Obama '08?

Rusting Star

0 Replies

I really wonder that the conservatives don't support a possible Democrat candidate :wink:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Obama tells the Chicago Tribune he'd be a "viable" presidential candidate, but he says hype won't dictate his decision:

I'm sure he's in agony for having to tease people like that.

0 Replies

I have joined up with the Kucinich support group on-line but keeping an open mind about Obama

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I was apparently unclear. I didn't mean to suggest Obama was sensitive about it. I was suggesting Blatham is... as I've seen him bristle repeatedly, in the face of what I consider a boogieman. Obama is handling it well.

I can't imagine a negative electoral consequence for Obama here. Those who might be influenced by the middle name will be fringe types who would not, as Obama suggests, vote for him in any case. And there is the risk that such a campaign tactic would produce a backlash with negative consequences going against republican candidates. The boogieman isn't in the voting booth.

The real concern is the decline in American political discourse. To the degree that you guys give licence to this decline, to that degree your society is made less rational, more hateful and divisive, and your political process demeaned and made less helpful and effective for all of you.

An earlier example saw Hastert saying about George Soros, "I don't know that his money doesn't come from the drug trade." That's true, he didn't know that. It's equally true that "I don't know that Hastert or bill or okie don't rape children". In either case, such a public statement has an evident intention, which is to slime through irrelevant or unwarranted suggestion. It is moral and intellectual barrel-bottom and its destructive to your democratic enterprise.

0 Replies

Re: the Will piece posted a bit ago, there are several tonal issues that had me lifting an eyebrow but I do think he has a point about Obama backing himself into a corner the longer he allows speculation to build. If after all of this he decides "no", it may well harm his chances for a later bid (as opposed to if he just kept to his "absolutely not" early pronouncements and never got to this point).

Several of us think he's going to say "yes" anyway, but that's another piece of evidence, as I think Obama is smart enough to realize that (the consequences of getting the girl on her tippytoes but failing to kiss her) and wouldn't take that chance. I think he's just picking his moment. (Ooh!)

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

But slight though Obama's record might be, one thing is clear: He leans decidedly to the left.

Voteview.com, a website run by a network of sociologists, uses a scientifically peer-reviewed methodology to rank Members of Congress on a left-right scale. It's the closest thing I know to an objective measure of these things, and the only variant of these rankings that I trust. Its analsysis of the 109th Senate assigns 100 ranks, ranging from Barbara Boxer (D) (#1) on the left to John Sununu Jr. (R) (#100) on the right. Only one Republican, John Chafee (R)(#46), is to the left of any Democrat; only one Democrat, Ben Nelson (D) (#47), is to the right of any Republican. (As a sidenote, the 109th Congress was the most polarized since the end of Reconstruction.)

Anyway, which rung of this scale is Obama on? He ranks #20 -- almost in the middle among the Democratic Senators, but left of any Republican Senator of course.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I think Obama is smart enough to realize that (the consequences of getting the girl on her tippytoes but failing to kiss her) and wouldn't take that chance. I think he's just picking his moment. (Ooh!)

Spoken like a girl on her tiptoes. Razz

0 Replies

I thought of that. :-) I wrote the "ooh" first and then added the clarification line (tippytoes et al in parentheses) and then frowned at the juxtaposition but decided to leave it. Everyone already knows I'm a fan. :-)

0 Replies

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061214/gorrell.jpg

0 Replies

McG, There are no "platforms" until he announces to run for prez. All his speeches are generalities without specifics that seems to win friends and supporters.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

The boogieman isn't in the voting booth...It is moral and intellectual barrel-bottom and its destructive to your democratic enterprise.

I'll buy that, my friend... but mostly out of courtesy. However, directing your animosity towards matter-of-fact-mentions of a man's middle name seems a bit misguided. Campaign Finance Reform is what you should be screaming for. Between the Swifties and Michael Moore you can find the barrel's true bottom. Guys like George Soros and Bob Perry finance much of the objectionable material, but it is the laws you should be denouncing. You will forever get more bang for your buck slinging mud (and always have), so limiting individual's ability to finance 527's is one of the keys. Nimh made an awesome point a while back about the 2 Party System being to blame for much of the excess mudslinging. Since both the mudslinger and the target get muddy, Multi-Party systems provide a deterrent to the tactic. This would make an awesome corner stone for an Obama Candidacy, and would likely earn my vote. Conversely, I don't think we need to regulate the use of middle names.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Re: the Will piece posted a bit ago, there are several tonal issues that had me lifting an eyebrow but I do think he has a point about Obama backing himself into a corner the longer he allows speculation to build. If after all of this he decides "no", it may well harm his chances for a later bid (as opposed to if he just kept to his "absolutely not" early pronouncements and never got to this point).

Several of us think he's going to say "yes" anyway, but that's another piece of evidence, as I think Obama is smart enough to realize that (the consequences of getting the girl on her tippytoes but failing to kiss her) and wouldn't take that chance. I think he's just picking his moment. (Ooh!)

I think it's a given that he'll say yes for all the reasons Will mentioned. (And I understand the raised eyebrow thing. It seems a given that a right-of-center pundit is unable to give a 100% rave review to somebody left-of-center even when the positives substantially outweigh the negatives. Ditto for a left tilted pundit trying to write something favorable about somebody right of center. But we all have to smooth down our bristles a bit when our heroes seem to almost be criticized by rote.)

I thought the most interesting thing in Will's column, however, was the analysis of the party's expectations of being re-elected and how a Democrat win looks probable in 2008 and a GOP win could be probable in 2016 which would likely be Obama's next opportunity in any case if he doesn't take this one.

I don't have a clue whether Will's assessment of that is on the mark, but he makes a convincing argument.

For the sake of argument, if Will is correct about that, and anybody else is paying attention to that, don't you think that will make for an even bigger catfight in the primaries?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

....Campaign Finance Reform is what you should be screaming for. Between the Swifties and Michael Moore you can find the barrel's true bottom. ....

OB, I think you are sadly mistaken to group the Swiftees with Michael Moore. There is no comparison between honorable veterans bringing out the truth of their own legitimate experience and a socialist windbag that makes so called "documentaries" with fiction.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
....Campaign Finance Reform is what you should be screaming for. Between the Swifties and Michael Moore you can find the barrel's true bottom. ....

OB, I think you are sadly mistaken to group the Swiftees with Michael Moore. There is no comparison between honorable veterans bringing out the truth of their own legitimate experience and a socialist windbag that makes so called "documentaries" with fiction.

I notice, okie, that you're generous in applying the "socialist" label. That's your perogative, of course, but you might be more persuasive if you lightened up on the red baiting...

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

I notice, okie, that you're generous in applying the "socialist" label. That's your perogative, of course, but you might be more persuasive if you lightened up on the red baiting...

I'm sorry you haven't apparently figured out what Michael Moore is about. Simply go to his own website and you will find links to some of his favorite websites, including this one:

http://www.broadleft.org/

which contains this information:
"This page contains the entire spectrum of political parties, organizations and groups which consider themselves to be leftist or have origins in leftist movements. You will find democratic socialists and reform communists as well as social democratic and green parties, traditional communists, marxists-leninists of stalinist or maoist persuasions, the tendencies of trotskyism, left communists, guerrilla organizations, leftist movements struggling for national or ethnic liberation or for regional autonomy, the different currents of anarchism, alliances with leftist participation and parties outside of these categories."

0 Replies

I'm not sure what this has to do with Obama, but your link, okie, leads to a site with Copyright by Nico Biver and hosted by the Marxists Internet Archive.

I'm a bit confused now about your point here.

0 Replies

Sorry to simply answer a question. I pointed out to OB that the Swiftees and Michael Moore were not a good comparison, and labeled Michael Moore as a socialist windbag, which he is, and does not deserve to be compared in the same sentence with the Swift Boat veterans, at which point I was accused of red baiting, so I simply pointed out a link from Michael Moore's own website to demonstrate he has clear socialist and communist leanings.

Just trying to set the record straight, thats all.
Carry on.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I simply pointed out a link from Michael Moore's own website to demonstrate he has clear socialist and communist leanings.

Just trying to set the record straight, thats all.
Carry on.

You mean ... Shocked

Do you know that your President is quite friendly with Tony Blair, the leader of the Socialistic Party in Britain?

0 Replies

Walter, Lumping Michael Moore with Tony Blair is almost as bad as lumping Michael Moore with the Swiftees. We would be quite glad if Michael would move to Germany if you want him.

There are many contexts and degrees of the term and meaning of the term, "Socialist," and I think it is pointless to go into that subject for now. Suffice it to say Michael is a nut, take the term "socialist" out of it if that makes you feel better, Walter.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know