Obama '08?

I seen a poll on TV this morning (no claims of veracity) that suggested "government spending" has climbed as high as "the Iraq war" in the minds of the voting public. This is a stand anyone can make... and wouldn't it be really neat if someone meant it? Perot managed to glean 19% of the popular vote against both an incumbent who'd "won a war" and the charismatic, sax-playing Clinton. No small feat, that. Not when you consider the enormous disadvantages any third party has to face.

I think Obama can pretty much have the Democratic votes for the asking, an increased percentage of the female vote, one would think an overwhelming majority of the minority vote... and if he were to model his campaign after Perot's (Deficit is killing us, business as usual is why, etc.), he'd likely see the vast majority of independents as well.

It would be a tough row to hoe; reconciling increased education spending, etc. with decreased revenues, but who better than the most charismatic to try? At the very least I would expect such a campaign to steer the direction of the entire race towards these very real problems... much like the rhetoric from Bush and Clinton veered that way in 92, because of Ross.

The difference would be that:
a) Obama would be harder to paint as a nut.
b) He'd have the full financial and moral backing of one of the two major parties.
c) His delivery may be even more compelling than Perot's (if that's possible. I still maintain; if every voter had listened to Ross talk for a couple of hours, he'd have won easily).
d) He'd only have one man (realistically) and one major party to beat instead of two.

Show me this, along with some indication that he won't be weak on terror and he can have my vote for the asking as well. Hell, show me a stance like Ross's and I'll join Soz in the grass roots campaign. I believe I was personally responsible for swaying over a dozen votes to Ross in 92 and have a much better platform with which to do so today.

Strategic aside: I think a candidate might do well by himself by largely ducking the terrorism brawl by stating that our generals are doing a fine job and deferring the responsibility to the "experts". Regardless of right/wrong feelings of why we got there, it's paramount to see the job through... exactly the way Bush himself describes it in context, but with Obama's charm. This would eliminate the "weak on terror" backlash AND the "you have no alternative plan" accusations in one fell swoop. Done right; I think it would afford him the opportunity to switch the focus to his own agenda instead of getting bogged down in that… something Kerry/Edwards utterly and completely failed to do.

Probably wishful thinking on my part... but at the very least; I want the Democrats to mount a campaign strong enough to force some moderate thinking Republicans into office. I don't care for the anti-women's rights, or religious underpinnings of the current Republican party. Like Setanta; I too voted for what I thought was the lessor of two evils. The mere possibility of voting for someone who actually moves me is rather exciting!
Go for it Sozobe!

NEOCON SMOOTHIE : BARAK "OBOMBA" IRAN
Democratic simpletons are falling into the ditch - yet again. The latest snake oil salesmen that has renderd them agag is Ill. junior Senator Barak "Obomba" Iran. He's another DLC-crat , a minstrel in black face ..... Infantile peabrains want to install this neocon stalking horse as the running-mate to Hillary " Bolton" -Clinton..... They richly deserve each other...... And all those who would fall under the spell of this "progressive" Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker act richly deserve the ignominy of watching their heros go down to crashing defeat in' 08 ..... Neocons Obomba and Bolton-Clinton both are zealous advocates of miltary strikes against yet another straw man , "Atomic Iran" ..... We've got to take out their nuclear bomb programme , the threat is grave and imminent ,they insist . Yet no credible evidence has emerged that Iran has an atombic bombs programe . .... They are acting as outlaws ,international pariah , Obomba insists . In fact Iran has signed the NPT , submitted to far reaching inspections which have yielded no results indicating that "Atomic Iran" is anything but yet another neocon paranoid fantasy... Obomba and Bolton - Clinton won't let small things such as facts & evidence get away of their crazed pursuit of power...... To hell with the safety of United States Armed Forces , to hell with the depleted uranium thatb has decendd on not just Iraq, Afghanistan, and the former Yugoslavia but the entire world - including "Amurka". .... "Neocon" Trotskyites must be appeased at all cost .

By : SON OF A BUSH
March Saturday 18th 2006

It would be a pity to see him fall at Hillary's side. I don't believe for one fleeting moment that United States is ready to elect Hillary to the oval office. Her new story isn't so bad, but who's buying it? Hopefully, the Democrats will figure that out along the way. (Btw, the author of that piece might want to check what the IAEA has to say about Iran's participation in the NPT before printing such drivel.)

Blue,

That **** is definitely over the top!

Anon

OCCUM, there cant be double standards. All nations should listen to common sense like this from ElBaradei at the IAEA, "BERLIN (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog called on the United States Tuesday to set an example to the rest of the world by cutting its nuclear arsenal and halting research programs.

"The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

"In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards we will end up with more nuclear weapons. We are at a turning point," ElBaradei told Stern in the interview released ahead of publication."

"Iran denies that it now has - or has had, since the CIA-installed Shah fled - a nuclear weapons program.

For more than two years, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been conducting intrusive inspections of all Iranian civilian nuclear sites - as well as numerous military sites suggested by the CIA. Iran has been voluntarily cooperating with the IAEA, even though the number and scope of these inspections go far beyond that required of Iran by its Safeguards agreement, even beyond that would be required if an Additional Protocol to Iran's Safeguards agreement was in force, which it is not since it hasn't been ratified by Iran's parliament.

As best the IAEA can tell, the Iranians are telling the truth, even about things they have told the IAEA that they were under no obligation to tell.

In report after report, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei says that all "declared source and special nuclear materials" are now accounted for and that there is "no indication" of undeclared materials, nor of a nuclear weapons program in Iran." http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8721

Wrong thread, BF. Point me to a more appropriate location and I'll happily respond.

OCCUM, sorry. I posted a piece about Obama complaining about his sabre rattling over Iran. Very much on topic. No sense in talking about Obama without getting specific. And you responded with a statement about the IAEA. I naturally replied because the IAEA has been making contradictory statements to what Bushie, Obama and you seem to be saying.

Contradictions in politics is the nature of the beast. Nothing new or old there!

cicerone, I'm simply saying Obama is a bit to wishy washy for my tastes and to willing to help spread lies about Iran's nuke program. Many Dems say they were misled by Bushie on Iraq's WMD before that war yet they seem to be falling for the same kind of lies over Iran.

bf, We will never agree 100 percent with the rhetoric or policies of any candidate or president. We must learn to balance what is best for our country, then decide.

If we look at the two major parties and the potential candidates for president in 2008, it doesn't leave much choice but to pick who we think will be best for our country.

Holy **** what a bizarre screed!

If there's a good point in there (and who knows, there might be), the author does a great job in hiding it, with all his over-the-top madness!

Hey Blueflame, who would you like to have run for the Democratic nomination?

nimh, I like Feingold and Boxer.

cicerone, I dont expect to ever agree with any candidate 100%. But war is one issue that matters above all others. We've just been lied into war. And are in the midst of another lying jag. Rather than sabre rattling I think Hilary and Obama and the rest of the Dems should insist on more than lies. I agree with ElBaradei. The US must lead the world towards non-proliferation and arms control. Bushie has led us in the wrong direction. It was a colossal mistake from the beginning and it destroyed many decades of progress on arms control.

Cool. Soz, you liked Feingold too, didnt you?

Blue,

No one hates war more than I do, but you have to go with someine who appeals to the middle, and neither of those choices do that.

Anon

nimh, yes. And I hope we avert war with Iran. There are better ways.

BF, disagreeing with Obama's proposed solutions to the Iran issue is spot-on topic relevant. Producing idiotic author's denials that there is an issue is not. 27 out of 35 member nations on the IAEA's board didn't vote to refer Iran to the UNSC for nothing. A simple google search will yield you a plethora of sources to confirm why. While the language, and/or rhetoric if you prefer, from the Bush administration may be similar to Iraq, neither the threat potential nor the number of countries asserting as much can be compared. Your source's denial of this is as silly as it is false and should a debate be necessary to prove this to you, a different thread should be utilized. It has little to do with Obama in 08.
In fact; why not answer here.

I personally like Feingold a lot. All other factors aside, I he and Obama are about equal in terms of my regard.

In terms of electability, I think Obama is much more exciting. All of the benefits, fewer deficits.

Anon, the middle huh? Well the middle has enabled Bushie's war crimes, torture, warrantless spying and attacks on liberty. The middle means more war as far as I can see. Obama's sabre rattling dont even come from the middle. ElBaradei is my middle as he was in Iraq. He proved America's hysteria over nukes to be hysteria and called their evidence fake and fabricated. And that story is repeating in Iran. Neither Bushie or Obama seem to care about the facts ElBaradei has presented on Iran. They're spreading fear and Americans are buying lies once again. Also I do understand that pols go towards the middle in elections but I have grave doubts that our votes count anymore anyway. But that's another conspiracy theory altogether.