Options

Obama: Not just a pretty face?

24

Posts

  • Options
    InsiderInsider Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.

    :lol:

    I love this post.

    Lack of experience obviously doesn't matter these days. Just look at our awesome President now.

    Insider on
    Steam
    Sneaky..
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    ege02 wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.

    You realize that his lack of experience is also an advantage, right? I mean, normally, it's nice for candidates to have experience so that you can look back and see if they are the real deal, i.e. to see if they actually hold the values they say they hold. With Obama that's not the case. I mean, the guy is the real deal.

    Besides, Kennedy had 14 years of experience when he was elected. Barack will have 12 by 2008.

    And Bush had........uh..........his term as governor of TX, which is a part time job?

    Yeah, I love how people conveniently ignore facts when calling others "brainwashed minions." If you actually knew anything about him and/or his supporters, you'd know how incredibly stupid that statement is.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    ege02 wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.
    You realize that his lack of experience is also an advantage, right? I mean, normally, it's nice for candidates to have experience so that you can look back and see if they are the real deal, i.e. to see if they actually hold the values they say they hold. With Obama that's not the case. I mean, the guy is the real deal.

    Besides, Kennedy had 14 years of experience when he was elected. Barack will have 12 by 2008.
    And Bush had........uh..........his term as governor of TX, which is a part time job?

    Yeah, I love how people conveniently ignore facts when calling others "brainwashed minions." If you actually knew anything about him and/or his supporters, you'd know how incredibly stupid that statement is.
    Hey, now, by the time Bush was president, he'd run more businesses into the ground than most people do in a lifetime!

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    ege02 wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.

    You realize that his lack of experience is also an advantage, right? I mean, normally, it's nice for candidates to have experience so that you can look back and see if they are the real deal, i.e. to see if they actually hold the values they say they hold. With Obama that's not the case. I mean, the guy is the real deal.

    Besides, Kennedy had 14 years of experience when he was elected. Barack will have 12 by 2008.

    And Bush had........uh..........his term as governor of TX, which is a part time job?

    Yeah, I love how people conveniently ignore facts when calling others "brainwashed minions." If you actually knew anything about him and/or his supporters, you'd know how incredibly stupid that statement is.

    Are you talking to me? I'm supporting Obama.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    ege02 wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    ege02 wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.

    You realize that his lack of experience is also an advantage, right? I mean, normally, it's nice for candidates to have experience so that you can look back and see if they are the real deal, i.e. to see if they actually hold the values they say they hold. With Obama that's not the case. I mean, the guy is the real deal.

    Besides, Kennedy had 14 years of experience when he was elected. Barack will have 12 by 2008.

    And Bush had........uh..........his term as governor of TX, which is a part time job?

    Yeah, I love how people conveniently ignore facts when calling others "brainwashed minions." If you actually knew anything about him and/or his supporters, you'd know how incredibly stupid that statement is.

    Are you talking to me? I'm supporting Obama.

    No, I was talking with you :D

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Gorak wrote:
    Yeah, I agree the "we're not ready for a black president" theory is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean, people were willing to give Colin Powell the presidency if he had any interest in it over a decade ago.

    I think Powell would have made a far better president than Bush has.

    As for Obama, electing him in '08 would result in the rest of the world issuing a collective "Huh? They did what?". A lot of anti-Americans would start to rethink their positions.
    And nobody wants that. What would France do?
    Surrender?

    The only reason France woud complain is that they'd move from 2nd to 1st in the list of "Most Hated Nation".

    Gorak on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Thanatos wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    ege02 wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.
    You realize that his lack of experience is also an advantage, right? I mean, normally, it's nice for candidates to have experience so that you can look back and see if they are the real deal, i.e. to see if they actually hold the values they say they hold. With Obama that's not the case. I mean, the guy is the real deal.

    Besides, Kennedy had 14 years of experience when he was elected. Barack will have 12 by 2008.
    And Bush had........uh..........his term as governor of TX, which is a part time job?

    Yeah, I love how people conveniently ignore facts when calling others "brainwashed minions." If you actually knew anything about him and/or his supporters, you'd know how incredibly stupid that statement is.
    Hey, now, by the time Bush was president, he'd run more businesses into the ground than most people do in a lifetime!

    And traded Sammy Sosa, right? :lol:

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    TankHammerTankHammer Atlanta Ghostbuster Atlanta, GARegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Thanatos wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    ege02 wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.
    You realize that his lack of experience is also an advantage, right? I mean, normally, it's nice for candidates to have experience so that you can look back and see if they are the real deal, i.e. to see if they actually hold the values they say they hold. With Obama that's not the case. I mean, the guy is the real deal.

    Besides, Kennedy had 14 years of experience when he was elected. Barack will have 12 by 2008.
    And Bush had........uh..........his term as governor of TX, which is a part time job?

    Yeah, I love how people conveniently ignore facts when calling others "brainwashed minions." If you actually knew anything about him and/or his supporters, you'd know how incredibly stupid that statement is.
    Hey, now, by the time Bush was president, he'd run more businesses into the ground than most people do in a lifetime!
    Yeah, we should have seen Bush coming a mile away, but there is one good point made here, Obama doesn't have much leadership experience. He truly seems like the promised one, but what if it's too soon to put him to the test? I can live with voting him in in 2012 if it means he'll have a firmer handle on things, but I don't want him to end up a disenfranchised shell like McCain became when he missed his chance 8 years ago.

    We'll see who the candidates are going to be in a year or so, I'll be patient.

    TankHammer on
  • Options
    TexiKenTexiKen Dammit! That fish really got me!Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.

    For a bush supporter (from what I can tell) you blatantly ignore the fact that Bush had even LESS experience when he ran for president.

    Somewhere you have to factor in the Bush families experience in the political field. It shouldn't have major influence, but it fits in somewhere.

    If Obama was to run on ideas, do it. That's what Bush did, because we all know he isn't the best of speakers. But all I have seen is the democrats holding him up as nothing but "He's Young! He's Black! Vote for him!" His ideas are constantly pushed aside just so he can deliver token speeches for mass TV effect. That can only get you so far.

    Now, is that an advantage? Sure. You are seen less as "one of the good ol' boys" who sits on the hill forever. But that can only get you so far. I wouldn't give a Porsche to a kid who just turned 18 and only had a few years of driving experience, and I feel the same way about politicians.

    I know where senators like Kennedy and Hutchison stand on issues. When I have to actually look up Obama's record to find how liberal or conservative he is, you're not doing something right. Surely any informed person would look into their candidate, but Obama doesn't even have a rough idea of what he wants people to perceive him as other than "Young black senator. Oh, I thinks he's a democrat too. Don't know how liberal, but there's a D next to his name."

    TexiKen on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Yeah, we should have seen Bush coming a mile away, but there is one good point made here, Obama doesn't have much leadership experience. He truly seems like the promised one, but what if it's too soon to put him to the test? I can live with voting him in in 2012 if it means he'll have a firmer handle on things, but I don't want him to end up a disenfranchised shell like McCain became when he missed his chance 8 years ago.

    We'll see who the candidates are going to be in a year or so, I'll be patient.

    I honestly don't think it matters. He has all of the necessary skills and characteristics to lead. Why does he need to pad his resume if he already has all of the elements in place?

    Anyway, 2008 is 2 years away as you said. If he plays his cards right, he can get his name on important legislation, like campaign finance reform. I bet he drafts some seriously important stuff, bursts into public consciousness, and becomes the co-frontrunner with Hillary by the middle of 2007.

    At least, I'm hoping he does. It seems like the time is right.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    If Obama was to run on ideas, do it. That's what Bush did
    What ideas did Bush run on?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Gorak wrote:
    Yeah, I agree the "we're not ready for a black president" theory is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean, people were willing to give Colin Powell the presidency if he had any interest in it over a decade ago.

    I think Powell would have made a far better president than Bush has.
    My dog's chew toy would make a better President than Bush

    And has more charisma

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    TexiKen wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.

    For a bush supporter (from what I can tell) you blatantly ignore the fact that Bush had even LESS experience when he ran for president.

    Somewhere you have to factor in the Bush families experience in the political field. It shouldn't have major influence, but it fits in somewhere.
    So your argument is that Bush somehow has some genetic knowledge of how to run a country?

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Gorak wrote:
    Yeah, I agree the "we're not ready for a black president" theory is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean, people were willing to give Colin Powell the presidency if he had any interest in it over a decade ago.

    I think Powell would have made a far better president than Bush has.
    My dog's chew toy would make a better President than Bush

    And has more charisma

    The chew toy also had a better grasp of foreign policy and required less bananas.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    TexiKen wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.

    For a bush supporter (from what I can tell) you blatantly ignore the fact that Bush had even LESS experience when he ran for president.

    Somewhere you have to factor in the Bush families experience in the political field. It shouldn't have major influence, but it fits in somewhere.

    If Obama was to run on ideas, do it. That's what Bush did, because we all know he isn't the best of speakers. But all I have seen is the democrats holding him up as nothing but "He's Young! He's Black! Vote for him!" His ideas are constantly pushed aside just so he can deliver token speeches for mass TV effect. That can only get you so far.

    Now, is that an advantage? Sure. You are seen less as "one of the good ol' boys" who sits on the hill forever. But that can only get you so far. I wouldn't give a Porsche to a kid who just turned 18 and only had a few years of driving experience, and I feel the same way about politicians.

    I know where senators like Kennedy and Hutchison stand on issues. When I have to actually look up Obama's record to find how liberal or conservative he is, you're not doing something right. Surely any informed person would look into their candidate, but Obama doesn't even have a rough idea of what he wants people to perceive him as other than "Young black senator. Oh, I thinks he's a democrat too. Don't know how liberal, but there's a D next to his name."

    If he decides to run for president, that means you'll have 2 whole years of finding out about where he stands on issues.

    As I said, normally with politicians you need to see their track record to see if they are lying pigs. With Obama... I don't know, he gives me the feeling that he's smart, honest, and has integrity. I know better than to trust my gut-feeling with these matters (lol), but if his 2 years of campaigning (should he decide to run) support it, then yeah, I'll fully believe he'll be a good president.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    TexiKen wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    TexiKen wrote:
    How can he run when he hasn't really done anything? Outside of a nice little speech in 2004 and being on Oprah, showcasing him to all her brainwashed minions, what has he done that makes me go "Gee, I want to vote for him." His record so far in legislation is generic, something that could be seen for any young senator.

    Obama, as he currently stands, is nothing but a poster child that the democrats want to showcase. He's young (in political terms), black, and a good speaker. I'm sorry, I want more in a candidate besides a nice photo face.

    And what will be a real shame is that anyone who opposes him running on the grounds that he has relatively small experience will be labeled racist in an attempt to quiet those who don't support him.

    Give him another twelve years and actually have merits to stand on, then we'll see.

    For a bush supporter (from what I can tell) you blatantly ignore the fact that Bush had even LESS experience when he ran for president.

    Somewhere you have to factor in the Bush families experience in the political field. It shouldn't have major influence, but it fits in somewhere.

    If Obama was to run on ideas, do it. That's what Bush did, because we all know he isn't the best of speakers. But all I have seen is the democrats holding him up as nothing but "He's Young! He's Black! Vote for him!" His ideas are constantly pushed aside just so he can deliver token speeches for mass TV effect. That can only get you so far.

    Now, is that an advantage? Sure. You are seen less as "one of the good ol' boys" who sits on the hill forever. But that can only get you so far. I wouldn't give a Porsche to a kid who just turned 18 and only had a few years of driving experience, and I feel the same way about politicians.

    I know where senators like Kennedy and Hutchison stand on issues. When I have to actually look up Obama's record to find how liberal or conservative he is, you're not doing something right. Surely any informed person would look into their candidate, but Obama doesn't even have a rough idea of what he wants people to perceive him as other than "Young black senator. Oh, I thinks he's a democrat too. Don't know how liberal, but there's a D next to his name."

    If you took half a minute to look up his speeches and then an hour reading them, you'd know where he stands on most issues.

    I don't factor in the Bush family's experience in the political sphere because Bush demonstrated patent incompetence his ENTIRE LIFE. I don't vote for someone based on bloodlines, I vote for them based on their personal merits.

    The most vocal Obama supporters are those who (as others have said here) know his ideas since they have listened to his speeches, read his books, and talked to him. He has some seriously interesting ideas. He'll get his chance to lay them out more clearly now that the attention is on the Democrats and the 2008 election is coming into focus.

    I wouldn't dismiss his out of hand nor would I dismiss the arguments of those supporting him as "He's young! He's black! Vote for him!" How about: "He's charismatic! He's intelligent! He's creative! He has integrity! He's inspirational! Vote for him!"

    That would be closer to the truth.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Gorak wrote:
    Gorak wrote:
    Yeah, I agree the "we're not ready for a black president" theory is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. I mean, people were willing to give Colin Powell the presidency if he had any interest in it over a decade ago.

    I think Powell would have made a far better president than Bush has.
    My dog's chew toy would make a better President than Bush

    And has more charisma

    The chew toy also had a better grasp of foreign policy and required less pretzels.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    ege02 wrote:
    If he decides to run for president, that means you'll have 2 whole years of finding out about where he stands on issues.

    As I said, normally with politicians you need to see their track record to see if they are lying pigs. With Obama... I don't know, he gives me the feeling that he's smart, honest, and has integrity. I know better than to trust my gut-feeling with these matters (lol), but if his 2 years of campaigning (should he decide to run) support it, then yeah, I'll fully believe he'll be a good president.

    Watch his speeches, see his interviews, read his books. They're all worthwhile. You'll start to understand why he is so inspiring and why he'd make a great candidate and a great president.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    ege02 wrote:
    If he decides to run for president, that means you'll have 2 whole years of finding out about where he stands on issues.

    As I said, normally with politicians you need to see their track record to see if they are lying pigs. With Obama... I don't know, he gives me the feeling that he's smart, honest, and has integrity. I know better than to trust my gut-feeling with these matters (lol), but if his 2 years of campaigning (should he decide to run) support it, then yeah, I'll fully believe he'll be a good president.

    Watch his speeches, see his interviews, read his books. They're all worthwhile. You'll start to understand why he is so inspiring and why he'd make a great candidate and a great president.

    I watched some of his speeches. The only thing I gathered is that he has been anti-war since before the war.

    Which isn't something you can say for most politicians out there, who change their stance regularly at the flip of a coin, it seems like.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    ege02 wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    ege02 wrote:
    If he decides to run for president, that means you'll have 2 whole years of finding out about where he stands on issues.

    As I said, normally with politicians you need to see their track record to see if they are lying pigs. With Obama... I don't know, he gives me the feeling that he's smart, honest, and has integrity. I know better than to trust my gut-feeling with these matters (lol), but if his 2 years of campaigning (should he decide to run) support it, then yeah, I'll fully believe he'll be a good president.

    Watch his speeches, see his interviews, read his books. They're all worthwhile. You'll start to understand why he is so inspiring and why he'd make a great candidate and a great president.

    I watched some of his speeches. The only thing I gathered is that he has been anti-war since before the war.

    Which isn't something you can say for most politicians out there, who change their stance regularly at the flip of a coin, it seems like.

    I dunno if you can find transcripts of smaller ones he did. He gave a great one here in NYC last week.

    But read his book! The new one, you can probably find it in a library. It's really good.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    Dead Guy PerezDead Guy Perez Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    Yeah, we should have seen Bush coming a mile away, but there is one good point made here, Obama doesn't have much leadership experience. He truly seems like the promised one, but what if it's too soon to put him to the test? I can live with voting him in in 2012 if it means he'll have a firmer handle on things, but I don't want him to end up a disenfranchised shell like McCain became when he missed his chance 8 years ago.

    We'll see who the candidates are going to be in a year or so, I'll be patient.

    I honestly don't think it matters. He has all of the necessary skills and characteristics to lead. Why does he need to pad his resume if he already has all of the elements in place?

    Because running a country isn't a job for unskilled labor. Look, it might be that I have all the makings of an awesome brain surgeon. I'm quick, precise, steady, intelligent, work well under pressure, and I've even got a good bedside manner. Even with all that, no hospital on Earth is going to let me crack open somebody's skull without years upon years of medical training. It's not about my resume per se, it's about my experience.

    Yeah, Obama looks good, and who knows? He might even turn out to be one of the greats someday. But he needs more time. He needs to learn more about how the system works--not the way it's supposed to work, since I'm sure he got all of that in law school, but the way it does work. He needs to build more connections, the currency on which Washinton runs. He needs time to make mistakes and to overcome them.

    I realize that the American public is fickle as all hell, and that a handsome guy without a lot of grey hair is always going to have the advantage over somebody a little older, a little less idealistic, and dare I say a little wiser. But the presidency isn't a TV show, even though our wacky campaign system tries to paint it as one, and so even though a wide smile and a good heart can get you in, they can't do the job for you. It might be harder for Barack Obama to become president in 2012 or 2016, but he'll be a better president with the additional experience. Isn't that more important?

    Dead Guy Perez on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    Yeah, we should have seen Bush coming a mile away, but there is one good point made here, Obama doesn't have much leadership experience. He truly seems like the promised one, but what if it's too soon to put him to the test? I can live with voting him in in 2012 if it means he'll have a firmer handle on things, but I don't want him to end up a disenfranchised shell like McCain became when he missed his chance 8 years ago.

    We'll see who the candidates are going to be in a year or so, I'll be patient.

    I honestly don't think it matters. He has all of the necessary skills and characteristics to lead. Why does he need to pad his resume if he already has all of the elements in place?

    Because running a country isn't a job for unskilled labor. Look, it might be that I have all the makings of an awesome brain surgeon. I'm quick, precise, steady, intelligent, work well under pressure, and I've even got a good bedside manner. Even with all that, no hospital on Earth is going to let me crack open somebody's skull without years upon years of medical training. It's not about my resume per se, it's about my experience.

    Yeah, Obama looks good, and who knows? He might even turn out to be one of the greats someday. But he needs more time. He needs to learn more about how the system works--not the way it's supposed to work, since I'm sure he got all of that in law school, but the way it does work. He needs to build more connections, the currency on which Washinton runs. He needs time to make mistakes and to overcome them.

    I realize that the American public is fickle as all hell, and that a handsome guy without a lot of grey hair is always going to have the advantage over somebody a little older, a little less idealistic, and dare I say a little wiser. But the presidency isn't a TV show, even though our wacky campaign system tries to paint it as one, and so even though a wide smile and a good heart can get you in, they can't do the job for you. It might be harder for Barack Obama to become president in 2012 or 2016, but he'll be a better president with the additional experience. Isn't that more important?

    Actually, not really. What is more important is that the best person who has a chance to become president gets elected. Even if Obama version 2012 is MARGINALLY better than Obama version 2008, if Obama version 2008 is better than anyone who could win in 2008, then I go for Obama verison 2008.

    Let's make this clear: everyone who goes into the Oval Office is unprepared for the job. There is literally no way to be fully prepared to take on the job. However, there is not much more Obama could learn in Senate that would significantly improve his governance. He's in the Senate now. He will be there for 2 more years at least. He will have advisors with more hands-on experience.

    But what a lot of those more experienced, "wiser" people lack is the vision and charisma that Obama brings to the table. It's all well and good to know how things work now. But America needs someone who understands the status quo but also has the qualities necessary to bring people together to change the status quo into something better. No amount of additional experience can give someone those qualities. Obama has them in spades.

    And more saliently: who is better suited to be elected in 2008 who also has a good shot of winning? I don't see anyone at all other than Obama.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    Actually, not really. What is more important is that the best person who has a chance to become president gets elected. Even if Obama version 2012 is MARGINALLY better than Obama version 2008, if Obama version 2008 is better than anyone who could win in 2008, then I go for Obama verison 2008.

    Looking at the potential Republican list of candidates and how their primary is likely to go, I can only conclude that almost every Democrat in the field has a good chance of being elected.

    Perhaps you could explain to me why you think 2008 is going to be such an impossible year for the Democrats?

    Shinto on
  • Options
    werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Shinto wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Actually, not really. What is more important is that the best person who has a chance to become president gets elected. Even if Obama version 2012 is MARGINALLY better than Obama version 2008, if Obama version 2008 is better than anyone who could win in 2008, then I go for Obama verison 2008.

    Looking at the potential Republican list of candidates and how their primary is likely to go, I can only conclude that almost every Democrat in the field has a good chance of being elected.

    Perhaps you could explain to me why you think 2008 is going to be such an impossible year for the Democrats?

    The fact I, and most people, can't come up with anything resembling an interesting field for the Democratic Primary? Hillary, maybe Obama (though I agree it's probably too soon for a run at the big office), and .........

    There's as distinct a lack of leadership among the Dems as the Pubs.

    werehippy on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Shinto wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Actually, not really. What is more important is that the best person who has a chance to become president gets elected. Even if Obama version 2012 is MARGINALLY better than Obama version 2008, if Obama version 2008 is better than anyone who could win in 2008, then I go for Obama verison 2008.

    Looking at the potential Republican list of candidates and how their primary is likely to go, I can only conclude that almost every Democrat in the field has a good chance of being elected.

    Perhaps you could explain to me why you think 2008 is going to be such an impossible year for the Democrats?

    Oh, I don't think it's an impossible year at all. The possible Republican candidates all have major issues.

    I'm not going to think it's going to be a cakewalk either. Hillary is not viable in a national election; she is politically tone-deaf and does not know how to use TV to her advantage. She comes across poorly on stage and can seem callous and haughty at times.

    Most of the major Democratic candidates suffer from terminal cases of blandness or a sense of moving backward (Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc. all fall into this). Obama seems like a step forward. Even if it's only a symbolic gesture, I feel like it would be very important for the nation's psyche to move on.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    I feel like it would be very important for the nation's psyche to move on.

    Yes, I think that this is what really gets at the wind in Obama's sails. Disatisfaction with our leadership in the Democratic party and anger incumbents beginning in the late 90s and really breaking through into expression with Howard Dean's 2003 candidacy. This party frustration is now somewhat aligned with the national frustration with the direction of the country which produced last nights victory. And the Republicans will no doubt be feeling angsty and divisive as they try to redefine themselves for the next two years in the midst of a presidential primary.

    Which is to say there are a lot of environmental factors swirling around Obama that magnify him into something he potentially is not. Our frustration with the course of the party/country is making us undervalue anyone we already know and overvalue anyone that seems like a new face.

    I suspect those of us who worry about Obama's short record are less carried away by this sentimental undertow and more concerned that all that glitters is not gold. The nation's problems are not the same as our emotional reaction to the nation's problems. I'm worried that while Obama may be the feel good candidate who relieves our frustration, he is not in fact the candidate who will be able to move the country passed its current challenges.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Shinto wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    I feel like it would be very important for the nation's psyche to move on.

    Yes, I think that this is what really gets at the wind in Obama's sails. Disatisfaction with our leadership in the Democratic party and anger incumbents beginning in the late 90s and really breaking through into expression with Howard Dean's 2003 candidacy. This party frustration is now somewhat aligned with the national frustration with the direction of the country which produced last nights victory. And the Republicans will no doubt be feeling angsty and divisive as they try to redefine themselves for the next two years in the midst of a presidential primary.

    Which is to say there are a lot of environmental factors swirling around Obama that magnify him into something he potentially is not. Our frustration with the course of the party/country is making us undervalue anyone we already know and overvalue anyone that seems like a new face.

    I suspect those of us who worry about Obama's short record are less carried away by this sentimental undertow and more concerned that all that glitters is not gold.

    I understand and agree with the sentiment. I think he will prove himself more in the upcoming year and will stake out a more concrete area in the political arena and public consciousness.

    If he fails to do that, then I'll support someone else. It all really depends on what happens between now and midway through 2007.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    sanstodo wrote:
    Shinto wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    I feel like it would be very important for the nation's psyche to move on.

    Yes, I think that this is what really gets at the wind in Obama's sails. Disatisfaction with our leadership in the Democratic party and anger incumbents beginning in the late 90s and really breaking through into expression with Howard Dean's 2003 candidacy. This party frustration is now somewhat aligned with the national frustration with the direction of the country which produced last nights victory. And the Republicans will no doubt be feeling angsty and divisive as they try to redefine themselves for the next two years in the midst of a presidential primary.

    Which is to say there are a lot of environmental factors swirling around Obama that magnify him into something he potentially is not. Our frustration with the course of the party/country is making us undervalue anyone we already know and overvalue anyone that seems like a new face.

    I suspect those of us who worry about Obama's short record are less carried away by this sentimental undertow and more concerned that all that glitters is not gold.

    I understand and agree with the sentiment. I think he will prove himself more in the upcoming year and will stake out a more concrete area in the political arena and public consciousness.

    If he fails to do that, then I'll support someone else. It all really depends on what happens between now and midway through 2007.

    Yeah, I think running for president will be a good thing for him. He'll have to make some hard decisions instead of living inside the glow of abstract vision and bipartisan charm.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    Shinto wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    I feel like it would be very important for the nation's psyche to move on.

    Yes, I think that this is what really gets at the wind in Obama's sails. Disatisfaction with our leadership in the Democratic party and anger incumbents beginning in the late 90s and really breaking through into expression with Howard Dean's 2003 candidacy. This party frustration is now somewhat aligned with the national frustration with the direction of the country which produced last nights victory. And the Republicans will no doubt be feeling angsty and divisive as they try to redefine themselves for the next two years in the midst of a presidential primary.

    Which is to say there are a lot of environmental factors swirling around Obama that magnify him into something he potentially is not. Our frustration with the course of the party/country is making us undervalue anyone we already know and overvalue anyone that seems like a new face.

    I suspect those of us who worry about Obama's short record are less carried away by this sentimental undertow and more concerned that all that glitters is not gold. The nation's problems are not the same as our emotional reaction to the nation's problems. I'm worried that while Obama may be the feel good candidate who relieves our frustration, he is not in fact the candidate who will be able to move the country passed its current challenges.

    It's a good summary, Shinto, and it's one of the reasons I'm a little skeptical of Obama as well. However, I would contend that one of our largest national challenges is our lack of cohesion, vision of the future and sense of common cause. We're philosophically thrashing in America right now, and could use someone with vision and charisma.

    Another thought is that a lot of our national problems really do come down to entrenched powers digging in their heels. A relative newcomer to the polical scene might be able to extract the kinds of concessions and compromises necessary to move past some of this entrenchment.

    I'm going to say that I'm cautiously optimistic regarding Obama's candidacy. Certainly it can't hurt to have him in the field in 2008.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    Obama seems like the kind of guy who can dive straight through party rhetorics and the bullshit to reach the heart of the matter, and find practical, realistic solutions for it.

    He's charismatic and smart. He can appeal to the common man and actually care about his problems. He has a very strong vision based on America's founding values, and his background and upbringing reflects it as well.

    Regardless of his experience in the political arena, Obama is the kind of man that can move America forward, not just in the national level, but internationally as well. With an experienced, "wise" Vice President at his side, and advisors who know their deal, he would be unstoppable.

    And unlike Bush, he actually has a brain behind his eyes.

    America could use such a leader.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Shinto wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    I feel like it would be very important for the nation's psyche to move on.

    Yes, I think that this is what really gets at the wind in Obama's sails. Disatisfaction with our leadership in the Democratic party and anger incumbents beginning in the late 90s and really breaking through into expression with Howard Dean's 2003 candidacy. This party frustration is now somewhat aligned with the national frustration with the direction of the country which produced last nights victory. And the Republicans will no doubt be feeling angsty and divisive as they try to redefine themselves for the next two years in the midst of a presidential primary.

    Which is to say there are a lot of environmental factors swirling around Obama that magnify him into something he potentially is not. Our frustration with the course of the party/country is making us undervalue anyone we already know and overvalue anyone that seems like a new face.

    I suspect those of us who worry about Obama's short record are less carried away by this sentimental undertow and more concerned that all that glitters is not gold. The nation's problems are not the same as our emotional reaction to the nation's problems. I'm worried that while Obama may be the feel good candidate who relieves our frustration, he is not in fact the candidate who will be able to move the country passed its current challenges.

    Now that he'll have a little bit more sway in the Congress we'll have to see how things play out. If he has a somewhat productive year things'll be pretty good. The only problem is that primaries for '08 are coming up pretty damn fast.

    moniker on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    New thoughts:

    1) I'm sort of disappointed, not by the lack of experience issue, but by the fact that Obama won't have a chance to finish a full senate term if he wins.

    2) If the democrats win the Senate, then Obama's chances of establishing himself skyrocket, because then they'll get to control the agenda.

    3) No matter who gets nominated in 2008, their chances of getting a democratic candidate elected will depend on how well the democrats do in the next two years. Their performance over the next two years will depend on people like Obama. In other words, if Obama does poorly in the next two years, then the democrats are screwed. If he does well in the next two years, then he's a shoe-in. Either way, he's still the best prospect.

    4) Hillary has no chance of getting elected until the country can make it so that "liberal" is no longer a bad word. At the very least, they're going to need some sort of buffer. Obama can be that buffer.

    5) Even if the racists out there aren't ready for a black president, this would still be a good chance to call them out on their racism, and bring the issue to the surface. You can't solve the problem by pretending it doesn't exist.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    In any case, Stewart/Colbert '08 is way better than O'Reilly/Limbaugh '08.

    sanstodo on
  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I don't think he's that pretty. :|

    Hoz on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Hoz wrote:
    I don't think he's that pretty. :|

    Yeah, well people said Bush was attractive too.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    jtmorgan61jtmorgan61 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I like Shinto's analysis of why people are lining up behind Obama a lot.

    The one thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the particulars of how the democratic primary is going to play out. Hillary has a massive advantage in fundraising and name recognition already 2 years out. I just don't see anyone but Obama capable of taking her out before she loses the national election for the democrats.

    Fair or not, he gets an incredible crowd turnout at every event he attends and would certainly be able to raise the money.

    If Hillary sees how badly she would do and pulls out before the primary, it's a whole new ballgame. But I don't think she will.

    jtmorgan61 on
  • Options
    urbmanurbman Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    After watching those videos of him, I think he he would be a good Prez. He looks and sounds as if he knows how to handle people one on one. Hell he put John on his heels twice on the daily show, I figure that would be a tough thing to do.

    2008 might be to early for him but i really think 2012 would be to late for him. The best thing would be if we could get him in there in 2010 but that can never happen.

    I like how he said on met the press "how doesn't want to run but is thinking about it." I took that to mean that if the people want him to lead he will. That is something I admire in leadership. I think Douglas Adams said it best "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

    urbman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    You know, just to be clear, it isn't like Obama has no experience. I'm not digging myself in against him or anything. If he were to perform very well in the primary and come up with a very substantial agenda I could get behind him. I'd feel better if he had a more experienced VP like Joe Biden or something like that to help him.

    There are a lot of parallels between Obama and Clinton actually. Both were young, charismatic faces that represent a new direction for the party. Both were introduced to the national stage by giving speeches at the presidential convention that got them noticed, Obama in 2004 and Clinton in 1988.

    I'll watch him. He's in the top three or four candidates I'd consider supporting in the primary.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    BlackDog85BlackDog85 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Agreed, Shinto. I thought Obama had "presidential" written all over him after the 2004 convention, but I need to see more of the man in action before complete judgement can be passed. I have a feeling I'll be getting my chance to do so over the next couple years.

    I do have to say, I kind of feel bad about something: quite a few Democratic names are often put down these days, mainly due to their being involved in the "failures" of 2000 and 2004 (i.e. Gore, Kerry, Edwards).

    Not to say that I'd want any/all of them running in 2008, but I really don't have much against those guys, Gore and Edwards especially. Hell, when you get down to it, interesting cases can be made that both Gore and Kerry actually outperformed Bush at the polls, but this thread is neither here nor there on that subject matter.

    But, since they're associated with losing to Bush, I don't see any of them really going balls to the wall on the national level again, and it's kind of a pity.

    Still, I can definately see the argument that, after six years in the proverbial desert, it probably is time for the Dems to put a new face forward, and, depending on how he performs over the next couple of years, Obama may well be that face.

    BlackDog85 on
    KeithBeKnives.png
    Wii Code: 5700 4466 3616 6981 (PM if y'all add me)
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Most of what I know about Obama is that my friend from Chicago wants to bear his children. I generally trust her, so by transitivity I have a favorable opinion of him.

    I don't think it's that he doesn't have positions, or that he's all style and no substance, I just think that most of us living outside of Illinois haven't been following him enough to know. Well, those of us who haven't read the book.

    Furthermore, let's elect a black president already. Jesus.

    MrMister on
Sign In or Register to comment.