Home› A Moving Train

REUTERS: Democrat Obama enters 2008 White House race

rhinomagicrhinomagic Charlottesville, VA Posts: 2,552
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-16T170055Z_01_N16183416_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-OBAMA.xml&src=011607_1330_TOPSTORY_obamas_first_step


Is this good for Democrats? Good for America? Or just a media darling taking a big step further into national publicity?

.
Memphis 1994
New Orleans 1995
Fort Lauderdale 1996
Atlanta & Birmingham 1998
New Orleans 2000
Tampa 2003
Kissimmee 2004
New York City (x 2) 2008
East Troy (x 2) 2011
Chicago & New Orleans 2013
Hampton, Raleigh, Boston 2016
Baltimore 2020
Louisville 2022
Philadelphia & Baltimore 2024
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    anyone running for president is good news.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    rhinomagic wrote:
    http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-16T170055Z_01_N16183416_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-POLITICS-OBAMA.xml&src=011607_1330_TOPSTORY_obamas_first_step


    Is this good for Democrats? Good for America? Or just a media darling taking a big step further into national publicity?

    .

    It is good for Democrats and it is good for America. Obama IS THE GUY we need in the White House. Sure, he doesn't have much executive experience, BUT he can bring this county back together. The man beams hope for everyone. THAT is what we need.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    He's probably got my vote! At least I'm more excited about this guy running than anyone else so far!
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    He's probably got my vote! At least I'm more excited about this guy running than anyone else so far!
    It's about time someone brand new was considered a serious contender, huh?
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    RainDog wrote:
    It's about time someone brand new was considered a serious contender, huh?

    Absolutely... and what a message it would send to the rest of the world!
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    Absolutely... and what a message it would send to the rest of the world!
    Rest of the world, smesht of the world. I just want someone I don't completely disagree with and will break the Bush, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, {possible}Clinton, Clinton, Bush..... that we've had in the White House since 1981.
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    No way he gets my vote. He's still not in favor of a withdrawal, only "troop redeployment", and he recently voted to waste even more billions of dollars on the war.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Saturnal wrote:
    No way he gets my vote. He's still not in favor of a withdrawal, only "troop redeployment", and he recently voted to waste even more billions of dollars on the war.

    Yeah because him running 2008 with ads saying "Barack Obama voted to not send money to our troops in Iraq in 2007-Senator Obama doesn't support our military"

    People would eat that shit up.
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Saturnal wrote:
    No way he gets my vote. He's still not in favor of a withdrawal, only "troop redeployment", and he recently voted to waste even more billions of dollars on the war.
    You do realize that "troop redeployment" means moving the troops out of Iraq (withdrawl) and stationing a significantly smaller number of troops in countries where we're far more welcome, right?

    We created a clusterfuck when we invaded Iraq. I'm all for pulling our troops out of that country, but that clusterfuck could easily spread throughout the region. I think stationing troops in neighboring countries that don't want to be sucked into Iraq's civil war is a competely reasonable idea.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    will he beat Hilary for the nomination?
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    will he beat Hilary for the nomination?
    That's like asking who's going to win this weekend, The Saints or the Bears? We won't know until it happens, but I wouldn't put it over either of them.





    P.S. Edit: It'll be the Saints.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    RainDog wrote:
    That's like asking who's going to win this weekend, The Saints or the Bears? We won't know until it happens, but I wouldn't put it over either of them.





    P.S. Edit: It'll be the Saints.

    well your question is much easier. GO BEARS
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    RainDog wrote:
    You do realize that "troop redeployment" means moving the troops out of Iraq (withdrawl) and stationing a significantly smaller number of troops in countries where we're far more welcome, right?

    We created a clusterfuck when we invaded Iraq. I'm all for pulling our troops out of that country, but that clusterfuck could easily spread throughout the region. I think stationing troops in neighboring countries that don't want to be sucked into Iraq's civil war is a competely reasonable idea.
    As far as I've seen, Obama has never called for a complete phased withdrawal with a time table. And again, he keeps increasing the money for the war.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    jlew24asu wrote:
    well your question is much easier. GO BEARS
    I don't know, man. The Saints are practicing in some cooollllldddd weather down here right now. We'll be so ready.


    Or, to put it another way:
    Who Dat?!
    Who Dat?!
    Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints??!?
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    ledvedderman wrote:
    Yeah because him running 2008 with ads saying "Barack Obama voted to not send money to our troops in Iraq in 2007-Senator Obama doesn't support our military"

    People would eat that shit up.
    People eat all kinds of shit up. All good politicians vote based on what they think is right, not based on how it'll make them look during the next election.

    And if the majority of the country is against the war in 2008, it wouldn't matter anyways.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    jlew24asu wrote:
    will he beat Hilary for the nomination?

    I think he'll beat the panties off of her. Think about the two of them in a debate...

    Obama is so well spoken and appears to be as open and honest (at least as much as a politician can be).

    Hillary, let's face it carries the persona of a cold-hearted bitch. She is a Washington insider and professional politician. I don't think many men identify with her.

    It would be hard for me to vote for her even if I agreed with her policies, just becuase I don't like her as a person.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Saturnal wrote:
    As far as I've seen, Obama has never called for a complete phased withdrawal with a time table. And again, he keeps increasing the money for the war.
    This is from his website - though he is a politician, so you can take it however you like:
    "Since 2002, and now, as a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the Administration's mishandling of this war, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's warring factions. The only hope to end this burgeoning civil war is for Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to come together and resolve their differences, and that's why Senator Obama agrees with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment."

    As for funding the war, I'm not so sure about that one - though I'm pretty sure he's more for "funding soldiers" and is actually opposed to funding an escalation.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    NCfan wrote:
    I think he'll beat the panties off of her. Think about the two of them in a debate...

    Obama is so well spoken and appears to be as open and honest (at least as much as a politician can be).

    Hillary, let's face it carries the persona of a cold-hearted bitch. She is a Washington insider and professional politician. I don't think many men identify with her.

    It would be hard for me to vote for her even if I agreed with her policies, just becuase I don't like her as a person.

    I believe you but I have always seen her at the top of the polls. if Hilary wins the nomination you can hand the presidency to republicans.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I believe you but I have always seen her at the top of the polls. if Hilary wins the nomination you can hand the presidency to republicans.

    I get the feeling that a Democrat is going to win the presidency. People just hate Republicans so much these days becuase of Bush and Cheney...

    Plus, I really think that this "surge" is going to fail. And all the Republicans who supported it like McCain are going to be toast.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    NCfan wrote:
    I get the feeling that a Democrat is going to win the presidency. People just hate Republicans so much these days becuase of Bush and Cheney...

    Plus, I really think that this "surge" is going to fail. And all the Republicans who supported it like McCain are going to be toast.

    well if this surge doesnt fail, troops come home, Iraq takes over security, and shiites/sunnis stop killing each other....republicans would beat hilary. but its a long shot of that happening
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    jlew24asu wrote:
    well if this surge doesnt fail, troops come home, Iraq takes over security, and shiites/sunnis stop killing each other....republicans would beat hilary. but its a long shot of that happening

    If Obama would just run on a SERIOUS, GET TOUGH green agenda focused on weening our country off of its addiction to oil by increasing mileage requirments, a big time push for alternative fuels and a gas tax to jump start the whole thing, then I think he would win going away...

    People WANT to do something to clean up our environment and reduce our need to get involved with the Middle East. Most of us don't want to fight, but we would like to contribute somehow.

    If he just tapped that energy and ran on a platform of challenging America to rise to the call of the 21st century - he would be a fucking Hero the likes of JFK....
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    NCfan wrote:
    If Obama would just run on a SERIOUS, GET TOUGH green agenda focused on weening our country off of its addiction to oil by increasing mileage requirments, a big time push for alternative fuels and a gas tax to jump start the whole thing, then I think he would win going away...

    People WANT to do something to clean up our environment and reduce our need to get involved with the Middle East. Most of us don't want to fight, but we would like to contribute somehow.

    If he just tapped that energy and ran on a platform of challenging America to rise to the call of the 21st century - he would be a fucking Hero the likes of JFK....

    I havent heard that from him but if he does I'd vote for him.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    If Obama would just run on a SERIOUS, GET TOUGH green agenda focused on weening our country off of its addiction to oil by increasing mileage requirments, a big time push for alternative fuels and a gas tax to jump start the whole thing, then I think he would win going away...
    Again, he's a politician, so take this how you want, but he seems pretty green:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    RainDog wrote:
    This is from his website - though he is a politician, so you can take it however you like:
    "Since 2002, and now, as a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the Administration's mishandling of this war, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's warring factions. The only hope to end this burgeoning civil war is for Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to come together and resolve their differences, and that's why Senator Obama agrees with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment."

    As for funding the war, I'm not so sure about that one - though I'm pretty sure he's more for "funding soldiers" and is actually opposed to funding an escalation.
    Exactly...he disapproves of the Republican administration's handling of the war, not the war itself. "Begin a phased redeployment" is a very tactful term that most democrats use now. It gets people to think they're against the war, when really they're just against the fact that they're not running it. The Iraqi people want a complete withdrawal within the next year, and that's what we should be doing.

    Of course what he's saying on his website is all up for interpretation, but I never hear any high-up democrats say "this war is wrong" and "we should leave within ___ years/months".

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/275.php?nid=&id=&pnt=275&lb=hmpg1
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Saturnal wrote:
    Exactly...he disapproves of the Republican administration's handling of the war, not the war itself. "Begin a phased redeployment" is a very tactful term that most democrats use now. It gets people to think they're against the war, when really they're just against the fact that they're not running it. The Iraqi people want a complete withdrawal within the next year, and that's what we should be doing.

    Of course what he's saying on his website is all up for interpretation, but I never hear any high-up democrats say "this war is wrong" and "we should leave within ___ years/months".

    http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/275.php?nid=&id=&pnt=275&lb=hmpg1
    He's stated over and over again that if he'd been given the chance he'd have voted against the invasion of Iraq. Of course, he wasn't given the chance because at the time he wasn't in Congress. However, he's spoken against the war, in both rallies and interviews, going back to 2002; so I don't agree when you say he's only against the fact that he's not running it.

    About the only pro-war thing he's done is vote against a total troop withdrawal by July 2007. Now, I don't necessarily consider that a pro-war position so much as a "not my idea of a good withdrawal plan" position. Were I in the Senate, I probably would have voted in favor of a July 2007 date - but I've long since given up on looking for a candidate that matches my every belief. To his credit, he - apart from just about every other elected Democrat in the country - has called it a mistake from the beginning. Mistakes are often hard to erase.

    Yeah, at the moment I'm pretty pro-Obama. Again, I don't agree with everything about him, but I do agree with a lot of it - and I consider him to be the best viable candidate in the field right now.
Sign In or Register to comment.