Obama '08?

He may be a hero in the forests of voters but soon he will have to enter the valley of politics where the arrows are sharp.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What a pile of horsesh*t.

The ratio of criticism towards you, Fox, is 10 - 1 in favor of your incredibly poor logic, not your 'socially unacceptable' viewpoints.

sozobe wrote:

I have to agree with Cycloptichorn there. When we get down to the nitty-gritty I often find something to agree with, Foxfyre, but there are so many layers of generalizations and buzzwords and illogic that the nitty-gritty is often elusive.

Sorry.

Echo that. Its not about 'socially unacceptable' points of view. There are posters who are as conservative as you are, but who do not invite the responses you get. Georgeob1, for example. That should give one pause.

Hell, there have been posters even further right still than you whom I, at least, never had any quarrel with, beyond obvious differences in POV - Fedral, for example. He was rightwing as sin; his politics, to me, were unpalatable - but he had a mind of his own, rarely spouted talking points, came out against the government when questions of conscience came up as well, and didnt fudge or dissemble.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
snood wrote:
After all, Bush's biggest selling point, as I remember it, was his "likability".

No. I think you're thinking of John Kerry's "unlikability". As in most categories; Bush is mediocre. Kerry lowered the bar. :wink:

No, no- I distinctly remember a whole lot of banter - right from the outset, even before the nominee was selected, about what a "likable" sort GW Bush was, and how much anyone would love to have him over for a beer.

Yep. You're totally right. Especially re 2000.

But even still in 2004 - remember the second and third Bush/Kerry debate? The first one was a disaster for Bush, so he shaped up and the other two were mostly judged to have been ties - with the common take being that Kerry may have argued a bit more deftly and knowledgeably, but Bush came off looking at least as well simply because he once more used that folksy touch. Putting things in the words regular folks do - if you had to invite one of 'em over for a BBQ, one of the standard "analyses" was, you'd choose Bush anyday, and that was one of Bush's prime selling points. There was lots of that.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What a pile of horsesh*t.

The ratio of criticism towards you, Fox, is 10 - 1 in favor of your incredibly poor logic, not your 'socially unacceptable' viewpoints.

sozobe wrote:
I have to agree with Cycloptichorn there. When we get down to the nitty-gritty I often find something to agree with, Foxfyre, but there are so many layers of generalizations and buzzwords and illogic that the nitty-gritty is often elusive.

Sorry.

Echo that. Its not about 'socially unacceptable' points of view. There are posters who are as conservative as you are, but who do not invite the responses you get. Georgeob1, for example. That should give one pause.

Hell, there have been posters even further right still than you whom I, at least, never had any quarrel with, beyond obvious differences in POV - Fedral, for example. He was rightwing as sin; his politics, to me, were unpalatable - but he had a mind of his own, rarely spouted talking points, came out against the government when questions of conscience came up as well, and didnt fudge or dissemble.

Foxfyre, if you read this, don't be bothered with this prattle. Sensible people in the real world agree with you. Only the extreme lefties, that hold sway on this forum and therefore think they do the same in the entire country, think you make unreasonable comments. They never prove what they are anyway. They make the accusation, at which time a half dozen chime in to reinforce their delusional leftist thinking.

0 Replies

Barack Obama can be whatever he wants to be

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Thomas, you asked snood and not me, but do you mind if I reply?

Not at all. The only reason I addressed Snood was to shove my debating morality down his throat. I wanted to make him talk about the issues, rather than about other posters' failure to talk about the issues. So, strictly preachiness and arrogance on my part. No reason why you shouldn't respond as well.

sozobe wrote:

However, a mitigating factor for me is the electability issue.

I agree. That's why I edited my post to say "he lost points with me" instead of "he lost a lot of points with me."

sozobe wrote:

As I've said, I probably agree with Russ Feingold more thoroughly and consistently than Obama -- but I don't think Feingold could be elected President of the United States.

I understand -- although we probably disagree about the extent to which a party should preemptively surrender to the Zeitgeist of the day. There was a time when nobody could imagine a governor Ventura, a governor Schwarzenegger, or a governor and president Reagan. Yet these "unelectable" people were elected. There also was a time when Robert Kennedy would have swept the presidential elections, had he not been assassinated. Robert Kennedy was arguably more liberal than Edward Kennedy, and would surely fail your electability test today.

In my opinion, there is a real danger that "electability" filters for the next election turn into self-fulfilling prophesies by which you trade the presidents you want in the long run for the president you think your opponents will settle for. That's why I barely use this filter myself.

0 Replies

I don't know. I think all of the people you mention were, for their time, electable. I mean, that's where the political junkie part comes in, trying to determine what electability really means in that particular political moment. I thought Ventura would win, and I thought Schwartzenegger had a great chance though I wasn't sure. Kennedy was before my time, but he was the brother of an extremely popular and martyred president.

I just think it's extremely bad news for the Democrats to field a patently unelectable candidate, and I think Feingold for example fits in that category, as much as I like him. I wish him well, I don't want him to win the Democratic nomination.

This goes back to the two-party system and problems therein, of course. But in terms of the current system.

0 Replies

Let me add that in terms of "There was a time when nobody could imagine...," there may well come a time when Feingold will be electable and if so I'd support him wholeheartedly -- I just don't think that time will happen between now and 2008. (But I'm open to the possibility.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I just think it's extremely bad news for the Democrats to field a patently unelectable candidate, and I think Feingold for example fits in that category, as much as I like him.

I don't know about Feingold, but we can agree it would be bad news for the Democrats if they nominated Al Sharpton. Let's make sure that doesn't happen!

0 Replies

I think Mr. Notso Sharpton would be a great Democratic candidate.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think Mr. Notso Sharpton would be a great Democratic candidate.

Yes, perhaps he would run against the republican candidate Pat Robertson.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I think Mr. Notso Sharpton would be a great Democratic candidate.

Yes, perhaps he would run against the republican candidate Pat Robertson.

Cage match!

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I think Mr. Notso Sharpton would be a great Democratic candidate.

Yes, perhaps he would run against the republican candidate Pat Robertson.

Cage match!

I'd watch that for a buck.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are seeking political office in the United States , Obama joined the United Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.

If his mother is an atheist, he seems as likely to still be an atheist as a Muslim. Have you considered the possibility that he joined this church because he's an atheist and wants to conceal it? (I read somewhere that few Americans would vote for an Muslim president, but even fewer would vote for an atheist.)

Since it's clear to you that Obama's move was tactical, why are you assuming it's a Muslim faith he's concealing, rather than the lack of any faith at all?

0 Replies

He had attended a Roman Catholic school in Indonesia, which makes him even worse. (My primary school was one, too!)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

He had attended a Roman Catholic school in Indonesia, which makes him even worse. (My primary school was one, too!)

Bummer. No American presidency for you, Walter!

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

This is from Google and Wikipedia.com

Could you give links to the info you found on Google please? I've just reread the wikipedia articles on Obama and don't find much of what you posted there. I'd like to read the info you found elsewhere in its entirety.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

In my opinion, there is a real danger that "electability" filters for the next election turn into self-fulfilling prophesies by which you trade the presidents you want in the long run for the president you think your opponents will settle for.

Second that. Makes you think: would a desired candidate really have done much worse than the "electable" candidate the Dem primary voters settled for in 2000 and 2004?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know