Well It Looks Like Barack Obama Is Running For President
- Thread starter Cheebs
- Start date
- Status
Incognito said:
Yeah, im the one that shouldnt be taken seriously. I'm not the one throwing around juvenile attacks.
Please. People polled before Foley indicated favoring democrats, but not by a landslide. Many of those polled expressed disgust with Congress as it stood today, but also a majority of those polled thought THEIR congressman was doing a good job and they would vote for them again. Therefore, "Congress is F'd up but my rep is not" Now that's all changed.
I have no idea what about I have said is so upsetting to you guys, but that's what has happened. Republicans were already headed to a disappointment at the polls in these final months, but now it looks like it could be a landslide against them and the numbers spiked hard after Mark Foley.
If anything all of this proves what I, and I suspect you as well know about the american populace. They care about issues to a point; all it takes is something sensational and emotional to sway opinion one way or the other. If it was about issues and the republicans are as repugnant as you say, this would have been decided long ago.
Companion Cube
Member
True.Takuan said:
I know I'm a little late here - but both parties are full of bafoons, and Obama won't be elected because he is black...
Although I'm definately not a Dem, I'd vote for him and throw a lot of my own politics out the window because I think he has the charisma to lead our country and the world, and that is more important to me than how he feels on other ultimately trivial issues. As long as he is big on Civil Liberties, I can deal with the absolutely frickin' riduclous ideas the Dems harbor as far as big government is concerned (and I'm not sure he's a huge Welfare State kinda guy either). If McCain ran, however, I'd vote for him. After he spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton serving our country, I have nothing but the utmost trust that he would serve the country well again. In my opinion, both would be excellent choices that could garner a lot of support in the center of American politics, and that is ultimately what we need.
Although I'm definately not a Dem, I'd vote for him and throw a lot of my own politics out the window because I think he has the charisma to lead our country and the world, and that is more important to me than how he feels on other ultimately trivial issues. As long as he is big on Civil Liberties, I can deal with the absolutely frickin' riduclous ideas the Dems harbor as far as big government is concerned (and I'm not sure he's a huge Welfare State kinda guy either). If McCain ran, however, I'd vote for him. After he spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton serving our country, I have nothing but the utmost trust that he would serve the country well again. In my opinion, both would be excellent choices that could garner a lot of support in the center of American politics, and that is ultimately what we need.
chadums90 said:
Well said. Although I personally would never vote for Obama (even though I don't know much about him, I'm pretty sure he and I would not see eye to eye on many things important to me) but he IS full of charisma, that's for sure. And he doesn't have baggage (real or perceived) that many other of the top democrats have. Although you can't just lead on charisma alone.
Right when Obama first started getting hot (I think the 2004 Democratic Convention when he made that speech), I wanted him to run for Prez. I knew, even w/o any experience, he would be 10x better than Bush or whoever the Dems elect (Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, etc). The only other candidate who would be = or better is Gore.
If Dems don't either have Gore or Obama as their candidate, it's over... pubs will win
If Dems don't either have Gore or Obama as their candidate, it's over... pubs will win
Companion Cube
Member
Double true.Enron said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
Tamanon said:
I think you've confused him with Colin Powell or our current secretary of state.
We just don't tend to like tomish type black politicans.
Crab Shaker
Doesn't pay his sources
Who is Enron and when did he emerge to replace APF?
Stoney Mason
Banned
sp0rsk said:
Btw be careful about using the search terms "Black Bush" at work.....I just learned a lesson.
Quick! How many black:sp0rsk said:
Senators?
Governors?
Presidential or Vice Presidential nominees by major parties?
Obama is just the latest Political Magical Negro, the black person with a competent, moderate persona, and a small enough record that people can project their own feelings and opinions onto him. Like Powell and Rice, he would poll very, very well until he had to start telling people what he believed on non-consensus issues.
His appeal is a bit similar to McCain, where people latch on to a few biographical details and a general impression of the candidate's personality (see chadums90's post), and decide that he's A Decent Guy. McCain has had a backlash where Obama hasn't, because he's been forced to make political choices that people didn't like.
Stoney Mason
Banned
I always joked the type of black president that could win would be someone I would never want to be President. Someone so odious to my personal views that they would basically have to be a Clarence Thomas type.
Obama is probably the best chance I've ever seen for such an event happening and not being a Rice or Powell type which I would be extremly happy about. My gut tells me living in this country for my entire lifetime though so far it won't/can't happen. My hope springs eternal and maybe he could surprise me in the future but my head tells a different story. If it ain't white, it ain't right for a large number of people in this country.
Obama is probably the best chance I've ever seen for such an event happening and not being a Rice or Powell type which I would be extremly happy about. My gut tells me living in this country for my entire lifetime though so far it won't/can't happen. My hope springs eternal and maybe he could surprise me in the future but my head tells a different story. If it ain't white, it ain't right for a large number of people in this country.
GauntletPhantom
Member
.
I'm not exactly in touch with the mainstream on many things, but Obama wouldn't just be a great black person to vote for, he'd be a great candidate period - one of the few who I would vote for and actually feel good about it, and not like I was choosing the lesser of two evils. He is set apart from the average politician in people's minds - I think there's more to it than "magical negro" syndrome (as Mandark put it) or even just a political Honeymoon, like McCain. It's real - this man is the real deal.Stoney Mason said:I always joked the type of black president that could win would be someone I would never want to be President. Someone so odious to my personal views that they would basically have to be a Clarence Thomas type.
Obama is probably the best chance I've ever seen for such an event happening and not being a Rice or Powell type which I would be extremly happy about. My gut tells me living in this country for my entire lifetime though so far it won't/can't happen. My hope springs eternal and maybe he could surprise me in the future but my head tells a different story. If it ain't white, it ain't right for a large number of people in this country.
I knew something was up with him when he reunited Extra Golden!
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/38536/Barack_Obama_Unites_Extra_Golden_for_Tour
I mean seriously, how ****ing cool is that?
Anyway. Other people must surely have that kind of gut feeling about him. As I said, the problem is making sure he doesn't rise too fast, which would give conservatives the chance to define him before he gets to properly introduce himself. Black politicians, even people as charismatic as Obama, aren't allowed many mistakes if they want to win elections. I mean, shit, that George Allen guy is still winning in Virginia.
I'm not really experienced politically, but here's my opinion;
He looks like a good man. That's what we need really. Someone with a clear head that knows what is good for the country. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't have to have that much experience, as long he realizes he needs and acquires a good cabinet. Let Obama be the face of America, let the cabinet carry out his ideals.
And also, I hope this guy isn't afraid to tell it like it is.
He looks like a good man. That's what we need really. Someone with a clear head that knows what is good for the country. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't have to have that much experience, as long he realizes he needs and acquires a good cabinet. Let Obama be the face of America, let the cabinet carry out his ideals.
And also, I hope this guy isn't afraid to tell it like it is.
FECordeau said:
What do those have to do with anything? My argument is that the democratic party has alienated voters in the last 10+ years, so i was DISCUSSING the last 10+ years.
Plan to win internet political argument:
1. accuse opponent of not knowing facts
2. quote a bunch of facts that don't pertain to the point the other guy is trying to make
3. profit \o/
Now, If i said LOLWTFZHAYGUYZ REPUBLICANS HAVE OWNED YOU FOR 200 YEARS then yeah, your numbers would mean something.
As interesting as that is, which is not very, I suppose you truly believe there's nothing but the Foley scandal to blame for Republicans about to lose both houses of Congress, even though it's not important to voters:Enron said:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/16/foley/index.html
I mean, if you don't, I'd love to hear your theories on how Republicans have alienated voters in the last 2+ years. Hell, 5+! I mean, GWB used to have a 90% approval rating!
Stoney Mason
Banned
terrene said:
But Rush and Bill O'Reilly said.....
Oh forgot it. It's too easy at this point.
GauntletPhantom
Member
.
The Chosen One
Member
Geez, I didn't realize so many people are so pessimistic about the possbility of a black president. Being a black person who's lived both in the South and now the West coast, I'm aware that there are still racist out there but I thought they're mostly relegated to the fringes and backwater areas. But this thread is now giving me the impression that there is still a very large segment of people who are opposed to black people in power. Aside from a few backwards states, I honestly thought we had moved beyond that.
But I guess you guys are right. Chris Matthews on Hardball has brought up several times about how black candidates almost always poll better than the actual election results. People like to think they're equal opportunist and will tell the pollster they'll vote for the black candidate. But once they're alone in the election booth, they tend to side with the white candidate. I definitely would like to hear more evidence that supports this.
Being a black person who's lived both in the South and now the West coast, I'm aware that there are still racist out there but I thought they're mostly relegated to the fringes and backwater areas. But this thread is now giving me the impression that there is still a very large segment of people who are opposed to black people in power. Aside from a few backwards states, I honestly thought we had moved beyond that.But I guess you guys are right. Chris Matthews on Hardball has brought up several times about how black candidates almost always poll better than the actual election results. People like to think they're equal opportunist and will tell the pollster they'll vote for the black candidate. But once they're alone in the election booth, they tend to side with the white candidate. I definitely would like to hear more evidence that supports this.
A lot of white people are uncomfortable with voting for a black person who acts black, for lack of a better term. If the black candidate has a bunch of social facts signifying that he or she is part of white American culture (which a lot of us honkeys tend to think of as just plain American), the skin isn't as big an issue.
So while it's fine for Bush, Clinton, etc. to have regional dialects, even ones associated with poor or working class people, a black presidential candidate would have to speak Standard English the whole time. Biographical details like Condi Rice playing the piano help, too.
It matters that Powell and Condi Rice are both foreign policy specialists. Technocrat good, populist bad. A black political figure whose calling card is advocacy of the inner-city poor and working classes, who are mostly minorities? That's kind of scary to a lot of white people; if a politician is making decisions primarily with "those people" in mind, it might come at the expense of middle class suburbanites.
Anthony Williams is a very good example of a black politician who gets support from white voters. He was elected on the basis of being an egghead who would sort out DC's finances.
The picture you're going to get of a politician's personality is going to be very incomplete, and very skewed. There are issues where people of integrity, courage, and morals, defined any number of ways, are going to disagree. You have to first make sure the person you're voting for you agrees with you generally on the things that you find to be important.
You absolutely should not buy the media's portrayal of someone as having good character, or use a third-hand judgement about personality as the main criterion for electing someone.
The desire for a Good Man to take care of everything and make the hard decisions is understandable, but in a democracy, the responsible thing is to educate yourself, make up your own mind, then support whoever matches your own opinions.
So while it's fine for Bush, Clinton, etc. to have regional dialects, even ones associated with poor or working class people, a black presidential candidate would have to speak Standard English the whole time. Biographical details like Condi Rice playing the piano help, too.
It matters that Powell and Condi Rice are both foreign policy specialists. Technocrat good, populist bad. A black political figure whose calling card is advocacy of the inner-city poor and working classes, who are mostly minorities? That's kind of scary to a lot of white people; if a politician is making decisions primarily with "those people" in mind, it might come at the expense of middle class suburbanites.
Anthony Williams is a very good example of a black politician who gets support from white voters. He was elected on the basis of being an egghead who would sort out DC's finances.
This sounds like a good idea, but it's a pretty bad one.Surreal said:
The picture you're going to get of a politician's personality is going to be very incomplete, and very skewed. There are issues where people of integrity, courage, and morals, defined any number of ways, are going to disagree. You have to first make sure the person you're voting for you agrees with you generally on the things that you find to be important.
You absolutely should not buy the media's portrayal of someone as having good character, or use a third-hand judgement about personality as the main criterion for electing someone.
The desire for a Good Man to take care of everything and make the hard decisions is understandable, but in a democracy, the responsible thing is to educate yourself, make up your own mind, then support whoever matches your own opinions.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Mandark said:
That was about the most cogent and honest written thing analzying racial politics from a white person I've read in quite a while. Pat yourself on the back.
McCain? MCCAIN? That guy is more of a hack than Bush. The man has gone against everything he stood for just to win the 2008 primaries. He is groveling at the religious right in desperation to win. He is selling his soul to gain votes. At least Bush stood his ground. :lol All McCain does is change positions totally in his desperation to win primary votes.chadums90 said:
And you guys realize he is a HUGE hawk for the Iraq War? One of the strongest in the senate. If he wins we will NOT leave under his guard no matter the situation. He is Bush 2.0 but is able to speak like a human.
PhoenixDark
Banned
*claps*Mandark said:
Hurricane_Chris
DDK
Powell's personal views are actually quite liberal. I think alot of people confuse the fact that he is and always be a good soldier to the end following orders from his superiors. His behavior would probably be quite different if he were at the top.
a lengthy term in the senate could be the kiss of death for him if he waited till 2012. Senators/congressmen rarley get elected to presidential office because they have all those votes that can be picked apart and sometimes even misrepresented by their opponents.
I think he should run now, while he's still untarnished. He will look green and his chances are slim, but extra time in the senate will probably not help him. If he wants to wait till later, he would be better off seeking some other kind of office.... Governer or some secretary position under the next president (assuming a democrat wins, which is not looking likley if it's hillary vs Mccain)
I think he should run now, while he's still untarnished. He will look green and his chances are slim, but extra time in the senate will probably not help him. If he wants to wait till later, he would be better off seeking some other kind of office.... Governer or some secretary position under the next president (assuming a democrat wins, which is not looking likley if it's hillary vs Mccain)
Cheebs said:
McCain has always been a conservative, both socially and fiscally. After his first run he realized he couldn't alienate the religious right and he's tried harder not to burn bridges, but he's hardly governing like a theocrat and he still butts heads constantly with the neocons. His primary issue is an anti pork stand and he thinks big business gets too many favors due to campaign issues. The neocons framed him as a social liberal during the election and people actually bought it, but it's not true. At the very most he's slightly more socially moderate than bush, so any flip/flop is more a matter of tone in his recent speeches than his actual position or votes. Keep in mind that Bush's support of the religious right has mostly been lip service anyway.... he's not really a hardliner on social issues when it comes to his actions.
As a person McCain is nothing like bush and his governance would have no comparison. He's more passionate and more of an iconoclast. He's been through more in real life and he's a natural born leader. He wouldn't be a puppet and he would serve his own agenda.
Having a person of true character in office is much more important than any particular issue (which I think has been proven during the bush presidency). Presidents never get to choose the issues that will define their presidency. Outside issues always end up taking over and the presidents main function is in foreign policy. When a crisis happens you either need somebody shrewd or somebody that can cut through the red tape and act. Katrina comes to mind as the prime bush failure in this regard. He was too dependant on his underlings to make decisions and he didn't have the natural ability to lead in a crisis and take control when the situation turned bad. McCain would not have operated that way in a situation like that. These kinds of situations are the reason presidents exist. They are for times when you need a temporary dictator. Any effect that presidents have on domestic issues is incidental in comparison to their importance during a crisis.
Yes McCian is a hawk on the Iraq war, but at least he's not a chicken hawk and I don't think he would heistate to change tactics when the situation became difficult. He's spoken often of his frustration with the tactics used during the Vietnam war and the inflexibility of the leaders in washington during that time. He would not want to prezide over a war that ended up like that. He currently advocates an increase in troops. At least that's some kind of change...
I would support him, even if I don't always agree with him. He's a politician and he's learned to play the game over the years, but he's less comfortable with it than most of them and generaly comes across as more of a real person.
Cheebs said:
I can certainly see your point, but I personaly don't think McCain would put ideologs on the court although i think he has enough politician in him to suggest that he will.
Also i'm just as opposed to liberal ideolog judges as I'm conservative ones, so either way i'm going to be annoyed.
I just want to keep politics out of the court and put in judges that believe in the law without much of a slant. The status quo would be preferable to massive change from the supreme court in either direction.
Well yeah. Bush got two. He replaced a moderate conservative and a conservative. Not much shift there. Its 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, 1 moderate currently. But Stevens the most liberal member is very old and won't be around much longer. A republican nominating a conservative would shift it to 5 conservatives, 3 liberals, 1 moderate. That would change EVERYTHING.ToxicAdam said:
Doc Holliday said:
Obama was one of the few Democrats in the public eye defended Christians instead of mocking them ala Dean in the public eye (in terms of mainstream coverage which does not reflect the deeper meaning, as in not really being anti-religion compared to the press ready soundbites) like in this article (possible bias warning from possible source).
I think it is high time that middle America is tired of this whole war on terror nonsense. The rest of the country wasn't attacked, only New York, Washington, and that plane over Pennsylvania. The country is relatively secure and we need a new direction in this country.
As long as Obama is against the whole selling out our soveriengity to Canada and Mexico
Cheebs said:
How about everyone starts analyzing judicial policies/appointments like the founders did? Everyone would do well to find those Federalist Papers and start choosing judges like that. The last thing I want is some ideological lawyer deciding what's best for my country and me. There opinions, while POSSIBLY worth more than the average opinion, are irrelevant - we really should find justices that judge the way the founders intended. Basically, I'm with Krowley on this one.
Also, Cheebs, I do not see how you can say half the stuff you say about McCain. The man has unmatchable high ground when it comes to service to the country. I know I can trust my country's livelihood in his hands because he entrusted his life for it to the tune of 6 years of POW imprisonment. And that's precisely what sets him apart from other politicians - I know I can trust the man, I know he will do everything for this country and I know the man has a solid moral compass. If these aren't the most important things to you, Cheebs, then I would start to question whether you should even be filling out a ballot in a few weeks here.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
At the most I think he could run as VP on the 2008 ticket, and then run in 2012.
He isnt that experienced, but has great potential it would be a shame to waste it by running early.
He isnt that experienced, but has great potential it would be a shame to waste it by running early.
FECordeau said:
Once again, where did I say that democrats dont get elected into office EVER? Oh, right, i didn't. Im talking about the democrats inability to beat the weakest republican party in history in any election in the last 10-15 years.
Me: I'm talking about recently.
You: Ha! you're an idiot! Democrats historically control congress! Ha! Ha!
Me: they haven't for the last 10 years. Why is that, do you think?
You: Ha! You are picking and choosing your points! You can't argue that! You have to look at ALL OF HISTORY!
Me: Even if I'm talking ONLY about the recent past?
This is retarded.
terrene said:
Oh really? where did I say that? In fact, I believe i've said more than a few times that republicans were in trouble, but not trouble enough to deliver the democrats a LANDSLIDE until after foley.
You are no better than this other idiot that keeps quoting stats from 50 years ago to disprove my point about THE LAST TEN YEARS.
The last page of this thread has mostly been 3 of you trying to put words in my mouth. No one can tell me why democrats have such a tough time beating the most hated, morally corrupt, warmongering political party in modern history (according to them, anyways). It's hilarious. Well, not really. Sad, mostly.
It appears that will be changing this time. And the sad thing is that it still took a major scandal not related to the War, or to anything else in the Democratic platform to deliver what will likely be the killing blow. Look at any of the pre/post polling, there was a 6% bump or higher in democrats favor after the Foley thing.
American politics SHOULD be healthy when both parties have effective messages. As it stands now, one party has a message and the other one's message is "We aren't these guys". That's not to say the Democratic party HAS no message, but most people have no idea what it is, and their recent (there's that word again!) defeats bear that out.
Ichirou_Oogami said:
Mostly because I would say I am right of the center; I am pro-business, pro-tax cut, pro-privitization of Social Security, anti-abortion (although that one ranks real low on my list of important things) kinda guy.
I know what you were hoping to get at, though. :lol
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
yeah right.
dems, please don't pick him, he's gonna lose
dems, please don't pick him, he's gonna lose
ToxicAdam said:
ZOMG NAZIS IN THE SUPREME COURT!!1!
Hey Democrats; maybe if you could WIN an election, you can appoint Supreme Court Justices as well!
I thought it was quite funny to hear all the biatching and whining over the SCOTUS nominees the last few years. Acting like the Bush administration has hoodwinked the public and run an end-around to get their evil justices on the court. Last time i checked, that's one of the perks of being the party in power. You get to do things like that. Something tells me a democratic administration wouldn't be holding pow-wows with the Repubs over their nominations either.
Nominate 'em up and let 'em run through confirmation hearings.
Enron said:
Orrin Hatch said:
Yeah, O'Connor's a moderate conservative. Is there anything even remotely controversial about that statement? For that matter, what's so crazy about the idea that a Supreme Court dominated by Bush appointees would make different decisions than one that wasn't?
I don't get how this is a "scare tactic," especially coming from someone who's said a withdrawal from Iraq would create a base for terrorists who would suddenly decide to attack the US. C'mon, now.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Obama-2008.html?hp&ex=1161576000&en=978a88252d7bd6cc&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Seems a bit more likely, given this, that he may run.
Seems a bit more likely, given this, that he may run.
- Status