Obama

yield2me

I'm going to be honest here...I don't really know much about Obama except that everyone is hailing him to be the greatest thing to happen since sliced bread...it seems like this guy hasn't much time to really prove himself yet, so why all the love?

qtegirl

One reason could be that he's very charismatic. Also, there's his book, that everyone seems to like. And, he's the first black senator since reconstruction. There's a lot of media buzz around him.

cincybearcat

yield2me wrote:

I'm going to be honest here...I don't really know much about Obama except that everyone is hailing him to be the greatest thing to happen since sliced bread...it seems like this guy hasn't much time to really prove himself yet, so why all the love?

He's the great black hope, dontcha know?

Honestly, he is very charismatic, smart, and seems to have a vision. All good characteristics of a good leader.

But I'm with you...I htink people need to see more before annointing him to the god-like status that they have. I also do believe that if he were white, there wouldn't be so much hype.

floyd1975

Was sliced bread really all that cool?

floyd1975

qtegirl wrote:

One reason could be that he's very charismatic. Also, there's his book, that everyone seems to like. And, he's the first black senator since reconstruction. There's a lot of media buzz around him.

Reconstruction happened since the days of Carol Mosely Braun?

RainDog

cincybearcat wrote:

I also do believe that if he were white, there wouldn't be so much hype.

Correction. If he were white, his name would be John Edwards.

In all seriousness, Edwards was pretty hyped, too - still is in some quarters. And, if you ask me, Obama is more charismatic than Edwards, regardless of what his ethnicity is.

cincybearcat

RainDog wrote:

Correction. If he were white, his name would be John Edwards.

In all seriousness, Edwards was pretty hyped, too - still is in some quarters.

Not near the hype Obama gets...the only problem I have is the fact that I disagree with a lot of what Obama says we need to do...but that probably makes me a racist if I don't vote for him, huh?

qtegirl

zstillings wrote:

Reconstruction happened since the days of Carol Mosely Braun?

You know what, I admit I am wrong. I just looked it up. I could've sworn though, that I heard that somewhere. Anyway, I guess he's the third

qtegirl

But he is the only black senator right now.

RainDog

cincybearcat wrote:

Not near the hype Obama gets...the only problem I have is the fact that I disagree with a lot of what Obama says we need to do...but that probably makes me a racist if I don't vote for him, huh?

Not racist, per se. But now that the Democrats are the majority, if you don't vote for him (or whoever their nominee ends up being), you're unpatriotic.

Abuskedti

RainDog wrote:

Not racist, per se. But now that the Democrats are the majority, if you don't vote for him (or whoever their nominee ends up being), you're unpatriotic.

True that

surferdude

RainDog wrote:

But now that the Democrats are the majority, if you don't vote for him (or whoever their nominee ends up being), you're unpatriotic.

Wait I thought that the one time every two years you could show dissent but still be patriotic was on voting day. After that it made you unpatriotic.

yield2me

This is what I thought. All that any of you are talking about is the fact that he is black and that he is charismatic...ok...well there still is the question, does this guy have what it takes to run the most powerful country in the world? If so, then why? I don't have an answer to this, I'm just curious.

macgyver06

yield2me wrote:

I'm going to be honest here...I don't really know much about Obama except that everyone is hailing him to be the greatest thing to happen since sliced bread...it seems like this guy hasn't much time to really prove himself yet, so why all the love?

hmm... this is a hype post! you list nothing of his politics...posts like these add to the hype...duhhh

yield2me

macgyver06 wrote:

hmm... this is a hype post! you list nothing of his politics...posts like these add to the hype...duhhh

I don't list anything about his politics because I don't know anything about his politics...thats what I'm asking you guys about? Why does everyone say he is so great???

I'm not really sure what a "hype post" is, but I'm not pushing any kind of agenda here, just trying to have a discussion.

cincybearcat

yield2me wrote:

does this guy have what it takes to run the most powerful country in the world? If so, then why? I don't have an answer to this, I'm just curious.

No one has that answer. As you said, he's done very little so far.

RainDog

yield2me wrote:

This is what I thought. All that any of you are talking about is the fact that he is black and that he is charismatic...ok...well there still is the question, does this guy have what it takes to run the most powerful country in the world? If so, then why? I don't have an answer to this, I'm just curious.

"What it takes" is kind of difficult to determine, as there's no real job or even political experience that's comparable to being President of the United States.

However, he's got personality, a political outlook, and the ability to get large numbers of people behind him. He's also a natural born citizen over the age of 35. So, yeah, he has "what" it takes - whether or not that "what" is what America wants, or a "what" that will ultimately work if he gets the office remains to be seen, just as with anyone else.

yield2me

RainDog wrote:

"What it takes" is kind of difficult to determine, as there's no real job or even political experience that's comparable to being President of the United States.

However, he's got personality, a political outlook, and the ability to get large numbers of people behind him. He's also a natural born citizen over the age of 35. So, yeah, he has "what" it takes - whether or not that "what" is what America wants, or a "what" that will ultimately work if he gets the office remains to be seen, just as with anyone else.

Well he meets the qualifications to run for office, but thats not what I'm getting at. I don't know...it just seems that everyone is really jumping the gun on this guy, because he hasn't really done anything yet, at least that I've seen.

RainDog

yield2me wrote:

Well he meets the qualifications to run for office, but thats not what I'm getting at. I don't know...it just seems that everyone is really jumping the gun on this guy, because he hasn't really done anything yet, at least that I've seen.

Politically, he sits somewhere around where this site puts him - and it gives a few details on what he's done:
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

There's also a bit of a catch 22 in politics right now. People often say they want a president or other politician that isn't some long-time political insider; but, when someone who doesn't fit the political insider mold runs, he or she is labeled as "inexperienced."

Really, despite many attempts to make things seem more complicated than they are, democracy is always as simple as "if you like a candidate, vote for him/her. If you don't, don't." The requirements for that vote are up to you.

musicismylife78

He isnt liberal at all. He isnt for pullout of troops, he was and I think still is for war in Iran and North Korea.

Although it would be great to get our first black president, Obama isnt it. He is mealy mouthed and a crappy candidate just like Gore and Kerry.

About Iraq. Obama said "we can still win, we just need a change of direction, but we can still win"

How is that different than Bush?

I refuse to be bought off by this cult of personality hype around Obama. He sounds like an OK guy, but politically, we dont need middle of the road people. And we dont need people who are going to "run the war differently". The war is lost, and running it under a dem isnt going to change a damn thing.

As I said before, people are outraged about Bush calling for an escalation of the Iraq war, well what the hell do you think us Nader voters were saying in 2004 when we said "both parties are the same". Kerry wanted an escalation as well.

The 2006 midterms were a referendum on the war, and a mandate by the american people to stop this war and the killing, not to run it differently, but to end it completely

Wake up obama!!!

Milhouse VanHouten

RainDog wrote:

There's also a bit of a catch 22 in politics right now. People often say they want a president or other politician that isn't some long-time political insider; but, when someone who doesn't fit the political insider mold runs, he or she is labeled as "inexperienced."

Very true. In addition to that, if he spent two or three terms in the Senate before running, his opponent would use his voting record against him just like the GOP did with Kerry in 2004: "His voting record proves he's the most liberal Senator in the country!!".

Of course, that whole arguement is basically bullshit. Candidate Bush constantly reminded voters that he wasn't a Washington insider, that he wasn't a slave to the Beltway machine... etc. Of course, that wasn't really true, and even if it was, what difference did it make? He's still painfully incompetent.

cincybearcat

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Very true. In addition to that, if he spent two or three terms in the Senate before running, his opponent would use his voting record against him just like the GOP did with Kerry in 2004: "His voting record proves he's the most liberal Senator in the country!!".

Of course, that whole arguement is basically bullshit. Candidate Bush constantly reminded voters that he wasn't a Washington insider, that he wasn't a slave to the Beltway machine... etc. Of course, that wasn't really true, and even if it was, what difference did it make? He's still painfully incompetent.

How the hell is using someone's voting record bullshit???? Jesus, it's the only factual information there is on what a candidate believes in or at least what he or she will do with his/her power.

yield2me

cincybearcat wrote:

How the hell is using someone's voting record bullshit???? Jesus, it's the only factual information there is on what a candidate believes in or at least what he or she will do with his/her power.

I agree with you on this all the way. How else would you know what the candidate is going to be like?

LikeAnOcean

Sometimes experience just makes your resume look better. It doesn't necessarily make you a better leader.. I think Obama would do fine.

yield2me

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Sometimes experience just makes your resume look better. It doesn't necessarily make you a better leader.. I think Obama would do fine.

Thats the problem though, you can't explain why you think he'd do fine because he has nothing to base any decision on! And don't say he is so charasmatic....because you could find charasmatic people anywhere, but that doesn't mean that they should lead a country does it? maybe I'm wrong here?

LikeAnOcean

yield2me wrote:

Thats the problem though, you can't explain why you think he'd do fine because he has nothing to base any decision on! And don't say he is so charasmatic....because you could find charasmatic people anywhere, but that doesn't mean that they should lead a country does it? maybe I'm wrong here?

Another question then, is it better to vote somebody in with bad experience *cough Bush* or no experience at all?

Uncle Leo

cincybearcat wrote:

How the hell is using someone's voting record bullshit???? Jesus, it's the only factual information there is on what a candidate believes in or at least what he or she will do with his/her power.

The reason sitting Senators don't win presidential elections is because their voting record is exposed.

Using the voting record would seem to make sense, but it opens the candidate up to intellectually dishonest attacks. For example, you find two bills of the same title in which the Senator voted "yes" once and "no" once and call him a flip-flopper. The problem is that it is never that simple. The two bills of the same title may have had signficant nuances, or "riders" that would cause them to be worthy of differing votes, even by a "non-flip flopper.'

Uncle Leo

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Another question then, is it better to vote somebody in with bad experience *cough Bush* or no experience at all?

That depends on how much you'd like to have a beer with him, regardless of whether or not he drinks.

Seriously, we hear that Obama's four years in the Senate will not be enough and that Bush was a Governor of a large state. The notion that Bush has "more" experience is true. The irony is that he almost ran on NOT being experienced in 2000. "Now, I'm no Washington insider..."

And yeah, most everything Bush touched went to shit in the private sector. And thanks to his background, he had a lot of opportunities. But I guess most people would say that you should not vote for someone with "bad" experience. The bottom line is that the voters did not see his experience as bad.

Uncle Leo

yield2me wrote:

Thats the problem though, you can't explain why you think he'd do fine because he has nothing to base any decision on! And don't say he is so charasmatic....because you could find charasmatic people anywhere, but that doesn't mean that they should lead a country does it? maybe I'm wrong here?

Charasmatic does not mean great president. Unfortunately it does go a long way to great candidate.

peachykeen

Well, I bought his book and have yet to begin reading it...but I know what got my attention about him was his interview on Oprah (yes I admit it), I liked how he was a civil lawyer and helped those less fortunate instead of going into his own private firm and charging thousands of dollars for his services. Very bright man, interesting background (father from Kenya, grew up in Hawaii...), and he's admitted to doing drugs such as coke and smoking and actually inhaling...(not that’s a good reason for considering someone for presidency), but if he can be honest about something like that, perhaps that could give us hope for his honesty in the future....speaking from a social studies teacher perspective (ahhh I finally became one!)
dee

Pearl Jam and toast

RainDog wrote:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

"Free public college for any student with B-average. (Jul 1998)"

It's really about time we did this. Some of the smartest, most promising people I know are forced into tech schools and community colleges because they don't have the money for a good school (and that's taking in mind scholarships and financial aid too) while I know dumbfucks who get into the best schools in the state because of their rich parents.