Will Barack Obama be our next President?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>Clinton is the most polarizing of the trio. I don’t hear a message of hope here. Nothing more to say about her.</p>

<p>Obama seems happy and delivers on a message of hope. I don’t know if he is an empty shell. Intelligence, experience and judgment matters, a lot. The next president’s actions will be more important than an upbeat message with mediocre or poor leadership. </p>

<p>I think McCain appeals to more Democrats than Bush did. If Clinton gets the nomination, then McCain wins easy. If Obama wins the nomination, I don’t know. I suspect there are more closeted racists in America than anti-feminists.</p>

<p>I would say McCain wins right now based on ability. After the Dems get a nominee, there will be more focus on the differences and we learn more. The Obama/Clinton battle is focused on each other. Let’s see how Obama and McCain deal with each other.</p>

<p>You can’t eat hope, and emotions don’t pay for a house. Actions do that.</p>

<p>I wish Colin Powell was running for President right now. Oh well.</p>
 
Looks like Obama will win. He seems to be a genuine person. My main concern is that if a person with 2-3 years of legislative experience becomes the president, he will depend on his advisors for most decisions. I just hope he chooses them well. I always thought that Bush was a straightforward guy but his advisors had a different agenda and they used him.

Colin Powell, he has my vote.
 
Priced_Out_IT_Guy,





Maybe you were in so much pain that you missed the first two paragraphs and the context of my post. I'm a pessimist and a skeptic, first and foremost. A bigot and racist? Well, I won't deny that either since I believe all people are bigoted and racist to some degree. You are a [insert your race] guy. Of all the times in your life that you saw a black guy with an attractive [insert your race] girl, tell me that you NEVER once had a thought of "damn, he's stealing our women."





Just for kicks, let me answer your questions:





<em>Whats wrong with a woman president?


</em>Nothing wrong. It won't happen anytime soon though. Why?


If the woman presidential candidate is from the Democratic party, she'll be labeled a feminazi. The Roe v Wade boogeywoman who aborts fetuses from unsuspecting innocent Christian women. Fat chance of being elected. <em>


</em>If the woman presidential candidate is from the Republican party ... won't happen - it'll always be a white guy. The closest thing will be a Elizabeth Dole type woman as a VP running mate who gets into power if the white male president gets assassinated or dies.





<em>A black president?


</em>Nothing wrong. It won't happen anytime soon though. Why?


Unresolved race relations baggage. It's happening right now with Obama.


<em>


A Muslim president?


</em>Nothing wrong. But barring Saudi Arabia conquering the US this will never happen. Demographics do not support this.


<em>


An Asian president?


</em>Nothing wrong. But barring a Chinese takeover or some catastrophe that kills off every cabinet member down the succession line to Elaine Chao this will never happen. Demographics do not support this.


<em>


Jesus F-ing Christ man...are you a troll or just that ignorant?


</em>Indeed...are you an atheist or are you just taking the Lord's name in vain?


<em>


</em>People will vote for who they identify with. Make no mistake, people have a natural affinity toward people who look like themselves. Whites make up 73.9% of the US population. Blacks make up 12.4% of the population.





Bush got elected because he pandered to his white Southern Christian "Moral Majority" base, not in spite of. If Obama is already conceding the South, he will have his work cut out for him because he has to convince white voters who are not Democratic to vote against their natural inclinations. One would think that Bush would have left a bad taste in the mouths of enough Independents/moderate Republicans who voted for him previously to vote against Republicans, but I'm not so sure.





For the record, I have nothing against McCain, I'd take him over Bush anytime. Heck, I'd take a sack of potatoes over Bush. I'd just like Americans to prove me wrong by electing Obama. That would be a real watershed moment for America. Even Hillary would be a watershed moment, albeit probably lesser in significance (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton ... is this a democracy or a revolving oligarchy?)
 
<p>Since IR effectively killed the RP thread, I am going to repost part of my comment from there:</p>

<p><em>Now for a random speculation on VEEP choices: I have for a long time thought that Obama would choose Bill Richardson as a running mate. But recently I began to ponder what Colin Powell would do if he was asked to run with Obama. From a purely politcal stance, that would pull in quite a few fence sitters, much the same way that Cheney reassured people concerned about Bush's lack of foreign policy experience. It would also go a long way to discouraging white supremacists from seriously considering assasination.</em></p>

<p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21cnd-endorse.html">From today's NYT:</a></p>

<p><strong>Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president this year, plans to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination on Friday at a campaign event in Oregon, according to an Obama adviser.</strong></p>

<p><strong> ...</strong></p>

<p><strong>Moreover, as the nation’s only Hispanic governor, Mr. Richardson could become a champion for Mr. Obama among Hispanic voters, who have been a key voting bloc for Mrs. Clinton in the primaries thus far. And his endorsement is also notable because he is a friend and admirer of Mrs. Clinton, and was widely viewed as a possible running mate for both her and for Mr. Obama.</strong> </p>

<p>It looks like my first impression was the correct one. I suspect that Richardson was promised the Veep slot by both candidates in exchange for his endorsement. Which means Hillary is left to court John Edwards. Considering he is holding 18 delegates, she might be courting him pretty agressively.</p>
 
<p>I thought about this last night some more. I can now put my finger on why I don't like Obama.</p>

<p>I don't like Bush either. And that's the point. Obama is just like Bush.</p>

<p>Yes, he is just like Bush in what makes Bush such a bad president.</p>

<p>He makes decisions the same way, based on "faith", while Bush is the evangelical WASP version, Obama is the PC-Socialism faith based model. Both appear to base decisions on a preordained order of the way things should be irrespective of the data and logic of a situation.</p>

<p>Frankly, that's what got us into this mess. We need to stop the pandering to feelings and start thinking again. We need to stop trumping rational, data supported thought, with unsupportable feelings, appeals to a higher power and fear. Switching one 'faith'-based decision maker for another will just result in more misguided initiatives forcing round pegs into square holes and policies design to reward the 'faithful'. One set of bad policies with another.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<em>"The next president’s actions will be more important than an upbeat message with mediocre or poor leadership."</em>





It should be this way, but the point I was making in the opening remarks was that this isn't true if the economy is in shambles. If times are very bad, an upbeat message with mediocre or poor leaderships is exactly what people will go for. FDR is the classic example.





Priced_Out_IT_Guy,





muffdaddy's comments are not intended as racist, he is just commenting on the political realities of our electorate. For as much as we might like these realities to be different, to ignore them is to miss some of the key dynamics of this election, although I think his arguments about demographics eliminating minorities from possibly winning office are incorrect.
 
<em>>>Of course no one in the Republican mainstream is going to say outright that "don't vote for Obama because he's black." However, as they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Play up the Muslim origins of Obama's name, preying on the current American xenophobia felt toward Muslims. Call Obama "dangerous" because one of his confidants seems to associate with attitudes that recall the black power movements in the 60s. Those tactics serve to undermine one of Barack's greatest strengths - personifying progressive change by being a mixed race person - by selectively exaggerating the parts of his identity that are unpalatable to white voters.</em>





I think MD is right, but not entirely for the reason he states. There are a group of Republicans (a combo of uber pro business types and some who are just Republicans Must Win at All Costs Because That is Our Team) who will use the negatives that motivate the most number of people to vote against the person they want to lose. Remember the Swift Boating of John Kerry?* Or making Bill Clinton out to be a Commie loving, pot smoking hippie? Ahe list goes back from there. Race is used where it's effective to win. That it is effective, is sad, but says a lot of the state of things still.





If you want to know a part of what Obama will face, just take a look at what Harold Ford got when he had the "audacity" to run for the Senate in Tennessee, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/155713.php">here</a>, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/155707.php">here</a>, and <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/153061.php">here</a>.











*Not to say that Kerry didn't have plenty of honestly exploitable weaknesses
 
<p><em>That it is effective, is sad, but says a lot of the state of things still.</em></p>

<p>I think an Obama win will go a long way towards changing the state of things, provided he lives out his term of office. Forcing race to the forefront of the national agenda in a positive way will do more to erase the divisions than the fear and loathing approach, which gets employed by both sides. If it isn't the Republicans trying to scare white voters out of supporting black candidates, it's the Democrats trying to scare black voters away from voting Republican. Either way, using race to win elections is cheap and sleazy. Electing a President of mixed race will force the issue to the forefront but framed in a such a way that rational discussions can occur rather than just fear mongering.</p>

<p>And Eva, this statement "when he had the audacity to run for the Senate" is an example of the problem, not the solution. It's so loaded that it puts people on the defensive immediately and does nothing to actually encourage rational discussion.</p>
 
[Psst. Nude, it was <em>sarcasm.</em> You know, a riff on the uppity-Negro charge? I've now edited to clarify. You don't think I would have posted links to the ads if I really thought he shouldn't have been running, right?]
 
Can someone tell me what each candidate's plan is to fix the housing crisis?? Do they have one? I know Obama can talk about hope and change, but what is his plan?
 
I think McCain wil win. The Democrats have too many problems. There is no way that Hillary can get enough pledged delegates at this point. However, she will likely win Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Do the Democrats give the nod to someone who forgot how to win down the stretch?



I think Obama's problems have less to do with his race, and more to do with the disconnect that some voters see between his rhetoric and his actions. He said he was against NAFTA, yet his campaign was caught telling the Canadian government that his statements were politics, and not to be taken at face value. The blue collar voters in Ohio felt like they were lied to. In regards to race, he said he wants to move the nation to a new sense of unity, yet for twenty years he attended a church where the senior pastor was preaching a message of divisiveness.



The interesting thing is that the intellectual (read: college educated, upper middle class) wing of the party is willing to accept a disconect between actions and rhetoric (the politics of convenience), while the blue collar wing expects that actions and rhetoric will consistent.



Also, Obama has staked an awful lot on Iraq. Right now, no one is reminding the public that he voted against the surge, but that will change in the general.
 
<em>"I know Obama can talk about hope and change, but what is his plan?"


</em>


I hope his plan is simply to talk about it and do nothing. That is the proper policy.
 
>>Can someone tell me what each candidate's plan is to fix the housing crisis?? Do they have one? I know Obama can talk about hope and change, but what is his plan?



Have you looked at his website or called the campaign office for a position paper? Those are typically the first places I go.
 
<em>"I think McCain wil win. The Democrats have too many problems."</em>





I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate you are a Republican. IMO, it takes the blinders of a party loyalist to ignore the stiff rebuke of all things Republican of the 2006 general election and the ongoing unpopularity of our current Republican President. As an independent voter and long-time political observer, I would argue it is the Republicans that have major problems. From what I see, they have no core message. The religious nuts have taken over, and nobody wants to hear what they have to say. The fiscal conservatives are downtrodden and discredited because of the performance of the recent Republican congress. I hope they make a resurgence, but right now, even if they had a voice, nobody would listen to them or believe them. The only thing that seems important to Republicans right now is national defense. Given the unpopularity of the Iraq war, I don't think this issue is a plus for them.





None of this is a defense of Democrats. I think the current Democratic leadership is weak and ineffective. They do have problems. From what I am observing, for this cycle, the Republicans have worse problems.
 
<p>I am a lifetime democrat who if Obama wins will for the first time in my life probably vote republican - people say that if Hillary wins many people will be forced to vote for McCain - but I believe there is probably a constituant out there that feels the exact opposite - i.e., I can't be that abnormal. I agree with what no such realty said a few posts back</p>

<p>"Obama is the PC-Socialism faith based model"</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>IR, we'll see.</p>

<p>A difference between 2008 and FDR's 1930s Fireside chats is the availability of information. Back then word of mouth and radio were it. Today is total, instant information. People today are better informed, even if not any more intelligent. This lessens the impact of a single comforting message and voice.</p>

<p>Another difference is the severity and breadth of economic downturn. The Great Depression truly was a Great Depression. My wife's parents were in their teens in the 30s, and I can see the indelible impression it left upon them even to today, especially her father. Today it is still being debated whether or not we are even in a recession. This is not to minimize the current real estate situation in CA and other places, but things are nowhere as bad today as in FDR's time. I doubt it ever will be.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<em>"People today are better informed, even if not any more intelligent. This lessens the impact of a single comforting message and voice."</em>





Perhaps, but I remember watching Reagan's speeches to the Nation in the early 80s, and they seemed to have a strong impact on the National psyche.





<em>"but things are nowhere as bad today as in FDR's time. I doubt it ever will be."</em>





I doubt we will see times as bad as the Great Depression, but I think we may see a recession deeper than anyone with living memory can attest to.
 
<p>Eva, I think you misunderstood me. It was your sarcasm to which I was referring in my comment. I'm not singling you out, both sides do it. But it has the unintended side effect of making people like me, who hasn't seen Tennessee in more than 20 years and that was from a Greyhound bus, turn defensive and that never helps the conversation. I know it was intended as a justified indictment of the RNC, but it can't help but start the conversation off on the wrong foot when the goal is to get past the anger. I am as sarcastic as they come, but I don't see it as appropriate for this topic when tempers can get so hot so quickly.</p>

<p>It also doesn't help when people read racism into every single act or comment, as happened to Ferraro. That kind of over reaching political correctness means that even making the joke about 'calling a spade a spade' off limits because someone will accuse me of being racist just for thinking it, despite it's accuracy. Ferraro's comment wasn't racist, it was completely correct. But because she's white, it's suddenly a racial attack. If Al Sharpton had said the same thing, it would have been 'insight into the views of black politicians' or 'a frank political assessment of the relationship between the voters and Obama' or some other platitude.</p>

<p>If anything is attractive about Obama it is that he seems (appears, but not proven) to start from the view that everyone else's view has merit. That's in stark contrast to Clinton, who clearly thinks opposing her is a declaration of war, and people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage who are only too happy to enjoin her on the same terms. Personally, I'm sick of starting out with the assumption that because I am conservative I kick kittens, advocate slavery, and hate gays. What I'd like to see is Obama be able to foster the kind of change that changes the assumption that skin color identifies you, defines your politics, or comes with a natural bias.</p>
 
<p><em>"Perhaps, but I remember watching Reagan's speeches to the Nation in the early 80s, and they seemed to have a strong impact on the National psyche."</em></p>

<p>Totally agree. Things seemed to just fall in place the right way as soon as he took office. </p>

<p><em>"...I think we may see a recession deeper than anyone with living memory can attest to."</em></p>

<p>I remember Carter, gas lines, Iran, and bonds yielding 18%. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>IR,</p>

<p>Neither FDR nor Reagan were strangers to national politics. FDR ran as VP in 1920 and the Cox/Roosevelt ticket lost badly. Reagan lost the '76 primary to Ford. In both cases, their message didn't take hold until the nation was in dire straits. While it is apparent to those of us who read the blogs, the general population isn't there yet. If he loses the primary and Clinton loses the general, then I could easily see him filling the role you have defined in 2012.</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top