Talk Elections

Obama Takes First Steps in N.H. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000167.html)

[...]

To the question everyone wanted answered -- Is he going to run? -- Obama was noncommittal. "I haven't made that determination. I'm still running things through the traps," he said. He added, "I want to take my time on it, not only to make sure the politics makes sense but that I feel I have something unique to offer that would help move the country forward."

But he closed his speech here early Sunday night with words that seemed to signal growing interest in a campaign. "America is ready to turn the page," he said. "America is ready for a new set of challenges. This is our time. A new generation is prepared to lead."

Aides said a final decision will come in January, while in the meantime the Obama team continues to prepare the machinery for a campaign if the senator concludes that the time is right. Pronouncing himself "suspicious of hype," Obama said he would not be driven into the race "simply because of the opportunity but because I think I will serve the country well by that."

[...]

Source. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000167.html)


It's fairly clear to me he's going to run - and I hope he'll run.

I have mixed feelings about Obama.  I think he is definately a likeable enough person but he hasn't established himself very well yet.  He has been in politics for such a short time that most people have no idea where he stands on the major issues.  Sometimes I wonder if he even has formed an opinion.  His lack of experience also kinda scares me.  I'd be much more comfortable with him if he had served in an executive position before.

However, people flock to see him, hear him, and most importantly (I think) touch him.  People are literally reaching out to him nearly everywhere he goes.  I don't see any people lined up like that just to get a feel of Hillary's sleeve.  His youth is also an assest in the sense that it could inspire more young (under 35) people to vote.  This ability to get people energized and excited would be a major asset.

In the end though I think he is much better suited as someone's running mate.  After 8 years as VP I think he'd be unstoppable.

:)


He'd overshadow the top of the ticket...

I'll say something that strikes me about Obama - he talks about faith and religion in away I find comfortable...and I tend to find candidates talking about religion uncomfortable and unnecessary. He talks about what it means for 'him', not what it should mean for 'you' which is what i've been used to hearing.

Even if he ran with Hillary or Gore?

It's not like nobody has read his book.

2016.  That's when we need Obama.  2008 is too early.

Yes.

In any case, there's really no reason to run Obama as veep.


2016 is too late, and no one wants your hero Hillary. :P

I'm pretty sure that 2008 will be a "change" election rather than an "experience" election. Obama's relative inexperience can be spun into a positive, given the current political climate.

Yeah. Hillary puts people to sleep when she opens her mouth.

I'm pretty damn close to jumping on the Obama bandwagon (especially considering that Russ Feingold and Mark Warner will not be running).

I disagree. With the state of war, we have to have a strong leader and a hawk on defense. McCain has experience. What the hell did Obama do? I know one thing he did...lie about serving his full six year term.

Hillary is going to slap him back down to planet Earth. I'm going to love watching that primary.

It's a poor strategy to run some established bore backed by someone likeable. Didn't work in 2004. Running someone charismatic backed by somone experienced is surer to win.

Kinda like Reagan-Bush or Bush-Cheney.

Question to Obama supporters:

What exactly does Obama stand for in terms of ideology and not rhetoric?

(Just to make this clear; I'm neutral at the moment)

You could ask exactly the same question of both Clinton and Bush.

And basically every other candidate.  McCain doesn't stand for anything.

Obama is for investing more money in education, especially in technical fields, for the death penalty, against gun control (I think), a phased troop withdrawal in Iraq, more internationalism, separation of church and state for the church as well as the state's benefit, alleviating poverty but for welfare reform, etc.


Yup.

I'm pretty sure Obama is pro gun control and anti-death penalty.

You haven't read his book, then.

"I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous, so beyond pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment" (58).

I take back the anti-gun control statement, though. "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby" (215). He does say leftists should acknolwedge how important guns are to some Americans too.

Edwards was thought to be too inexperienced when he had 6 years in the senate. Obama running with 4 years behind him? Nah...I don't think the climate is right for change anyway, people need some experience to reassure them. Who is the least experienced president of modern times?

Obama and Hillary better watch out. Everyones favorite candidate, Dennis Kucinich, has announced he's gonna run.

 Can't wait to see this primary.

None of the candidates in either party have come out with specific proposals yet.  People should quit  asking what Obama "stands for" unless they want to ask the same thing about McCain, Romney, Brownback, Thompson, etc.

Except those people have actually been involved in certain areas. Barack Obama goes to Kenya and it is the biggest deal in the world. You bet people should ask him what he stands for because all we have seen was him going on trips, campaigning and hearing him say stuff like, "America can hope! Audacity of Hope - buy it online or stop in your local Barnes and Noble..."

McCain lied that he would kill himself once Democrats took back the Senate. He cannot be trusted to run America. A vote for John McCain is a vote for more Republican lies and unreliable leaders.

I'm Soaring Eagle and I approve this message. ;)

Or you could go to your local library and get it for free. There are long chapters in there about many of the major issues facing our country today.

My guess, you'll just continue to whine......

That last election could have fooled me about the climate ???

John "Weathervane" McCain has been in the Senate for 22 years and I don't know here he stands on barely anything. He seems to go whichever way the wind is blowing.

What does John McCain stand for??

Yeah because Rick Santorum didn't hawk books or anything...

Hmm, the president is at 30% approval and the Democrats just swept the Republicans out of Congress last month.........and you don't think the country is in the mood for change???

Or I'll just sit back and enjoy Hillary owning him.



McCain doesn't have accomplishments? McCain didn't pass one of the most notable campaign finance laws in this country's history? McCain hasn't been a key Senator no matter what the issue has been? You are kidding yourself.


At least Santorum worked while he was in the Senate. Obama's accomplishments: book and a trip to Kenya.

Almost a sig worthy quote ain't it?

Sounds good to me.


Republicans hate the McCain-Feingold Law.


Yeah, let's see how much the Republicans accomplish while in the minority. Let's see what freshman Republican Senator Bob Corker accomplishes his first two years in the Senate as a member of the minority party.

Phil, you're smarter than that.

Uh, that doesn't mean it is not an accomplishment. I hate it, too, but I don't use that as an excuse. If were going by that, I guess many, many liberal Dems don't have accomplishments because we hate what they have done.  ::)

You make winning way too easy.


The clear difference being that I won't be advocating Corker for the Presidency. I won't say that Corker is some accomplished leader. You basically win arguments for me. I love how you concede that Obama has only been in the Senate for two years with no accomplishments...yet you are going crazy about how great he'll be as President.

In my opinion, there is very little link between a politician's time in the Senate and his potential as a President. Abraham Lincoln had the same amount of experience that Barack Obama has, and JFK only had slightly more.

Not so much.

Listening to Republicans make predictions about Democratic primaries is hilarious.

Why don't you make an efort to look up his positions?

And secondly, how many well-known politicians (for example, Giuliani) do you know exactly or even have a good idea of where they stand in ideology?

It is hilarious that Hillary will be able to beat someone in a Presidential race. Too bad for you guys that it will only be a primary.

You can take comfort in how good their predictions were for the 2006 elections.

People laughed at me in 2005 when I said that Jon Tester would win. I said that Jim Webb had a chance to win before macacca happened. I said that anything less than 3 pickups would be a big disappointment.

 

Yes - that's exactly what we need - a new President in 2008 whose position on Iraq is the same as George Bush. Putting another person who dosen't understand that invading Iraq was the worst strategic mistake in the history of U.S. is exactly what we need......

Before that, Webb wasn't going to win so don't pat yourself on the back too hard there.

Abraham Lincoln had the same amount of experience as Obama when he was elected President.

And he is widley regarded as the best President in United States history.

I will agree with you there! I feel confident that Obama can beat her in the Democratic primary.

Maybe not, but my political instincts regarding the 2006 elections were as good or better than anybody else's on this board.

Uh, no, you took that in the wrong way. I'm saying it is funny how she can actually win something related to the Presidency, not that predicting her win is funny.

Haha, Phil's anti-Obama rage has convinced me that he's the right choice. Republicans are terrified of this guy.

That was then ;)

Basically, I like Obama but his lack of experience may go against him. If he goes for it in 2008, he goes for it, if he doesn't he doesn't. Should he be the Democratic nominee, I'd gladly root for him but not until ;)

Dave

In all honesty, I am fairly confident that he'd be beaten. There is much more to Obama than some "centrist," well spoken, young Senator. You watch. Part of me hopes you nominate him.

Yes, they are. They can't stop talking about him. All the right-wing talk shows and Fox News are talking about him nonstop as well.

He's an interesting guy. Plus, we like to become acquainted with our enemies.  ;)

I don't think it will.  People are looking for a fresh start and a new face.

Given your track record (I seem to remember you were still confidently predicitng that Santorum would win reelection on Nov. 7th) on forecasting elections, I will give as much weight to your prediction as it rightly deserves.

In other words, none at all.

Sure. You're more scared of Hillary, right? ;)

Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. You should take him very, very seriously.

Rob that is so funny - I was just about to post the same thing!

Seriously , I think the fact that so many Republicans are freaking out and are trying to argue him down shows that they are scared of him and is appeal. Kind of like how Democrats do the same thing with John McCain (although McCain actually will be a weak candidate b/c of his Iraq position).

That's funny because I predicted every other Senate race correctly.



I would have been scared of Warner and I would have even considered voting for him. I'd be somewhat scared of Bayh if he somehow won the nomination.

I have always seriously worried about a Kucinich/McKinney landslide...

Obama does have proven appeal ;) to Republicans but then his opponent was Alan Keyes :P and the state is Illinois

Dave

And George Bush only had six years as Governor as experience when he was appointed President.

Seems times haven't changed all that much since Lincoln's day, huh, Dave? ;)

Show me the link.

What does that idiotic statement have to do with what I said about Obama?

OOoooooooooooh.....I get it. You can't argue my point about Obama so you throw out the names of two unpopular Democrats to try to change the subject.

The kiddie table is at www.freerepublic.com Phil. If you can't talk with adults, I suggest you go there.

In the grand scheme of things, 6 years as governor counts for more than 4 years as a senator. Mind you, I've never thought George W Bush up to the job of being president in the first place, but that's me - merely one opinion among many

Dave

Personally, as far as I'm concerned, if a Texas placeholder with no political experience prior to that position could be vaulted to the presidency, there's no reason why Obama can't as well.


Why?  Bush did basically absolutely nothing of note during his time as governor.  You don't get valuable experience just taking up space in an elected position.

sh**t, of course, the Governor of Texas is gubernatorially weak. Just reaffirms my view that George W Bush wasn't up to the job of being president in the first place

Dave

6 years as Govenror would be a good background if he had been a good Governor, but he wasn't. He was a terrible one.

I look for intelligence and judgement ahead of experience in a presidential candidate.

Don't know about terrible, probably mediocre, just like his presidency

Dave

Stellar qualities to have, I'd say

Dave

I think you're either overly, overly generous or delsuional to say that this Presidency has been "mediocre". It's been an incompetent disaster at best.

Come on, you know fine well, flattery on my part, towards W isn't exactly forthcoming. I ain't one to blow sunshine where the sun don't shine :P

Dave

Definitely. If this continues, expect some "concern troll"-types like Jacob Weisberg (who argued that Lamont's primary win spelled disaster for the Democrats (http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/)) and Al From to start writing panicky editiorials, telling the Dems that Obama would be a disaster and we should nominate Hillary instead. ::)


Agreed. Barack would smash McCain among independents and self-described moderates.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=45197.msg1035261#msg1035261 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=45197.msg1035261#msg1035261)

Oh, I just can't wait until you spin your way out of that one!  :)






Yes, because in your opinion, pointing out weaknesses equates to fear of the mentioned candidates so why shouldn't the same be applied to Kucinich/McKinney?

Deano, I have talking with the adults here for a very long time. You are one of the recent additions, widely regarded as one of the premier annoyances. Please don't lecture me on where to go. Thanks.

P.S. - I'll continue winning arguments while I'm at it and you'll continue your whiny, nasty comments towards everyone.

"Santorum by less than one point."

How does that make all of my other predictions incorrect?

Those Pennsylvania Republicans just got some badly inaccurate internals, that's all ;). Either that ... or folk were lulling the Santorumites into a false sense of security

Dave

It doesn't, it's just hilarious.  It's not an accomplishment anyway because dozens of people here picked every seat correctly.

I'm not calling it a great accomplishment. Deano was saying my record of predicting races is so horrible so I decided to throw that out there.

And Tweed, I honestly hope you enjoy being an asshole. You'll get what you deserve someday.

Judgement day?  Or before that?

Both.

God is a conservative Republican?

Right because that has everything to do with Tweed simply being an asshole.  ::)

Yes, I would say it does.

LOL!!!!!

You're right Phil - you sure predicted them all correctly!!

ROTFLMAO!!!


Nice job showing your predictions from three days before the Elections, Hack. The difference between me and you is that I made all of the correct predictions (including Santorum losing) months before the election, when you only changed yours in the last few days to reflect evolvoing CW b/c you can't predict worth a damn on your own and also to avoid embarrassment for your earlier terrible predictions.

lol..left himself wide open for that one.

So my final predictions are bad because they were done a few days before the election...like everyone else? And if I was all about the evolving CW, I would have said Santorum was done. I honestly don't care if you got all of them correct. Your point was that I had a horrific prediction record and I showed you that my predictions for the Senate race were correct with the exception of PA.

Predicting things months before the election means nothing, by the way. You can't tell us exactly what would happen that far ahead without lucky guesses.

LOL.

Again simple logic is lost on you Hack. You try to change the subject to two pols who are completely irrelevant to the toipic b/c you are not intelligent enough to repsond to something I said. Phil, you're pathetic, and the best part is that you are putting it all out there for everyone to see just how ignorant you are. Keep it up buddy!! :)



Like I said Phil, the kiddie table is that way. Go over there before you embarrass yourself again. You shouldn't try to argue with adults.


I'll let you know if you ever win an argument against me Phil. Up until this point, you haven't. But keep telling yourself that your idiotic ramblings about Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney (wtf??) qualify as an intelligent argument and that they won you an argument. Your fantasy dream land you live in is a strange place indeed.......

Keep the idiocy coming Phil! I love it!:)

Good job on the New Jersey prediction there, genius.

What happened?

Let me guess - little Kean Jr. jumped ahead in one or two polls in early September and you got all antsy-pantsy and excited?

That's so cute.......

You said the pointing out weaknesses means people are afraid. Everyone points out the weaknesses of those two therefore we must be afraid of their chances. It's really quite simple. Sit down, little boy, and think about what you said and then read what I said.



Eh, whatever you say. I am far more respected here than you are. You are widely regarded as simply a nasty, flame throwing hack and nothing more.  


Sure thing, pal. Way to have a kind tone for a debate. Question - Have you been kind to anyone that disagrees with you?

So what do you say to the respected forum members that also predicted a Kean victory at that point?

I can't believe you are still trying to spin your ignorance and inability to argue against me about Obama as something that has anything whatsoever to do with what we were talking about. Your childish behavior gets funnier all the time.

You must REALLY like getting creamed in arguments, b/c it is all I ever see you do.

Oh, wait, I see. So pointing out problems with Obama means fear but for anyone else it isn't? Makes sense, hacko.  ::)

I'm sorry girlie....what is the topic of this thread.....is it "Obama eyes Presidential bid" or "Cynthia McKinney eyes Presidnetial bid"? I thought so.

You talking about her would be as stupid as me bringing up Tom Delay in the same conversation.

The difference is I am smart enough to realize this. You, on the other hand........not so much.



UPDATE
Phil: Another thing that sets us apart is that I do not go crying to the moderator when I lose an argument like you do.

Deano, you'll never mature. Such a pity.  ::)

Yup. Just what I predicted you would say. :)

Out of your league, Phil.

No, hacko, the point remains that whether you are talking about Obama or Clinton or McKinney or Bayh or whoever, you said that when people bring up weaknesses that they are truly afraid of that candidate. Why would that just be the case for Obama? It makes no sense, child. I win again. Deal with it.

You are so uneducated an incapable of making an intellignet argument that I am literally crying b/c I am laughing so hard.

I'll say it again Phil - out of your league. :)

You lose - again. For the millionth time.

As opposed to figuratively?  Gleeful pleasure simply at being correct and another being incorrect sounds like some sort of issue you may want to get checked out, especially considering your well-documented issues with anger.  Normal people don't react to just being correct like that.  Were you educated of this?

Is this supposed to be an "intellignet" argument?  Maybe I just need to uneducate more incapables.



UPDATE
The above is still not an "intellignet" argument.

So...anyone watch 12 Oz. Mouse? Love that show.

You were right on that one, Phil. ;)

I'll give Obama credit for something - Great peformance on Monday Night Football.

NOT when you're Govenor of the state of Texas. Bush did virtually FA in his six years in office.

Yes! I thought that was so funny when I saw it.

Depends on what you mean by change. I don't think people feel secure enough to throw everything aboard and jump into the abyss. That doesn't mean they're not ready for change in the sense that they may want to throw out incumbents. But look at 2006. Was this about "change" in the sense of choosing something completely new? Some Republicans were knocked off because of scandals, but generally the new Democrats were not crazy mavericks, but experienced politicians (Webb is a glaring exception of course, but given his military back-ground, still not a shot in the dark).

Deano, do you actually think you are intelligent ?

I think you'll find I redressed that statement shortly after making it ;)

Dave

Oops, my bad - that'll teach me to read the WHOLE thread in the future. ;)


See? He got your vote already. PA's in the bag, baby! ;)

Seriously though, I hope he runs AND wins. He's the closest thing to JFK America has had since, well, JFK.

RFK?

Anyway I still have my doubts about Obama (actually all Democrats), but he's clearly far more desirable (to me anyway) than whatever the GOP put up.

I don't know, so far he's made all the right noices but what does it really mean, he has a David Cameron like quality in that (except Obama's speeches are better, grander and less totally bland and gimmicky).

What, for example, is his position on general foreign policy issues, will he continue the current US policy of fostering it's patent rights laws across the world (something I'm strongly opposed to) as most of the previous US govts have done? What will he do about Osama? etc.

ON my way home from work tonight, both Michael Reagon on Channel 144 and John Gibson on Channel 145 were terrified of Obama. They were both pleading with Republicans to nominate a "moderate" Republican like John McCain or Rudy Guiliani if they wanted a chance to beat Obama.

No bullsh*t.

Hmmm......smart Republicans on the radio? I've never encountered such a thing.

Blasphemy, I say. ;)

Haha. Of course McCain isn't moderate, and Guiliani will probably implode in the primaries.

This won't win my heart, Iosif.

Looking back on it, I'm definitely glad that Obama was nominated. Hillary would be in a better position now if she was the nominee.

Anyway, keep this type of stuff up. I smell another warning from Dave concerning the harassment.

re-reading this thread, it made me quite glad that you are not St. Peter.  :)

Damn, everything I wrote on this thread back in 2006 was spot on. 

this isn't harrassment.

No but the trolling elsewhere is. This just shows that he has some personal obsession with me.