• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama for President?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Before anyone goes saying that Obama doesn't have any ideas or a platform, I suggest that you read The Audacity of Hope. He's got some tremendous ideas. And the election is TWO YEARS from now, if and when he runs, he'll have plenty of time to make his case for the presidency, and from what I've seen, I think it will be widely embraced.
 
lol, I didn't know PJ was back. Nice to keep it interesting.

I think the fatal flaw in your logic is that not all of the Democrats care about the eligibility of a candidate. After 8 years of Bush and 12 years of GOP control of Congress, the eligibility of a candidate will be the number one factor in the primary for the vast majority of Democrats. Hillary does not have that, Obama does. Obama is as liberal as Hilary, if not more based on voting record, but he has charisma, charm, and uses that to make a centrist argument. Obama is not a fringe left candidate, or a conservative Democratic candidate. He is both at the same time.

The main reason I would vote against Obama in the primary is obviously because he has only had his Senate seat for 2 years now. To me, Gov. Richardson has an amazing resume of experience (14 years in Congress, UN ambassador, Secretary of Energy, 2 term Gov) and I actually prefer him to be the head of an Richardson/Obama ticket. Man, that's my dream ticket.

However, I think that experience may play out as a large factor. The country is wanting someone who isn't going to divide the country in half and give a big middle finger to the losing side. I think that's why the GOP loses were even greater this year than expected. As it got closer to the election, all they could say were, "Dem will raise your taxes" and "a woman from San Fransisco will be the Speaker if the Dems win the house." The Democrats meanwhile put up a lot of moderate Democratic candidates so that it wasn't too hard to be conservative and chose the guy with a D next to his name.

Above all, Obama can masterfully paint a picture of a united country where the government works for the good of the people above all else, with him, the son of a black man and a white woman, as President of course. Sure, it's incredibly idealistic, but idealistic people have a history of winning the Presidency.


BTW, Kerry and Gore are done. Gore is done because he said he said he is and has moved on with a Jimmy Carter like path. Kerry is done because he had his shot and sure hasn't improved his public image since. So, stop talking about these two names.
 
Man, things were so much nicer here before the Senator had surgery.

Did the Republicans pull out the Maryland Senate race yet?
 
Originally posted by: MAW1082
Thanks, but I think all the liberals here at P&N would appreciate it if all the '06 sore losers' would go back to posting their right wing propoganda. Nobody here, who would even consider voting in the democratic primary, values these opinions.

Instead of trying to indoctrinate P&Ners, why don't you go outside and apologize to all the people whose sons and daughters who have died in the Iraq war for nothing.
Click to expand...

you mean you guys will finally stop claiming voting fraud anywhere you lose?

really?

Got to love ya'll, calling the right sore losers when ya'll can't stop calling anyone who votes the other way idiots, oh not directly, but references to red states and such..

haha


both sides suck. and you idiots vote your own back in over and over even though you know they suck.

 
Originally posted by: MAW1082
Thanks, but I think all the liberals here at P&N would appreciate it if all the '06 sore losers' would go back to posting their right wing propoganda. Nobody here, who would even consider voting in the democratic primary, values these opinions.
Click to expand...

I'm a registered Democrat and I agree that Obama is not the man for the job, he is unelectable for POTUS at this time. For some reason, a lot of people seem to think that the left wing of the Democratic party is now running the show, that is completely wrong. This has to do with winning he mid-terms and having Howard Dean running the party. These same leftier D's think they can now anoint who they want and said person will steamroll in '08.

Back to reality, the mid-terms were won because of the war. There should have been many other reasons, but to the average person none of that matters, it's the war and that's it. This will not carry over to the general election. The country is not suddenly more liberal and the majority of Americans still identify themselves as conservative.

He will not win the Evangelical vote, nor can he win any southern states for obvious reasons. I'm not being cynical just a realist, and for those that somehow think he's the second coming of Clinton, you are delusional.
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: MAW1082
Thanks, but I think all the liberals here at P&N would appreciate it if all the '06 sore losers' would go back to posting their right wing propoganda. Nobody here, who would even consider voting in the democratic primary, values these opinions.
Click to expand...

I'm a registered Democrat and I agree that Obama is not the man for the job, he is unelectable for POTUS at this time. For some reason, a lot of people seem to think that the left wing of the Democratic party is now running the show, that is completely wrong. This has to do with winning he mid-terms and having Howard Dean running the party. These same leftier D's think they can now anoint who they want and said person will steamroll in '08.

Back to reality, the mid-terms were won because of the war. There should have been many other reasons, but to the average person none of that matters, it's the war and that's it. This will not carry over to the general election. The country is not suddenly more liberal and the majority of Americans still identify themselves as conservative.

He will not win the Evangelical vote, nor can he win any southern states for obvious reasons. I'm not being cynical just a realist, and for those that somehow think he's the second coming of Clinton, you are delusional.
Click to expand...

lol, Obama, unelectable...are you serious? There wouldn't be such a media frenzy if he were unelectable. Using unelectable with Hillary, well, that makes more sense since she's a lightning rod for the GOP, but Obama...the guy is a pretty solid Christian and lived out those Christian values before holding office. There's not a lot they can pin on him to make him "immoral." Now Giuliani, there's a guy who can't win the Evangelical vote.
 
I have to disagree with ayabe about the war being the sole cause of the recent electoral reversal. Sure, it's a factor, and a big one. But that's not all there is to it. The war is just the most egregious in a very long string of lies foisted off on the public by Repubs, and the awareness of that grows daily. Dems now get to set the agenda in Congress, and they can easily do so in ways to bring it all into rather sharp focus. Sending GWB the kind of legislation the public wants but that GWB is bound to veto will go a long way in that regard. Few people oppose comprehensive sex-ed and comprehensive birth control availability for women of all economic strata, so that should rank high on the agenda... there are dozens of other venues available, as well, things that the Repub congress bottled up, refused to bring out into the open, send to the prez for his approval. Now repubs will have to vote against them, and GWB will have to veto, setting the stage for 2008.

I'm sure that Obama will be part of that effort, along with every other Democrat worthy of the name...

Of course Obama can't win in the south, the "obvious reason" alluded to being the color of his skin... The repub leadership talks a good "black republican" story, but their base won't really buy it, won't actually vote for black repubs, although they do seem to make good appointees.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I have to disagree with ayabe about the war being the sole cause of the recent electoral reversal. Sure, it's a factor, and a big one. But that's not all there is to it. The war is just the most egregious in a very long string of lies foisted off on the public by Repubs, and the awareness of that grows daily. Dems now get to set the agenda in Congress, and they can easily do so in ways to bring it all into rather sharp focus. Sending GWB the kind of legislation the public wants but that GWB is bound to veto will go a long way in that regard. Few people oppose comprehensive sex-ed and comprehensive birth control availability for women of all economic strata, so that should rank high on the agenda... there are dozens of other venues available, as well, things that the Repub congress bottled up, refused to bring out into the open, send to the prez for his approval. Now repubs will have to vote against them, and GWB will have to veto, setting the stage for 2008.

I'm sure that Obama will be part of that effort, along with every other Democrat worthy of the name...

Of course Obama can't win in the south, the "obvious reason" alluded to being the color of his skin... The repub leadership talks a good "black republican" story, but their base won't really buy it, won't actually vote for black repubs, although they do seem to make good appointees.
Click to expand...

His skin color will automatically lose him the support of racist anti-black voters. His full name will automatically lose him the support of racist anti-arab voters. His party will automatically lose him the support of partisan anti-Democrat voters. Add to that more general issues such as age, experience (or lack thereof), and uncertainty regarding his stands on various issues, and you've got a potential candidate who would be one heck of a longshot in today's American political arena.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I have to disagree with ayabe about the war being the sole cause of the recent electoral reversal. Sure, it's a factor, and a big one. But that's not all there is to it. The war is just the most egregious in a very long string of lies foisted off on the public by Repubs, and the awareness of that grows daily. Dems now get to set the agenda in Congress, and they can easily do so in ways to bring it all into rather sharp focus. Sending GWB the kind of legislation the public wants but that GWB is bound to veto will go a long way in that regard. Few people oppose comprehensive sex-ed and comprehensive birth control availability for women of all economic strata, so that should rank high on the agenda... there are dozens of other venues available, as well, things that the Repub congress bottled up, refused to bring out into the open, send to the prez for his approval. Now repubs will have to vote against them, and GWB will have to veto, setting the stage for 2008.

I'm sure that Obama will be part of that effort, along with every other Democrat worthy of the name...

Of course Obama can't win in the south, the "obvious reason" alluded to being the color of his skin... The repub leadership talks a good "black republican" story, but their base won't really buy it, won't actually vote for black repubs, although they do seem to make good appointees.
Click to expand...
Please list for us the kinds of things the Democrats will be sending Bush that he will veto.

And for rockyct Are you old enough to remember when Jesse Jackson ran for President? He had no chance of winning but it was certainly a big media story. Just because he is on the cover of Time and the center of all this attention does not mean he has a chance to win, just means that he sells copies.
 
Originally posted by: rockyctlol, Obama, unelectable...are you serious? There wouldn't be such a media frenzy if he were unelectable. Using unelectable with Hillary, well, that makes more sense since she's a lightning rod for the GOP, but Obama...the guy is a pretty solid Christian and lived out those Christian values before holding office. There's not a lot they can pin on him to make him "immoral." Now Giuliani, there's a guy who can't win the Evangelical vote.
Click to expand...

He is unelectable to President or Vice-President. The recent frenzy is because he is a new face. He is a softy compared to Hillary and the democrats desperately need newer faces than Hillary.

Obama's biggest liablity is lack of experience, he has far far less than Dan Qualye did and the press and democrats had no end of fun with that.

Right now Obama gets the kid glove treatment because its too early in the race to matter. Since Hillary hasn't officially come out into the race its an open contest. To me Obama is a flash in the pan. He has to run now because his chance for the limelight is here and now, if not now he as to wait a minimum of 4 more years, possibly 8 more if a democrat wins the white house next. (he will be overshadowed then by up and comers). He is charismatic, that much I will give him, but I would not vote for him on the VP or Presidential ticket simply because he has no experience at the Federal level.

Think of him as untainted, hence, a fresh face. The media loves newness.

 
"Please list for us the kinds of things the Democrats will be sending Bush that he will veto. "

Full funding for NCLB

Federal support for embryonic stem cell research

Funding for comprehensive sex-ed, rather than ignorance only malarkey

Funding for family planning assistance for low income women.

Prohibitions on farming out daycare management to fundie fringe evangelicals...

Increased CAFE standards for fuel efficiency

Tax measures eliminating loopholes for very high income filers.

Measures demanding verifiable audit trails for electronic voting.

Pay as you go statutes limiting looting by future congresses and admins...

That's just a start... the list is pretty much endless...
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Please list for us the kinds of things the Democrats will be sending Bush that he will veto. "

Full funding for NCLB

Federal support for embryonic stem cell research

Funding for comprehensive sex-ed, rather than ignorance only malarkey

Funding for family planning assistance for low income women.

Prohibitions on farming out daycare management to fundie fringe evangelicals...

Increased CAFE standards for fuel efficiency

Tax measures eliminating loopholes for very high income filers.

Measures demanding verifiable audit trails for electronic voting.

Pay as you go statutes limiting looting by future congresses and admins...

That's just a start... the list is pretty much endless...
Click to expand...
Interesting list, but I think a lot of those things will not get through congress to his desk.
I highlighted the ones that I do not think will get by congress.

Plus a lot of them I do not see Bush vetoing, like CAFE standards. By time a bill like that got to his desk everyone would most likely agree on the standards. Congress is not going to jump out there with some bill that Bush will not sign. The balance of power is to close.

I know you have high hopes for a Democrat congress, but I am betting we will not see much change in a lot of things.
The only major change will be the way they go after Bush and his policies.
 
"I know you have high hopes for a Democrat congress, but I am betting we will not see much change in a lot of things.
The only major change will be the way they go after Bush and his policies. "

And I've outlined an effective way to go after Bush and his policies- force him to veto popular sensible legislation that doesn't fit into the rightwing policy headset. The two measures you seem to discount are two that I think have the best chance of getting to his desk, particularly embryonic stemcell research... It got there once, even with a repub congress, and it was his only veto ever...

Guess what? We'll be back... forcing him to make a fool of himself and his party, over and over again... until the notion of voting republican takes on the aura of a bad joke...
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MAW1082
Thanks, but I think all the liberals here at P&N would appreciate it if all the '06 sore losers' would go back to posting their right wing propoganda. Nobody here, who would even consider voting in the democratic primary, values these opinions.

Instead of trying to indoctrinate P&Ners, why don't you go outside and apologize to all the people whose sons and daughters who have died in the Iraq war for nothing.
Click to expand...
They will only have died for nothing if we give up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they did die for nothing. THey died for no WMDs. They died for no A-Q threat from Saddam. They died for no terrorist attacks on US soil but hundreds a day on Iraqi soil. They died for a lot of nothing and we keep letting them die as you sit there thinking that throwing good men into a grinder and trillions of dollars is somehow going to make Iraqi's fight for their freedom.

If the French had come in, deposed the Brits, and installed themselves in 1776 do you think we'd, for a second, accept them any more than we accepted the Brits? Heck no, we'd pick up arms and fight them. Even if they "gave" us "freedom", we'd still fight them.

Freedom can't be given, it isn't a gift, it is a hard-fought prize that you sacrificed blood and guts for. If they don't want it we certainly can't give it.

The sooner people like you realize this the sooner we can stop meddling in other countries and screwing up the world ala Pinochet, Saddam, Iran style.
 
Originally posted by: theman
Al Gore FTW!!!

No, seriously, I think Gore is the only Democrat who can win. No question.
Click to expand...

What's up with that, you haven't had enough talk of how Hurricanes are our fault?

As for Obama, people say he lacks political experience required to run. Could be wishful thinking on their part, but I must say 2008 is going to be very interesting with a minority and a woman in the race. It?ll make history if either are the Democratic nominee. Right now Bush has set up such a large anti-Republican furor that anyone might just move into the White House.
 
Originally posted by: theman
Al Gore FTW!!!

No, seriously, I think Gore is the only Democrat who can win. No question.
Click to expand...

The put on some weight, full-bearded Al Gore maybe, the one that stopped giving a sh!t after he lost the election and started talking like a human and not a robot...

Edit: if image does not load, refreshed linked page
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top