Obama '08?

nimh wrote:

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?

It's impossible to know, of course. But the "electable" one came pretty damn close. I can't imagine that Russ Feingold would have done better, and there wasn't anybody else who comes to mind who I really liked and who really had a chance. I don't think Edwards purposely hid his light under a bushel during debates et al for Kerry's benefit, and if that was his best shot, it wasn't election-winning material.

It's basically fruitless since we don't have an alternate-universe portal (well, I don't), but Thomas' quip about Sharpton shows that everyone uses that filter to some extent. I mean, we don't want the smelly guy pushing a shopping cart to be the Democratic nominee, do we?

I think Hillary is actually the more received-wisdom "electable" candidate here, and that Obama is the one who is more in the upstart/ desired category.

0 Replies

I support Dennis Kucinich (surprised?) because I think he is a voice, an opinion, that should be heard. I don't think he is electable but that does not discount the value of his input (I agree with him about 50%) I am like totally sick of the mayonnaise non-opinons of the main-stream (electable) candidates. I would love to see a Kuninich vs Goldwater type go head to head, the US would benefit to hear some honesty. I would also enjoy a 3rd being someone like Ron Paul.

0 Replies

I'd happily listen to Kucinich, and hope his campaign gives him a forum. I plain don't want to hand the election to the Republicans, though. I do think there is a difference between the parties, as I hope the last 6 years have demonstrated.

Plus, I don't think Obama is particularly mayonnaise-y. That's the point, that's why I started this thread -- I agree with him well over 50% of the time AND I think he has an actual chance. It's the intersection of those two things that get me excited.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'll run only after Ahnold succeeded.

Wrong pronounciation, you Prussian! It's "Ahnuld".

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Plus, I don't think Obama is particularly mayonnaise-y.

Maybe it's my fault, but I can't remember a single unorthodox stand he has taken. Could you help me out there?

0 Replies

If you had turned of the bass booster on your system's sound maschine a bit, you would have heard that I pronounced it in best Steyrish-Austrian!

0 Replies

Can we define "unorthodox" a bit? I mean, he's been rather brutal re: Bush but that probably won't count.

Not many politicians have admitted drug use, much less trying cocaine -- that can't be considered very orthodox but I'm not sure it's a position.

So let me know what would qualify, as a concept. I'm not sure that anyone with a better chance than smelly guy with the shopping cart would be on record with anything too unorthodox.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Can we define "unorthodox" a bit?

Well, it's an "I know it when I see it" thing for me, but let's try this definition: A position is "unorthodox" to the extent that a large majority of the general population and of the position-taker's own party disagrees with it.

0 Replies

Think Giuliani on Abortion and gun control.
Or Hillary the Hawk.( Laughing

)

0 Replies

Will you be getting the unorthodox positions of all the other viable candidates, too?

Some of the things that I think make Obama un-mayonnaise-y (which was my original claim, not orthodoxy or lack thereof):

- Admitted drug use
- General candor about life, attitude of plainspokenness and lack of spin
- Against the death penalty -- that almost qualifies for your "majority" definition, hard to call.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=209&scid=23

- Aggressively working on alternative energy sources
- Aggressively working on aid for Africa
- Aggressively working on AIDS issues, especially in Africa
- Believes health care is a right, wants to ensure basic care for all
- Very liberal on immigration issues
- Outspokenly religious (at odds with his party)
- 100% rating from Planned Parenthood
- F from the NRA

Overall, one of the things I like best about him is his appreciation of nuance and subtleties, which doesn't really go with extreme stands of any kind.

0 Replies

As far as I can tell (harder stat to find than I expected) he's at odds with his party when it comes to gay marriage, too:

Code:

  CBS News/New York Times  Poll. Oct. 27-31, 2006. N=1,084 adults nationwide. MoE ±  3 (for all adults).

						



.



"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."

						



.

		Legal

Marriage 	Civil

Unions 	No Legal

Recognition 	Unsure 	

		% 	% 	% 	% 	

	ALL adults 	28 	29 	38 	5 	

	  Republicans 	12 	29 	54 	5 	

	  [b]Democrats 	41 	27 	29 	3[/b] 	

	  Independents 	28 	31 	35 	6 	

						



.

	Trend:

	6/06 	27 	30 	40 	3 	

	2/24-28/05 	23 	34 	41 	2 	

	



11/18-21/04

	21 	32 	44 	3 	

	7/11-15/04 	28 	31 	38 	3 	

	5/20-23/04 	28 	29 	40 	3 	

	3/10-14/04 	22 	33 	40 	5

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Since I always mess up these things (Tico gave me a tip then I promptly forgot it), the bolded part is that the majority of Democrats in this poll supported legal marriage for gays and lesbians.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:
For anyone wishing to learn more about Obama on various issues, here's a great website:

The substance is there. There's a lot more to him than charisma if you're willing to do some reading.

There is indeed. Thanks, Butrflynet, for posting this link.

As I expected, I largely agree with Obama about civil rights, but largely disagree with him about economic, labor, and environmental regulations. Where the two areas conflict, I disagree with him (for example, he "strongly favors `require companies to hire women and minorities'", whereas I disagree with it; I believe in freedom of contract in this matter).

So far I see two notable exceptions to this rule. (1) I agree with Obama that the Bush tax cuts aren't doing much good for the economy in general and for the middle class in particular. They shouldn't be made permanent; indeed, they ought to be reversed, and then some. (2) In terms of civil rights, Obama lost points with me for his position on gay marriage: "Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006). Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)" To be clear, the parts I object to are "opposes gay marriage" and "marriage not a human right".

snood wrote:
Yeah, but who'd want to cloud the real issues - that Obama is all fluff and pretty face so far, and no one knows what he thinks - with facts like his views on issues?

Snood, what do you think of Obama's views on the issues listed in Buttrflynet's link?

I don't get the same impression as you do on Obama's stance on gay marriage. Am I misreading something?

Reading his quotes at that link, he opposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Was he opposing gay marriage or the use of a constitutional ban for that purpose?

He doesn't think marriage is a civil right, he doesn't specify a flavor of marriage.

When asked in 1998, if Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages he was undecided.

This quote from his book is too vague to know what it refers to. Don't know if the header applied to it is from his book or the website's header.

Quote:

Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality
a civil union that confers equivalent rights no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simlpy because the people they love are of the same sex--nor am I willing to accept a readingof the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.
The heightened focus on marriage is a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination and gays and lesbians.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.222-3 Oct 1, 2006

0 Replies

So first it was CNN, now Yahoo news.

Twice, in two days, major news outlets have gotten Obama and Osama bin Laden mixed up.

Kind of interesting, to say the least

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2007-01-03_Obama_Yahoo_1.jpg

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/03/yahoo_news_captions_obama_photo_with_name_osama

0 Replies

snood wrote:

So first it was CNN, now Yahoo news.

Twice, in two days, major news outlets have gotten Obama and Osama bin Laden mixed up.

Kind of interesting, to say the least

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/03/yahoo_news_captions_obama_photo_with_name_osama

I'm like totally sure this is a totally innocent error, don't you think snood? I mean like, no one would intentionally confuse Osama and Obama, right?

0 Replies

I really have no idea what's up with it, Dys. It probably wouldn't even have raised my eyebrow, if it hadn't happened twice in two days...

0 Replies

Ayup. This could be a very very ugly time in American politics. A lot of white men are feeling mighty unsettled with having a woman AND a black man this close to the possibility of being president.

Pelosi is already standing in line and that's close enough.

0 Replies

I know. It is just funny to me - when I hear some people talking about "I don't look at race or gender- I consider the person's qualifications and character".

You look at the newspapers and other media, and you see stories asking the question, over and over, in many different ways, "Is America Ready For A Woman or A Black President?"

One would think that if that question has to be asked, it says a definite something about the truest picture of the national attitude.

We're talking about messing with something that's been absolutely untouched and inviolate since the beginning of this country - a white male, without any discernable traces of anything more exotic than some tame Catholicism (JFK), has always occupied the white house. There are people who just don't want that bit of comfort zone f*cked with.

0 Replies

That is pretty interesting, isn't it? Have you seen THIS

0 Replies

Almost all the insecure white men (many of them closet cases) already vote straight REPUBLICAN so Obama won't lose any measurable votes due to race. And he will gain immensely. I do not think the Dems have ever lost a Presidential contest in which blacks came out in huge numbers. (Except maybe 2000 and in that case their vote was supressed)

0 Replies

I wasn't talking about votes. I was referring to the election process.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know