It would be ironic if Obama ran and knocked out Kerry, considering Kerry is the guy who gave him the national spotlight in the first place.
As accomplished as Mr. Kerry is, he lacks the charisma needed to capture the American imagination. Surely he sees that; surely after Dukakis, Gore and Kerry the Democratic Party has learned something from their Hollywood friends about star-power.
It took this Canadian until this post to figure out what the issue was in this exchange. I assumed that the original comment was meant to highlight the contrast between him and Bush, who I don’t consider to be well spoken. The race factor didn’t even cross my mind. I find the subtitles and the impact of the race issue down there quite interesting, but since for the most part I haven’t a clue who is of what race on this board I’m sure I miss most of it here.
Interesting . . . very I need to see more of his views etc being a Good Orator is not enough Rocket River
I was thinking the same thing. I think Obama should run for President, but only after he gets a chance to do some real good in the Senate...especially if the Democrats take power in 2 weeks. He is relatively young and has a chance to do greater good by staying in the Senate for maybe 1 more term. Then again, I do think he would make a fantastic president. One the likes we haven't seen since JFK.
Actually, the sooner the better. Senators have an inherent drawback in that their voting records can become serious liabilities. Look at what happened to Kerry. That one vote on Iraq war funding and that stupid quote about how he voted for the war before he voted against it, absolutely screwed him over. Senate voting records can only hurt and not help. Plus the Republicans were doing all sorts of snaky stuff in terms of interpreting voting records to say that Kerry voted against lower taxes 300 times or so (when really he was voting on the same bill multiple times). That's why senators usually don't win presidential elections anymore. The voting records always come back to haunt you which is why the less you have on your record, the better your chances are.
You're definitely right about that. I guess I'm just thinking in terms of the greater good rthat he could accomplish so much more if he just waited...combining his career in the Senate with a potential presidential run. Unfortunately, he'd have to be a relative newcomer to avoid the attacks on his record...spotless as it might be. Someone like him needs to be around for a long time. Granted, it does seem now that former presidents have the ability to continue to do important things (Carter and Habitat for Humanity, for example) and not have to worry about the political ramifications.
This is what I'm talking about when I talk about why people don't want to post here. 90 percent of the people who respond to the lone dissent in the "Everybody love Obama" thread have to stick some personal insult in there, try to imply I'm racist or am just acting on marching orders, etc. all because I don't support infanticide like Obama does. SamFisher, it would be nice if one day you would actually learn to discuss things without insulting people, but sadly it seems doubtful that it will happen. Y'all can go back to your worshipping of Obama now, I'm just going to pray that someone who supports infanticide is not elected president again.
and how do you come to this conclusion? spurious powers of deduction no doubt. it's like saying bush supports america going bankrupt because he cuts taxes.
1.) Your faulty logic and false information have been shot down utterly, so your debate opponent deserves to get in a few ribs. 2.) You just lost all semblance of impartiality with your "infanticide" trolling, revealing yourself as a Christian conservative. 3.) Oh, by the way, how many babies (for that matter all people) have been killed in Iraq? It's at least up over 100K in about 2-3 years. Iraq is not this messed up without Bush messing with it. So... you support the murder of Iraqis then, but not Americans. Chauvinism is not a positive characteristic either.
So you're conceding that you're just slinging mud againt him because your pro-life? Insults or not, the fact remains that your attempts to denigrate his widespread support in 2004 fail because they are not supported by the historical record, period.
So you're conceding that you can't discuss something without insulting anyone who disagrees with you?
No. Insults or not, the fact remains that your attempts to denigrate his widespread support in 2004 fail because they are not supported by the historical record, period.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Fitzgerald had a huge approval rating in the state, and polls that were done before the primaries showed he would beat any of the likely challengers handily. Pollsters like Larry Sabato reported how GOP leaders begged him for months to change his mind about retirement so they could hold on to the seat, because the Illinois GOP as a whole was imploding, and he was one of their very few popular figures left. Yes, Obama was leading the original Republican nominated in polls, but that doesn't change what I said about Obama being elected more because of the unpopularity of Republicans and their inability to field a worthy candidate than because he had so much "widespread support." I mean they even tried to recruit Mike Ditka for goodness sakes. I'm not going to sit here and say that I have some magic 8 ball that tells me that Fitzgerald would have beaten Obama in the election if they had run against each other, because it didn't happen, and there's no way to know for sure, but the media sources that reported on the race in the primary season indicated that Obama was recruited to run because with Fitzgerald's retirement, and the downfall of the state GOP, the dems believed they had a chance to pick up the seat, and needed a fresh candidate. Now to demonstrate I'm not picking on one party in this, it could very easily be said that Fitzgerald himself got the seat almost by default because of the dissatisfaction with Carol Mosely-Braun and not because voters thought he was a fantastic man for the job. If Republicans had touted Fitzgerald as some kind of "rising star" with the potential to be president because of one election over an unpopular incumbent, that would have been equally as laughable. I may have strong opinions on many issues, but that doesn't keep me from following politics from a realistic perspective, and not just trying to push propaganda on candidates I like or don't like. Your implication that I'm some sort of mouthpiece with marching orders from right-wing groups or something is insulting and without any basis in reality.
Sorry, but you're wrong - and by that I mean not only your implication that Obama only cruised because Jack Ryan dropped out, but your statement that he "wouldn't have had a chance" against Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald may have not been unpopular (I lived in Illinois while he was a senator but I don't recall him being particularly popular either - in fact I don't recall a single "Senatorial Approval Rating" poll for Fitzgerald or any senator, ever, not saying they don't exist I just don't remember them) - but Illinois voted heavily democratic in 2004 due to voter disgust with two things: 1. Highly unpopular Republican George W. Bush, who was trounced in the general election by over 10 points 55-to 45 or so. 2. Even more unpopular outgoing Republican Governor George Ryan, now in prison for corruption; which meant that Rod Blagojevich easily defeated his Republican opponent Jim Ryan in the polls (52-45) You honestly think Obama " wouldn't have had a chance" against the backcdrop of an imploding Illinois Republican party and Peter Fitzgerald, who as you said, won his seat by default (and IMO, who had the charisma of an insurance adjustor)? Sorry but your memories of Peter Fitzgerald (who was essentially the midwest version of Rick Santorum) aside, don't sway me to the point where it's arguable that Obama "wouldn't have had a chance" in a year of a heavy Illinois democratic sweep (much of it led by the appeal of Obama himself)
