Obamania Officially Kicks Off Tomorrow

Ebizzie

gue_barium wrote:

Commoner?

"...obtained early education in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Hawaii; continued education at Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif., and Columbia University, New York City; studied law at Harvard University, where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, and received J.D. in 1992; lecturer on constitutional law, University of Chicago..."

So was he a legacy admission in those schools or, gulp, was he just that smart of a student to gain entry?

Bu2

you're welcome, Exodus.

Bu2

Ebizzie wrote:

So was he a legacy admission in those schools or, gulp, was he just that smart of a student to gain entry?

I have no fucking idea. And to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. I don't really understand what point you are trying to make about him.

Ebizzie

Purple Hawk wrote:

social security? voted down by dems and weak republicans. health care? signed by dems. education? signed by dems. iraq? he is doing what he thinks is right. that is the opposite of a career politician. what hillary is doing...yeah, THAT'S an example of a career politician. anyone who voted yes, and is now going back on it...that is playing politics. putting politics over reality. so again, how is W the epitome of a career politician?

If you can look at his administration and believe that he's used common sense and strong leadership to put this nation in a better position than it was in when he took office, well, we just need to go ahead and quit speaking about this...we'll never agree.

Let me remind you, I'm a registered republican, even voted for GW, and he, and he alone, has made me abandon that party until they can figure out that we aren't all radical Evangelicals. Hopefully that sentence gives you proof of why we don't need to start arguing about GW, lol, we aren't going to convince one another of a thing.

Ebizzie

Bu2 wrote:

I have no fucking idea. And to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. I don't really understand what point you are trying to make about him.

I was just responding to the person who used his education to prove he's not a commoner. He attained admissions to those institutions on merit, not on donations that daddy made.

Bu2

Ebizzie wrote:

I was just responding to the person who used his education to prove he's not a commoner. He attained admissions to those institutions on merit, not on donations that daddy made.

I thought I'd missed something, lol.....

Last Exodus

Bu2 wrote:

you're welcome, Exodus.

I actually just got done watching a bit on Obama on CNN. He is intriguing that is for sure. However I must tell you, having spent a number of years working for a number of really qualified candidates that came up through the Democratic party, that timing is everything. It's not enough to be the right candidate. You have to be the right candidate at the right time....And here is where Democrats have historically ALWAYS gone wrong.

They run the wrong people at the wrong time... They fail to nominate candidates who can actually beat the opposition. And winning IS the objective. There is a reason that the Dems keep losing to misfits like George W. They ignore the middle, then pander to the left coast and the right coast, and end up nominating people who are loved and endeared by only the liberal elite. And those people lose. Why? Because the left coast and the right coast cant relate to everyone in the middle, and vice versa.

Do a little survey. Since 1964 only two elected Presidents have come from outside States in the South (including Texas). The two who were not from the South were extreme right wing governors from my home state. Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. That's the last 40 plus years. You cant expect to win if you don't understand or try to relate to the people who actually vote and elect people in this country.

What am I saying? I like Obama. He seems great. But this is war-time America. When Bush leaves it will still be war-time America. Historically America does not change course or take extreme risk while at war. So someone who will not completely polarize the issues is what is needed if the DEMS have any chance at winning.

There is a time for Obama, and maybe even a time for Hillary. But the DEMS are blowing it again by running these two now. They will lose...again... because its not the right time. The middle doesn't like change. They especially dont like change during a war.

So if you want change, Id rethink this Obama thing for the time being. Give him 4 more years in the Senate, let Hillary dive on the grenade (because we dont REALLY care if she does) and let him run when things are hoepfully smoother in 4 years. Then the pot smoking, hip, black, guy might be a safer choice....not for you....but for the middle. If the DEMS want to win, the guy they ought to run, if they could, would be that cat from Virginia who gave the response to the State of the Union address. Now HE is electable today. Why?

1) South
2) Marine
3) Son - Marine IN Iraq...
4) We are at war.
5) Great speaker
6) Safe for the South and the Middle.

Done deal, White House goes Blue. For now, with this plan, Red for 4 more years. Guranteed....

Milhouse VanHouten

Last Exodus wrote:

I dont care what the hell the guy did at the State level. Were talking about National issues now. Very different than local state issues. Don't get me wrong, I like this guy. He's honest, relatable, etc, etc. I just need more info.

His state senate work, his community organizing work, and his constitutional law background are all part of the whole. In the state senate, one issue he worked on was campaign reform. It's something he's taking a stand on now, and it's an issue that I think you'd agree is relevant on both the local and national level. Members of the state senate, both Democrat and Republican, feel that he was a thoughtful and unfying figure in a state that is notorious for political infighting. I know one VERY Republican staffer in the state senate who admired Obama very much.

Of course you can disregard his state senate record if you feel it's not important in the framework of a presidential race, but I'd bet that if you looked at his entire political career, you'd find information that could help you form a more complete picture of him as a future president.

Last Exodus

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

His state senate work, his community organizing work, and his constitutional law background are all part of the whole. In the state senate, one issue he worked on was campaign reform. It's something he's taking a stand on now, and it's an issue that I think you'd agree is relevant on both the local and national level. Members of the state senate, both Democrat and Republican, feel that he was a thoughtful and unfying figure in a state that is notorious for political infighting. I know one VERY Republican staffer in the state senate who admired Obama very much.

Of course you can disregard his state senate record if you feel it's not important in the framework of a presidential race, but I'd bet that if you looked at his entire political career, you'd find information that could help you form a more complete picture of him as a future president.

If his experience in a STATE senate is all you got, what you got is problems. Whole different world.

Bu2

Last Exodus wrote:

If his experience in a STATE senate is all you got, what you got is problems. Whole different world.

...State Senate is all Hillary's got, too.

And yet if you read the Straw Polls so far, it's Hillary and Obama leading the Dem side, and McCain and Giuliani leading the GOP side.

Ebizzie

Last Exodus wrote:

If his experience in a STATE senate is all you got, what you got is problems. Whole different world.

And what exactly has Guiliani got, mayor?

norm

Last Exodus wrote:

If the DEMS want to win, the guy they ought to run, if they could, would be that cat from Virginia who gave the response to the State of the Union address. Now HE is electable today. Why?

1) South
2) Marine
3) Son - Marine IN Iraq...
4) We are at war.
5) Great speaker
6) Safe for the South and the Middle.

Done deal, White House goes Blue. For now, with this plan, Red for 4 more years. Guaranteed....

I have to say I think you're making sense there. Jim Webb (I believe) made an impact with his rebuttal to the SOU. And if he decides to run for POTUS I'll give him a gander. But I'm still gonna read Obama's book and see if he is the real deal.

VictoryGin

Last Exodus wrote:

I actually have read quite a bit about him. So save the speeches. I was simply curious if those who support him really know his position........Apparently not. If you did, youd be able to tell me yourself instead of referring me to google.

are you seriously saying i don't know his position on iraq? i told you to google 'iraq war de-escalation act' because that is his plan. and it's not a speech. it's legislation that he introduced a few weeks ago, if that. and i'm not going to waste my time typing out details for a douche that could have easily read all the details in seconds.

unbelievable

VictoryGin

Ebizzie wrote:

I'm also reading Audacity of Hope. I know where he stands and I know that I disagree with him on several issues. The problem is that after dealing with 16 years of Clinton and Bush, character is taking a front seat for me next election over issues. I've had it with these politicians. Obama brings truthiness to the office, a commoner's perspective.

this is probably going to be cheeseball, but i just think it's refreshing, and actually not scary, that you and i could be voting for the same person. there are some things i don't completely agree with him either, but this makes it seem that maybe the nation isn't as divided as they tell us we are. and that people are ready for something different-- different and possible now. and this is something we could actually work towards, and that change might come.

Bu2

is to be decided upon heresay that we get from the television news programs, and not from what we ourselves learn from our own gleanings, then all I can say is God save America.

Last Exodus

Bu2 wrote:

...State Senate is all Hillary's got, too.

And yet if you read the Straw Polls so far, it's Hillary and Obama leading the Dem side, and McCain and Giuliani leading the GOP side.

Hillary has 4 more years in the Senate than Obama. Not much. But I never said I was a fan of Ms. Clinton's. Of the four you mention, all of the above would be more qualified and capable than our current president. We would be taking a step in the right direction with any one of those four.

Last Exodus

Ebizzie wrote:

And what exactly has Guiliani got, mayor?

9-11

Last Exodus

VictoryGin wrote:

are you seriously saying i don't know his position on iraq? i told you to google 'iraq war de-escalation act' because that is his plan. and it's not a speech. it's legislation that he introduced a few weeks ago, if that. and i'm not going to waste my time typing out details for a douche that could have easily read all the details in seconds.

unbelievable

a douche ey? brilliant...i dont know why I bother trying to find an intelligent soul to debate politics with on this board. No one here can seem to formulate their own thoughts without having to post a link or cut and paste or send you to google. and im not persuaed by a guy in the Senate two years all of a sudden is a genius for introducing his own plan to do what everyone else has been proposing for years. nothing original there...it's self serving and disingenous. sort of like you

Ebizzie

Last Exodus wrote:

9-11

and that qualifies him to be president how exactly?

Abookamongstthemany

Last Exodus wrote:

a douche ey? brilliant...i dont know why I bother trying to find an intelligent soul to debate politics with on this board. No one here can seem to formulate their own thoughts without having to post a link or cut and paste or send you to google. and im not persuaed by a guy in the Senate two years all of a sudden is a genius for introducing his own plan to do what everyone else has been proposing for years. nothing original there...it's self serving and disingenous. sort of like you

People learn things by reading information not by making shit up in their own head. You're asking about facts so sharing the information with you seems like a pretty good idea to me. Besides, I've seen you on numerous occasions ask for proof of stuff if people don't cut and paste. I think you're just going to whine either way to make it seem like you have some sort of point.