Obama Forms Committee to Weigh 2008 Presidential Bid

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Obama Forms Committee to Weigh 2008 Presidential Bid (Update1)

By Jay Newton-Small

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who rose to prominence with his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and has become one of the party's most sought-after speakers, said he's exploring a presidential bid.

``Running for the presidency is a profound decision -- a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone -- and so before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the country.'' Obama said in a statement on his Web site.

Obama, 45, the only black in the U.S. Senate, said he will reveal his decision whether to run Feb. 10 in Illinois. Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who hasn't announced her plans, are the favored potential presidential candidates among Democrats in polls of party voters.

``Whether he would succeed depends in part on the size of the field,'' said Thomas Patterson, a government professor at Harvard University. ``Hillary Clinton has a core constituency and would benefit from a large field of contenders, assuming they divide the remaining vote.''

Born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, to Ann Dunham of Kansas and Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan academic, Obama mostly grew up in Hawaii attending the elite day school Punahou before earning a bachelor's degree from Columbia University in 1983 and a law degree from Harvard.

Moved to Chicago

In 1985, Obama moved to the south side of Chicago to work for a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods. He left to go to Harvard Law School in the late 80's.

In 1991, Obama became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. After graduation, he spent a brief time on Wall Street where, he wrote in his autobiography, ``Dreams of My Father,'' he dabbled with cocaine.

Obama returned to the Southside of Chicago where he turned a job as a civil rights attorney into a run for public office, serving in the Illinois State Senate for seven years.

``Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things,'' Obama said in his statement today.

During a 1989 internship at a corporate law firm he met Michelle Robinson, who was his adviser for the summer. In 1992, he married Robinson with whom he has two daughters. Michelle Robinson Obama works for the University of Chicago Hospitals as vice president for Community and External Affairs.

First Race Unsuccessful

In 2000, Barack Obama unsuccessfully challenged Representative Bobby Rush for his congressional seat, only garnering 30 percent of the vote to Rush's 60 percent in the Illinois Democratic primary.

In the state Senate, Obama helped to pass the Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided more than $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state, according to his Web site. He also sponsored legislation that required police interrogations to be video taped in all capital cases and a measure that expanded early childhood education.

In a surprise upset, Obama won the 2004 Democratic nomination to replace retiring U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald, an Illinois Republican. Obama's candidacy benefitted when his Republican opponent dropped out after accusations surfaced that he pressured his ex-wife to frequent sex clubs. Obama defeated the replacement Republican, Alan Keyes of Maryland, winning 70 percent of the vote.

Democratic Fundraiser

Obama has used his celebrity to become a prolific fundraiser since his arrival in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took notice, appointing Obama Midwest vice chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which helps elect Democratic senators. Last year, Obama gave more than $700,000 from his own political action committee to Democratic candidates and state and national parties.

In the Senate, he has championed ethics reform and legislation to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He sits on the Foreign Relations, the Health, Educational, Labor and Pensions, the Homeland Security and the Veteran's Affairs Committees.

Opposes Iraq War

He opposes the Iraq war but didn't have to cast a vote for or against it four years ago because he wasn't in the Senate then. Obama opposes gay marriage and supports work requirements for welfare.

Barack in Swahili means ``blessed by God.'' In his second book, ``The Audacity of Hope,'' a title coined from his 2004 Democratic convention speech, Obama wrote about how he was told by one Democratic activist the week after Sept. 11 that his middle name, Hussein, would be a political liability.

Obama earned an advance of $1.9 million for the second book. Books were best sellers, and the second one is now No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list.

``I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago,'' Obama said in his statement today. ``But as I've spoken to many of you in my travels across the states these past months; as I've read your e-mails and read your letters; I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics.''

He is the sixth Democrat to announce a presidential bid or form an exploratory committee, following Senators Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Joe Biden of Delaware, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Democrats ``have a pretty deep bench if either Obama or Hillary slip on a banana,'' said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jay Newton-Small in Washington at [email protected]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ax7pLgm4kL_k&refer=home

Can't say I'm surprised; I read his book (The Audacity of Hope) the other day, and while I was impressed with the book, it still struck me as a combination of a publisher making money off of a wildly popular and "hot" politician as well as Obama laying the seeds of thoughtfulness, respect, and moderation that typically lies behind a presidential bid.

I've said it again and again that I mostly expect to see Clinton and McCain in 2008. That kind of election will suggest a nationwide shift away from the kind of right-wing politicos we've dealt with since 2000, and a direction the nation would be taking that I would appreciate (and, contrary to how many of you know me by my politics, I would find it hard to choose between those candidates). Obama is far more moderate than Clinton (who is a moderate in her insincere and lacking-in-evidence approach to video games only), and, IMO, would be an ideal candidate (given that there are benefits and consequences to being such an inexperienced politician).

Any other thoughts?
 
Thoughts?

While he may be a great man, I have to question his experience. Seven years in the Illinois senate, and barely two in Congress makes him come up short IMO. While you may say we have a President with barely any experience right now, I ask you to look at the results. I abhorr Clinton. I can't trust her. I would vote for Obama over her any day, and I've already spoken my peace about the man. I've been hoping for a McCain/Guiliani ticket personally (to help carry the NE), as McCain has already shown he doesn't give a damn about following the party line. Plus, both would bring experience of foreign relations and crisis control. I think McCain would be the best choice for both a tactical removal from Iraq and making sure the troops get what they need.

That said, I need to know more about where he stands, and I'm sure we'll get that at the first debate, should he decide to participate, in April. I pretty much already know where Clinton stands, and it scares me. Like Gore scared me in 2000. Edwards, IMO, is an idiot. You can chalk up the Kerry loss to him.

As neither a republican or democrat, I tend to lean toward the canidate who will give me the most control over my life and make the government more efficient and less in my pocket/life. As of this instant, of the declared/semi-declared canidates, I think that's McCain.

EDIT: And what scares me about Obama is what might happen if he gets elected. You know someone will try to assasinate him, just for the sake of being written in history. I have to think what that might do to already strained race relations in this country.
 
McCain was good, 7 years ago, now he is just like all the others who will say whatever to get money. I will not vote for him. I also hate Clinton with such a passion. If she wins... *loads shotgun*

And if Ronmey wins... dear god... I'm fucknig leaving this country and hope the terrorists blow the fuck out of it. He is worse than Bush!
 
The only person who can defeat Clinton in the primary is Al Gore. Seems Obama is aiming for the VP nomination at best.

And screw McCain. He has been a die-hard Bush suck up and tried to sell his soul to the extreme right wing nut groups. Guiliani don't have a chance with his insurmountable problems and scandals. He can't ride on 9/11 forever.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Guiliani don't have a chance with his insurmountable problems and scandals. [/QUOTE]

So it's payback for Clinton, huh? Ride someone forever about an affair? For being a Bush suck-up, he sure did have some nasty things to say about him a few years ago.

And it's evil to talk to people? I thought the liberal way was to have open dialogue?
 
I think Cochese brings up a good point about experience. While it isn't everything obviously, with the nation being in a very difficult position with regards to international military action and diplomacy, it may be better to look toward someone with more foreign policy experience. In fact, this may be the biggest thing against Obama's candidacy.

Other than that, I think he's on pretty solid ground. He's staked out moderately liberal positions on most issues, and his position on the war sits well with the public at this time. The press certainly love him. He will be a formidable adversary for Clinton in the primaries.

As for the others...

Al Gore - went leftist wacko after losing, put out a very controversial movie that ignored dominant scientific opinion, has said plenty of things that will prevent him from winning the nomination.

John Edwards - Democrats still see him as a loser from 2004. Very below-the-radar now without being a senator. Will go out early with a whimper.

John Kerry - Democrats can't believe he lost in 2004. Dumb comments and a losing reputation should keep him from challenging the front-runners.

Tom Vilsack - governors are historically good picks for candidates, but he's going to always struggle for national exposure as the governor of a small state. Plus he's too moderate to pull in the ultra-leftists wackos that will go for Al Gore and the like.

Dennis Kucinich - someone who will pull in the wackos, but only 1-2% tops even in the primaries. Only a candidate because he wants to go through another campaign even with support at that level.

Chris Dodd - solidly liberal senator, could sway liberals away from more moderate Clinton and Obama. One of the more interesting characters in the picture at this point.

Joe Biden - talks too much for his own good, and can't finish a thought before jumping to another. Has tried several times before and failed. Just doesn't have the support compared to his more well-known colleagues.
 
i really feel the complaint about experience is way overblown. Look at both Clinton and the current president, both were at govenors. If you think running a state is like running a whole country than I feel you are mistaken. Hell the only thing Bush did before govenor was failed business after business, but he became govenor, and then president. I really dont see it being that big a deficiency of Obama's


ohh and about this

[quote name='elprincipe']

Al Gore - went leftist wacko after losing, put out a very controversial movie that ignored dominant scientific opinion, has said plenty of things that will prevent him from winning the nomination.[/QUOTE]


that has to be the funniest comment i have heard on hear in awhile
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
Al Gore - went leftist wacko after losing, put out a very controversial movie that ignored dominant scientific opinion, has said plenty of things that will prevent him from winning the nomination.
[/QUOTE]

Oh boy, while you're at it, why not say there is a consensus among all historians that the holocaust was an elaborate lie. That would certainly comply with your perceived reality.
 
Actually, the original applied emphasis was wrong. You should have pointed out that,

Al Gore - went leftist wacko after losing, put out a very controversial movie that ignored dominant scientific opinion...

Al has always been a leftist whacko and went knee jerk reactionary after losing the election in 2000.
 
I think elprincipe is referring to the "worst case senerio" presented by the movie- a case that doesn't have the most scientific traction. But the premise of the movie-human caused global warming - is certainly the dominant scientific opinion.

Also "Mad" Tommy Tancredo also announced his exploratory commitee today.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Actually, the original applied emphasis was wrong. You should have pointed out that,



Al has always been a leftist whacko and went knee jerk reactionary after losing the election in 2000.[/QUOTE]

There you go. I have not seen the movie, so I cannot comment. Do I think humans are significantly contributing to global warming? Yes. I can say I don't like Al Gore for his environmental policies, especially his land use (cannot even go and look at protected lands on foot much less go use and enjoy conservatively). That's why I didn't vote for him.


Also, as for experience, I would expect that being a governor leads you better than being a state senator. From what I've seen of our governors, they do quite a bit of networking and travelling to other states to see how things work and also overseas. Not saying one is infinetly better, but that's what I would expect.
 
McCain has lost all credibility since 2000. First he rooled over for the neo-cons and now he's begging for the religious right vote. He's no longer a maverick, he's a lapdog. And he doesn't stand a chance of winning the election as long as he can be tied to the war in Iraq.

Guiliani won't make it through the primaries because he's too liberal on social issues. The Right will grill him over gay rights and abortion, the Left will savage him over police abuse and ties to questionable guys like Bernie Kerrick.

I like Obama, but experience-wise, I think he'd make a better VP right now.

John Edwards impressed me a few weeks ago on This Week with a very good interview. Very personable and he didn't sound like he was just trying to get out as many soundbites as possible. He had an ease in front of the camera that was, dare I say, Bill-Clintonesque.

Hillary is the juggernaut bitch. She's going to be getting all the money and attention. I don't have a problem with her, aside from her idiotic stance on video games, and I would be amused if she won. It would be funny to listen to conservative froth at the mouth for 4-8 years. After sticking us with Dubya, that would be a big payback (shout out to James Brown).

I just want a President that is competent enough that I don't cringe everytime I hear him/her give a speech or feel embarrassed whenever he/she meets a foreign official.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']
Hillary is the juggernaut bitch. She's going to be getting all the money and attention. I don't have a problem with her, aside from her idiotic stance on video games, and I would be amused if she won. It would be funny to listen to conservative froth at the mouth for 4-8 years. After sticking us with Dubya, that would be a big payback (shout out to James Brown).
[/QUOTE]

The problem is, she won't win. She can't carry the south, and Middle America would vote for anyone with two legs and an R after their name. If the Democrats want another conservative President, then they will be well-served to nominate Clinton.

I'd have to say at this point I think the nomination will go to Obama. The Democrats want to win in the worst way possible, and this is the most likeable canidate right now.
 
I'm not sure that an R after you name will help anyone. The GOP took a beating last November and with Dubya's leadership, I'm not sure they will be any more popular in '08. If Dems can do a better job with Congress (and the bar is pretty low there), I think we'll get more blue seats in '08 and the Dem candidate who is smart, can ride that wave into the White House.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Dem candidate who is smart, [/QUOTE]

Then we're in agreement: Clinton won't get elected.

There hasn't been a more derisive liberal canidate since I can remember. It really doesn't matter what Congress does in the next year and a half, Southerners won't vote for her. Period. A Democratic canidate has not won without carrying the South since the modern Republican party was formed in 1854. Clinton came close in 1996, but he still had Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Kentucky. (I consider the core South to be Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee).

One of the projects I did while in a GIS program was map several years of Presidential/Gubernatorial/Congressional races by county in an attempt to predict the 2000 Presidential election. I had an 87% success rate. Clinton isn't going to change these conservative votes to liberal. In fact, it will be the opposite. She'll also be working against people who will vote for her opponent just so not to have a female be their leader. You'll also have Southerners who still hold a grudge against her husband for 'immoral infedelity.' Or some other bullshit like that. While right-wing guys like Gingrich and Robertson aren't popular in mainstream America, there are some very powerful organizations down here that sway a lot of opinion towards that sector. It would be more than enough to deny her the swing votes she needed.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying what it is.

Also, take something in consideration: just because a canidate goes after votes from a certain group doesn't mean they believe in what they stand for. I'm sure Clinton, or whoever wins the nomination is going to get a lot of support from extremist left-wing environmental groups. Groups like the Sierra Club. Now I'm all for saving the environment and making our world a better place for our children. The difference between me and them is they want to completely cut off protected areas from any human traffic. Meaning you couldn't even hike in these areas and appreciate the natural beauty. They supported Gore, but Gore was already far along that road. McCain is going to have dialogue with these conservative christian groups as well. It's to be expected.

What we have to remember about all the canidates is that they want the votes. They are going to these groups and saying, 'Hey, if XXX gets the nomination for the other party, I need you to make a decision: Do you want me, someone who mildly agrees with what you think, or do you want to stay home and not vote and get someone elected who is the polar opposite?' It's all about degrees of what you think is evil.
 
On a more serious note, I do think it is time for a change -- no more Clintons and no more Bushes, please! (On the latter, you know what I mean and what I don't mean.)

I would love the race for the Democratic nominee to come down to Edwards and Obama -- both are young, energetic, and vibrant. I think either could inspire the nation in some fashion. Clinton? Not so much, even considering that she would be the first woman candidate for President from a major party.

The interesting thing is that the Republicans do not have any candidates that can match Obama/Edwards in the all-important charisma category. McCain? No, too old and grandfatherly. Guiliani? No, too New York and mean-spirited. Romney? A little charisma, but I'm not sure how the Mormon angle will play out.

Obama could do what Clinton did in '92. The question is, can he match up to the Clinton fundraising machine? That will tell the tale.
 
If this stat I heard is right, over the last 100 years, the taller candidate has won the Presidential election a full 80% of the time.

Interesting.
 
Edwards comes off as just another lying politician for me because of the whole 'Lets help the Katrina victims' while I hold a shovel and pretend to care. He's a lawyer (something I don't care to see in office again) and a one-term senate career. Joy. Exactly what will help us in international affairs.

On a less serious note, I'd rather not have John Ritter be my President, and people from other countries think we've elected a psychic.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Edwards comes off as just another lying politician for me because of the whole 'Lets help the Katrina victims' while I hold a shovel and pretend to care. He's a lawyer (something I don't care to see in office again) and a one-term senate career. Joy. Exactly what will help us in international affairs.

On a less serious note, I'd rather not have John Ritter be my President, and people from other countries think we've elected a psychic.[/QUOTE]

Lawyers will always be in the presidential mix. Clinton was a lawyer (of course, you probably strongly dislike him). Obama is a lawyer. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. Kerry was a lawyer.

What's better? Actors? Failed oil men?
 
[quote name='sgs89']Lawyers will always be in the presidential mix. Clinton was a lawyer (of course, you probably strongly dislike him). Obama is a lawyer. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. Kerry was a lawyer.

What's better? Actors? Failed oil men?[/QUOTE]

There people go assuming again. Again, I ask why?

What's better? How about people who actually have foreign policy experience? You know, something we haven't had for decades. How about someone who won't use kneejerk reactionary policy changes to make us forget about someone previous?

We've all learned that you can have the best and smartest people surround you, but if you don't listen to them they are worthless. Let's get someone in there who doesn't have to rely on other people 100% of the time.

No, I don't like lawyers. Especially ambulance chasers. They're good for being ambulance chasers, not presidents. I don't like people who make it harder to get great healthcare for children. I don't like people like John Edwards.
 
[quote name='sgs89']On a more serious note, I do think it is time for a change -- no more Clintons and no more Bushes, please! (On the latter, you know what I mean and what I don't mean.)

I would love the race for the Democratic nominee to come down to Edwards and Obama -- both are young, energetic, and vibrant. I think either could inspire the nation in some fashion. Clinton? Not so much, even considering that she would be the first woman candidate for President from a major party.

The interesting thing is that the Republicans do not have any candidates that can match Obama/Edwards in the all-important charisma category. McCain? No, too old and grandfatherly. Guiliani? No, too New York and mean-spirited. Romney? A little charisma, but I'm not sure how the Mormon angle will play out.

Obama could do what Clinton did in '92. The question is, can he match up to the Clinton fundraising machine? That will tell the tale.[/QUOTE]

My officemate suggested that the first female president will actually come from the Republican party. I don't recall the specifics of the discussion (it was pretty casual banter that, for once, didn't involve him swooning over Apple Computer's next big move ;)), but it essentially boiled down to the need to elect a "masculine" woman president.

In other words, we would not elect a woman who came off as too feminine or matronly - those are characteristics that we politically dislike (as evidence by the mockery of John Kerry's suggestion that we work towards better international relations and multilateral military engagements during the '04 election). However, it often seems that the aggressive and "masculine" candidates that are considered legitimate are most often Republicans - Reagan and Bush, for instance (though I don't think Bush 41, or all Republicans, fit that mold). In short, assertive and aggressive politicians works better for (R)s. I don't know that I agree with that, but there is some semblance of the culture who despises Clinton, not on what she stands for or opposes (I can't find many Republicans who can genuinely tell me they disagree with her on platform X or Y, while a number of Democrats chide her unwillingness to rescind her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq), but how she comes across as a person.

That doesn't make her unique as a presidential candidate, and the "likability" factor has always irritated the shit out of me...but it is important to note that, from what I've seen and examined, her biggest weakness is that people think she's an assertive, uppity bitch.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']There people go assuming again. Again, I ask why?

What's better? How about people who actually have foreign policy experience? You know, something we haven't had for decades. How about someone who won't use kneejerk reactionary policy changes to make us forget about someone previous?

We've all learned that you can have the best and smartest people surround you, but if you don't listen to them they are worthless. Let's get someone in there who doesn't have to rely on other people 100% of the time.

No, I don't like lawyers. Especially ambulance chasers. They're good for being ambulance chasers, not presidents. I don't like people who make it harder to get great healthcare for children. I don't like people like John Edwards.[/QUOTE]

I apologize if I wrongly assumed that you disliked Bill Clinton. Of course, I note that you didn't deny the charge.

I just think it is absurd to disqualify people based on their profession -- particularly a profession which sends more people into government than any other profession. Isn't part of governing about making and understanding and applying laws? And isn't that what lawyers are trained to do? I mean, surely actors and failed oil men are better able to do that, but lawyers are minimally qualified, aren't they?

On a separate note, I generally agree with your view about plaintiff lawyers -- particularly, those who practice in medical malpractice.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
That doesn't make her unique as a presidential candidate, and the "likability" factor has always irritated the shit out of me...but it is important to note that, from what I've seen and examined, her biggest weakness is that people think she's an assertive, uppity bitch.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. The likeability factor is always there, just as it is in any high school class president race. How do you think Reagan won? People liked him. It is sad, really, but an unavoidable fact.

I also agree with you on Clinton -- people just don't like her. And I think she likely can't win because of it unless her handlers perform a whiz-bang makeover (of her personality), and I don't mean the makeover that Al Gore underwent in 2000 (several different times).
 
[quote name='sgs89']I apologize if I wrongly assumed that you disliked Bill Clinton. Of course, I note that you didn't deny the charge.

I just think it is absurd to disqualify people based on their profession -- particularly a profession which sends more people into government than any other profession. Isn't part of governing about making and understanding and applying laws? And isn't that what lawyers are trained to do? I mean, surely actors and failed oil men are better able to do that, but lawyers are minimally qualified, aren't they?

On a separate note, I generally agree with your view about plaintiff lawyers -- particularly, those who practice in medical malpractice.[/QUOTE]

It's not that I like or dislike Clinton. The farther away I get, the better job I think he did.

My problem with lawyers is, the perception that I cannot trust them to meet my needs in office. All of them come off as used car salesmen, with a big fake smile, reassuring words, and a pat on the back. Granted, there is a lot of politicians like that, but lawyers come off a bit heavier in that regard.

Not saying that all lawyers are like that, but injury lawyers definetly are. My personal distaste for them is about childrens hospitals. You notice that less and less hospitals have childrens units. Why? Malpractice. It's become so heightened in peds healthcare that a lot of hospitals simply don't carry the beds anymore. It's a big reason why my wife's hospital has to travel across the state to pick up a kid. It's a big reason why you generally see them in the biggest cities. It's also why less and less doctors are getting into the field. A) there aren't as many jobs out there, and B) the insurance is an absolute nightmare.

There was a girl a few months ago that got thrown from a fair ride and hit another ride in mid-air, then came to the ground. Everyone and their uncle showed up to visit the girl. When they got kicked out of the room, the first thing they shouted was about suing the hospital because they couldn't visit with their child. Keep in mind, this was before they had stated they would also sue the fair and then went on TV to denounce the hospital's practices (when the hospital had saved the girl's life). So it's hard for me to feel any kind of pity for the injury lawyers when they permit people like these to profit because they didn't get their exact way.

In this day and age of riders and confusing legislation, I don't think they are helping either.

You comment on Reagan, but the man had a gift: he could tell it to you plain. He could tell you something and you'd understand and believe it too. It may have been full of shit, but you trusted it. Clinton had the same gift. Trust me, I know what I'm doing. The only person in this group I think has that same quality is Obama. Edwards, IMO, has the direct opposite effect: What is he not telling us? Kinda like his effort to paint himself a common man when he lives on this palatial estate....or did, he just sold it for over $5M.
 
I would argue that your distrust of lawyers as president is not supported by the facts. Some of our best presidents have been lawyers:

Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln, FDR, Clinton (?)

Of course, there have been some dishonest bastards that were President/lawyers, too: See Richard M. Nixon.

And, some of our worst presidents have not been lawyers: Harding, A. Johnson, and Carter.

There are honest lawyers and dishonest lawyers, just as there are honest actors and dishonest actors and honest oil men and dishonest oil men. Well, I'm not sure about that last one.

On your Reagan comment, I never understood why he was called the Great Communicator. I thought he was a pretty bad communicator, frankly. Confused and not particularly articulate.
 
Dubya had only 5 years experience as governor of Texas, and he went on to be president (by decision of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote). So apparently, experience is irrelevant.

You're better off with little experience anyway - a long voting record over the years may on the surface paint a portrait of a "flip-flopper" as the right-wing did in 2004.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Dubya had only 5 years experience as governor of Texas, and he went on to be president. So apparently, experience is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

He was GOVERNOR and up against Al Gore. Governors are elected president all the time.

You're better off with little experience anyway - a long voting record over the years may on the surface paint a portrait of a "flip-flopper" as the right-wing did in 2004.

Yes, that's why you become governor than president, they don't have to vote. The last senator elected to president was JFK.
 
Let me ask what might unfortunately be a legitimate question.

Has our country realistically progressed far enough as to elect a woman or a black man as president?
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Let me ask what might unfortunately be a legitimate question.

Has our country realistically progressed far enough as to elect a woman or a black man as president?[/QUOTE]

Elect? Yes. Keep alive? That's another story.
 
Hilary shouldn't run, it would further destroy the democratic party and let the neo-Nazis, like Bush, take control of the country.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Let me ask what might unfortunately be a legitimate question.

Has our country realistically progressed far enough as to elect a woman or a black man as president?[/QUOTE]

I think so, though, to be fair, we're pushing the limits of "black" with Obama. It's interesting, sociologically speaking, that children of mixed couples immediately assume the social status (not by choice, mind you) of the minority.

I bet that two-thirds of the country would fail to recognize that he has a white mother if asked.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

I bet that two-thirds of the country would fail to recognize that he has a white mother if asked.[/QUOTE]


It will be buried under the constant reminders of his middle name, as if it mattered.
 
[quote name='David85'] The last senator elected to president was JFK.[/QUOTE]

That is incorrect. Both LBJ and Nixon had previously been senators and were then elected to the presidency after JFK. Study your presidential history, man!
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Dubya had only 5 years experience as governor of Texas, and he went on to be president (by decision of the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote). So apparently, experience is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

Well, I guess we'll have to settle for you not claiming 9/11 was an inside job.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Let me ask what might unfortunately be a legitimate question.

Has our country realistically progressed far enough as to elect a woman or a black man as president?[/QUOTE]

I think beyond any doubt. Look at Colin Powell's poll numbers before he declined to run, for example. I'm not sure I would say it's a net positive at this point in time, but sure, I don't think it's a huge negative.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']You know what we meant. It's not our fault you were so fucking vague.[/QUOTE]

It's not my fault you're a fucking idiot.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, I guess we'll have to settle for you not claiming 9/11 was an inside job.[/QUOTE]

What?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think beyond any doubt. Look at Colin Powell's poll numbers before he declined to run, for example. I'm not sure I would say it's a net positive at this point in time, but sure, I don't think it's a huge negative.[/QUOTE]


That's a bad example considering that the rumour, I know just a rumour, but still, came out and said that the only reason he didn't run was because his wife knew the KKK or some freak would kill him.
 
Back on topic. I would not like to see Obama in the running. Too inexperienced, and I just plain don't like him. (Maybe it's latent racism)

What's wrong will Bill Richardson? He's got experience, and he's an "outsider". It would take a miracle to get me to vote for one of the popular candidates next election (i.e. Giuliani, Clinton, McCain)

I'd like to see a Richardson/Romney race. Two moderate governors:
Richardson: Massive experience at many levels of government including foreign relations experieince. (Ambassador to the UN)
Romney: Savvy businessman, Republican governing a strongly liberal state. Not much political experience (which for a Republican appears to be a plus)
 
More than likely, Obama will be forced to be someone elses running mate...

Then some black person will kill the president and be a hero the rest of his life in prison.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's not my fault you're a fucking idiot.[/QUOTE]

If you were that smart you would know how to get a point across. So you can't write or were intentionally dishonest. Either way, you were too busy playing "gotcha" to add anything to the discussion.

Maybe you skipped over this part of the article you quote..

On balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science..
compared with your drivel

[Gore]put out a very controversial movie that ignored dominant scientific opinion

I'll give you benefit of the doubt and simply asked that you don't play dumb next time.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']More than likely, Obama will be forced to be someone elses running mate...

Then some black person will kill the president and be a hero the rest of his life in prison.[/quote]

[/Chris Rock]

I said this in one of my classes the other night "America will not vote for a woman and a 'black guy' (referring to a Clinton/Obama ticket)." As enlightened and progressive as we claim to be, there's still going to be a ton of hesitancy come election day.

I think the Dems will build Kerry/Edwards back up.
 
bread's done
Back
Top