PDA

View Full Version : Barack Obama 2012?


jdl22
07-28-2004, 03:13 AM
That was an amazing speech. Clinton was good last night but Obama tonight was unbelievable. Kerry will have a lot of trouble topping the speech. I could definately see him as the first minority president.

CNN's political guys gave these overall grades:
Paul Begala - A+
Tucker Carlson - A-
Bill Schneider - A+
Mo Rocca - O+ (Obamatastic+)
Carlos Watson - A

Not shitting you guys with this one, he is actually referred to as the Tiger Woods of the Democratic Party. If you google him you will see that near the top, I also heard them say this on MSNBC.

GWB
07-28-2004, 05:33 AM
Obama 2012?

Lets see:
Kerry wins '04
Kerry runs '08 (win or lose)
Obama is selected in '12 before both Hillary or Vice President Edwards?
I think not.

Alternative:
Kerry loses '04
Hillary loses '08 (Edwards is only a failed one term senator after the '04 loss)
Obama selected '12
This works.

So you are saying you expect Kerry and Hillary to lose?
This is good news. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

jdl22
07-28-2004, 05:40 AM
Yes I think there is a very good chance he could beat Edwards but in politics 8 years is forever so who knows. I think it'll be:
Kerry 04
Kerry (at least for the democratic nomination) 08
then who knows too far off to say. He would still make an excellent running mate in 8 years because he's only in his early forties. Hillary will have trouble winning, even the democratic nomination. I would like to see it but it's not happening. That would make a very interesting election though with Hillary because both bases would be out in full force.

Cubswin
07-28-2004, 05:56 AM
Im going to go out on a limp and say that he will win his senate seat now that 'da coach' isnt running anymore. Now, winning the presidency is another story. Senators dont typically do well when running for president because because 1) they are forced to take highly visable stances on issues vis-a-vis voting and this often causes problems later on down the road, 2) the senate lacks very few high profile leaderships positions where individuals can stand out, and 3) senators are instantly labeled "washington insiders", a very bad label to have. If you are looking ahead to 2008 (im assuming bush will win) look for a governor to be a front runner. Recent history has shown governors to be highly sucessful at winning the presidency.

regards
cubs

GWB
07-28-2004, 06:02 AM
I agree. Every election winner after Kennedy in 1960 has been:

an incumbant President
an incumbant or former Vice President
an incumbant or former Governor

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-28-2004, 09:14 AM
The first black US President will not be a Democrat. You can take that to the bank.

Sloats
07-28-2004, 09:31 AM
Powell 08!

La Brujita
07-28-2004, 10:43 AM
That was one of the better speeches I have ever seen.

Ragnar
07-28-2004, 11:57 AM
The President of the United States (or his alter ego) can't spell "incumbent."

My dream. Bush wins in '04. (I don't care if he does or not, but hang with me.) Hillary vs. Condi in '08 in a catfight.

Kurn's prediction comes true. The first Black president is not a Democrat.

It's not going to happen but it would be the most fun.

Ragnar

Ragnar

daryn
07-28-2004, 01:15 PM
did anyone read invisible man by ralph ellison? this guy reminded me of the main character.

riverflush
07-28-2004, 01:41 PM
Obama is strong. He's a good guy. So far he's not tainted by "politics as usual".

I also believe the first black president will be from the GOP or a third party. The dominance of the Dems on the black vote is about to splinter into pieces as the "old guard" becomes less and less relevant. The "block voting" trend will end in our lifetime.

El Barto
07-28-2004, 02:13 PM
Obama reminds me of previous hot sensation Democrats:

Bill Clinton in the 1980's
John Edwards 6 years ago as he won his Senate seat

If he makes any mistakes, his national prospects are over.

elwoodblues
07-28-2004, 02:16 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama v. Norm Coleman at some point (I'm not going to name a specific year).

Dynasty
07-28-2004, 03:45 PM
Obama- that's about as bad a political name as you can get. However, it's so bad that Republicans could never make the easy type of joking attacks against it which come so naturally.

As far as his chances to win the Presidency go, 8 years is an eternity.

In 1992, who would you say would win the 2000 election? Would you have guessed a man who had never held political office?

In 1984, who would you have said would win the 1992 election? Would you have guessed a one term Arkansas governor who got booted out of office in 1982?

jdl22
07-28-2004, 04:01 PM
Good point.

In his case though I think it's a bit different because he's a minority. I think he has the potential to possibly get over the hurdle, which is the point I was trying to make. For example, Jesse Jackson is too much of a polemic figure, and too liberal to ever be elected president. The same is true of Al Sharpton. I think for the two of them you could say that in 8 years there is no chance they will get elected president. This guy I think has the potential. I do see Kurn's point also that crossover vote is needed which would make it very difficult for a minority democrat to win, but I think this guy has much more potential than say Colin Powell or Rice who both have virtually no chance in the future thanks to president Bush.

andyfox
07-28-2004, 04:42 PM
Good point. Richard Nixon was left for dead when he lost the California governor's race in 1962. By 1968 he was president. Jimmy Carter started with 1% in the opinion polls the year he was elected. Ronald Reagan was widely viewed as unelectable. Bill Clinton was running a poor third behind Bush and Perot before Perot self-destructed in 1992. And at one time, people like George Romney, Gary Hart, and Mario Cuomo were looked on as the next president.

Mano
07-28-2004, 06:51 PM
I agree, amazing speech. I was thinking the whole time "why isn't someone like that running for president?".

On a side note, I am sick of hearing the Tiger Woods comparison everytime a black man is good at something (Obama, Ivey, etc.). A comparison with the charisma of a John Kennedy would have been more appropriate imho.

jdl22
07-28-2004, 06:55 PM
Indeed.

Especially since the convention was in Boston.

Nepa
07-28-2004, 10:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Powell 08!

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see it happen but I don't think it will. Powell is not right enough for the Right Wingers that have the party hijacked.

natedogg
07-29-2004, 12:05 AM
Where is all this gushing love for Obama coming from? His speech was no different than any other's, full of empty rhetoric and bland platitudes. He looks good in a suit so his B.S. is somehow better? Gimme a break.

natedogg

GWB
07-29-2004, 12:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Where is all this gushing love for Obama coming from? His speech was no different than any other's, full of empty rhetoric and bland platitudes. He looks good in a suit so his B.S. is somehow better? Gimme a break.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll tell you why I'm gushing. Because he makes Kerry look pale by comparison. Let the Democrats enjoy a few great speeches at the expense of Kerry. Clinton was the keynote in 1988 - I didn't help Dukakis.

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 01:24 AM
did you read his speech or did you watch it?

natedogg
07-29-2004, 01:34 AM
I watched part, and read all. I agree he is more charismatic than Kerry by a long shot. He displayed passion and probably even some genuine sincerity.

But his speech sucked. One embarassing cliched platitude after another. Who cares if the delivery was slick? He was just as full of it as the next politician.

"In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead."

What does that MEAN? It doesn't tell me one damn thing about why I should vote for him or his party or Kerry.

How about: "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America"

Sounds great! Wait, there IS a liberal america and a conservative america! Is he lying? Or was he just misinformed by his intelligence service?

What a load of crap.

Oh, here's one thing he said that scares the hell out of me:

"It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. "

Thanks big brother, now please go home.

natedogg

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 01:46 AM
do you have a hard time seeing the bigger picture? Obama speech was a unity speech for the nation. Actually the first two days have been about unifyng the party and unifying the nation. The democrats are trying to reach out to the undecided and independent voters, just as the repubicans will do.

[ QUOTE ]
"In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead."

What does that MEAN?

[/ QUOTE ]
The demoncrats posistion is that the country is in tough times. Their message is that people shouldn;t despair, people should hope for better days(ie vote for them).

[ QUOTE ]
How about: "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America"

Sounds great! Wait, there IS a liberal america and a conservative america! Is he lying?

[/ QUOTE ] see above.... again he is trying to make the point of unifying voters and the country. Non-partisan politics.

SinCityGuy
07-29-2004, 02:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The dominance of the Dems on the black vote is about to splinter into pieces as the "old guard" becomes less and less relevant. The "block voting" trend will end in our lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

What have the Democrats ever brought to the table for African-Americans other than the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act and the right to organize?

Chris Alger
07-29-2004, 02:34 AM
For more about him read The Candidate (http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040531fa_fact1)

natedogg
07-29-2004, 03:33 AM
Unity is great, but it's non-specific, meaningless feel-good rhetoric. Not only that but both sides spew the same message. Bush is a "uniter not a divider", remember?

Anyway, to me, preaching about unity IS pandering and platitudinous.

natedogg

MMMMMM
07-29-2004, 03:46 AM
Obama's line about Brother's Keeper is terrifying in both its inaccuracy and its implications.

I didn't hear or read his speech but that one line is nearly enough to disqualify him in my mind.

Similarly, Hillary disqualified herself some time ago when she said, "We must stop thinking about the individual and start thinking about what's best for society".

Whatever you say, Comrade.

Dynasty
07-29-2004, 09:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Clinton was the keynote in 1988 - I didn't help Dukakis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton's speach was a disaster (didn't he introduce Dukakis?). He actually got a sarcastic cheer from the crowd when he was about to finish. It was so bad that he got a joke appearance on the Tonight Show.

That speech almost killed Clinton's Presidential chances. If the 1992 field hadn't been so weak, it would have.

M2d
07-29-2004, 10:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't hear or read his speech but that one line is nearly enough to disqualify him in my mind.


[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read or heard anything else you've written or said, but that one line is enought to make me discount anything you ever do close minded ramblings.

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 10:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't hear or read his speech but that one line is nearly enough to disqualify him in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ] You have jost lost a lot of respect with these few lines. Why don't you read something before you comment on them.

MMMMMM
07-29-2004, 11:08 AM
Good.

MMMMMM
07-29-2004, 11:33 AM
"Why don't you read something before you comment on them."


Because I was not commenting on his speech as a whole, but on one false statement--which statement, BTW, is IMO also quite dangerous in its implications:

"It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. "

What makes this country work is the free enterprise system, the constitutional protection of rights, and the democratic process--NOT AT ALL what Obama is claiming is what makes this country work.

It is so erroneous a statement, it boggles the mind that anyone can make it. Not to mention that there are deep inherent hazards in the "brother's keeper" concept.

Mano
07-29-2004, 01:17 PM
Perhaps if you read the statement in context, it would make a difference. Perhaps not. But taken out of context, you are not making an informed opinion.

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 02:13 PM
I agree completely with you Mano.

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 02:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What makes this country work is the free enterprise system, the constitutional protection of rights, and the democratic process--NOT AT ALL what Obama is claiming is what makes this country work.

[/ QUOTE ] You are clearly taking it out of context.... read the damn speech, then comment, otherwise I refuse to have a discussion with you about it.

MMMMMM
07-29-2004, 02:22 PM
Good point.

OK, I just went and read his entire speech. I agree that line doesn't look as bad in context as it does in isolation...but IMO it is still an inaccurate and misleading line.

I suppose it comes down to a difference in philosophy: some think poverty is best eradicated by allowing enterprise and frreedom to prosper, thereby raising the overall standard of aliving...while others believe redistribution to soime extent is the best path. There is also the "mixed economy" aprtoach , as adios hadsd pointed out. IMO the redistributionists are basically wrong.

Interestingly, I just read an article which stated that in Amereica, those classified as living under the poverty line still have a higher standard of living than the average European. That is a testament to the ability of greater free enterprise to raise the living standards of all, IMO--more so than does redistribution.

That "brother's keeper" concept scared the hell out of me--as does Hillary's urging us to focus on society rather than on the individual. Societyy is a collection of individuals, and there is no better way to ensure fairness for al than ensuring fairness for the individual. And by fairness I mean fairness of rights not results, because results will never in this world or universe be equal.

Thanks for pointing out that I should reads the line in context. I still feel the philosophy that Obama is espousing is very wrong, even though I agree that poverty in this country diminishes me even if I myself am not impoverished. I just disagree 98% on the methods of reducing poverty, that's all--and the "brother's keeper" concept is, if not very carefully followed, a slippery slope to unwarranted meddling and unintended harm--as well as too much "big brotherism".

If you want to know my most basic philosophy read Walden by Henry David Thoreau. (if only I were strong enough to better apply it). In my opinion all the do-gooding and starry-eyed plans and striving for the betterment of society don't equal the simple principles espoused in Walden: for the good of the individual, society, and even the world. Yet is is too much to hope that the majority of humans wil ever reach such a contemplative state in our lifetimes.

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 02:33 PM
First of all I am glad you read it finally.

[ QUOTE ]
I just disagree 98% on the methods of reducing poverty, that's all--and the "brother's keeper" concept is, if not very carefully followed, a slippery slope to unwarranted meddling and unintended harm--as well as too much "big brotherism".

[/ QUOTE ] To be honest with you, I thought his speech had more to do with people helping other people, and not neccesarily the government helping people. Also he was not simply referring to the poor. He was talking about those people in the middle and lower class who work hard everyday, and still cannot afford health care or save for their childs future education. I don't think he is neccesarily trying to help "raise" people up, he is simply trying to help people get by, and enjoy all the same opportunities as everyone else.

His line "I am my brothers keeper...etc." was inspirational, IMO. I think it may inspire people to help others, reach out, and try to help make other peoples lives better. Thats what I thought of that line, not some sort of "big-brother" government watching over our every move.... thats just some sort of paranoia, IMO.

MMMMMM
07-29-2004, 02:38 PM
All right, I can see where it can be taken as inspirational--but IMO that is certainly not the cornerstone of what makes America work or makes America great.

I think it is also pretty clear that Obama is subtly calling for more governmenmt programs designed to redress the ills he mentions--but I think most all such programs have a net negative effect instead of a net beneficial effect.

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 02:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
All right, I can see where it can be taken as inspirational--but IMO that is certainly not the cornerstone of what makes America work or makes America great.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think what makes America great is that everyone has an opportunity to succed here, and maybe Obama thinks thats the way for everyone to have a chance... who knows....

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-29-2004, 03:57 PM
The fact that people actually like that "brother's keeper" line just underscores the libertarian lament that most people are sheep.

When you agree that it's a fundamental belief that you are "your brother's" keeper, you tacitly accept that someone else is *your* keeper.

I for one am proud to stand up and say that I neither want nor need a "keeper."

Thus I do not share Barak Obama's fundamental belief. In fact, when he calls it such, he insults the people who don't believe it. The same old tired, condescending, moralistic dreck that the Democrats always give us.

Are you aware that when you assert that Barak Obama's moral vision should be implemeted by the government you also accept that Gerge W. Bush's should as well?

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-29-2004, 04:03 PM
I thought his speech had more to do with people helping other people, and not neccesarily the government helping people.

His speech had two specific purposes. To help John Forbes Kerry get elected President and to further Barak Obama's political career.

If you believe anything else you're incredibly naive.

MMMMMM
07-29-2004, 04:22 PM
^

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When you agree that it's a fundamental belief that you are "your brother's" keeper, you tacitly accept that someone else is *your* keeper.

[/ QUOTE ] you are connecting the dots on a picture which is not there. The term "your brothers keeper" is not mean to mean that you are to control someone and watch over them, it means that you "look after" someone like you would your brother. Brothers and sisters are on a different wavelength than are paren- sibling. You seem to think he is talking more about the parental type of keeper.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you aware that when you assert that Barak Obama's moral vision should be implemeted by the government you also accept that Gerge W. Bush's should as well?

[/ QUOTE ] again connecting dots which don't exist, as well as making a comparison to something completely different. Obama's moral vision does not need to be implemented by the government for it to succeed, in fact the most effective way for it to be implemented is by people...neighbors.. co-workers... friends.. family... Bush moral vision however has to be implemented through the government for it to work (ie abortion, gay marriage). There is a huge difference in what they are talking about.

ThaSaltCracka
07-29-2004, 05:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
His speech had two specific purposes. To help John Forbes Kerry get elected President and to further Barak Obama's political career.

If you believe anything else you're incredibly naive.

[/ QUOTE ] If thats all you believe, then you are a cynic, and you have probably given up hope that people still care. I can tell you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.

ArchAngel71857
07-30-2004, 12:09 PM
The first black US President will not be a Democrat. You can take that to the bank.

The first elected president or the first major presidential candidate?

-AA

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-30-2004, 12:13 PM
Elected

ArchAngel71857
07-30-2004, 12:20 PM
So it's possible Obama could be the Democratic candidate in 08 or 12 but lose to Frist?

-AA

Dynasty
07-30-2004, 12:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The first elected president or the first major presidential candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be hard to remember but Jesse Jackson wasn't a joke in 1988. Dukakis beat him handily for the nomination but Jackson put in a respectable finish.

Dynasty
07-30-2004, 12:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The first black US President will not be a Democrat. You can take that to the bank.

The first elected president or the first major presidential candidate?

-AA

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Elected

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not a Klingon response. A Klingon would probably wouldn't have dignified the question with an answer. But, if he said anything it would have been something like:

I meant exactly what I said. It was unambiguous.

elwoodblues
07-30-2004, 12:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It was not unambiguous

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't helping clear things up /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Dynasty
07-30-2004, 12:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was not unambiguous

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't helping clear things up /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately, I have used the Guardian of Forever to travel backwards in time twenty minutes to fix the past. All is as it should be.

ArchAngel71857
07-30-2004, 01:24 PM
It may be hard to remember but Jesse Jackson wasn't a joke in 1988.

While I was only 9 at the time, I will never be able to say the phrase "Jesse Jackson wasn't a joke."

But while Jackson may have left a significant impression on the election, I was wondering which of the statements Kurn meant:

1. The Democrats will not have the first black candidate.

2. When a black president takes office, he will not be from the Democratic party.

-AA

Philuva
07-30-2004, 01:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is also pretty clear that Obama is subtly calling for more governmenmt programs designed to redress the ills he mentions--but I think most all such programs have a net negative effect instead of a net beneficial effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was also made it a point to single out Arab Americans being held without powers of attorney. Governments going through libraries. Government using religion to divide the nation.

I agree with Salt Cracka that I took the "Brother's keeper" line as inspirational. Calling for Americans not to watch over other Americans as a "big brother", but to help or support their fellow Americans who may be impoverished, unjustly prosecuted, etc. As a big time Libertarian, I find nothing wrong with that, and I actually agree.

Also, one of the biggest roles of a President should be to inspire people, which I thought he did quite well.

MMMMMM
07-30-2004, 01:54 PM
I can see it as inspirational, but coming amidst a bunch of typical Democrat social aid concerns, it strikes me as more in the way of support more social programs/highert taxes (which translates, too, to more government control).

ThaSaltCracka
07-30-2004, 02:01 PM
since you read his speech, I am surprised his line "people don't want their taxes being wasted on welfare programs or by the pentagon.", didn't excite you.
I think he was advocating for reform of welfare programs, while giving more assistance to the middle class. But I guess people interpret things differently.

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-30-2004, 02:12 PM
What's your f*cking point?

Dyansty - is that a more Klingon reponse?

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-30-2004, 02:19 PM
My words were: The first black president will not be a Democrat.

What's ambiguous about this statement. Is the word "candidate" there?

I answered the question because I thought it necessary to separate *elected* from rising to the presidency through the order of succession.

Which brings up my favorite trick question to ask people here in Mass.

Who was the youngest person to be President of the U.S.? People up here almost always get it wrong.

MMMMMM
07-30-2004, 02:22 PM
So he isn't for welfare program waste but he is for social programs;-) Almost the same thing, both incur huge amounts of waste and both drag down the economy.

By the way, I am strongly for defense spending so that line didn't sit well with me either (even though he qualified it by "weaste" I think we know that means he is in favor of cutting defense).

ArchAngel71857
07-30-2004, 03:13 PM
I answered the question because I thought it necessary to separate *elected* from rising to the presidency through the order of succession.

Hahahaha.

Who was the youngest person to be President of the U.S.? People up here almost always get it wrong.

Is it not JFK?

-AA

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-30-2004, 03:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Who was the youngest person to be President of the U.S.? People up here almost always get it wrong.

Is it not JFK?

-AA

[/ QUOTE ]

No. JFK was the youngest person ever *elected* President (44). Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he became president after McKinley was assassinated.

ArchAngel71857
07-30-2004, 03:27 PM
No. JFK was the youngest person ever *elected* President (44). Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he became president after McKinley was assassinated.

Still wouldn't have gotten it. I def thought JFK was younger than 42 when elected President.

-AA

Kurn, son of Mogh
07-30-2004, 03:34 PM
Now that i think about it. I think JFK was 43. I think he was born in 1917.

Senor Choppy
07-30-2004, 04:17 PM
We're at least 25 years away from a black candidate having a legitiimate shot to win, and it won't be a guy with a name that rhymes with Osama.