Barack Obama for President

In the US there unfortunately is no such thing as half-white. He is black to the people of this country.

He would not get elected.

Max - Colin Powell was popular for everyone to say they liked but who knows on a large scale if he had actually run (most people have no idea what his political beliefs even are). Besides, black (or female) Republicans are seen as less threatening so would have a better shot. I have always thought that both the first black and first woman president will be Republican/conservative. I would also guess a woman would be first...but who knows.

 

I was going to do the same thing if Bejezuz hadn't beaten me to it. When I read your initial post, I had to do a double-take because it looked like that's what you had written. And, that it came from just about the last person in the whole wide BBS you'd expect it from made it doubly funny.

 

I agree. Biden's sort of like the crazy uncle... you listen to him for awhile and he sounds he's got it all together, then he throws a line out there that makes you think he's nuts. For the most recent example, note this comment made to a group of Repubs in SC...

Too undisciplined to make an effective candidate or President in my view. Also, he's a bit too much in love with the camera for my taste.

On the Hillary money, she did spend a lot on her Senate campaign, but it should be noted that she hasn't exactly shut it down completelely. I suspect she used a bunch of her Senate money to start building the infrastructure to go after the '08 Nom. I'm not excited about this prospect, but one cannot doubt her competency. If she's the nominee, she'll get some of my money and time.

Richardson's always seemed a little too overtly ambitious and after watching him for a few years as my Gov in NM, I think he has developed a rather unhealthy view of executive office entitlements.

Clark I like because even though he's not a great campaigner, he's a damn hard worker and seems to make the right tactical and strategic calls more often than not. He'd be a good VP nominee and a really good DOD or State Sec.

Mrs. rimrocker, after supporting Clark early last time, is now fully on the Edwards bandwagon. I haven't climbed on board because while I see him as a hard worker and a guy that's genuinely concerned about what's happening in the country and the world, I'm not convinced he has the skills needed to fix the enormous problems Bush will leave us or that he has the ability to go beyone his nice, caring personality and make some of the extremely hard choices the next president will be faced with on their first day in office.

I have similar thoughts about Obama. The world is seriously screwed up and our country needs a major overhaul... not just tinkering. Is he up to it? Can he make decisions when confronted with only bad and not so bad choices? Will he grow in office or stay wedded to the comfortable image that we now see? The other thing that makes me wonder about Obama is reading that right after the Convention speech, he met with a bunch of big money guys... and I've noticed that pattern since he became a Senator and running through this week. So, does he have the strength to be independent on all issues?

In short, I'm pessimistic about what the last two years of Bush will bring and I don't see anyone who is making waves about running that has the skillset and the necessary convictions and the right priorities to really fix the stuff that needs fixing. In my mind there's only one guy out there with those qualities and that's why I'm in with both feet should Gore give the word. Yes, he sucked as a campaigner, but there is no other candidate in either party that is even close to him in the qualifications and talent it takes to run the United States and the world's only superpower... or to clean up Bush's mess.

 

i would add that while i'm cautiously optimistic about obama, i'm also mildly bothered by some of the comments he made about race and ford in the tennessee senate race. i'll give him a pass- once. but if he shows he's really just another identity-politics w****, my enthusiasm will wane quickly.

 

Michael Barone has some interesting early analysis, that oddly leaves out Mr. Hussein Osama.

[rquoter]The 2008 Presidential Race

The character and qualifications of the nominees are going to be more important than party preference in determining who wins the 2008 presidential election. That's my conclusion from the initial 2008 polls I've seen. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that in the generic vote for president, Democrats have an impressive 44 to 32 percent edge over Republicans. That's a lot bigger than the 38 to 36 percent Democratic edge in party identification in the 2006 EMR exit poll. And I guess it has to be taken as a repudiation of George W. Bush, who remains the most prominent Republican on the national scene.

But when you look at how specific candidates do, you see very different results. I am focusing here on the three best-known candidates, who also lead in 2008 primary polls—Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Here are Rasmussen's numbers, announced shortly after the 2006 election, and here are the cross-tabs available by subscription. McCain leads Clinton 48 to 43 percent; Giuliani and Clinton are tied at 46 percent each.

You get a slightly different picture from SurveyUSA's 50-state polls (they even take the trouble to sample the District of Columbia). They give the results by electoral vote, but looking at the state results (available to members only), you can get an idea of the national popular vote percentages. They show Giuliani leading Clinton 354 to 184 and McCain leading Clinton by a nearly identical 351 to 187. But Giuliani's popular vote advantage (about 49.5 to 44.5 percent) is larger than McCain's (about 47.5 to 45.2 percent). McCain's leads are within the margin of error in more states than Giuliani's are. And Giuliani runs perceptibly stronger in Florida and in the Northeastern states from Rhode Island south to New Jersey and Pennsylvania. States Giuliani carries and McCain doesn't: Florida and New Jersey. States that McCain carries and Giuliani doesn't: Minnesota, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Clinton carries only a handful of states and D.C. by more than 4 percentage points against either candidate.

A Giuliani or, to a lesser extent, a McCain candidacy makes the Republican ticket much more competitive in the Northeast. Giuliani's percentage margins over Clinton in these polls vastly exceed George W. Bush's 2004 margins over John Kerry in the row of states with large Italian-American populations (Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey). All but Rhode Island are within the New York City media market. His margins in the South, the Great Plains, and the northern Rocky Mountain states are less than Bush's, but since Bush carried almost every state in those regions by wide margins, Giuliani still ropes in their electoral votes. He doesn't run much better than Bush in California and not at all better in Illinois, which after all is Clinton's native state. His margins are bigger than Bush's in the three Rocky Mountain states targeted by Democrats in 2004: Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada.

McCain's margins exceed Bush's the most in his own Arizona, in the Pacific Northwest, and in and around the Boston media market (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island). He doesn't run much better than Bush in New York or New Jersey. Like Giuliani's, his margins are smaller than those of Bush in most of the South and Great Plains—but that doesn't put any electoral votes in danger.

All these numbers suggest that if Giuliani/McCain or Clinton are the nominees, we won't see in 2008 the political contours we have been accustomed to seeing in presidential and House races from 1996 to 2004 and which continued roughly in 2006, with Republican percentages declining uniformly just about everywhere. The balance in California and the Great Lakes states wouldn't be much different from 2004, but many Northeastern states would be competitive (only New Hampshire was in 2004). The South would be less heavily Republican, leaving the Democrats with a couple of possible targets (Arkansas and Louisiana) in addition to Florida, which was a target in 1996, 2000, and 2004. Most of the Great Plains states would be out of the Democrats' reach, but their chances in Missouri would probably be better than in 2004, when it faded from the target list near the end.

In effect, if the Republicans nominate Giuliani or McCain, they would be trading southern-accented voters (as far north as rural Missouri and the Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois counties just north of the Ohio River) for northern-accented voters, with Giuliani particularly strong with New York-accented voters and McCain with New England-accented voters. The Electoral College map would look more like that of 1988 or even 1976 than that of 1996, 2000, and 2004. But I emphasize here that I have used the weasel words suggest and if. These numbers aren't etched in stone. They mean a lot more than the numbers you see on Mitt Romney, Tom Vilsack, or even John Edwards today, who are not known in depth by most voters.

But voters will know even more about them than they do today if Rudy, McCain, or Hillary are nominated, and events may lead voters to give different weight than they do today to their already perceived strengths and weaknesses.[/rquoter]

 

and the rasmussed poll referenced above:

[rquoter]Election 2008: McCain (R) 48% Clinton 43%
Guiliani (R) 46% Clinton (D) 46%
November 8, 2006
Republican John McCain

Senator John McCain (R) would defeat Senator Hillary Clinton (D) 48% to 43% in the 2008 Presidential Election if it were held at this time. A match-between Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be a toss-up with each candidate earning 46% of the vote (see crosstabs).

Interestingly, while McCain does better than Giuliani in this match-up, Giuliani holds an initial lead over McCain in the race for the GOP nomination. For the Democrats, Clinton is the frontrunner. She is trailed fairly closely by another freshman Senator, Barack Obama (D). The party primary match-ups will be updated daily along with new general election match-ups.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 52% of voters, unfavorably by 48%. For McCain, the numbers are 56% favorable and 36% unfavorable. Giuliani earns favorable ratings from 64% and unfavorable opinions from 27%.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted November 4-5, 2006 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.[/rquoter]

 

saddam basso. adolf basso. pol pot basso. mao basso.


You like that, Mister basso? Are you enjoying lowering yourself to new depths, even for you? Like being in the same company as Trader_J? Does it feel good?


Sickening.



D&D. Honor and Honesty are in Short Supply.

 

get grip deck. the whole name thing is much ado about nothing, a phoney outrage cooked up by olbermann, et al to cast democrats as victims, just as they're experiecing their biggest electoral victory in years. osma, oops, i mean obama's name will not be an issue- that is if ted kennedy can ever learn how to pronounce it.

 

I'll vote for Clinton or Obama just for the sake of electing a non-white male as the president. I think that's good for the country in the long run.

 

well, since i don't know who ed rogers is, it's hard for me to comment on whether or not he's a smug creep. to me the bigger liability, if in fact it is such, is his last name, which bears such an uncanny resemblance to...heck, half the country still thinks Barack Hussein Il Jong Obama's namesake should still be in power! and it's his real name, not a cooked up name like Felix, w/ which the dems smeared george allen. may i assume you decry that smear job as well, since it was so patently anti-semitic?

 

Funny. He never appeared to me to be Jewish... just a little effeminate...

 

basso, I haven't even seen Olberman in a few weeks, and haven't seen him comment about Barack's middle name. Didn't even know what it was until a few days ago. Forgive me if I'm just plain tired of the tactics of the Rove bunch for the last several years.

Here's a fresh face, intelligent, intriguing, even (gasp!) an intellectual, who is far removed from the typical dreck the Dems have put out as leaders the last several election cycles, and this middle name is exactly the kind of thing that will be used against him, repeated over and over again, associated with god knows what... none of it good. I just don't find it amusing. If you were honestly just trying to be funny, I apologize for my reaction, but I don't think it's too much to ask for you to think about what you doing that implies. It shows, in my opinion, an intellectual laziness unworthy of you. If you want to take a shot at someone you yourself said you found an interesting possibility for '08, or beyond, at least post something with some substance.

We have seen these tactics used over and over and over again by Rove and the GOP. Is using substance to discuss this man, or at least jokes that don't play into the Rove playbook, and his Limbaugh tool, too much to ask?



D&D. Humor. It's here Somewhere.

 

slimy tactics aren't limited to the GOP. you just won't recognize any others. and if i wanted to take a "shot" at the big O i would-w/o pulling punches or being oblique. i've posted fairly extensively in this thread- re-read it if you're uncertain how i feel.

 

Deckard, I'm disappointed at such an elitist statement, especially by you.

On Obama: I'm glad I have more than a year to listen to all the candidates rather than backing the first horse out of the gate. I agree that Obama is a good speaker, has a nice smile, he's black and white, he's Muslim and Christian, yadda, yadda, yadda. But can anyone give me 10 clear concise points for which he stands and promises to do. That would be more helpful.

 

thumbs read his book, "The Audacity of Hope" and make your own conclusions.

 

Looking back on 1996, when he was the most popular political figure in the country, this is so bizarrely true it's not even funny. Somebody give this guy the Mario Cuomo Squandered Opportunity Award.

 

Hillary's a non-white male?

 

yes. she is not a white male.

 

Really the only thing Barack Hussein Obama has going for him is that he is articulate and looks barack. Obviously, whether or not he is barack or white shouldn't be meaningful, but it is. Were he not barack, he'd be just another new politician with extremely liberal viewpoints. Instead, he's being trumpted as a wunderkind with fresh ideas and strong leadership.

The bottom line is that his viewpoints are not well understood by the unwashed masses. Once he becomes more well known, his viewpoints will be well known. At that point, the issues will become barack and white, and he will fade away as just another liberal politician looking to take away people's guns, raise taxes, abort babies, weaken the military, and promote gay marriage.