posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is everyone forgetting that Obama is only half-black? Or is the prevailing mind-set that he must be all "something"?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
And, a message of bipartisanship and integrity? Goodness. That's daring. We've never heard politicians use that one before.
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
