Barack Obama

[Boris]

I can say with 95% confidence that Barack Obama will not be the next President of the United States. He may be President someday (and I hope he will be), but it won't be on January 20, 2009.

[Boris]

what a hack.

Yeah, the witch comment went too far, so allow me to restate:

So, the Dems could nominate either Pantsuit Hillary Clinton, Loser TreeHugger Gore, Loser SwiftShifter Kerry...or Barack Hussein Obama! 
 ROFL!

Your raw wit and penetrating humor serves as an inspiration to us all. Thank you for your services.

[Boris]

Your analysis is complete sh**t. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, this is complete crap. People won't vote against him based upon his name. C'mon. That's easily one of the dumbest things I've ever read. If people do vote against him in 2008, it will be because he has absolutely no experience. And how much of the public will actually know his middle name? Or even care? Do you really believe that the American people will go, "OMG his middle is Hussein! HE MUST BE A TERRORIST! HAUL HIM OFF TO GITMO!!P!1"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another completely invalid anaylsis. "Because they couldn't formulate a coherent sentence" is not the reason why Al Gore and John Kerry lost. Why? Because look at who their opponent was. George W. Bush is pretty much the antithesis of coherency. The reason why Gore lost was pretty much bad luck, and the reason why Kerry lost was because the GOP GOTV pretty much owned him. If the GOP GOTV is weak in 2008, which it may be if the anti-Republican fervor across the country continues,  Al Gore could easily win.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, this I won't argue with. Hillary is her own worst enemy. If she is nominated, I don't expect her to win the election.

[Boris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another completely invalid anaylsis. "Because they couldn't formulate a coherent sentence" is not the reason why Al Gore and John Kerry lost. Why? Because look at who their opponent was. George W. Bush is pretty much the antithesis of coherency.

you should reread my statement and your response

My apologies. I'm a moron. Then yeah, you're right. My bad.

[Boris]

Ugh, what are you doing Barack? Seriously, I'm a huge fan of Obama, but we cannot have an inexperienced leader in office come January 20, 2009. I mean, in 2000 we put a six year Governor of Texas - basically an amateur -  into office, and look at how great the world has turned out since then.

Admittedly, I'd probably support Obama in 2008 (his charisma would probably sway me ), but I"d still prefer a more experienced person in the White House. I wouldn't mind Obama at the bottom of the ticket, however.

[Boris]

Approval rating:
Overall:69-25

Democrats: 89-10
Indys: 62-29
Republicans: 52-40

He's >=60% amoung every group except Republicans and conservatives.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8390707c-aab9-464a-9b0c-80524fbcd75e

Yes, but that was against Alan Keyes and in Illinois. If Obama wants to be President, he's going to have to win in states far less liberal than Illinois and against a far tougher opponent than Alan Keyes.

[Boris]

I wonder who he'd pick for his running mate.
I think Gore would make the most sense

Other posibilities:
Clinton
Edwards
Clark
Feingold
Richardson
Warner

I don't see anybody who already ran for president and almost won accepting the VP nomination.  I sure don't see Hillary accepting the VP nomination.  She was already co-president; why would she settle for VP?

And she'd add absolutely nothing to the ticket, except polarization and an excuse for conservatives to come out to polls. She's from a state that Obama's already guaranteed to win.

Bayh, Warner, Biden, Clark, or Richarson would be the best possiblities. Each of the aforementioned candidates either brings experience to the ticket or is from a swing state. Edwards would be awful; he added nothing to the ticket in 2004 and would do nothing to add to it in 2008.