Guest Speed Racer Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 once you start name calling you've already demonstrated that you have nothing to say. I said 'people who DON'T run Obama on account of his race.' If you're one of those people, I'm sorry. Better ways I could have said it without calling so many people turds. Fickle? All I'm saying is that if we act like it's a problem and don't take chances for the same reason people haven't been taking chances for hundreds of years, something as stupid as race, then even a Democrat in office will simply be another good ol' boy. It's pointless. I'd rather like to take a chance with a good (black - oops!) candidate than 'play it safe' and have Democrats 'win.' I happen to think Obama the best choice, based on his issues, than any one else; if we didn't run him simply because of his race, even an electoral victory for Dems would be a loss of character if we settled for someone with a substandard platform. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'd like a list of states Obama would possibly lose because of his name and race. Or just a few. How would such a list compare to a list of states that the Democrats might/would need to win in 2008? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 Now that I think about it, though, a lot of normally non-voting racists would probably come out of the woodwork just to vote against Obama. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 What about non-voting apathetic liberals? Non-voting blacks? I think it could really be a toss-up if he ran. And for what it's worth, I think a Condi-Obama smackdown would be (improbable/) awesome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 Those are good points too. I wonder how many racists there actually are in the U.S? There oughta be some kind of test that proves it once and for all. If you mean a Condi/Obama ticket, I can only say Ewww. If you mean an actual fight between Condi/Obama, I might be able to support that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest tandylacker Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'd like a list of states Obama would possibly lose because of his name and race. Or just a few. How would such a list compare to a list of states that the Democrats might/would need to win in 2008? Good point. I would imagine anybody racist enough to not want a black guy in office is probably voting republican anyway. What about non-voting apathetic liberals? Non-voting blacks? I think it could really be a toss-up if he ran. And for what it's worth, I think a Condi-Obama smackdown would be (improbable/) awesome. Why do people like Condeleeza (sp?) Rice? A Condi-Obama ticket would be a topic of conversation for a few days, but I wouldn't imagine any more would come from it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Haha, neither - a race between the two. Can you imagine? That, or a race between Hillary/Condi. Forcing some people to choose between two blacks or two women (whichever the case may be), would be quite funny. And an interesting test of character. As for a catfight between the two, ah, that would be an AMAZING fundrasier for war vets, no? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 Hmmmmmm. That makes me think. If the Dems were to put forth Hillary, why shouldn't the Reps put forth Condi- and make a race for which party gets the FIRST female President? As for Condi, can't stand her. So annoying! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I happen to think Obama the best choice, based on his issues, than any one else; if we didn't run him simply because of his race, even an electoral victory for Dems would be a loss of character if we settled for someone with a substandard platform.That's a very good point. The question for me is, is it more important to 'just win' or offer up the best possible candidate ? ( not necessarily the same thing ) Because the best possible candidate is really what is needed at this point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'm interested to read some analysis (from someone who understands such things much better than I) what the projected effect will be of these entries. for example, could either hillary or obama end up drawing more voters to each other, regardless of who ends up with the nomination, or will they serve ultimately to hurt the final nominee's chances? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I am bit skeptical about obama. Mainly because he seems to be hitching his truck to the fact that he didnt vote for the war. When everyone knows that if he had been in the senate, he would have disagreed with the war, but voted for it anyway -- for the same reason that Kerry, Hillary and Edwards did. For political reasons and with an eye towards a run for the white house. Seriously -- no dem with white house aspirations would want to be painted as a coward that voted against the war. Seems disingenuous for obama to suggest that he saw the light when no one else did. That being said, I am thrilled that the dems have three or four candidates to be excited about. It's been awhile. And its gonna be a good fight. I think Edwards may emerge from the fray after Hillary and Obama beat each other up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'm not sure that voting against the war is as much of an issue anymore, to be honest. I think that the American people probably now wish that more congressmen and women had voted against Iraq. My opinion about the issue as a Presidential platform is that it applied mostly to the 2004 election, but only in the "don't change horses mid-stream" sense. Nowhere else, really. I think that most people here, even military folks, would be happy to be out of Iraq. The only chance for it to be much of an issue is if someone in Bush's admin runs in 2008. Otherwise, I think it'll be more of a "How do we fix Iraq" issue, vs "How do we make sure nobody drops the ball on Iraq"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Perhaps Obama would have voted for the war if he was in the Senate then -- hell, he probably would have. But I still think the fact that he did not vote for it is significant regardless of the circumstances, simply because, well, we need to get the fuck out of this war, and it would be difficult for someone who did vote for it to do it, because some of the blood is on their hands. Doesn't matter why Obama didn't vote for the war; the fact that he didn't gives him a little more moral authority to get us out of it than someone who did. Still though, my concerns about getting the hell out of Iraq are pretty much the main thing pushing me to support Wesley Clark again, although the viability of his candidacy is still a very big question mark. I really like Obama, but I wouldn't mind him getting a little more experience as either Senator or VP first. If he did get the nomination for President though, I would happily vote for him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 What management experience does he have? Just curious, I don't know. Not much, I would assume, but I don't really know either. This is what I was getting at when I jumped on the Clinton comparison. That guy is a master manager. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 What is Bush? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 if obama could get pigeon kara to quit spamming me I'd be his best friend and vote for him Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 the republicans have nothing to offer. they've squandered any and all goodwill obtained from the reagan years. and say what you will about reagan, but he is the only reason the government hasn't been solely owned by the democrats for the last 25 years. ah, memories... the democrats don't have anything to offer either...except for obama imo. i think he's a breath of fresh air. and anyone bringing up race or gender is an idiot. can't we elect the best person for the job that has chosen to run and thus be exposed to more public prodding and poking than a public strip search? obama is willing to sacrifice his dignity to run for the highest office in the land and run the risk of exposing any and all skeletons in his closet (real or imagined) just so he can represent we the people. of all the egomaniacs that want this job, he seems to be the most likeable candidate regardless of political leanings. but...he is a smoker. what kind of message is that for the kids? (that's sarcasm kids...and no, i don't really give a shit if he's hastening his demise by lighting up). As long as he delivers as well as he speaks and brings this country out of the sinkhole created by the bush family, i'm good with it. i don't care if he's a democrat. at this point, i really don't care. we just need a competent leader who say's what he means and does what he says. maybe obama can be that guy. i'll give him four years with and option for four more. it certainly can't get any worse than it is now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Let the games begin. I don't know anything about this author, but I thought this article was interesting. http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/...ris/011707.html Obama Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Let the games begin. I don't know anything about this author, but I thought this article was interesting. http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/...ris/011707.htmlObama Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who opposes wives cashing in on their husbands Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Let the games begin. I don't know anything about this author, but I thought this article was interesting. http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/...ris/011707.htmlThere is, of course, a certain hypocrisy in the Senate action since very few senators, in fact, hire their families on their payrolls. It is, though, widely practiced in the House of Representatives, where 30 members have their families on their payrolls. But senators are much less likely to do so. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who voted Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 ok, you can stop right there. what a f*cking joke.I noticed that, too. But was she ever on the payroll for the work she did on healthcare reform? Clearly, her career has benefitted from being married to Bill Clinton, but I don't know that she was compensated financially... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I noticed that, too. But was she ever on the payroll for the work she did on healthcare reform? Clearly, her career has benefitted from being married to Bill Clinton, but I don't know that she was compensated financially... She certainly wasn't compensated sexually! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I noticed that, too. But was she ever on the payroll for the work she did on healthcare reform? Clearly, her career has benefitted from being married to Bill Clinton, but I don't know that she was compensated financially...i don't know if she was or not, i was merely referring to things such as how she became senator of a state she never previously resided in. or how she was once on the board of directors for wal-mart because her husband bill was the governor of arkansas, etc. she has benefited tremendously because of who she's married to. she has been cashing in on her husband for decades and i can't stand her. her "i know better than you" aura is insulting. she will never be president not because she's a woman, but because she is a completely unlikeable personality in general. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 she will never be president not because she's a woman, but because she is a completely unlikeable personality in general. Exactly! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.