare he!

In all seriousness, I would much rather trust a politician that changes his mind based on new data or circumstances than one who keeps doing the same thing no matter what.

That's just my opinion, of course.

(This was in response to the blog that Avatar linked, btw.)
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
That's an astoundingly poor point against him, Avatar. It's not like he hasn't been publically acknowledging that he's changed his position. Unlike certain other politicians I could name, Obama's not saying, "I never claimed otherwise. No, really! Never ever ever!"
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:

I encourage all Hillary haters to try and explain your feelings about her here, if you are among us. And I encourage everyone here, when they meet someone with those feelings to EXPLAIN them. If it's anything other than "she's a flaming liberal!" or "she's a woman" or "she isn't liberal enoigh," then I'll be deafeningly surprised.
I watched a clip of Hilary sitting with Suha Arafat and nodding attentively while Suha explained how the Jews were poisoning Palestinian wells (a libel as old as the Crusades) and intentially giving Palestinian children diseases.

She was also a big supporter of the PLO back when everyone in the world realized the PLO was a terrorist group. Now she's cuddling up to the Jews, just because she needs them in New York. Feh on her.

Though I'd still pick her over Obama, I think.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Really! Now even I'm curious as to what Obama's done that you'd vote for someone that you consider anti-semitic over him.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by breyerchic04:
Hillary is from Chicago which last I heard, was not in Indiana.
Sheesh, I said "I think" afterwards, as I wasn't totally sure if it was Illinois or Indiana, she's from a suburb of Chicago, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. No need to be snarky.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Though I'd still pick her over Obama, I think.
How come?
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
Really! Now even I'm curious as to what Obama's done that you'd vote for someone that you consider anti-semitic over him.
I know what to expect from Hilary. Opportunism of the very cold and hard kind. Obama is less of a known quantity, though I suspect he's an idealist/idealogue of the very dangerous kind.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I guess, though judging from their voting records and how they are rated by various organizations, this practically doesn't seperate them by very much.
 
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
Really! Now even I'm curious as to what Obama's done that you'd vote for someone that you consider anti-semitic over him.
I know what to expect from Hilary. Opportunism of the very cold and hard kind. Obama is less of a known quantity, though I suspect he's an idealist/idealogue of the very dangerous kind.
May I ask what you think he might do? I mean this in all seriousness and don't intend to belittle your opinion in any way. What do you believe Obama to be capable of that you would prefer an anti-semite to him?
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
blacwolve -

Hillary polls higher than ANY other potential Democratic candidate even near the field. A national campaign is what got her in the position she's in, and it's possible smart campaigning could do the opposite. What do you think national campaigns DO? It's not all about policy and positions on issues, hell, thanks to Republicans, it's NEVER about that anymore.

To anyone else -

Now I've heard an oft heard attack on Clinton, which I can't really disarm or confirm, that she's lying and cheating her way to the White House, doing whatever is popular to win, and that she doesn't care about anything else and can't work well with others.

Yet she has a better record of bipartisan cooperation than any other centrist liberal that comes to mind, or liberal in general (to say nothing of conservatives).

But blacwolve is right about one thing, it's at a point where people who just DON'T LIKE HER, for whatever reason or no reason, don't really care what she says. If she is for the military, she's lying, if she's against the military, she's a liberal traitor, if she's for abortion, she's playing politics, if she's against it, she's pandering to the right. She can't win, so why would she bother falsifying?

Regardless, there is something patently unelectable about her, but there's also something extremely electable about her. Whether or not those balance out is for the voters in the primary to decide. Before I vote for Obama I want to see more about his platform, which I'll see next year if/when he runs.

I really don't think I'll have to choose between them, why? I don't think they'll both run. They saw what happened last election, the nine or whatever democratic candidates beat the crap out of each other, ruined a dozen media cycles, and by the time there was a final front runner, he had to spend a month fending off the attacks from his rivals before he could get close to running against he REAL opponent.

Democrats, I think, are going to unify on 08, and part of that means that there might be 3 main candidates (too many high profile names for it to be anywhere near 8 or 9). But if a frontrunner emerges, I think the others will drop back and support the leader, and will stump for him/her. Hillary might decide that it's better to work her way up the party leadership in the Congress (which I hope to goodness she does), or she might push for the Oval.

I just hope they've all learned their collective lesson.
 
Posted by Dasa (Member # 8968) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
May I ask what you think he might do? I mean this in all seriousness and don't intend to belittle your opinion in any way. What do you believe Obama to be capable of that you would prefer an anti-semite to him?
I don't think Lisa said that Hillary is an anti-semite -- she just said that Hillary is oppurtunistic. So, if you push the right buttons, she will come around to your side. Obama, on the other hand, might well be an anti-semite (albeit a closet one for now). So, if and when he comes to power, he wouldn't budge from his position because he is an idealist and not an oppurtunist.

If you believe that he is an idealogue and don't know (and can't guess) his actual positions, I can see how you would be really afraid.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
Really! Now even I'm curious as to what Obama's done that you'd vote for someone that you consider anti-semitic over him.
I know what to expect from Hilary. Opportunism of the very cold and hard kind. Obama is less of a known quantity, though I suspect he's an idealist/idealogue of the very dangerous kind.
An idealogue for what? As far as I can tell, the two things Obama has been adamant about are his opposition to the war in Iraq (hardly a unique viewpoint these days) and a dedication to reaching across party lines. His voting record thus far is liberal, but he has made a point to work with his opponents in the Senate whenever possible- exactly the opposite of ideologically-driven behavior. Unless you're suggesting that his bipartisan work is some sinister effort to trick folks into liking him, I'm not sure where you're getting your impressions from.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
[QB] blacwolve -

Hillary polls higher than ANY other potential Democratic candidate even near the field.
That means nothing this early in the game. The midterms haven't happened yet, and none of the potential candidates have even announced that they are running for President, much less run any sort of ads. At this point in the '92 elections, nobody had ever heard of Bill Clinton, much less expected him to take the Democratic nomination, to say nothing of actually winning the Presidency. Four years ago, nobody had ever heard of Howard Dean, either, and he ultimately came within spitting distance of the Democratic nomination. Obama was already polling above 8% while still saying flat out that he wasn't going to run. That number's only going to go up now that there's a chance he might.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
You gotta admire a guy who went against a gun control bill favored by the Chicago Police Union, and yet the Union still thinks of him as a great politician.

I really think Obama is an inteligent, interesting man, who knows how to bring folks together from both sides and get things done.

I like his criticism of legislation, its always constructive IMO and if you listen to his weekly podcast I think you will see alot in him thats admirable.

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/

Its interesting he hasnt broadcast since October.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I think he's a new politician who hasn't yet really got into the sights of any real mudslingers. From what I can see, politically, he's no better than many, many other Dems.

Characterwise, we'll see. That's where he can really distinguish himself, and that's where he really needs to watch what he promises and what he does.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
[QB] blacwolve -

Hillary polls higher than ANY other potential Democratic candidate even near the field.
That means nothing this early in the game. The midterms haven't happened yet, and none of the potential candidates have even announced that they are running for President, much less run any sort of ads. At this point in the '92 elections, nobody had ever heard of Bill Clinton, much less expected him to take the Democratic nomination, to say nothing of actually winning the Presidency. Four years ago, nobody had ever heard of Howard Dean, either, and he ultimately came within spitting distance of the Democratic nomination. Obama was already polling above 8% while still saying flat out that he wasn't going to run. That number's only going to go up now that there's a chance he might.
I agree, and said as much earlier in the thread. That was just a response to what blacwolve said about polling.

It's a decent idea though to keep an eye on polling data just to see where things are going. What they largely do is tell you who has the best name recognition. Right now, among serious contenders, Hillary wins that battle, which means she has to spend lest money getting her name out (yet sadly, more spent trying to change what is connected TO that name recognition [Wink] ). When Barack does announce, if he announces, what will be the reaction? If he's still polling low, announcing might not be that big of a bump, especially since a lot of people are calling this past month an unofficial announcement.

The numbers don't mean a ton, but they aren't worthless. We've spent 80 years (at least) perfecting polling data, and trying to figure out what polling data is really telling us. Pollsters know what they are doing and what they are looking for.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
May I ask what you think he might do? I mean this in all seriousness and don't intend to belittle your opinion in any way. What do you believe Obama to be capable of that you would prefer an anti-semite to him?
Honestly, I don't know. I get vibes about people sometimes. I have all my life, and I've learned to trust them. Obviously, I can't expect other people to trust the vibes that I get, and I have nothing concrete that I can point to here.

Maybe there's concrete stuff that I'm just not bringing to mind. If you've read Blink, it's kind of like that.

I do think that he's very likely to push a heavy socialist agenda. Hillary tried to ram socialized medicine down our throats when she was only co-president, but I think that Obama will push that much, much harder than Hillary would at this point.

There's something about his body language that makes me not trust him. He's too slick. And people are glomming on to him way too fast.

<shrug> I can't give you more than that. It's a hunch. It's a feeling. But I'm telling you, I expect that it's not going to be that long before there'll be more than just that.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'd be fascinated to see a comparitive study on the gut reactions people have to Obama and Hillary, and Bush and McCain, where they came from, what their religion is, and their political leaning.

I see Hillary and mostly I like what I see (as a whole, despite the icky parts I less than like), and I like Obama with few if any reservations at the moment. Lisa views Hillary as opportunistic (as do many others), and Obama as slick and scary. I see Obama as refreshingly honest.

Lisa, is it possible you have a natural distrust of politicians, and honesty comes off as slickness because you automatically expect all honestly to be faked?

I think Bush is a liar, many people think he is a strong leader. I think McCain is a bit of an opportunist, but people call him honest and bipartisan.

Where do these feelings and inklings come from? How much of it has to do with our personalities and our upbringing?
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Lisa, is it possible you have a natural distrust of politicians, and honesty comes off as slickness because you automatically expect all honestly to be faked?
Possible, sure. Likely, I don't think so. I'd love to see a non-politician in office. Obama seems very much the politician to me, though.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Actually Lisa Obama admitted to attending socialist meetings as a younger man. He used marijuana and cocaine as a teenager I believe, and he is pretty candid about his weaknesses in his book. I think its an interesting read. I was blown away that his mother lived off food stamps while she finished getting a PHD. He once "accidentally" voted against a bill designed to protect children from sexual predators.

I just feel like it will be hard to smear him if he does run because he can easily say, "My life is is an open book." Excuse the pun.

But I do have one qualm with Obama

Its often hard to get elected if you are seen as unsure. Obama often says, "on the other hand this makes sense" and "the other side has a point." Alot of people like candidates with strong laid out principles that are easy to see. Some people like moderates.

I do think Obama is capable of being stern seeing as how he voted in 2002 against going to war in Iraq as he felt the strategy and intel was not fully realized. Virtually all 2008 presidential hopefuls voted yes in giving Bush the power to go to Iraq. But many of his views are not set in stone.

But he doesnt stamp his foot down and stay there all the time. That attitude can certainly be useful.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Obama was "unslick" enough during that interview to admit that there were no good Iraq solutions. He acknowledges that situations and issues (not just Iraq) are complicated. That alone sets him apart.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by breyerchic04:
Hillary is from Chicago which last I heard, was not in Indiana.
Sheesh, I said "I think" afterwards, as I wasn't totally sure if it was Illinois or Indiana, she's from a suburb of Chicago, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. No need to be snarky.
For the record (primarily for those who aren't from the area) There is a sizable portion of north-west Indiana (self-titled "The Region") which claims (somewhat rightly so) to be extended suburbs of Chicago. So, claiming one is from Chicago could mean you're actually from Indiana.

Being from Illinois, I'm generally a purist on this and it bugs me when Indianians claim Chicago as their home town, but it's not without merit. Of course this is all said with no actual knowledge of where hillary was born.
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Lyr- I actually meant at the polls, rather than in polling data. I just couldn't figure out how to get that across grammatically. I think I misunderstood you, I got the impression that you were saying that the people who disliked Hilary didn't have a good reason for it, and thus their dislike could be dismissed. That was the point I was trying to contradict, if that isn't what you were saying, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

I do think Obama is capable of being stern seeing as how he voted in 2002 against going to war in Iraq as he felt the strategy and intel was not fully realized. Virtually all 2008 presidential hopefuls voted yes in giving Bush the power to go to Iraq. But many of his views are not set in stone.

Not in the US Senate. He was elected in 2004. He did express that opinion, though.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
Much as I'm with the majority of the people in this discussion who feel more or less drawn to Obama, do consider that his moderateness could potentially be a certain angle of opportunism rather than Idealism.

I don't think it's necessarily true, but over the last few years there has been an increasing feeling by many that the parties are too skewed (i.e. Repubilcans are being too conservative, and the Democrats are just being anti-republicans). Therefor that middle ground is fairly advantageous to be holding.

When he says things like: "there's no good solution in Iraq" I tend to think it's him being reasonable and intelligent, but it can also be viewed as him just pandering to the people that are pissed at both sides that yell things like "Stay the course" and "Withdraw troops now"...
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Grim - She's from a northern suburb.

blac - I really don't think that a lot of them have a reason for disliking her, but that doesn't matter. Regardless of whether or not they have a good reason, they feel the way they feel, and that must be addressed by whatever campaign Hillary forms to get the nomination. People will vote their convictions and their gut sometimes, in lieu of or in the fact of actual information, so yes, that is a rather sizeable obstacle for Hillary. But I don't think it is insurmountable by any means. While it's an uphill battle, she was painted into this corner by a campaign, and I think she has a chance to get herself out of one with a campaign.
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
Everyone tip-toes around the fact that, even today, a lot of people have qualms about voting for a black man.

It's something that's not being dicusssed here because we all feel we're above race, but a lot of people aren't, and I'd go as far to say that they are the majority in this country.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

I do think Obama is capable of being stern seeing as how he voted in 2002 against going to war in Iraq as he felt the strategy and intel was not fully realized. Virtually all 2008 presidential hopefuls voted yes in giving Bush the power to go to Iraq. But many of his views are not set in stone.

Not in the US Senate. He was elected in 2004. He did express that opinion, though.
Thanks for the correction.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'd also go as far to say that a majority of those people are in places that are overwhelmingly Republican anyway. I hate to impose regional stereotypes, but does anyone expect the south will be happy about electing a black Democrat? New York and California aren't going to care, and that's almost a third of what he needs right there. I really can't think of a way to articulate this without calling Republicans racist, but the votes that he isn't going to get from people who don't want to elect a black man are the same votes he wasn't going to get because he's liberal. Just know that that isn't a blanket statement.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Maybe it's naive of me to think so, but I imagine if he doesn't make the election about race (and there's no indication that he would do so), then the majority of these hypothetical people you're talking about won't care that he's black. On the other hand, if he even hints that he holds with similar rhetoric to that which Irami posts on this site about how the white man is the source of all evil in this country, he won't have a chance in hell of even getting the Democratic party nomination.
 
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
 
I would much rather have him as president than Hilary Clinton.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I highly doubt he'll spout that kind of rhetoric with his mother being a white woman from Kansas.

Obama gets to win with the race card in this election. Republicans can't bring up race or they'll look racist, and they can't risk alienating whatever black vote they might hope to court. Obama on the other hand can bring it up, in inner cities he'll talk about his experiences as a black man, and he'll still try and do it all over the south in inner cities with overwhelmingly black majorities. He will probably still lose the south, but the Dems will finally have a reason to campaign there.

But I think there are people who no matter what, whether someone brings up the issue or not, will not vote for a black man, will not vote for a woman. My uncle is one of them, and he's not alone.
 
Posted by Murat (Member # 9726) on :
 
Long time Hatrack lurker here, I have been literally dropping in and out of this forum for over 6 years. Finally this thread has driven me out of hibernation. [Smile]

First, I better give you guys some background. I am a college student who wants to be in the business of running political campaigns. I've participated in a variety of campaigns on the local, state and federal level. Currently I am the president of my College Democrats. During the summer I am going to intern with the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee).

So what has drawn me out of hibernation? I think most people have gotten it wrong on why Hilary Clinton being president would be bad for our nation. She is probably the most polarizing politician on the national Democratic scene, with Republicans chomping at the bit to attack her. We have all seen what damage an extremely polarizing President (GWB) can do.

Now as far as Obama, I think he is a great politician, but I don’t think he should run this cycle. He is still too young and inexperienced with only 2 years of experience on the national scene under his belt.

I would much rather see Gore run again. I think he has the credentials, the experience and most importantly, has nothing to do with Iraq.

This brings me to my next point. Whoever the Dems nominate, they can’t have ever voted for against Iraq. If a Congressman voted for the Iraq war, then it will be very hard to turn the election into a referendum of Iraq. Think the sequel of Kerry's campaign. It was very hard for him to get a simple message across, because he had to explain both his voting for the war and his opposition against it.

My ideal ticket would be Gore/Obama. However, that’s too liberal so my actual choice was Gore/Warner, but with Warner dropping out, it’s now Gore/Someone I Could Live With.

Anyone got suggestions?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Lack of experience is the best, and most valid argument I can come up with.
Executive/Legislative Experience of some Select Presidents

1. George Washington - First Continental Congress
2. Abraham Lincoln - 4 terms, Ill. House; 1 term, U.S. House
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt - 1 term, N.Y. State Senate; 1 term, N.Y. Governor
4. Thomas Jefferson - Va. House; Continental Congress; Va. Governor; Secretary of State
5. Theodore Roosevelt - 2 terms, N.Y. State Assembly; 1/2 term, N.Y. Governor; 6 mo. V.P.
6. Woodrow Wilson - 1/2 term, N.J. Governor
7. Andrew Jackson - 1 term, U.S. House; 1 yr., U.S. Senate
8. James Polk - 7 terms, U.S. House incl. 2 terms Speaker; 1 term Tenn. Governor
9. Harry Truman - 3 terms Mo. county administrator; 2 terms, U.S. Senate; 82 days V.P.
10. Dwight Eisenhower - none
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Gore can't run again. He just can't. Too much of his campaign will come off as "I told you so," which people really don't want to hear. His message has focused so much on the environment over the last couple years, I think he's going to get tagged too hard as a fringe environmentalist, even though his policies make a lot of sense economically and environmentally. He gives the right too much ammo, he's failed once, he threw a hissy fit that while I agreed with, still painted him in a poor light.

He polls high among Democrats because in many ways he's second only to Clinton as Party Elder, in a sense. I think Obama as VP helps secure some votes for whoever runs in the center spot, but it limits Obama as well, he isn't going to get a ton of experience sitting in the OEOB the entire time, waiting for something to happen. The only way I think he should be VP is if the guy in the front guarantees him a major position as power player on policy issues, and if he is MUCH more up front and out in the open than Cheney has been.

I like Gore, but I don't think he can win, I really don't. I think people will look at him and say "THIS guy again?" Many will look at him and see him as the golden alternative to Bush, but I don't think that gets him any votes he didn't already have. Warner or Richardson are the best chances for people with experience, that don't polarize the nation, and that have great chances to win. Warner is out, so I like Richardson.

Samp -

All or most of your list support my point. Any or all governors in almsot every state can get the experience needed from a term to be a decent leader, what matters after that is who they actually are, but no one can charge them with being inexperienced. George Washington was George Washington, few were better equipped to lead a fledgling nation. Lincoln I'd say was inexperienced, and judging from the fact that the Union had a new commander every other week, I'd say that backs up his inexperience with the military at the very least.

Jefferson, Roosevelt, Wilson, all had decent experience, especially Roosevelt. Jackson was a war hero and congressman, he knew what was up. Polk had seven terms, that's experience. Truman had some experience, but then, who ever really looks at the experience of a VP? Eisenhower is perhaps the one exception, but the man helped win the greatest war in a couple centuries, and the world was still dicey, the problem of the day was foreign policy, and he was well suited to it.

I think there are two kinds of experience that are good enough for a president. 1. Military Command and 2. Government leadership experience.

So a term or two in the senate or three in the House, a term or two as governor, or a decade of military experience. Some combination of these thigns, or even one of them is good enough to escape the "inexperience" label.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:


He polls high among Democrats because in many ways he's second only to Clinton as Party Elder, in a sense.
I've always wondered what would've happened if Clinton had stepped down after the Lewinsky scandal and let Gore be president for a couple years. I think this would have given Gore a lot more 'gravitas', and effected how people percieve him.
 
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Personally, I'm scared that the democrats are going to nominate a stupid choice for their ticket--such as someone too polarizing/extreme/unlikeable/etc., and then we'll be stuck with the republicans for 4 more years. UGH.

Just to be clear, I hate them all. I used to hate the republicans less--in fact, I kinda liked them. Now I detest them, and I hate the democrats a lot less. So my wish is that the democrats nominate someone amazing who will have the power to win the election against whatever Satan the republicans nominate. (Who am I kidding? The democrat choice will be evil, too, but perhaps just a lesser demon.) Although I do like what I've heard of Obama... but he's probably too cool to ever get the nomination.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
On the Gore question, I would strongly consider voting for Obama in '08 depending on what he decides to make his issues, compared to the opposition. I would probably vote against Gore if he ran.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
On the other hand, if he even hints that he holds with similar rhetoric to that which Irami posts on this site about how the white man is the source of all evil in this country, he won't have a chance in hell of even getting the Democratic party nomination.
Does this mean I'm not ready for prime time? [Big Grin]

[ October 25, 2006, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gecko:
Everyone tip-toes around the fact that, even today, a lot of people have qualms about voting for a black man.

It's something that's not being dicusssed here because we all feel we're above race, but a lot of people aren't, and I'd go as far to say that they are the majority in this country.
I realize that you're not so subtly insinuating that every white Republican who wouldn't vote for Obama is a racist, but I think you'd find that if Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice were to run either would receive massive support from the vast majority of Republicans.

See, it's not the color of the skin, it's the color of the politics.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
I'd vote for Condy over Hillary, but I wouldn't be happy with either of them.
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gecko:
Everyone tip-toes around the fact that, even today, a lot of people have qualms about voting for a black man.

It's something that's not being dicusssed here because we all feel we're above race, but a lot of people aren't, and I'd go as far to say that they are the majority in this country.
I'm not sure this country is ready to put anyone but a white person in office, but I'm completely sure we'll see a non-white president before we see a non-male one.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Probably better wait until after the election Irami [Smile]
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
For the record, although I do think that the white utilitarian culture is the source of a large amount of good and evil, but I'm not worried about the segment of population who won't vote for him because he is black. Those are mostly white guy republicans anyway, I figure their wives will vote for Obama and lie about it at home.

I do worry about the equally large segment that won't vote for him because they are scared that white racists won't work with him. It goes something like this, "I don't have a problem with him being black. But I know that X might, and if you want to get anything done in government, you are going to need X's support." There is a cousin argument, "I don't have a problem voting for him, but I need to look out for his family, and with the prospect of assasination, out of respect for his wife and family and stability of the nation, I'll vote for the other guy."

Then there are people who think that his race has nothing to do with his politics, which I find astounding, as if it were just a coincidence that the Jews were so vocal about the civil rights movement and the white passive-agressive Protestant ethic is still the face of America.

He seems electable to me. I like him. I like Howard Dean, too, and I like Bill Bradley almost as much as I like the other two. But I judge my candidates on different criteria than most people.
__________

To be honest, as good as Obama is, he isn't perfect, and in many different ways, I was disappointed with my experience in his office. One man, no matter how morally compelling, can't do it all. I'm sure, even a few times, Jesus walked in on his disciples and shook his head.

Obama is great, but I got the feeling that everyone else there wasn't any better or worse than anyone else in any other congressional office. In fact, a bit younger, maybe a bit hipper, but interchangable with any other congressional office. It wasn't my scene.

[ October 25, 2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
 
Remember when David Palmer got a major party nomination on 24? Obamma doesn't need that.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Obama isn't known for playing the race card. He is perfectly aware that saying "White oppressive, Black oppressed" will ruin his image in white peoples minds, which is why alot of white people love him because he hasnt said that, but alot of black people are hesitant to claim him as he isnt really the standard African American.

Pretty annoyed with Alan Keyes to be honest, I remeber enjoying him forcing Bush and McCain back in 2000 to be alot more specific and not so vague during their televised debates on CNN, but overall I'm not a fan of Keyes.

Lisa:

I'd probably vote for Condi over Hillary, but I too would not be happy with either.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

Then there are people who think that his race has nothing to do with his politics, which I find astounding, as if it were just a coincidence that the Jews were so vocal about the civil rights movement and the white passive-agressive Protestant ethic is still the face of America.
Or that some black dude who hasn't done anything over and above a large chunk of his fellow party members is apparently being fawned over by large sections of the electorate?

Damn clumsy fingers. Curse you, fingers!
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
To be honest, as good as Obama is, he isn't perfect, and in many different ways, I was disappointed with my experience in his office.
I'd be interested in reading about this in more detail if you were interested in taking the time to write about it, Irami.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Sure, after he is elected President.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
Sure, after he is elected President.
When he is, write a book, win a pulitzer, or at least a sweet book deal. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
Is everyone forgetting that Obama is only half-black? Or is the prevailing mind-set that he must be all "something"?
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
Is everyone forgetting that Obama is only half-black? Or is the prevailing mind-set that he must be all "something"?
I don't think anybody has said he is all black.

Are you suggesting he be in a group of hiw own for only being half? Or that he does not identify more with blacks or whites and thats its purely equal?
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
quote:
I don't think anybody has said he is all black.

Are you suggesting he be in a group of hiw own for only being half? Or that he does not identify more with blacks or whites and thats its purely equal?
I thought it was important to point out because of the increasing pigeon-holing of him as African American, when he doesn't truly fit into any handy preconceived racial mold.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
Then there are people who think that his race has nothing to do with his politics, which I find astounding, as if it were just a coincidence that the Jews were so vocal about the civil rights movement and the white passive-agressive Protestant ethic is still the face of America.
The thing about Jews and civil rights seems like a non sequitur in this context, Irami. Could you please explain it?
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:

Then there are people who think that his race has nothing to do with his politics, which I find astounding, as if it were just a coincidence that the Jews were so vocal about the civil rights movement and the white passive-agressive Protestant ethic is still the face of America.
Or that some black dude who hasn't done anything over and above a large chunk of his fellow party members is apparently being fawned over by large sections of the electorate?

Damn clumsy fingers. Curse you, fingers!
You know... that may actually be part of what makes me uncomfortable about him. He lacks substance. He feels like a fad. You know how one day, no one has ever heard of something, and the next day, you either know all about it, or you must have been living in a cave? That's what all the Obamania seems like.

He could have been constructed in the Democratic Institute of Robotics for maximum crowd appeal.
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
THT, I think the issue is that he isn't just a straight-up caucasian. In terms of latent racism you're going to have similar troubles if your candidate is half-black, half-hispanic, half-chinese, half-pacific-islander...

Even without playing the race card actively, it's played (at least in the negative sense) any time his face is on TV.

Additionally, I think his african-american heritage is being played up both here and abroad because that's what sets him apart from most other candidates. Just as Hillary's femininity is emphasized because that's what sets her apart from other candidates...
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Here is the quick plot. Obama needed to put together a Senate Office. He picked up Daschle's CoS to head his Washington Office and a few black Chicago insiders to head his Illinois operation. All of that is great, if you are a fan of Daschle or black Chicago insiders. It was a noble effort, in order to balance Obama's Senatorial inexperience, he filled the office with entrenched "experience," so instead of working in an enlightened environment, the place was lousy with the same poli sci wonks who are in every political office in the nation. Same fears, same priorities, hell, there was even a fantasy football league.

Since I'm generally apathetic towards Daschle, and I have a special hatred for black Chicago insiders, it wasn't a good fit. All good people, just not my speed.

[ October 25, 2006, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheGrimace:
Just as Hillary's femininity
I'm sorry... her what?
 
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
ok, less her femininity and more the fact that she is a woman
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
You know... that may actually be part of what makes me uncomfortable about him. He lacks substance. He feels like a fad. You know how one day, no one has ever heard of something, and the next day, you either know all about it, or you must have been living in a cave? That's what all the Obamania seems like.
Except that "Obamania" has been running strongly at the national level for two years now, and started well before he was actually elected to the Senate. Could he be a fad that dies out in a year? Sure. Had "nobody" heard of him before recently? Not at all. He had a lucky break with the '04 DNC keynote speech, but his popularity had been on the ascent long before that. Don't forget that he spent years in the state legislature before becoming Senator, and he was well-loved by his constituents even then.

quote:
He could have been constructed in the Democratic Institute of Robotics for maximum crowd appeal. [/qb]
The same could be said about Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. I'm not sure what your point is. Bush aside, it's pretty standard for successful politicians to be well-spoken and charismatic.

I've seen several credible criticisms of Obama made in this thread alone- his relative inexperience, Irami's impression of his staff, etc. A vague impression that he's somehow too perfect to be true is not one of them.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
BB and Lisa -

What are Condi's policies? Things she supports and is against? What's her position on domestic issues? gay marriage? etc?

Generally I find that people who support her over ANYONE, don't even know what her stance is on major issues. I think I'd have to blacklist her as someone I certainly wouldn't vote for based on her performance in the Bush Administration alone, which I find to be so substandard as to be wreckless endangerment for the entire US population. Whether it was her own personal beliefs, or she was spouting rhetoric for the administration, she was wrong. Colin Powell left when he was wronged, she got a promotion, so I don't think she can claim to disagree with government policies.

If she got the nomination, her campaign would have to spend half it's time explaining her position on the Iraq war, which currently most people think was a bad idea, that we are losing, and that we should get out now. I think she's sunk before she even sets sail.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

I've seen several credible criticisms of Obama made in this thread alone- his relative inexperience, Irami's impression of his staff, etc. A vague impression that he's somehow too perfect to be true is not one of them.
I think you misunderstand what I, at least, was getting at. It's not what's wrong with him, it's what's so right with him that he stands out? How about the fact that no one in this thread can really point out the thing that makes him so distinctive and Hillary so awful--or at least, if not awful, less appealing than Obama?

quote:

Bush aside, it's pretty standard for successful politicians to be well-spoken and charismatic.
Exactly.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

All of that is great, if you are a fan of Daschle or black Chicago insiders.
And I meant to ask whether anyone was going to remark on this?
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:

I've seen several credible criticisms of Obama made in this thread alone- his relative inexperience, Irami's impression of his staff, etc. A vague impression that he's somehow too perfect to be true is not one of them.
I think you misunderstand what I, at least, was getting at. It's not what's wrong with him, it's what's so right with him that he stands out? How about the fact that no one in this thread can really point out the thing that makes him so distinctive and Hillary so awful--or at least, if not awful, less appealing than Obama?

quote:

Bush aside, it's pretty standard for successful politicians to be well-spoken and charismatic.
Exactly.
Well, first of all, he's a charismatic and well-spoken African-American who neither over- nor under-values his racial heritage. That rings well with liberals who want to see minorities in higher office, as well as conservatives tired of minority agendas. But, and I think more importantly, Obama gives off the impression of sincerity and honesty. If there's one thing we can learn from the events of the past month, it's that Americans are sick and tired of political opportunism and corruption, regardless of party affiliation, and so Obama's message of bipartisanship and integrity therefore resonates deeply- and all the more because people believe that he means what he's saying. That, more than anything else, is why he has gotten people so excited about him.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
I was kinda curious about Condi's politics as well. I mean, Ya, she's a republican. But that could mean anything, really...

My lil bro (who's political opinion I respect greatly) says she's fiscally conservative, but I've never actually heard her say anything...

Does anyone have a list of her positions?
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

Well, first of all, he's a charismatic and well-spoken African-American who neither over- nor under-values his racial heritage. That rings well with liberals who want to see minorities in higher office, as well as conservatives tired of minority agendas. But, and I think more importantly, Obama gives off the impression of sincerity and honesty. If there's one thing we can learn from the events of the past month, it's that Americans are sick and tired of political opportunism and corruption, regardless of party affiliation, and so Obama's message of bipartisanship and integrity therefore resonates deeply- and all the more because people believe that he means what he's saying. That, more than anything else, is why he has gotten people so excited about him.
Glad to hear he radiates. [Smile]

And, a message of bipartisanship and integrity? Goodness. That's daring. We've never heard politicians use that one before. [Smile]

I'm sorry to be mean and not just go along with the Obama love-fest. I have nothing against the man. He looks to me to be a fine Democrat and someone that I wouldn't have any problem voting for, but then, so does Hillary, by and large.

The thing that irritates me about this thread isn't that people love Obama (thought I do think that a lot of people love him for,shall we say, less than substantive reasons), but that they're so willing to hate Hillary or Ted Kennedy or Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pellosi just because they've either never heard of them or they're scared away by the mud slung by the Republicans.

Obama is saying nothing that Ms. Clinton and other Dems haven't already said, what's more, Clinton gets tarred by both liberals and conservatives because she tries to moderate her opinions and does work to give people what they want. Is that not what being a moderate is? Finding a middle ground?

Again, give Obama a couple of years. People will dig up mud on him. He'll contradict himself, as he damn well should to some degree, because circumstances change.

Finally, what about Irami's comment? If I changed that around and mentioned that a politician actively sought out white people for positions, no one here would find it salutory. Isn't it, if true, troubling about Obama?
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
I'm not saying that those messages are terribly original. But you missed my point- the reason he's well-liked is not that he's got some miracle plan to save America. It's that he is capable of making people believe those moderately cheesy things he's saying. How many other politicians right now can do that? And it doesn't hurt his image that he's a very good-looking guy in the prime of his life, who has more gravitas than any five other senators combined.

Another point: people don't need to dig up mud on him, because he's already done it himself. He's been very open about his youthful drug abuse (and none of that weak-tea pot... young Barack was hitting the hard stuff). That hasn't stopped his popularity- if anything, his candidness has increased folks' respect for him.

Incidentally, despite the impression I may have given in this thread, I'm by no means sold on Obama myself. I do think he's more electable than just about any other Democrat out there, and have tried to explain my reasons for thinking so, but I worry about his inexperience, and Irami's story has given me a certain amount of pause. I do think the guy is for real, though, and because I *am* one of those disillusioned Americans, I find his honesty and candor refreshing.

I agree that the hatred of other Democrats tends to be unwarranted bordering on the absurd (especially Pelosi, who's often attacked for no better reason than she represents San Fransciso).
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
quote:
The thing that irritates me about this thread isn't that people love Obama (thought I do think that a lot of people love him for,shall we say, less than substantive reasons), but that they're so willing to hate Hillary or Ted Kennedy or Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pellosi just because they've either never heard of them or they're scared away by the mud slung by the Republicans.

Obama is saying nothing that Ms. Clinton and other Dems haven't already said,
Sometimes it's not what you say, but the character of the person who's doing the talking that really matters. I don't know Obama by any means. Although I have a positive impression of him, I'm by no means sold on Obama. However, if he does have the good character that people say he does (if it's not all part of politician slick as Lisa worries about) then yes, I think he does have one up on Hillary, Ted, Nancy, and to be honest, most politicians out there in either party.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I've talked about Pelosi before in other threads. I honestly don't know much about her policies, but in her actions as minority leader, she's unecessarily inflammatory in her anti-Republican rhetoric. There's better ways the win the public than being the party of sniping, how about being the party of ideas?

I don't like her leadership, but I know little of her politics.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I haven't heard her snipe.

When we discussed her on another thread, Dagonee brought up a very substantive point against her in that she's pro-eminent domain.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the politicians, fellow Hatrackers. Together we can build a better tomorrow and forge a common path of understanding.

[Razz] [Wink]
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
quote:

I haven't heard her snipe.
Then you haven't heard her speak.

Oh, I don't like Pelosi at all.

This Time article mentions some of my problems with her, in a fairly non-partison way:

Time's Pelosi article

It irritated me beyond words the way she handled Bush's Social Security plan.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
When we discussed her on another thread, Dagonee brought up a very substantive point against her in that she's pro-eminent domain
My posting of that quote had little if anything to do with her being pro-eminent domain and everything to do with her horribly misinformed understanding of the separation of powers.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
You want an example? Bush comes out the other day with a total reversal of his Iraq policy and says that "stay the course" was NEVER his plan, and that really what that meant was we adapt to new situations and change as things go. He said that now he wants "benchmarks" for progress in the government, which Democrats have been calling for for at least a year and a half if not more. Bush claims he isn't actually supporting the long held Democratic held ideas for Iraq, and that we're still "cut and runners" but it's a flimsy shield.

The best thing Pelosi and the Democrats could have done was to come out and say "For years now Democrats have been advocating this policy for the good of America, and it's nice to see President Bush and Republicans have finally seen the error of their ways and have decided to join with us in our attempt at bi-partisan cooperation for the good of the American people."

It makes Democrats look strong, smart, prophetic even. And it makes it look like the Republicans botched it big time, and only came to the right decision when they decided to finally start listening to Democrats. But instead she went on the attack, her and Harry Reid.

Now admittedly, the things she said in her attack were all valid points, well stated and well put together. But it was the wrong message, the wrong time. It's the time to make Democrats look strong, and to be the guy that DOESN'T attack the other side just because they are the other side. I think we need a leader that supports that point of view.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
quote:

My posting of that quote had little if anything to do with her being pro-eminent domain and everything to do with her horribly misinformed understanding of the separation of powers.
It's amazing how people misunderstand you all the time, isn't it? It seems like every day there's something you say that seems to mean mostly one thing but it's something else entirely.

But, just for the record, you never posted a quote in that thread. I posted a link that contained a quote that she had made. All you said previous to that was, if memory serves, that I should check out what she had to say about, what was it?, Kelo?

Now, to my non-legal mind, Kelo means pro-eminent domain. It's what a lot of popular opinion equates it with, and I'm guessing you know this.

You did say after I linked to her that she had no understanding of the seperation of powers, I believe. However, this was said after you mentioned just to check out what she said with no elaboration and, quite frankly, it didn't make a whole lot of impression on me because I dont' really care if she has no understanding of the seperation of powers.

It is entirely reasonable for *me* to focus on her pro-eminent domain stance instead of her screwed up legal thinking (in your opinion) and to see that that was what that 'quote' was all about.

I think this is obvious, and I think you are being semantically petty and a jerk. I think you do this quite frequently and intentionally ignore implied points in people's arguments or magnify points in favor of other points or ignore context to change whole meanings around to your favor.

Yes, we all know that you say this is for preciseness, and who isn't for that, but it's pretty clear that your preciseness tends to swing in one direction--in your point of view's favour.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
BB and Lisa -

What are Condi's policies? Things she supports and is against? What's her position on domestic issues? gay marriage? etc?
I don't know. I know she's willing to pressure Israel into doing things against Israeli interests. More than Bush is, it seems to me, but less than Clinton (the husband) was. I suspect Hillary would be more than willing to do what her hubby did in that area, but she's probably going to be too busy with domestic issues to do that much harm.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I have no idea what you mean in that post. You don't know her policies, except that she's at least slightly less willing than a theoretical Clinton in the Oval at pressuring Israel to do things, but that domestic issues will make it irrelevent anyway...

So, why would you vote for Condi over Hillary?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Obama manages eloquence and passion and the ephemeral "substance" that gets lost on the blander candidates.

He has the charisma that's allowed him to write books which gain adherents at a scary rate. He's the erudite opposite of Bush's worn-out yokel plebe platitudes. He also has the very super-convenient and well-liked Story Of Accomplishment In The Face Of Personal Hardship, which again separates him from Bush, which represents silver-spoon dynastic upbringing. He's got extra appeal in the short-term since he essentially represents everything that people are now thinking should have been obvious Red Flags about Bush.

Obama is made out by a few to be the perfect Democratic storm. In comparison with other contemporary candidates, he's relatively untouchable; Republican blogs have been observed to try to open salvos on him and create a chink in his impeccable exterior, but nothing sticks. Clinton, on the other hand, has been tanned and dried. She's been tagged with too much. Much of it is fair, some of it is unfair, but she'd start the race chained to her carefully Republican-crafted public image, and she would likely lose.

Time was, fellas would once be heard to say that Obama's congressional 'inexperience' was the hindrance that would keep him out of an '08 run.

Now, though, everyone associates congress with inexorable crookery and rot. A reasonable study of Obama's character reveals that he's not your average uberpoliticker. Being an outsider is now yet another advantage to Obama's hypothetical run.

What I want to see is a race between Obama and McCain. They are distinct ideological opposites in many ways, and I wouldn't support McCain as my choice as candidate, but neither one is known for the relentlessly duplicitous, insular dorkery of the present administration. I could respect either as a stand-up guy and not a hapless platitudinist.

Or, hey, the Republicans could pick someone else to fight Obama -- The kitten scalper, perhaps -- and get served a Democratic wipe.
 
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I have no idea what you mean in that post. You don't know her policies, except that she's at least slightly less willing than a theoretical Clinton in the Oval at pressuring Israel to do things, but that domestic issues will make it irrelevent anyway...

So, why would you vote for Condi over Hillary?
Because I know I don't like Hillary. I don't like the way she supported murderers, and I don't like the way she tried to cram socialized medicine down our throats. Condi is less of a known quantity to me, but she's part of the Bush administration, which tells me that when it comes to foreign policy, she's likely to be better than Hillary.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2