Obama to Run

[Skye]

The last two elections seemed more about personalties and moralities.

Personality? You do realise John Kerry was involved, right?

[1veedo]

More like poor personalities and immoralities.

[john5746]

The American people have seen what a candidate with all charisma and no plans can do to a nation, and I believe that come election they will vote for someone who not only smiles nicely for CNN but also has the convictions and blueprints to drag our nation out of the holes we are currently in. I'm an optimist.

 

Only Gore could make someone like Bush seem charismatic.

 

Other than party politics, I really think Bush won(the first time) as a backlash against Clinton's charisma. He seemed to be more trustworthy because of the lack of polish.

 

So this election may go to someone who has charisma. Someone who seems to know what is going on, even when they have no clue.

[Helix]

Only Gore could make someone like Bush seem charismatic.

 

Other than party politics, I really think Bush won(the first time) as a backlash against Clinton's charisma. He seemed to be more trustworthy because of the lack of polish.

 

So this election may go to someone who has charisma. Someone who seems to know what is going on, even when they have no clue.

 

That's interesting; I see what you're saying. After Clinton's glaze and smile, the people were looking for honesty. Someone who would willingly define "is".

 

But I still believe that in light of the situation in Iraq - which will no doubt go down as the biggest failure since Vietnam - the Public (capital P) will want policy and more importantly, change. Handshakes and baby-kissing is all fine and good, but it will not stop Al-Qaeda. What we need, and I believe many agree with me, is less bullsh*t (pardon my language) and more correct action. People are starting to see through the phonies in DC. Holden Caufield would be proud.

 

So, I think the election will swing to policy and not charisma thought personality is of course always a major issue. See the case at hand, Obama, for proof.

[ParanoiA]

I've heard that claim too - that he's a very liberal candidate - but I honesty believe he's not that liberal. Yes, he tows the Dem. line for some issues, of course, but on others he's just a blue Republican:

 

-- On immigration, while he supports a guest-worker program, Obama also backed construction of an 700 mi border fence. Not very liberal.

 

-- He has not ruled out military actions against Iran. I was shocked to hear this, as this is a very GOP viewpoint.

 

That may only be two issues, but on them he is very conservative and they are some of the more important issues of the day. Granted, I'm far more than "a liberal", so maybe I want candidates to be more leftist than the DNC would like them, but he still appears to have some "red" in him.

 

But hes better than Hillary. Anyone would be.

 

Not to pick on you about your position, but what is "conservative" about those issues? I realize the GOP position is as you've stated, but what makes that "conservative"? I don't really see those issues as conservative or liberal. Liberals will and have attacked and waged war on other countries. And securing borders has been a non-partisan demand from the people of the country I thought.

 

Anyway, I understand your position on them, I just don't understand labeling those positions as conservative or liberal in this case. So, Obama, to me anyway, may not represent two important views for you, but he's still a liberal.

 

What we need, and I believe many agree with me, is less bullsh*t (pardon my language) and more correct action.

 

And what exactly is that action?

[Helix]

Not to pick on you about your position, but what is "conservative" about those issues? I realize the GOP position is as you've stated, but what makes that "conservative"? I don't really see those issues as conservative or liberal. Liberals will and have attacked and waged war on other countries. And securing borders has been a non-partisan demand from the people of the country I thought.

 

Anyway, I understand your position on them, I just don't understand labeling those positions as conservative or liberal in this case. So, Obama, to me anyway, may not represent two important views for you, but he's still a liberal.

 

Taking a tough stand on immigration - border fences, increased patrols etc - has been an issue primarily associated with the Right Wing and the Conservative Republicans, though I'm sure some Dems support it too. A conservative stance on immigration has been viewed as an issue of, well, conservatives. Looking at major political figures, it seems that Republicans take a more conservative stand on mexican immigration and thus, I view this as a platform of the GOP.

 

Also, you mentioned liberals declaring war on nations, which is true, but this is not war. This is denying fundamental human rights to those who are not "like us." But that is neither here nor there; the point is being against immigration is viewed as primarily a conservative thing.

 

And what exactly is that action?

 

The Bush admin. has done quite a bit, but not necessarily good things. Wiretapping, fudging the facts on Iraq, Gitmo coverups, Abu ghraib coverups, these are *actions* but not correct actions. I believe we need to keep fighting the War on Terror, but not using the same tactics, the same actions, as we are now. Torture flights, false imprisonment, it all needs to stop. Yes, Bush has been busy, but what has he been busy doing? That's my point.

[AshleyBarbie]

Everyone is conecntrating on Obama's personality because he doesn't have much of a history and his positions on various topics are not well known. As his positions become more clear, we will see how he pans out. I think he has a big advantage just being black. He has that category, whereas Hillary does not have women as a given.

 

I think Obama should at least serve one term as Senator, but then again many youngsters have done some amazing things in the private sector, so why not government?

 

According to the AP, Clinton and Obama are splitting the African American vote. Remember, Bill was very popular among the African American and Obama is not well known. Also, he doesn't have experience. And, his plan for "bailing" out of Iraq seems foolish. Obama and Clinton could ensure a Democratic nomination for another rich, white guy.

[AshleyBarbie]

But I still believe that in light of the situation in Iraq - which will no doubt go down as the biggest failure since Vietnam - the Public (capital P) will want policy and more importantly, change.

 

I agree with this ONLY IF America experiences another terrorist attack similar to (or worst than) 9/11. If we leave Iraq a safer nation, it will be a different story.

[ParanoiA]

Taking a tough stand on immigration - border fences, increased patrols etc - has been an issue primarily associated with the Right Wing and the Conservative Republicans, though I'm sure some Dems support it too. A conservative stance on immigration has been viewed as an issue of, well, conservatives. Looking at major political figures, it seems that Republicans take a more conservative stand on mexican immigration and thus, I view this as a platform of the GOP.

 

Also, you mentioned liberals declaring war on nations, which is true, but this is not war. This is denying fundamental human rights to those who are not "like us." But that is neither here nor there; the point is being against immigration is viewed as primarily a conservative thing.

 

Who's against immigration? I haven't heard anyone against immigration. I've heard illegal immigrants as being a problem - not immigrants. This is why I questioned you. For some reason, politics I suspect, many people are clouding the issue by equating opposition to illegal immigrants to opposition to immigrants period.

 

I don't understand why anyone would advocate keeping immigrants illegal, therefore oppressed and taken advantage of by businesses all over the US. They're not getting fair wages, fair benefits, no protection from the law of the land since they're illegal. Why be for that? Weird...

 

 

 

The Bush admin. has done quite a bit, but not necessarily good things. Wiretapping, fudging the facts on Iraq, Gitmo coverups, Abu ghraib coverups, these are *actions* but not correct actions. I believe we need to keep fighting the War on Terror, but not using the same tactics, the same actions, as we are now. Torture flights, false imprisonment, it all needs to stop. Yes, Bush has been busy, but what has he been busy doing? That's my point.

 

I'm not asking for a rehash of trendy Bush bashing - anybody can do that. I'm asking what the correct action is. See, it's easy to trash an idea, it's more difficult to come up with one. I've heard enough trashing of Bush's ideas to last me a lifetime - where are the alternative ideas? I haven't heard much of anything on that.

 

Tell me what the correct action is, that would solve this, that Bush, the administration, congress and the senate hasn't thought of...

 

I don't believe wiretapping is not effective. I don't agree with it being legal, but that's doesn't make it ineffective. I don't believe fudging the facts on Iraq is not effective. The media, congress, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the CIA - all of these groups fudged the facts on Iraq. Not just Bush. Surely you wouldn't allow your partisan view to poison your objectivity... It's great propaganda to blame Bush for everything, but it's not accurate.

 

And Torture flights, false imprisonment? What do you think war is? You think we give each and every enemy combatant a fair trial before we shoot them? All of those soldiers, all of those wars, all of the dead - all tried fairly in an international court of law prior to battle? I didn't think so...

 

So why all of the sudden do we freak out because we imprison them instead? Suddenly, because we didn't kill them on the battlefield, we have to give them all of this benefit of the doubt?

 

I get your point, I really do, I just think it's unrealistic and naive to prosecute war civily. When you do that, it takes lots of time and you don't win nearly as fast, you don't lose nearly as many soldiers either - but the american public will interpret that as a loss, a repeat of vietnam and lose their will to keep going... (because it's very tough on folks to support a war from thousands of miles away in their gas guzzling SUV's in the greatest, richest country on earth).

[ecoli]

Who's against immigration? I haven't heard anyone against immigration. I've heard illegal immigrants as being a problem - not immigrants. This is why I questioned you. For some reason, politics I suspect, many people are clouding the issue by equating opposition to illegal immigrants to opposition to immigrants period.

 

I don't understand why anyone would advocate keeping immigrants illegal, therefore oppressed and taken advantage of by businesses all over the US. They're not getting fair wages, fair benefits, no protection from the law of the land since they're illegal. Why be for that? Weird...

 

I don't think they're for keeping illegal immigrants illegal, they're for deporting them all together. Especially the ones in our prisons.

[Sisyphus]

I agree with ParanoiA that those positions don't seem especially "conservative" to me.

 

Securing the border is, perhaps, a higher priority for the right, but it's still a non-controversial and bipartisan issue. Instead, the contrast between left and right can be seen in the question of what to do about illegals who are already here (Amnesty? Public schools? Vast witchhunt?), and in policies on legal immigration ("preserve American culture" vs. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...").

 

As for Iran, hawkish policies and "regime changes" are certainly a staple of neocon thought, but "peacekeeping" and the like are liberal ambitions. The isolationism shared by libertarians and paleoconservatives alike is opposed to both world-conquering neocons and cosmopolitan, interventionist liberals. Also, what nation is more right-wing than freaking Iran? They're a perfect liberal villain.

[ParanoiA]

As for Iran, hawkish policies and "regime changes" are certainly a staple of neocon thought, but "peacekeeping" and the like are liberal ambitions.

 

Are you sure about that? Regime change and WMD's in Iraq became policy under Clinton, with a bipartisan act passed in 1998. I don't see that as neocon, otherwise we're inviting liberals into that fold.

 

On the other hand, I think that came out of the Project for the Next American Century, which I believe was drafted by strict neocons. I'm not entirely sure though.

 

Prior to the election of George W. Bush as president, many in the Clinton administration and in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, postulated that Saddam had a program to produce weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to use them. [citation needed] They felt that he should be removed from power. In 1998, with the passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), it became official United States policy to work for the overthrow of Saddam's regime. The act stated: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." The act was unanimously approved by the Senate with the strong support of the Clinton administration.

 

Major American news organizations, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post ran news stories in the 1990s (as well as after Bush's election) about the danger of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, and they editorialized that the problem was an urgent one that the president (Clinton, then Bush) needed to address seriously.

 

So Clinton didn't and Bush did...

[bascule]

Obama: Because everyone else sucks

 

I could see myself voting for Clark (if he runs again). But other than that, not really.

 

Obama's got one big thing going for him: Save for FAUX News character assassination (and "accidental" character assassination on CNN) he's quite electable. He's such a political novice he doesn't have much of a voting record. He didn't hold national office during the vote for the PATRIOT Act or the Iraq War, so you can't hold those against him. He doesn't feel like a politican. He feels like that nice guy down the street you say hi to every morning on your way to work.

 

I really like him, for the above reasons. In terms of what he'd actually do as President, that's a giant question mark for me. That's a bit scary. I feel kind of like Family Guy where I'm being offered various things which feel kind of meh, then someone hands me THE MYSTERY BOX. Clark is Clark, but Obama could be anything. He could even be Clark!

 

I'll take the mystery box

[ParanoiA]

He doesn't feel like a politican. He feels like that nice guy down the street you say hi to every morning on your way to work.

 

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing everyone he didn't exist...

 

This is the same love affair the country had with Clinton. I agree with the whole mystery box bit, but I have to laugh everytime someone says he doesn't seem like a politician. That's because he's good at it folks. They're all politicians. That doesn't mean he can't be a good one, but please, he's a salesman just like the public wants.

 

The only way you can be electable in this country is to be fake. Anyone who is real has flaws, and we don't allow humans with flaws in office. Since no such human exists, we get humans that are great at appearing flawless - in other words...liars...or salesmen, same difference.

[Pangloss]

The "outsider" thing worked for Clinton and GW Bush as well. I think Bascule made a very astute observation above, but the sad thing about it is that it says something BAD about our society.

 

People are "for Obama" because he meets an ideological expectation that isn't ruined by a reality check.

 

It's almost like they're saying "He cares, and he's black. What could possibly go wrong?"

[ParanoiA]

It's almost like they're saying "He cares, and he's black. What could possibly go wrong?"

 

Well, even that is going wrong now. There is growing rumbling that Obama is not "black". He and his family are not descendents of slaves, so the american black culture doesn't see him as the same cut - he doesn't really represent them.

 

The people who say he cares and he's black are only looking at his skin color. I've heard more white folks talk about how they're going to vote for him, without any substance to support their choice. It's seems fairly obvious it's because they can't wait to "prove" their allegiance and sympathy to black plight. I don't think black folks want to be patronized like that. I haven't heard any good reasons yet to vote for the dude, just that he's the first black guy that seems white enough to get the white vote.

 

Anybody heard him debate yet?

[Pangloss]

Well, even that is going wrong now. There is growing rumbling that Obama is not "black". He and his family are not descendents of slaves, so the american black culture doesn't see him as the same cut - he doesn't really represent them.

 

You could be right.

 

That kind of reasoning is almost as ridiculous as the "he cares and he's black" nonsense I posted about above.

 

The story going around today was about pot-shots between the Obama and Clinton campaigns, stirred up by a pro-Obama party in Hollywood and a follow-up op-ed piece by record mogul David Geffen attacking Clinton, which she responded to as if it had come from Obama. Pretty nasty stuff for 20 months before the election!

[-Demosthenes-]

Obama's inexperience could prove an asset. I think people are tired of "politicians" and want change. They're probably too dumb to figure out what that change is, so that may translate to voting for someone inexperienced.

 

I think that's why Bush was so popular back in the day. Coming off Clinton, who was charismatic but dishonest; seeing a regular guy who didn't seem too smart or charismatic was nice. At least we could know he was honest.

 

As we saw charismatic and/or intelligent people as dishonest, for 2008 we see experienced politicians as dirty, and old politicians as senile. Obama doesn't have too much experience, and is young.

[Sisyphus]

I think we're probably ready for "smart" again, too.

 

Are you sure about that? Regime change and WMD's in Iraq became policy under Clinton, with a bipartisan act passed in 1998. I don't see that as neocon, otherwise we're inviting liberals into that fold.

 

On the other hand, I think that came out of the Project for the Next American Century, which I believe was drafted by strict neocons. I'm not entirely sure though.

 

Yeah, like I said, very similar actions could be classified under the umbrella of very different idealogies, depending on the various motivations for them. A "humanitarian intervention" and "peacekeeping" are liberal. "Democracy by force" and establishing subservient allies are neocon. Making things difficult for a brutal, jingoistic dictator of the Islamic world on the verge of violent hostility towards America, in a strategically important country, who accepted our help in the past but made a disobedient puppet, AND who is sitting on a whole lot of oil, fulfills all sorts of idealogical imperatives. Of course, what "making things difficult" entails might vary a great deal.

[ecoli]

As we saw charismatic and/or intelligent people as dishonest, for 2008 we see experienced politicians as dirty, and old politicians as senile. Obama doesn't have too much experience, and is young.

 

He doesn't seem dishonest, tho. He came clean about his past drug use, and compared to Hilary "scandal-gate" Clinton, he seems pretty squeaky to me.

[-Demosthenes-]

He doesn't seem dishonest, tho. He came clean about his past drug use, and compared to Hilary "scandal-gate" Clinton, he seems pretty squeaky to me.

 

6 years ago we wanted honest stupid, we don't anymore. Didn't turn out so well. Obama doesn't seem dishonest, but that's not what I was saying He's an attractive candidate because he is inexperienced in Washington and he's young.

[ParanoiA]

But I find it odd that it doesn't matter what we thought we wanted and elected...they still turned out negative. Clinton was dishonest. Bush is an idiot. What difference does it make?

 

Realizing what we want gives politicians the information they need to play the role we want. Enter Obama. I'm not saying he's fake from head to toe, I just think he fits close to what the mood of the country suggests, so he plays it up well. At least he's honest about the dope. I'll trust a confessed druggie before a supposed perfect christian...

[ecoli]

But I find it odd that it doesn't matter what we thought we wanted and elected...they still turned out negative. Clinton was dishonest. Bush is an idiot. What difference does it make?

The national debt, apparantly.

 

 

Realizing what we want gives politicians the information they need to play the role we want. Enter Obama. I'm not saying he's fake from head to toe, I just think he fits close to what the mood of the country suggests, so he plays it up well. At least he's honest about the dope. I'll trust a confessed druggie before a supposed perfect christian...

I still think Hillary's got the edge... most of the political analysts I've heard speak would say that too. It's just that, none of the current candidates are perfect solutions. Either too old or too young, too much history or not enough. And, I garuntee that only someone with a recognizable name is going to get voted in. I heard about this study conducted just in Connecticut, and people didn't even list Dodd, their own senator, as likely to win the election... If he can't win his own state, forget about the rest of the country who have never really heard of him. Other candadites will be, I predict, in similiar situations.

 

I think the two top candidates are Guilliani and Hillary. Guilliani might not even make it into the republican ticket because of his social liberalism. And Hillary is, well... she's Hillary.