Does Obama have a chance?
 

Obama was out under fire by the PM of Australia already, right after he announced that he would run for presidency. Him being put under attack like that may prove that he has a chance at winning.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

And is it right that the media is attacking him becuase he is a smoker?

I wouldn't say the American media is attacking him at all. On the contrary, I think they love him. They're using the smoking thing to equate him with the common man. They're also making all these silly comparisons between Obama and Abe Lincoln.

One primary reason why he doesn't have a chance is because of his name. It shouldn't be an issue at all, but it is. American history is filled with names like George Washington, Andrew Jackson, James Garfield, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, William Clinton. I think the general public might have a hard time adding Barack Hussein Obama to the ranks.

He's also a bit wet behind the ears. Anybody on this board could've won his Senate seat given the circumstances. Yet for some reason, people act as though it was some great triumph.

Obama equates to Osama. He ain't getting any votes. The end.

John Howard needs to keep his mouth shut and stay the hell out of other countries politics. He's up for election very soon and so he can't have other major political figures saying the war in Iraq is bad, since he's backed it to the hilt since we became involved in it despite huge opposition Australia wide.

I truly hope Obama either makes it in as the candidate or running mate and then moves to run for office after he's been VP for a while. Gore/Obama would be excellent.

Ah ain't votin no sand niggrah into no offal orifice.

It's fucked up, but I bet that will be the reason he will lose.

No offence here, but I dont know you that well, was that a joke?

EDIT:Yes, yes it was, I can answer my onw question.

I doubt he's voting for Obama, so it's true. The reasons for his voting for someone else might not involve the fact that he is a sand nigger, but the original statement is still true.

Personally, I'd bet that the reason he'd lose is because he first has to get past Hillary Clinton.

He isn't going win, I don't believe there is a large enough base of supporters for him to win.

Howard is an arse. Of course, his political future is on the line this year with opposition leader Rudd enjoying record poll support. This latest attempt at political distraction has backfired, with Obama’s response effectively telling him to put up or shut up. As for whether all this makes Obama more of a ‘winning chance,’ I’d say that matter on its own is largely irrelevant. While it’s probably far too early to tell, I suspect he’s going to get steamrolled by the likes of team Hillary.

Obama will likely be a VP candidate and will only win if Clinton has a cataclysmic meltdown that will make the Howard Dean scream pale in comparision.

Obama has an enormous amount of star power though; while he doesn't have the political might yet to rival Hilary, hes getting there. Hilary is just too polarizing, and if Obama begins to take a real stand on issues, he stands a chance.

Also, I don't see why everyone is continually harping on the lack of experience. If anything, an administration that has a strong willed leader with very smart advisors, who will come into conflict with one another, is the best form of leadership. I could see him going that route; it would guarantee my vote.

I don't remember where I read this question (I dont think it was these boards, so I apologize if I'm bringing up a question that's already been answered), but it really got me thinking.

"Are we, as the United States, ready for a minority president?"

This statement includes Clinton as well as Obama. I honestly think that Clinton has a chance, simply because everyone will rely on the fact that she has more experience. That and the fact that the whole country will be hoping for another bad reality TV show, this one featuring the Clinton's being once again in the White House. It'll be called the Nightly News.

Though I do expect to be hearing some horrible excuses for why Obama shouldn't get presidency... I've already heard some idiot on my campus reason that he's in conspiracy with the Middle East, simply because his middle name is 'Hussein', and his last name sounds so much like 'Osama'.

But all in all, he has some great policies, and he keeps trying. I think we'll see him in office at some point, if not in 2008. :)

Since when are women a minority? I believe in the 2005 census there were slightly more women than men.

What Devo said. Women aren't paid or treated the same way as the white male. Until that's changed, we'll be a minority.

So... about this Obama guy... :)

I hope Obama does become the US's next president. Fuck political experience, he has charisma, and on the world stage what the US needs right now is someone likable enough to win us back some support.

I'm not trying to say gender discrimination doesn't exist, but that doesn't make you a minority. There are less women in politics, but that doesn't mean less of them vote.

I don't know about that...He seems to be following the Howard Dean formula and attacking the social networking and college sites. I can't tell you how many times a day I see people joining the One Million Strong or whatever it is group on my news feed on facebook.

He's a fresh face in politics, has loads of charisma, and is harping on the fact that America needs change...



...he doesn't stand a chance. I bet you a million smackeroos that he doesn't get into the primaries because:

A.) Fox News smeared him with the false claim that he was raised with an extreme muslim background (or something like that), even though he is a U.C.C. Christian.

B.) He's black

Which means nothing, given how this same formula failed Howard Dean so spectacularly.

Yeah fuck experience, I'm voting for somebody likable and charismatic. How bout... Mickey Mouse?

And Styphon's right about the facebook hype. The "Rock the Vote" crowd doesn't actually turn out at the polls with the same dedication as the baby boomers.

Obama's not younger or less experienced than some of our past presidents (Lincoln, for one). And so far, sounds like he's been astute about not playing the race card on guilty white America.

Unfortunately, it's probably true, though, he'll probably lose out to Hillary's uninspired "mommy" campaign. But with a real election so long away, things could happen. Should be a fun contest to see, anyway.

When I was working in Lousiana I watched Democratic incumbent Kathleen Blanco get re-elected governor, despite her incompetence. I listened to one of my co-workers's neighbors when referring to the Republican candidate: "I ain't votin for no sand nigger!"

The Republican candidate was an Indian who converted to Catholicism after moving to Louisiana.

This country is retarded, but even then Obama wouldn't win.

Inform me, please: Experience means precisely what? GEORGE W BUSH has experience, and everybody on the goddamn planet prays night and day for his swift and sudden death, including:

A) Most of the world
B) Most of the country
C) Probably even most of his administration.

And it's not because he's not charismatic. It's because he's at the forefront of an administration that pretty much RUINED America and turned it into a nation which outwardly appears to be seeking to ruin the rest of the world.

Now I know what you're thinking - not everyone hates Dubya. It's true. I've heard of church services where they pray for Bush because he is a "warrior of God" or some bullshit like that. And I know he didn't single-handedly ruin America. No one is capable of that. But as President, he's given executive power to say "Fuck you" to motions that would ruin America, and by failing to do so he has done his part towards that end.

You know, it would've been easier to just copypasta the "YES I AM AN AMATEUR" rant from the 2003 Chris Rock movie Head of State (which was admittedly poorly-made, but still hilarious and sure did pack in a lot of poignant, accurate political commentary). Actually, I might still do that:

And one or two examples of a gross generalization is excellent proof.

Because we all know that when you add any two integers together, you get an even number!

Just look at my evidence:
16+16=32!
7+5=12!!
And -1+7=6!!!

That's not much of an answer to my question: Precisely what about being a President mandates previous political experience?

Similarly, you've not given much reason for why charisma is more important than experience in choosing a President.

Because the George W. Bush example cuts both ways.

Nothing about being President mandates previous experience, but just like any other executive job, you want people in office who have experience running things - which is why more Governors tend to get elected President than Senators and Representatives.

If you were a professional sports team, you don't go out and get a guy with no experience. You find someone who has had experience coaching and leading teams to victories.

If you were on the board of advisors of a corporation, you go find a CEO with experience in running a business efficiently and turning a profit.

The same thing applies to electing the chief executive of the United States. You look towards someone who has had experience as an executive of a government. Governors are the chief executives of their respective states. They have to appoint advisors, have to work with state legislatures to get funding for their policies, have to deal with state courts and their various interpretations of law.

Senators don't have to deal with that shit and are seldom forced to take a definitive position precisely because they do not make or implement policy.

This is why Obama gets hit with the experience charge.

That's true, I didn't really do that. But I don't understand what you mean with your cuts-both-ways comment...

Well, as I said. I believe - from an outside-looking-in standpoint - the United States needs someone charismatic enough to win back the support we've lost by having a total douchebag rule our country for 8 years. There's lots of poor stereotypes regarding Americans - that we are fat, imperialistic, ignorant snobs who drive around SUV's and go hunting purely for sport. I'm not going to go as far as to say this is entirely the fault of a President who happens to be most of those things - but it certainly doesn't help. Electing (i.e., proving that the majority of the United States supports his opinions) a man who pushes for things such as energy reform, ending the Iraq War, and fixing the education system for real, would go a long way towards reversing those stereotypes, and lessening the stigma that an American automatically gets upon stepping off a plane in, say, France. It won't end the stereotypes, but it will help. And it will certainly win back allies that the Bush administration lost through its belligerent shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude.

With regard to the US itself? There are lots of things I agree with Obama on, but also a few that I disagree with him on. When I watch him speak, he sounds like the kind of guy I could talk to, say my piece, hear his side, and at the end come out with some sort of compromise that makes both sides happy. When Bush gives a State of the Union address, he'll say things like GOD HATES GAY PEOPLE or STEM CELL RESEARCH INFRINGES UPON THE DIGNITY OF LIFE and other similarly divisive statements. Yes, I know, he didn't actually say those things, but my point is that Bush comes off like a pompous ass, and he exudes an aura of disinterest in whatever it is you have to say. (THIS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHY WE ARE AT WAR RIGHT NOW.) I feel like Obama's charisma and generally agreeable nature can bring about at least some progress, whereas Bush's negotiations brought about failures like No Children Left Behind and the Patriot Act.

These might not be majorly strong points, but they are valid. Now I ask - what about George W. Bush's political experience improved his performance as a President?

Night Phoenix, I understand the reasoning behind why experience is necessary in all those cases. But really - what experience is required to sign/veto a bill you agree or disagree with? How does a governor have the experience to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces? What experience is necessary to negotiate with other national leaders? OH, RIGHT, CHARISMA.

What I mean is quite simple; in 2000, George W. Bush's experience in political office totaled 6 years as Governor of Texas. At that point in time, Al Gore's political experience included 8 years as Vice President of the United States, 8 as a U.S. Senator, and 8 as a U.S. Representative.

However, Bush was far more charismatic than Gore was.

By that same token, how does the charismatic junior Senator from Illinois have the experience to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces?

Charisma?

How is that question relevant if my point is that experience isn't necessarily a requirement for a successful presidency?

Being an asshole might have been a viable method of getting your way back in the days of the Cold War, but the world is different now, and the US is hated enough as it is - having negotiators with reputations of stubbornness wouldn't help our cause one bit.

Cause JFK was such an asshole over the Cuban missile crisis when the whole world could've been distroyed... wait, no.

Dude, do you ever read a book?

I think I kinda understand where you're ranting to, but the comparisons to GW are irrelevant. Just cause you think the guy is better than Bush doesn't mean that he's the man for the job. I think we all understand that you hate George Bush, but sadly, that's not what this thread is about.

.......Since y'know, the text of the State of the Union is readily available to the public.....WHEN THE FUCK HAS BUSH EVER SAID THIS?

Seriously, I understand you have complete contempt for the man, but stop blatantly making shit up.

For Barack to actually win he needs to get past Hilary Clinton, who has more fucking money than you can shake a stick at and who already has a pretty solid lead in Democratic polls from what I remember. Plus, more people know about her (for better or for worse) than Obama, who has been in the senate for a little over two years now.

The Clintons don't make that much money. I remember reading (from somewhere reliable, I think) that most of the money they make comes from Bill's lecture tours, which was some figure in the low millions, and maybe more in the future from some business deals I forget what.

Oh, and yeah, Obama ain't gonna win. Much as I'd love to see that happen, it isn't going to. America just isn't ready for a black muslim president with only two years experience as a junior senator, any more than it is for a foul-mouthed atheist stand up comic. (s'up Stanhope)

However much money the Clintons make is in no way related to how much money Hillary Clinton has or can raise for a political capmaign.

Didn't someone on the last page bust the "Muslim" myth?


Anyway. On the last page there were some really good points. I guess Bush is irrelevant since he's done his term, but who's this new guy the Repubs are putting up? What experience credentials does he have?


I think a balance of charisma and experience is essential. Being either a long-term Congressman or a glib talker are useful skills, but in isolation do not a good President make, not necessarily, anyway.

Seems funny to me that people can make such sweeping statements, like charisma and experience are needed, while ignoring a bunch of other factors, like say whether they have good vision for the country, what their stance is on issues that matter, whether they can run the economy etc etc.

Also, I still don't understand how GWB can be considered charismatic, when he says rhetoric so meaningless about issues so important, he makes the US look very, very poor. I still wonder why people consider Al Gore such a 'loser' when that's the 'winner'.

But, back to Obama. He seems OK, but we all know in the USA, there's plenty of mud to go around yet. Can't say I particularly like any of the Presidential candidates put forward, but that's probably what US citizens have had to deal with for decades, so I shouldn't complain.


Democrats have no problems with money, either. They had more than the Republicans at the last Presidential election.

Sorry for all the OT stuff guys, just jumping in at the deep end as always, sorry if I offended anyone (it's after 3am and I had a shit day).

- Spike

One of the people on this list, most likely.

Of them, the early frontrunner is John McCain, whose experience consists of twenty years in the Senate, four in the House, plus a career in the Navy.

The other big name candidate, Rudy Giuliani, spent eight years as Mayor of New York City and before that 23 or so years as an attorney in the Justice Department.

(On that note, of the Democratic candidates, the most experienced would probably be Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.)

As far as Obama having experience, I was watching CNN when they said that Obama had twelve years of experience before he went into office the first time. Yet, that makes you think that Hilary or some other cannadit has twice as much experience.
Before I posted thread I thought that Obama might win, every where you look it seems that he is getting a whole bunch of support... Oh well, so much for wishing.

You guys are, for some inexplicable reason, completely misinterpreting my point. My point is not Obama > Bush. What I'm trying to say boils down to:

Obama has something the US needs right now. Whether we needed it 50 years ago or not is irrelevant, we need it now.

Obama doesn't have executive experience, but the US doesn't necessarily need executive experience right now.

I've asked a few times for someone to explain, conclusively, why the next 4 years of the US federal administration hinge upon the election of someone who has had experience being the figurehead of a government. Yes, it's true, I'm not a fan of Bush. But before you accuse me of ranting purely for the sake of defaming him, could you please take a crack at answering my question?

We're not misinterpreting your point; it's just that your point is stupid.

Your idea is basically that Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States based on the fact that he's charismatic, and that anything else is effectively not as important as his charisma.

If charisma alone were as important in the selection of a president as you're making it out to be, why not elect someone like Christopher Walken?

My idea is not purely that he should get elected based entirely on his ability to get people to like him. I support him, at least initially, because I agree with most of the things that he's said.

Charisma alone isn't the only thing important in the selection of a President. But it is something we need now.

And you know what - if Christopher Walken got up on a podium and started talking about issues you care about, then what precisely is the problem with voting for him? Are you going to say we shouldn't vote actors into presidential office?

Am I the only one who gave that way too much consideration when I read it?

You say we need a charismatic president, specifically for winning back support from other countries that we've lost over the course of George W. Bush's presidency. The people you're talking about more than likely don't care if the next president is charismatic or not; they'll likely settle for someone who isn't George W. Bush.

This would have been a more effective barb were this section not present.

These guys are the reason I think the Democrats ought to put up Obama. From what I've seen of them, and grant you living in Canada that's not very much, they are both fairly intelligent, well-spoken, and generally likable people, as I think Obama is. Then I listen to Clinton making speeches and I think, "Good god, what a cold fish." I'm not a big fan of either party, and I do lean in favor of the Democrats, but Hillary pretty much sums up everything I dislike about them as a whole. I don't understand what her appeal is.

So what, again, was your reasoning for why a lack of experience hinders Obama (or a potential Walken candidacy) were he to get elected to the oval office? I really don't understand. What are you implying that he would be unable to do? What disadvantage is he immediately placed under, just because he didn't hold a state office for 6 years?

Obama does not have experience as a leader - he's never had the power to affect change ever and nor does he know how to make the kind of decisions that will get him the desired result. His entire political career has been centered around ONE vote.

While he's a brilliant speaker and extremely charismatic, he is not a leader of men, but rather an idealist.

Clinton is Obama, but Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas for 12 years, he knew how to get legislation he wanted passed, he knew how to handle a budget, he had to make executive decisions.

Obama's skillset doesn't fit the qualities of a successful President in many people's eyes. This why former Generals and Governors tend to beat out former legilslators - Generals and Governors make and execute policy. That's their job. The buck stops with them. Legislators debate and contribute a drop in a bucket vote and hope enough people vote the same way.

Have you not heard of the 'Clinton fundraising machine'?

And I agree with Night Phoenix. Knowing how to pass bills in Congress is not enough experience to be managing a country, especially when you've only been doing it for 2 years. I mean, comeon, the guy has to manage a budget that's somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple trillion dollars; the least he can have is some experience managing a large company or a state.

Then why were you compelled to bring up GW?

And here's the answer to your silly question. It's important for the President to have good executive leadership skills. Being the chief executive of the US is a big job. Not something that you can just slide through with charm and good looks. In an interview I saw a long time ago, Ronald Reagan was talking about how the best place to look for future presidents is by looking at good state governors. You only get 2 cracks at being president, so it's good to have some experience in similar executive roles. Many American presidents have been governors of states prior to holding office: Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Andrew Johnson, Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and GW.

I'm in no way dismissing the idea that chrarisma and good people skills are invaluable to any leader. However, you can only slide so far on charm and good looks. Being the president takes more than a firm handshake and a warm smile. I'm curious as to why you'd actually come out and say, "fuck political experience."

At this point in his career, I think it's a little presumptuous of him to make a bid for the presidency. His race against Alan Keyes was a joke. If he'd been elected governor of Illinois instead (with some actual competition) I could see him taking the jump to the Presidency, but as is he's still too green (and too black).

I do have to agree with the experience argument as far as "Governors make good candidates" goes. We're seeing here in Australia more and more, local mayors running for the district election in the Federal Government elections. They have experience in the area and are well-known.

I wonder what US people (read: voters) away from Illinois think or know of the guy.


I guess the reason I support him, even though lack of experience, etc etc is that so far, he seems far better than Clinton, McCain et al.

And in that sense I agree with the 'charisma is important' argument. I mean, the US needs a President who won't turn people/nations off, who will play a different role in the international community. Obama is certainly a better diplomat than your Clintons and most Republican candidates I've seen.


Incidentally, who the hell's Mitt Romney? Only heard about him yesterday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN...LEFEATURE_iran
Whee..


I mean, at least Obama sounds normal and not uberconservative- two steps forward from potential Republican candidates.
And you can bandy around and talk about 'experience' all you want- but it doesn't mean it was good experience, or that they're not a total asshole or crappy leader. Look at Australia's Prime Minister, eons of experience, worst leader we've ever had.

- Spike

Okay. I can accept those answers.

The main reason I view political experience as being an invalid point against him comes from something Obama himself said. To paraphrase, it was along the lines of "Yeah, I know I'm inexperienced with the way things work in Washington, but I know enough to know it's broken." The guy wants to do things differently - and if that's how he wants to play the game, then having prior experience in doing it just like everybody else isn't really going to matter.

Clearly the guy isn't going to change 220+ years worth of civic tradition. But if he's going to play the role of President in a different manner, then I say more power to him. (Of course, it remains to be seen how much of that is just idealistic rhetoric, and how much will actually carry over into office if he gets elected.)

Additional Spam:
Ex-Governor of the state of Massachusetts. From what I gather he wasn't too popular around here... but I don't really know too much about him other than that.

So the main reason why you overlook is lack of experience is the result of early campaign rhetoric?

"but I know enough to know it's broken."

Hmmm... eh, so what? I can tell you that my car's broken. But since I don't have any experience as a mechanic, I really don't have the first clue how to fix it. Perhaps if I use my charismatic powers, I can woo the problem away.

Early polls have put him at a distant third behind McCain and Guliani for Republican candidate. He's got a pretty good business record - as well as the things listed on the site you linked, he is also credited with eliminating a $3 billion deficit as governor of Massachusetts without raising taxes.

Actually, somewhat similar to Obama, he's attempting to characterize himself as an outsider who wants to change Washington:
"I don't believe Washington can get transformed by someone from the inside, by someone who has been part of politics throughout their entire life, who's made all the deals. To have government change and transform, to have innovation come into government, you've got to have somebody who spent their lifetime innovating and transforming."

His biggest hurdles so far will be his religion (which a fair amount of the religious right consider to be a non-Christian cult), and his flip-flopping on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage (which is mostly what made him so unpopular in Massachusetts, as BurningRanger mentioned).

I'm not sure if you're familiar with them, but I wouldn't exactly call McCain and Guliani "uberconservative" by any means. They're both pretty moderate, especially Guliani.

At any rate, I think we can all be glad that this guy doesn't stand snowball's a chance in Hell. Man, just look at his website. He sure likes to advertise his book at the top of every page; apparently God really needs some cash.

From my perspective, should it become Obama vs. Guliani, Obama doesn't stand a real chance. Guliani is basically "the man who made New York City safe", while Obama is pretty much a blank page. At least when dealing with international media, I can't say how and what the coverage in the US is about.
As much as I'd like him to win, I don't think he will.
But on the other hand, I also don't see much of a chance for Hillary. Maybe more for her than for Obama, but she'd still loose.
It's true I think. The US is not ready for a "minority" president.
Another sad thing about Obama is how the political african americans see him as "not black enough". Not really that much of an important thing in this political environment, but still somewhat of a sad side note. Not because Obama is "oh so not-black" but because of how split up the "liberal" camp is.
What brings me to the question wether Hillary wouldn't be scrutinized by left/liberal womens groups for being, well, too much influenced by her husband or something in that vein... Or do they love her? How's her stance in the more liberal US media?

Fuckedy fuck, that guy's a nutjob! Sure that's not a satirical entry? :eye:

That is why they keep on comparing Obama to Lincoln, who is probably one of the greatest presidents ever.

They keep comparing him to Lincoln for ridiculous reasons.

1. They're both from Illinois. (Even though Obama was born in Hawaii and Lincoln in Kentucky.)
2. They both face a "nation divided." (Yet I think comparing high partisanship with the Civil War is a bit of a stretch.)
4. Obama's black, and Abe Lincoln freed the slaves! (Um yeah.)
5. They announced their bid for the presidency in the same place. (Along with many US Presidents, I once took a piss in the West Wing of the White House.)

I dont know that much about Lincoln myself, but I think they where also comparig him on level of experience, but agian I am out of bounds saying this becuase I know almost nothing about Lincoln.

Lincoln is the exception, not the rule.

I'd like to think that Obama would get it...I mean, the worst his opponents can come up with is that he smokes. Realistically, I think it's a tall order, especially for the 2008 election. In four, eight, or even twelve years, I think his chances would be greater. His best bet right now would be to forge ahead with a Senate career, get himself noticed and in a couple of terms time he could be seen as a 'natural choice' for the Democratic nomination.

I've read the political positions of both Clinton and Obama and, compared to my own views, Obama edges out in front (he doesn't have a noticable vendetta against violence in movies and video games, for example).

That said, as much as it'd be nice for a President to get in merely on ethics, others on this board are right, an important factor is the ability to raise enough funds to carry off a successful campaign. At the moment, I don't think Obama can command that kind of money.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama.

Nah. Obama isn't a terrorist, just a socialist.

YouTube Video

OH YEAH

All I can say is, I sure as hell don't want Hillary. I don't trust her to hold a position at all, especially the important ones. One of the big areas where I see her as taking a very dangerous position is the issue of censorship. Hint: the center shall not hold, Hill. It's not 1992 anymore.

I'm probably way out in left field, but the candidate who's views are closest to my own are, yet again, Dennis Kucinich, the former mayor of Cleveland. Not that he, you know, stands a chance.

Edit: Here are Kucinich's numbers from 2004. Notice how huge (comparatively) his turnout was in Hawaii. 'sup left side of the map.

I actually plan to vote for Kucinich, as well, Ramoth. I agree with him on a wide variety of issues, most notably aboloshing the death penalty, removing our forces from Iraq, and, of course, ending the War on Drugs.

Do you really believe that Kucinich can end the war on drugs? And what exactly is his plan for doing so?

No, I do not. Not yet, at least. Doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for people who are willing to fight for positions I support. Does anyone here really think any candidate is going to end the death penalty? Why vote for pro- or anti-capital punishment candidates then? Why make it an issue? Just because it's not happening immediately doesn't mean it shouldn't be an issue.

As for the second question, read this. His position makes a lot more sense than you might think.

I am not sure that I trust Obama being President. I don't know I just get this feeling he's not about the country. Also if President, he could be subject to a lot of assination attempts being black an all(seriously).

I actually agree with you on that point, Winter. Hell, I feel that both Hillary and Obama would be in severe danger if they took the Presidency (which is quickly appearing to be a considerable possibility).

Of course, you also have the "I ain't votin' for no sand-lot *racial epithet here*" crowd who may very well fuck over Obama no matter how much of an attractive choice he is.

I agree with you. I don't think that neither Hilary or Obama has a chance because A) she's a woman and B) he's african american. They would get wiped out so fast, and we would expect it to happen. I don't think that America is ready for such a radical change. Also, I think Obama should have tried smaller. I'm from Illinois and I think he should have maybe taken on Mayor Dayley (although I don't know how smart that would be considering that he's involved with the mob and probably would have Obama knocked off)
Even though I feel this way, I think I might still vote for either one of them, but thats a hard choice cause not only am I a woman, but I'm a black woman. It depends on their campaigns...

Why? Going from being a U.S. Senator to a mayor is quite a step down, and leaving the Senate would have cost him a lot of the national attention he gets. Besides, Obama's come off pretty well by not challenging Daley.

He's half black American. I don't understand how people with one white parent and one black parent, who were born in the US are considered African Americans. It's like when Halle Berry won an Oscar, and everybody made a big deal about how she was the "first African American woman" to win one. As far as I know, the first African American woman to win an Oscar was Charlize Theron because she's actually from South Africa.

Why should you being a woman, or a black woman make a difference at all? Why not just listen to all the candidates, and pick the person who you think will be best suited for the job?

Thanks for posting that article. I didn't know that Daley was endorsing him for the 2008 elections. Do you know why he's remained neutral until this election?

Additional Spam:

I don't know why we're considered African American's either (my father was white and my mother was black) it's just how things are I guess, and I figure "African American" is better than saying black americans or colored americans.


I am going to listen to the candidates, it's just in my community it's either you see yourself as a woman first, or you see your race comes first (although I have established that I'm mixed). I dunno how it is everywhere else.

Not if the "African American" in question is actually from Haiti, or Jamaica, or actually anywhere in the Caribbean, or South America, or is a black person from Europe.

Or of course, like most black folks in America, they've never actually been to Africa.

I think its because for most people its easier to judge just with their eyes rather than read or listen and think about it, 'cuze we all know looks count for almost everything, almost. Not to mention its been a while since we've had a serious black president contender. Its obviously going to attract attention to his race and skin color.

If I recall Obama is'nt 'african' but he is black by american society standards :o.

Not to start a quote train but:


Most people look down on being led by a woman. Especially men. There will be a conflict of decision come time to vote. Obama though is ok as long as he doesn't come off like he has it in the bag - the perception the media is trying to accomplish.

African American is a PC term instead of black. It doesn't make sense, I mean what if they were black and lived in Canada? But you're right, you can't say Jamaicans are African Americans either. Weren't there people complaining that Obama isn't black enough? :rolleyes:

You're assuming that people follow politics, make intelligent decisions, and choose candidates based on their credentials. I think a good portion of voters vote because they should go, but they go with an uninformed vote. You might say that is better than not voting at all, but democracy is a joke if that's how people cast that vote.

How many people out there will not vote for a person simply because they are black or female? Bush got elected by people who simply think he's a "good Christian man" which is great, but good Christians don't necessarily make good Presidents. (that was just an example from an interview I saw - not implying that everyone who voted for Bush is that ignorant)

I thought that I might add that, from all that I know, Republicans are chomping at the bit for primaries to finish. Activists aren't confident about the Republican presidential ticket or their chances in the state legislatures, governorships, or Congress. However, with a Clinton/Obama/Edwards ticket likely, whatever the permutation, the G.O.P. can't wait to (and I quote) "**** them up." 3 very liberal candidates (by American standards) are absolute fodder for the behemoth that is the Republican fundraising and campaign machine.

I like Obama. If any one concept can impart upon Obama, "Lincoln-esque" (hate the concept) qualities, it lies with the issue of his naivete and therefore the capability to not get drawn into the crapfilled diaper that is conventional politics where he will then just stay the course of his parties will, living out the rest of his days mundaning himself with only with the stifling nature of the erstwhile political scheme, where change is feared and stability is king.
Unfortunately it seems that some mistake stability for continuity. Lincoln proved that great change is needed in order to grow. To put it in these terms, the giant crap filled diaper, otherwise known as the current political state, needs to be changed and perhaps Obama is just the man for the task.

He has many good ideas (probably all impractical at first glance) but his drive and his belief in what he is doing (and the people's belief in him) may allow him to make changes that this nation sorely needs.

Yes, because America so desperately needs to become a socialist country.

Night Phoenix, regardless of political beliefs, I can't imagine that we won't become more socialist after the past eight years. I mean, the majority of people are very wary of conservativism (well, neo-conservativism) right now. And it's probably the time that the pendulum will swing once again.

I like Obama in some regards, but I think his goals aren't direct enough. Even though he talks about change a lot and trying to go for the Presidency, I can't really tell you one thing the man claims he's going to do. And I've been watching his videos and all.

One thing that confuses me: why is one of his key points reconciling 'faith and politics'? Is that an eager bid to grab some theocrats on the right, or has he missed the memo that people are scared of a Christian fascist society?

Hachifusa, it's a lame defensive parry for the religious right juggernaut (short story: I'm 1 of them, currently in college with good prospects in several of the top ones, though I hope to change them to make them, you know, not insane). He's a Unitarian, so if he makes the top bit of the Democrat ticket, conservative Christians are going to absolutely hammer him on all fronts.

Hell, we've become more socialist over the past eight years than we did during the entirety of the Clinton Administration.

My problem with more and more socialism is that it is irreversible. Of course, I feel I'm helpless to stop America's decline into this destructive economic system and I see it as an inevitability. So it not like it matters anyway.

I'm still pretty new to politics (I'm finally able to vote this year, horray!), but Obama makes me want to learn about policies and laws. When he speaks, it doesn't feel like I'm being patronized when I hear Bush or other politicians; I feel like I can connect with his ideals and beliefs, and that he can listen to mine as well.

There's still a ways to go, but I'd like to believe that Obama does have a chance.

I don't suggest on voting for someone just because they can give a good speech or get ones blood going after hearing one. Many people can give "good" speeches hell most politicians can, that doesn't make a person qualified for office. Don't be swayed by charisma and a good tongue. Look up the Candidates record if he has one and do some good ol' research.

Quote:

The great mass of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.

Whoever recognizes that quote is a wise man indeed, I just hope the world never sees one like the author of it again, even though we have had worse on our planet.

no googles plz

Why? It's a well-known quote.

Congratulations on Godwining the thread, though.

You can blame that on the current administration's continual idiocy.