I’ve changed my mind about Mr. Obama being too inexperienced to be president. I think he’s just the antidote this country needs after the toxicity of the last 6 (soon to be 8) years. He has a good point when he says he isn't sure "anybody is ready to be president before they're president".

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win the Presidential Election 2008?

How do you think he will weather the media machine’s attempts to smear him?

Would you vote for him?

I do think Obama would be a breath of fresh air- and "inexperianced" is kind of a silly reason NOT to run these days- considering the idiocy of this goverment today- I mean, seriously- who COULDN'T do a better job- like when poeple say "it would have been worse with Gore or Kerry"- I just have to laugh in thier face- I mean, a brain damaged autistic 7 year old with a padded helmet and bad communication skills could have done better than the moron in chief we have today- and Obama sure seems, so far, to at LEAST be intelligent- but, getting back to the "bradley effect"- will white voters who SAY they are 'ready for a black president" actually going to walk into the voting booth and pull the lever for the guy? Whether we like to admit it or not, America is still pretty racist, and what white poeple SAY they believe in and what they DO are frequently two completely different things.

None whatsoever. He's a liberal young, black senator with no experience...'Nough said. I added black in their because that, in my opinion, is still an issue in some parts of the country, not because I have a problem with it, btw. But anyway back to the point, no Obama has absolutely no chance of winning in a general election for the same reason no liberal has ever won in a Presidential election in modern United States history. Liberals do not get elected President here, liberal is a bad word in Preidential politics, conservative isn't; until that changes liberals will continue to not get elected.


Wow, that's one of the more loaded questions I've seen in a while. As far as I can see the media LOOOOOVES Barak Obama, so I don't even know where this is coming from.


No. I wouldn't vote for him, and I probably won't vote for the Republican nominee in 2008 either, so Barack don't take it personally.

CP

CP- what are his liberal positions vs what are his moderate or conservative positions- is it because he has already been labeled "liberal" or because he really is? The only speech I heard were centrist ideals, with some fiscal conservatism.

I just assumed it was de rigeur that a presidential candidate will be smeared. I mean, when have they not been? I admit it could have been worded somewhat better, but I believe if Obama ran, the conservative media centers would go out of their way to dredge up something, anything to make him look bad.

Let's face it; politicking these days is all about image and smooth talking, and Obama has it all, he's intelligent, well-spoken, good-looking, married with kids, a church-going man. The public will eat that up. Granted, some hard-core rednecks and racists would never vote for him, but I'm hoping (naively?) that they are a small enough minority not to make a difference.

Obama: On The Issues

Fiscal conservatism? Not quite.



As for why he's a liberal:

Not quite a "centrist".

On Edit: DaffyGrl, granted, he will be attacked, but "the media machine" is a bit loaded, I don't think the media will smear him, I think outside groups, 527s and Republicans will smear him, but again, as far as I can tell, he's a media darling.

CP

How do you think he will weather the media machine's attempts to smear him



I agree with CP that the media likes Obama. More important, though is how the Karl Rove machine would try to define him. If Howard Dean had been had been the 2004 nominee, he would have been branded as a new McGovern. As it was, Kerry was called a Massachusetts liberal and swift boated.

Obama is articulate, an overpowering improvement over the current bumbling president. I think he has the ability to define himself - something Gore and Kerry were never completely able to do.



I don’t think we can wait until the country is ready for something before proceeding. We weren’t, to hear some people tell it, ready for a Catholic president when Kennedy won in 1960, but he won. The cry now is that we aren’t ready for a black or a woman. If we wait until we are “ready” for something it will never happen.

This is not an necessarily endorsement for Obama to be the 2008 Democratic nominee, but given our current buffoon, he could have taken over the oval office yesterday and that would be none too soon.

Oh, you're absolutely right, I wasn't saying that the Dems SHOULDN'T nominate him because we still have racists in the country, I'm just saying that those racists will hurt Obama's chances of winning, I don't believe that that should discourage him at all. You're absolutely right.

CP

1. Sure he does. If he can raise the millions, put together the organization, and come up with the themes that resound with the voters, why couldn't he run and win?

Oh. That's right. He's Black. Dang.

But on the other hand...

Nelson Mandela strolled out of prison one day and right into the presidency of the most overtly racist country on the planet. Yeah, he had a Black majority that idolized him propelling him into high office, but if it can happen there, why can't it happen here? I recall a editorial cartoon that showed a smiling Mandela looking over at at Uncle Sam and saying, "Your turn..."

Bill Frist, George Allen, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, John Kerry, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney and God knows who else can dream of becoming the next President of the United States, why can't Barack Obama? He's a natural born U.S. citizen. He's over 35 years of age. He's resided in the United States for at least 14 years. I missed the part about being Black as a disqualifier.

2. "Smear" is a bit strong of a word, my dear DaffyGrl. I think what the professional pundits would say is they would give Obama the same treatment any credible candidate for the job would get. The hardest steel is forged in the hottest fire and there's no fire hotter than having professional busy-bodies nosing around in every facet of your life. We're already hearing that Obama is a media darling. So what? So is McCain. If Obama wants the top job then I'm sure he's smart enough to know he's going to have to endure nosy questions about his character, history, positions, etc.

3. Yes. Without hesitation or reservation. I met the good Senator a few months ago and he's got that Bill Clinton vibe down pat. He looks you right in the eye and makes you feel like he's listening to every word you're saying. I have seen John McCain turn on a crowd with just his presence and Obama has got that same rock star vibe. He downplays it, but you know that HE knows, that it's all eyes on him when he enters the room.



I share your skepticism, CruisingRam. There is a certain percentage of White voters (regardless of political affilation that will not under ANY circumstances vote for a Black candidate). I think that percentage of voters is small and getting smaller all the time. As more Blacks and Hispanics and other ethnic groups run and win I think it reassures White voters that these candidates of color do not put racial loyalty ahead of good governance.

Nothing would better symbolize how far removed from its racist past America is than a viable Black candidate winning the presidential nomination of a major political party. Since I've joined this site I've had conservatives up in my face telling me "race no longer matters in America." Okay. Let's road-test that theory. If a African-American candidate should be able to go on and triumph in the general election and ascend to the highest office in the land, that would be a day worth dancing in the streets.



If not now, then when, ConservPat?

It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. If Barack Obama is the best man for the job, why shouldn't he get the job? Don't we still believe that hard work and merit mean something in America?

I don't care how "liberal" "young" or "Black" Obama is. I care if he CAN DO THE JOB. Where is it written that only governors or gray-haired old Senators can become the Chief Executive? Where does it say only conservatives and moderates get to be President? Who said only White men can occupy the White House?

What kind of preparation should anyone have before becoming President? Sit up in Washington for 20 years? Luck into a governor's office and execute a couple of losers to prove you're tough? Jeeze Louise, ConservPat, we elected a horndog redneck from Arkansas to the presidency twice. Dubya had rarely set foot outside of the United States but his total lack of foreign policy experience didn't disqualify him though it's gotten him into plenty of trouble since he got the job. Isn't it time for a Chief Executive who can spell "cat" and you don't have to spot him the "c" and the "t?"

As regards the key issue which Obama can be legitimately criticized for--his lack of experience---I give you the sterling example of one J. Danforth Quayle whom Bush 41 put one bad day away from running the whole freakin' country. Would the notion of President Quayle and the nuclear launch codes being in the same zip code make you feel any more comfortable?

Quayle makes Dubya look like Stephen Hawking. PLEASE don't tell me a country where George W. Bush can be elected President--twice---can't bear the idea of Barack Obama once.

Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)


See- this is the kind of simplistic labeling that makes "liberal" and "conservative" such a meaningless label-

1- why reduce federal spending by 40b - what was the specifics that were being reduced? So far, the republicans have NOT riegned in spending of any kind- and the only kind they have wanted to "reduce" has been targeted towards the poor- no reductions in say, payments to haliburton - I am all for reducing spending- as long as it comes from truly un-needed programs FIRST- that would be a MODERATE or centrist stance- you know, reducing the fat before reducing the meat?

how the second one is a liberal issue I have no idea- I thought that was an old conservative thang?

and a mere 52 m on education? Isn't education an old guard conservative issue?

5b local grants- another long time conservative hallmark- giving local goverments money to spend rather than large scale federal programs?


Really, only the first one can really be nailed down as a "liberal" on fiscal, and it is a bit of a stretch, considering spending by "conservatives" since Reagan has been in no way "fiscally" conservative (granting that congress was Dem, but not really liberal past 1980, with the ideological scales tipping decidedly right since then, however, spending under Reagan increased, not decreased, after Carter)

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win the Presidential Election 2008?

I personally don't think so. He would be a strong Vice Presidential choice.

Obama's main strength (and weakness!!) is that nobody knows what he stands for. Where did he vote on the key issues of the day? I don't know, and I'd say I'm fairly tuned into national politics.

He doesn't talk about Iraq, or health care, or the War on Terror.

He could be targeted on a few votes: he voted against a flag burning ban (a wedge issue, but an effective one), supports affirmative action (another wedge issue), is anti-death penalty (huge in some states), wants to mandate ethanol use (idiotic, IMO), is pro-gun control (very very big issue in many areas), he has hedged on the Patriot Act renewal (voted once against, and once for the renewal)--could be parlayed into a flip-flopper issue. Additionally, he is soft on immigration (for a guest worker program, for welfare and Social Security benefits for illegals).

These issues all point to him being a liberal. On The Issues rates him a "Left Liberal" (with populist leaning) based upon his stances on the issues. I don't know how he labels himself, but this country as a whole is not liberal.

How do you think he will weather the media machine’s attempts to smear him?

I doubt the media will smear him. He seems like a nice guy and is very likeable. He is good looking and a great speaker. Hard to lampoon that.

Would you vote for him?

Based on his stance on the issues, I highly doubt it.

You are correct. The country as a whole is not liberal now.

However, the pendulum swings from time to time. Republican ascendency and conservative control are not permanent. Tom DeLay talk about a permanent Republican majority. What an arrogant and permanent fool. Nothing is permanent.

Things will change. I just don't know when.

I will make a prediction. Republican control will end first. The conservative mindset will move toward the center. Obama has a couple of years to move to the center.

You sir are already doing what Karl Rove - who unfortunately will not fly off to the ranch on November 20, 2009 as will Bush - is considering this very day.

Obama is too smart to let a bunch of Republican clowns define him.

I'm not saying that he SHOULD be discounted because he's black, I'm saying he will be because I don't think a lot of people will vote for him because he's black. I think there's some misunderstanding here, I believe that Obama should run, and a part of me would be happy if he won, but I don't think it'll happen because he's A: Liberal, B: Black.


The Republicans haven't reigned in spending because they aren't conservative CR...and neither is Obama. You're calling it basic, because it kind of is. Obama is pro-government programs, he favors higher taxes, wealth redistribution, federal involvement in education, amnesty of illegal aliens, etc...He's a liberal.


That's because Reagan wasn't a conservative CR! You're line of reasoning doesn't make sense. You're saying "Republicans are supposed to be conservatives, they don't act like conservatives, therefore conservatives aren't fiscal conservatives" is a fallacy. If someone advocates rampant gov't spending then they are not a conservative, Republicans included. If you're convinced that he's a centrist, then prove it, but all facts point otherwise as far as I can see.

CP

Lemme see here...I know there's a James Baldwin quote here that adequately addresses this situation. Ah, here it is:

I am what time, circumstance, history, have made of me, certainly, but I am also, much more than that. So are we all.

There is nothing Barack Obama can do about the fact that he's Black, ConservPat. If he were White we wouldn't even think of that being relevant. The fact that he isn't is a problem for somebody else, not Obama, because there is nothing he can do about it. He was Black Obama yesterday and he'll be Black Obama tomorrow and he'll stay Black Obama until the day he dies.

Especially if we keeping looking at his skin color as his main qualification or disqualification.

Liberal? Maybe that's a different problem and certainly fair game for anyone looking for a good reason to vote against him. But as a fatal flaw in his candidacy? If everything were the same but instead of being a liberal Democrat he was a conservative Republican would we be printing up the bumper stickers already?

Lemme consult Jimmy B. again. The world is before you and you need not take it or leave it as it was when you came in.

You can draw a straight line from what Dr. King's dream was to the possibility of a Black man being seriously considered as a Presidential contender in a way Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely Braun never were. Colin Powell could have---maybe SHOULD have---made the move, but he decided it wasn't what he wanted for himself and his family.

We can't wait for every voter afraid of Black candidates to die or for America to decide it's okay to nominate a liberal again. When the moment is right and the opportunity comes you seize the day or you're just another woulda/coulda/shoulda and pretty soon the parade moves on and everybody forgets you.

Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.

Again Nighttimer, I'm with you 100%, I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining or you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it is WRONG for people not to vote for Obama because he is black, and that it sucks that America still has that kind of problem...In addition I think that because he is black he will receive less votes than if he were white. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying I condone it, all I'm saying is it's a fact. I wouldn't vote for him because of his policy ideas, but I'm almost positive there is a large number of our countrymen who wouldn't vote for him because of his race, which is awful, but true. That doesn't mean the Dems shouldn't nominate him, it just means he has less of a chance of getting elected.

CP

I think he would be a fantastic candidate, in about 10 years. Give him some time to groom himself and his record, do a few noteworthy things on the national level, and get known for something nationally other than being well spoken and black. If they run him in 2 years, it will be too soon, and he will fall, and the democrats will have burned a star candidate. Run him in 10 years, (or even 6, if the Democrats tank the next presidency.)

I feel the same way about Edwards: he would have been a much better candidate for office if he had just WAITED another few years. The Democrats seem to want to push their stars into the limelight, even if they are not yet ready for a national audience...

This makes sense. However, if Obama stays in the Senate for another 10 years he will have a paper trail that has been detrimental to other Senators, who ran for president -Dole, Gore, Kerry, etc. If he chooses not to run or he runs and does not get the nomination, two things would help him: 1. The vice presidential nomination or 2. Leaving the Senate and becoming Governor of Illinois.

To put it bluntly, I think we would.

As a person, Obama is the perfect candidate. However, as the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections showed, respectively:

a. the country doesn't elect liberals nationally even in good times (Gore)

b. the country doesn't elect liberals nationally even when the Conservatives screw up royally.

Had Gore been more conservative, he would have been a shoo in.

If Kerry was less liberal (and had Obama's speaking voice and charisma) he would have blown GWB out of the water.

Being liberal is a liability for a Presidential candidate.

Again Amlord is the problem being "liberal" or letting someone like Karl Rove paint someone as such?

I'll bet that Rove already has smear plans drawn up for any potential Democratic candidate. You are merely doing Republican talking points on this thread.

I eagerly await your answer.

I actually quite like Obama. He doesn't strike me as a typical politician and I believe we will try and do what is best for people rather than what will just make his poll numbers rise.

My main reason for liking him is his overall stance on Education. Although I don't like it being controlled on a federal level, I like his passion for education.

He needs to get his name and face out there more but I believe if he does he could very well be on the ballot in 08.

Actually, this is changing. Being liberal should not be a liability for presidential candidates in 2008.

This is because the term liberal really means moderate in people's minds today. That's why moderate Republicans are supporting moderate Democrats during this election cycle. The two kinds of political thinkers have found common ground.

The country did elect Gore, remember? But, due to the closeness of the election, Bush got it on a technicality. Kerry came this close to getting it too, but then Ohio tilted to Bush. Point of the matter is that no third party candidate got in there to siphon off significant votes, as happened for Clinton, and both national elections were very close.

I don't think that in the 2008 season it will matter much who wins the Democratic nomination. It will be more important who wins the Republican nomination. That candidate will have both the burden of two Bush administrations to either haul upward or slough off and the task of convincing the nation that he or she won't do the same mistakes, or more accurately, create new mistakes. The Bush administration is a hard act to follow, and not because it is so good.

I'll make this argument: President Carter would never have won had it not been for how terrible President Nixon turned out to be. Times are different today, but there are similarities in the grand view of things, and I think it will be plenty to push the nation over to the Democrats. Still, there are more considerations.

A very important one is where this country is heading. Here's where the Republican nominee will have a tough time convincing anyone that the country's course will change even a fraction of a nanometer off its present heading, whereas the Democratic nominee simply has to call for a shift away from the cliff (maybe waterfall or whirlpool fits this metaphor better).

Another very important one consists of domestic policies. This country has many serious problems. I don't need to list them, the point is that any challenger to the reigning party won't have difficulty finding issues that resonate with the electorate.

In all, it's starting to look like the Democrats could nominate Jon Stewart and win. Come to think of it . . .

Anyway, Obama has more than a good chance at it. This is largely due to the fact that Republican pressures have turned the Democratic Party into the party of actual moderates, despite the attempts to label all Demos as screaming evil moon bat liberal devil spawn.

Sometimes overstatement backfires, and this kind of junk has replaced tax/spend morally corrupt liberals.

What's left? Not much, really.

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win the Presidential Election 2008?

He has as good a chance as any of the candidates, and probably a better chance than Hillary. If 08’ rolls around and we’re no better off in the quagmire that is Iraq I’d say his chances are better than Hillary (can’t link to a local editorial that argued convincingly in war time a female presidential candidate probably wouldn’t stand a chance).

I’m going to disagree with most and say his lack of experience could/should be considered a strength and if he played that angle (hasn’t been purchased or influenced by drug companies/lobbyist/religious fundamentalist/war machine/oil companies etc…) it would be a breath of fresh air in the stagnant, odorous stench that incumbent DC politics has become. He has a year and a half to “make some noise” and get his name out there, plenty of time.

He was in our city a few weeks ago so I tagged along with my father and his cronies. We were fortunate enough to hear him speak in a smaller setting where my father was introduced to him. Driving home he made several comments that “he’s got it”, the same Clintonesque charisma that he talked about after he met the former president during his original presidential campaign. And that’s more than half the battle.

Would you vote for him?

It all depends on his platform, but if he leaned towards the center than yes, and I’d donate my time to work on his campaign.

I'm not misunderstanding you, ConservPat. I'm saying people who vote against Obama because he's Black are the ones with the problem, not Barack Obama.

Nobody--not even Jesus Christ himself---would win the vote of every eligible voter. The people whose minds are already made up are a lost cause. No matter what Barack Obama does or says he's never going to get their vote. Those votes aren't even in play. So forget 'em!

IF there is a large number of our countrymen (and countrywomen) who would vote against Obama ONLY because of his race and they outnumber those who would vote for him, then we can safely conclude America is still a profoundly racist country. I'm just stupidly optimistic enough to believe that isn't true.

You can't allow yourself to be defeated before you even begin to fight. If the odds are high, then change the odds. If I thought I were doomed to fail just because I'm not White, I wouldn't bother getting out of bed in the morning because I would be buying into the culture of victimization and failure conservatives are always telling Black people to shake off.

As long as Barack Obama is willing to accept the odds and the risks (which do exist for anyone wanting to be president and are multiplied when you add race to the mix), he shouldn't allow the skepticism of even well-meaning people to defer him from his dream.



Amlord, I know the Browns stink this season, but you can't permit their shoddy performances on the field to affect you on this board.

If Obama is the perfect candidate (I'm gonna be reminding you that you said it, not me), looking back at the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections isn't the best crystal ball for his future.

In 2004, George W. Bush was the first guy since his dad to win a plurality of the popular vote. A whopping 50.7 of the popular vote. That's hardly a ringing endorsement from the American people.

Four years earlier, Al Gore, more conservative or not, received 543,816 votes than Bush and had he not lost his home state of Tennessee, he wouldn't have needed Florida to push him over the top. Did Gore lose Tennessee because he wasn't conservative enough or took it for granted that it was already in the "win" column? That's a different question for a different debate.

Liberals are not quite the extinct species in American politics that Rush Limbaugh would have us believe. They have won and are winning in places where it would seem they should have no business winning. I don't know if you gave John Kerry a charisma transplant if he beats Bush in '04 or not. Maybe Bush just ran a better campaign.

Are you telling me if Obama puts forward a program that puts more money into the pockets of taxpayers, protects the national security interests of the United States, is unrelentingly tough on terrorism and puts America's domestic priorities on the front burner that he can't go before farmers in Kansas, businessmen in Texas or suburbanites in the Carolinas and convince them their interests aren't served by voting for him?

People can vote their fears or their hopes but not both at the same time. People love to see success stories and guys who play by the rules get a break. My political ideology is very important to me, but not more important than my self-interest. People follow their self-interests over their ideological compass.

It's not labels like "liberal" or "conservative" or whatever we use to differentiate ourselves that makes someone an effective leader. It's the characteristics they exhibit that encourage people to follow them.

If that describes Obama or Clinton or McCain or Giuliani, that transcends the little box we try to cram them into.

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win the Presidential Election 2008?
He's a great candidate but I think he's too green and I question the sincerity of his admission on Meet the Press. Barack, like Bill, could be playing a game of drawing the spotlight away from Hillary.

Putting qualifications and "setbacks" perceived by some of the public aside, I’m going to feel sorry for whoever is the next president. He or she will have quite a bit on their hands and pursuing a domestic agenda will be nigh impossible. Could he get more done for the country and the party in that office than as Senator?

I think there is a number of our country man large enough to push a few percentage points to the GOP that would cost Obama the election...We've got this backwards Nighttimer, I'm supposed to be the young naive idealist, and you're supposed to be the cynical, experienced curmudgeon [do I have to give 'Mudge a nickel?]. I definitely believe that more than 2 or three out of 100 Americans are racists, and I think they can cost Obama the election. That's not to say I think he shouldn't run, I hope he does, I just don't think he will win, he shouldn't be discourage by it.


I'm not skeptical of him any more than I am of any other candidate I think should run for office that I don't think will win. I hope he runs and I'm not trying to defer him, I'm simply making a prediction.

CP

One of the reasons I’d be excited if Sen. Obama ran for president is he’d beat the pants off Hillary. I think she’s a horrible candidate (but not for the reason conservatives do).

Ouch, daaaaaamn, that's harsh! Quite frankly, I believe that being conservative (in the way that the current administration portrays itself as “conservative™”) is what's going to be a liability in 2008.

Nighttimer put it best:

Side note: When and how the heck did the neocons make “liberal” the equivalent of a dirty word?

I think Barack Obama could bring a sorely needed fresh perspective to the highest office in the land. I agree with Amlord that it will be a huge undertaking cleaning up the mess that will be left, but hot damn, how nice would it be to be proud of our country and its president once again!

The sad old dinosaurs and over-privileged silver spoon Peter Pans that have been running the country are overdue to slide back into the primordial ooze from whence they came.

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win the Presidential Election 2008?
I second what vermillion said in comparison to Edwards (with due respect to Obama, at least he's not a would-be psychic dead baby-channeling zillionaire trial lawyer) The Democrats seem to push their stars to the forefront when they still aren't ready for prime time. Maybe you can get away with that coming out of a two-term presidency, but even then it shows (think Dan Quayle).

Obama is a charming, smooth talker like Clinton, but having zero executive branch experience has to be noted as a major shortcoming. He's not the second coming of John Kennedy. Even seeking and getting a VP spot on a losing ticket could end his presidential hopes.

How do you think he will weather the media machine’s attempts to smear him?
I can't see many smears beyond his voting record, which is pretty milquetoast / moderate liberal at this point. He scored an 8 / 100 from the American Conservative Union, behind Boxer / Feinstein who both scored a 12 each. But, given the polarized Congress, no one rates towards the middle anymore when they run in a blue state like Illinois.

Would you vote for him?
Depends on the opponent, but probably not. He has Mrs. Carlito's vote though. I think that he had her at hello. So, if you're looking at Clinton-voting security mom types who voted for Bush twice, there you go. Obama '08. Hey, just drive around in Illinois - we already have the bumper stickers printed.

Why is Bush acting like he trying to get Osama? Why don’t we impeach him and elect Obama?
--Common

Now, who's gonna be the running mate?

Barack Obama is a serious threat to become the next President. I assume we all watched him on Meet the Press. On that show, Clinton was quoted by Russert as saying, "Barack Obama .... has to be careful about running too soon." This statement tells me that he is a formidable challenge to Hillary Clinton. This also underlies a huge political blunder by the Democrats. Hillary should have been running against Bush in the 2004 election with Obama as her running mate. The Democrats knew about Barack, which is why he was chosen as the keynote speaker, but the Clintons chose to take a less difficult road and are now faced with the task of losing the Democratic Primary to the hottest candidate. Hillary missed her chance to run and I think history would have repeated itself. The public was waiting for Hillary to announce her candidacy, instead, we got a circus, Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely Braun, Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Liebermann, and Clark. One name would have made them all obsolete, Clinton.

The smear campaigns will definitely come, but they will come from his own people. Barack Obama's skin is black. His policies and manner of speaking are all very white. He is not a breath of fresh air as some have described him, he is evasive in his answers to direct questions, just like all politicians. He reminded me of Bill Frist when he was speaking because he kept dodging and diverting whenever he was asked a tough question.

Examples:Meet The Press Transcript for Oct. 22


It took Barack Obama a year to visit New Orleans because he didn't want his visit to appear political. The only black senator was the 55th of 100 Senators to visit New Orleans.

-snip-


I care about that, too, which is why I, personally, would need a little more than just a look at his personality to say that I would vote for him. Lots of people - even evil people (no, I'm not at all suggesting that about Obama) - have the talents you describe in the above paragraph. That's how a lot of them are able to get ahead in life without actually accomplishing much of anything.

Unfortunately, from looking over the Senator's "issues" page, it appears that my concerns aren't entirely unfounded, as the War on Terror doesn't even rate a mention there. The closest he gets to it at all is when talking about "homeland security".

Is it really necessary to drag your predictable racist comments into these discussions? I am one that has started to stay away from subjects where blacks are involved because we can't cut through your racist assumptions to get the meat of an argument.

Obama is a handsome, well spoken young man with a clean record and limitless abilities. What does his color have to do with anything? But you've just painted the entire population as racists who would not support (cough..cough...Colin Powell) someone (cough...cough..Alan Keyes) simply because of (cough...cough...Clarence Thomas) their color (cough...cough...Condaleeza Rice).

Or does racism only affect well spoken black liberals?

nighttimer, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Please stop with your racist remarks.

He is a bit to religions for my blood to desire him as president. Not only this but his track record looks as if he would not be to hard on say illegal immigration, that’s another big no in my book. I have no clue overall on what he would try to do with Iraq, I figure the rubber stamp congress would dry up for him pretty fast and that would not help him, being obtaining presidential victory would be a rather large leap I think from his current position. Overall I do not think however he could do worse then bush, and even if he was on that level congress would not allow it lol, only wish they would not already with bush.

On a last level as much as I am for change on a broad amount of issue currently I think what America needs is a centrist president really, and a centrist government overall, for at least four years. Someone that will also take it to Iraq and bring our forces home, even if that will be in four years from now, personally I just do not see this guy as that figure, moreover I would have to study up on how much has the local ecology shaped his thinking politically, being that job would be far different overall then being president. Not only this of course it would hinge on what he plans to bring with him as an administration.

If he does manage a large civil populous that is diverse, it would be plus if he did not rule on the majority minority basis, and he would have at least I think some understanding of security as it would apply in regards to counterterrorism, personally I think the best offense in this game being a defense for the most part, or else you just end up with strings of Iraq type conflicts, I only hope the failure in Iraq does not spell out such for Afghanistan, where we actually have the foe behind 9-11 to defeat.

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win the Presidential Election 2008?

No, he could maybe go as a V.P then maybe as a president during next election, I think that might be a favorable route.

How do you think he will weather the media machine’s attempts to smear him?

No.

Would you vote for him?

No.

Well, it was a pretty civil debate.



And you sir, never miss an opportunity to jump in with both feet wedged firmly in your mouth.

Dayton Rocker...do yourself a favor. UNCLENCH.

Did you even bother to read my post or did you just stop at the part your knee-jerked and you screamed "Ooh..racism!" Do you remotely grasp the concept of sarcasm or were you playing hooky the day that was covered?

IF you had troubled yourself to follow the thread perhaps you would have noticed that ConservPat and I were debating whether America is too racist to ever elect a Black man as President. ConservPat fears the bigots would win out. I said, (and apparently it bears repeating for those who came in late) Nothing would better symbolize how far removed from its racist past America is than a viable Black candidate winning the presidential nomination of a major political party.

Nobody seemed to have any difficulty grasping that concept. But I'll explain it since the oxygen must be thin down there in Dayton.

I. Never. Said. White. People. Would. Not. Vote. For. Barack. Obama. Because. He. Is. Black.

I don't know how to make it any plainer than that Dayton Rocker. If jumping to conclusions were a Olympic sport you'd be bringing home the gold.



Maybe you should stay away from subjects where Blacks are involved because you obviously ignore everything else besides the one or two red flags that propel you into full Angry White Male mode.

There are certain members on this board I expect to get things twisted and try to do likewise to my words to serve their own overheated imaginations on what they think I said instead of addressing what I actually did say. I confess a certain surprise that you have joined that club, DaytonRocker.

Maybe when you point your finger at me and call me a racist you should count how many fingers are pointing back at you.

For which Democrats in out partisan Congress isn't that a liability?

(Save Joe Lieberman?)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but exempting some uncompelling 'centrist' humdrum (like a certain Governor from Indiana), I can't think of that many viable candidates who won't face the L-smear. Kerry spent the first four years of the new millenium rolling over like a puppy before the Bush agenda and still, in his voting against the earmarked body armor, they found a single vote to take to the presses as if they'd discovered his nefarious ulterior agenda- making sure american soldiers died for lack of body armor.

some points:

1.) I'm not sure we can have the kind of L-word politics we've succumbed to in 2008. Looking at the current stomping the GOP brand name is taking, I honestly don't think it would fly. Especially if our god-fearing and heroic right wing leaders can't corral a victory in the war of their own making.
2.) At least Obama can eloquently defend himself as a mainstream candidate, even if his voting record, clouded as any senator's is, differs. That's better than Hillary Clinton who votes a strong, centrist agenda yet can't seem to shake her image as a minor coastal antichrist. If anything, I'd put him in a better position to deal with that liability.

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win the Presidential Election 2008?
Before seeing this article on AD, I never heard of Obama. But after seeing the article, I can see this man has a lot of potential. The biggest obstacle to being President after personality is coming up with the campaign cash, and then having the right personality and a coherent understanding of the issues. He definately has the personality and is very articulate.

As far as the liberal views is concerned, this is not Beer Belly Ted Kennedy or Al Sharpton the clown. This is a man who can go up in front of the TV camera and actually be taken seriously by the American people.

I pretty much agree with most of the posters here, he's an interesting candidate if inexperienced (I think the Edwards analogy fits pretty well although if he were on the winning ticket then folks would be talking about how he's the future of the Democratic party). his presence and charisma can't be doubted and his ability to use TV is exceptional. He's a good speaker and has that "thing" (whatever it is) that allows him to connect to other people.

To be honest, though, I think he'd be better served with a run for Governor of Illinois. Better launching pad (if recent history is any guide), less of a voting record to use against him, some good fundraising opportunities and the size/importance of Illinois means he'll always be able to demand attention nationally.

Does Barack Obama have a chance to win the Presidential Election 2008?

Sure. I don't think he's a slam dunk or that 2008 is obviously the year but win or lose he'd be a serious contender, probably even one of the two front runners for the nomination. If he got nominated, he'd have a reasonably good chance (assuming his political positions/voting, etc are relatively mainstream) of winning but it's tough to tell without knowing who he's running against.


How do you think he will weather the media machine’s attempts to smear him?

He seems like he'd do fine but it's really difficult to tell. He's had one campaign (against an opponent who was, as I recall, not taken very seriously). He looks like he'd do fine with the attention (and the negative stuff that comes with national politics) but until he's faced it, it's tough to say one way or the other.

Would you vote for him?

I have no idea. I don't know his positions on things that are important to me and I've not looked at his legislative record.

Interesting thought, but not likely. I do think you will see a Hillary - Obama ticket though which might be an excellent stepping stone for Obama as VP.

I also see a possible battle between the Democratic ticket with a split in the party which might inavertantly, give the Republicans another 4 years in the White House.

Would you vote for him?

If Obama were the Democratic nominee, I would vote for him, unless the Republicans dug up someone more liberal.

Given the past 50 year of Republican history, I'd say that that would make my vote and support in time and money a lock for Barack Obama.

As with your other quotes you cited I really don’t see any evasiveness. Appears he’s learned what NOT to do from Bush and he’s spot on here. An international coalition is required even more today than any time in history in dealing with rogue nations. I’m amazed that the current administration ignored the U.N. as they moved forward with the mistake that is Iraq but it’s one of their first answers in how to deal with North Korea. Obama appears to have fully grasped this critical concept.

Many point to his inexperience but as most are aware the president doesn’t run the country solo, it’s the staff and cabinet that usually determines their success. With globalization the president needs to be as much a salesman as a DC politician. That takes intelligence and charisma, and when you consider the current offering he would undoubtedly be a breath of fresh air.

Fife and Drum, you've misattributed that quote. I didn't type those words.

But as for evasiveness, I did point out earlier in the thread that in the "issues" section of his official homepage, no mention was made of the War on Terror. For me, that doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence.

That’s not exactly true. He does address terrorism and other issue on his “Homeland Security” link.

He includes this section:



http://obama.senate.gov/issues/homeland_security/index.html

I wish I could say this in stronger terms without violating the board's profanity policy, but perhaps Obama is quietly addressing terrorism issues without the gross fear mongering appeals that scare the crap out of people.

Edited to add some more info from Obama's webpage dealing with terrorism issues:



Same link as above.

Yes, that post of mine was an abridged version of my earlier post (#29) in which I acknowledged that he did have a section dealing with "Homeland Security", but that's really a separate issue from the War on Terror. The latter is about actually going after terrorists, not just trying to thwart their plans. Maybe he thinks that going after terrorists isn't all that important. If that's the case, I'd be interested in hearing him explain himself.

Well in that case, there is a space on Obama's webpage devoted to issuing opinions on issues.

Feel free to write him. Then you can share you findings with us.

http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

I made this post, not Blackstone.

Well then Fife and Drum; what was his answer? The question was, "Would you committ U.S. troops to Darfur?" His answer, "I would create an international protection force." OK so will U.S. troops be involved in that? We do not know and Russert did not press him. Sen. Obama is skilled in the art of doublespeak. Great! How exciting for the country! A politician who doesn't answer questions.

Furthermore, and this touches on the racial issue, this is a half-Kenyan man giving wishy washy answers on his support to other African nations plagued by genocide. I'll say it again, Barack Obama's skin is black, that's it.

On December 27, 2005 Obama and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) penned an op-ed calling for a new policy focus on the strife in Darfur. They offered up four points to fix the crisis to the Bush Administration:

"It has become clear that a U.N.- or NATO-led force is required, and the administration must use diplomacy to override Chinese and Sudanese opposition to such a force and persuade outside troops to join it."

Put pressure on the rebels and "enlist Sudan's allies to increase the pressure on Khartoum to share power and resources."

Put "additional pressure on key nations -- Chad, Eritrea and Libya -- to stop playing a destructive role in the conflict."

Support the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, "which would impose targeted sanctions on the leading perpetrators of the genocide."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ck_Obama#Darfur

Are you suggesting that Barack Obama isn't "black enough" barnaby2341?

That's interesting nighttimer, but it's not unique.
World Must Act on Darfur Crisis, Says Kerry
Senator Ted Kennedy on the Genocide in Darfur
Sen. Clinton - Crisis in Darfur
Sen. Reid praises passage of new Sudan legislation

Did Barack Obama say anything differently than Sen. Kerry?

Or Sen. Kennedy?


Here is a bipartisan letter co-signed by Sen. Clinton w/ 25 other Senators outlining steps to stop the genocide in Darfur and Sen. Obama's name is missing.
Letter to the President

I think the man is potentially a sell out. The vigor in which I would want my Senator to stop the slaughtering of my ancestry is not on display here. Sen. Obama was asked if he would committ U.S. troops to stop the genocide and he could not bring himself to say yes. That is shameful. It is not just shameful for a black man, but any man who cannot justify saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. If he is being wishy washy on this issue because he believes that it might be politically unpopular then he is indeed a sell out.

I guess I can sum this up by figuring out your position on this issue. Pres. Nighttimer, would you send U.S. troops to stop the genocide in Darfur?

Personally if all he said on the WOT would be more intensive local security back home and becoming more intensive in Afghanistan going after bin laden and the Taliban I would be fine with that view on it currently. I don’t support that idea that Iraq ever had anything to do with 9-11 or really anything close to it, furthermore I don’t see much in reality that ever supported such a claim that Iraq had much to do with 9-11. Going after terrorists is a great idea, but going after people that attack us directly is even better, and meanwhile while all of our resources is tied up in making terrorism larger in the Arab world(Iraq) our borders are still open along with I don’t really want to know how much lacking infrastructure to protect us from what could be a group of a whole 2 people that have some idea on chemistry and bombs.

So for what its worth, I would rather support some person that had little to say on the GWOT that someone that supports war with Islam all over the world because some how this will make things better even though we only commit enough to make it simply a quagmire of human suffering, nothing in that makes sense to me, and since 9-11 that’s basically the core of it all to me, or from this administrations actions.

Again I don’t support this guy as president, not for anything having to do with Africa, not many nations will touch that because its a genocide but there is nothing to gain in Africa for anyone involved really, from much any angle, and that folks is the U.N in a nutshell also, must have to do with evolution or something lol!

Personal humor aside, I think France has the largest amount of aid going into darfur, and that is basically hospitals and food to take care of raped children and all the other wounded and dead.

Remember though, saddam was a bad man.

Anyways, no, Obama for V.P at best at some democratic scheme of a political move for voting base, but then again that’s politics, the message is good as long as its fit for a certain political creature.

Media machine's attempt to smear him? Huh? What is happening is exactly the opposite.

The Osama, uh, Barack Obama campaign is an orchestrated MEDIA campaign to sell this guy to the American public. They are building him up, hyping him, and promoting him like he's the next blockbuster movie. The mainstream press have been exposed, yet again, not to be objective reporters of the news to the people but instead political activists, trying to champion the people and the causes that THEY believe in!

Obama has a book. He's constantly on the mainstream media "interview" shows who give him the "puff piece" treatment in every instance. He's on the cover of "Time". For two weeks, I could not turn around and not see Obama popping up constantly.

The "media" clearly like this guy. Why? Because he's a good speaker, presents himself as a "moderate", is good looking, a "minority", and most of all... a DEMOCRAT.

The media can make people look bad (their constant negative treatment of Bush, Cheney, Rusmfeld, et. al) or they can make people look good (Obama and other liberal icons). They have the power to magnify mistakes or sweep them under the rug (which is why the media star treatment hasn't focused on Obama's past cocaine use).

Obama is a congressional rookie. He has no demonstrated record of leadership or achievement. A look at his record indicates that he's gone out of his way to get his name on as much legislation as humanly possible but not necessarily "lead the fight" on any of it. In other words, he's overtly building a resume.

Could Obama become president in 2008? I doubt it. What goes up must come down. The media treating him like he's God's Gift to politics will come back to haunt him as revelations of his past are learned. His lack of leadership experience will also be a factor. Bush was a two term governor of a large state while Clinton was also a two term governor... of a state. Bush Sr. was VP twice and had a long congressional career. Reagan an experienced governor, Carter, Nixon, Johnson were all highly experienced. Even Kennedy, who was a relative novice, served in both the House and the Senate.

Would I vote for Obama in 2008?

No way.

I understand the desire of people to get past all the diplomatic hot air and actually DO something about the slaughter in Darfur. However, there are limits to what even a U.S. Senator can do and particularly so when you are, as Senator Obama is, a member of the party out of power. I'm sure you've noticed, Barnaby2341, that Darfur hasn't exactly been a hot issue for President Bush and Secretary of State Rice. Has she even been to the Sudan to see the situation with her own eyes?

I'm willing to take Barack Obama to the woodshed over Darfur, but Condoleeza Rice is way ahead of him in bearing responsibility for the lassitude of our response.

Could Obama do more? Sure. So could the Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, the NAACP and every other politically activist group run by African Americans. If African Americans cared half as much about what actually occurs in Africa as Jews are regarding Israel, the mother country would be a lot better off.

Would I send American troops to stop the genocide in Darfur? Sure I would. If American troops can be sent to save lives in Bosnia and in Iraq, the lives of the people in Darfur are no less important.



That was half of a good post, lordhelmet. Predictably though you had to spoil the other half with your usual right-wing rhetoric, ramblings of media bias, character assassination, rumor-mongering and---surprise-race-baiting.

If you don't know how to pronounce or spell Barack Obama, then maybe you should refer to him as the junior Senator from Illinois. I think that kind of clumsy ham-fisted attempted to link Osama Bin Laden with Barack Obama by name is the kind of slimy smear, DaffyGrl was referring to. Congratulations on getting ahead of the right-wing attack pack.

Maybe you could explain since you're always bumping your gums about how race doesn't matter why you're making an issue that he's a "minority?"

Barack getting the star treatment from the press? They must be tired of kissing up to Republican media sweetheart, John (I was a P.O.W.) McCain, the other Next President of the United States.

Drug use, LH? Shouldn't you wait until Barack Obama actually becomes a candidate before Swift-boating him?

If the media star treatment hasn't focused on Obama's past cocaine use (got a link to back up the allegation or are you just doing drive-by hits today?) maybe it's because we've become a bit adverse to this particular trip through gutter politics. Charges of cocaine use have persisted about a certain Commander-in-Chief by the name of George W. Bush and his fondess for the Bolivian Marching Powder.

Mind you, I'm not saying I believe Dubya liked to toot a few lines of blow before kicking back with a keg and some strippers at one of the frat brother parties. Any doofus can create a website or write a book claiming anything. I'm just saying it's not beyond the realm of possibilty either.

If we're going after scuzzy drug fi