Barack Obama... The Great Black Hope???

Izdaari · #21 (**permalink**) 02-17-2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Not that it really matters ..a candidates appearance..but I like how Obama looks. I think racial blends make beautiful people. However what is important is character and issues...I like his stance on issues so far and he seems of good character. I see leadership and energy. I am watching him.

I agree on the looks, both on Obama specifically and on multiracial folk in general. I are one meself, though much more of a diverse mixture than he is. I think he's a handsome and charming guy, and if he weren't married I'd date him anytime. Oh wait, he's still a smoker and I don't date smokers... because kissing a smoker really is like licking an ashtray.

He isn't likely to get my vote though. His ultra-liberal (100% ADA for 2005) voting record means we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on much.

cat's meow · #22 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izdaari

Obama is not a liar that I know of. The Muslim school he attended in Indonesia was a regular public school that made no big deal of Islam, very different from a hate-preaching madrassa. He grew up to became an atheist and later a Christian. None of this is any reason not to vote for him.

But I have other reasons not to support him. Though he's charming, a good speaker and talks a moderate, inclusive game, his voting record is ultra-liberal (100% ADA for 2005). To be fair, he's never claimed not to be very liberal. He gives the impression of being moderate by avoiding leftish code words. That's ok with me. Reagan did the same thing on the other side, and I liked Reagan. But just as Reagan was a committed conservative who sounded moderate and non-threatening, Obama is a committed liberal with the same gift... and I'm not likely to vote for a liberal, no matter how pleasant and likable.

And though he has enough experience, it's the wrong kind of experience. Generally speaking, career legislators do not make good presidents. Executives make good presidents: generals, CEO's, governors, etc.

Ah...someone actually using thier brain here. I don't agree with you but you do bring up pertinant points about Obama. As a Dem (more moderate) I honestly don't know who I will vote for right at the moment because I don't think there is enough information yet. The lack of expereince I have some difference with still...what about JFK or our current president?

rob · #23 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 01:31 PM

I will second his liberal voting record tells me all that I would need to know. Although his background also worrys me. But what has he said that has any subsgtance up to now? I see that he will end up being VP candate for the Hildebeast. I really don't see him any real strong statements about his ideology so again his voting record will tell all.

Izdaari · #24 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

The lack of expereince I have some difference with still...what about JFK or our current president?

Right, JFK was a senator with not much time in office either. And he was pretty good, even great in some ways. Not so good in others I'm afraid. After his death, he became immensely popular, but before that his poll numbers weren't so good and it was by no means a sure thing that he would've been reelected.

Bush had two terms as governor in a state with a relatively weak executive power. I don't personally think Bush is all that good a president, though I give him high marks on a few things.

No, experience doesn't tell the whole tale. Individual gifts play a large part too. But if it came to choosing on the basis of experience between a mayor who fixed the largest city in the US, a city that many called "ungovernable", and a one term senator, I'd choose the mayor.

cat's meow · #25 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob

I will second his liberal voting record tells me all that I would need to know. Although his background also worrys me. But what has he said that has any subsgtance up to now? I see that he will end up being VP candate for the Hildebeast. I really don't see him any real strong statements about his ideology so again his voting record will tell all.

No, he has not and that is why I said personally my vote is not counted yet. I am not sure any of this worries me or not. We are way too early in the process...the sematics of this is what worries me. Are we moving to
a country (legislators) that campaigns all the time and gets nothing done?

Quote:

Bush had two terms as governor in a state with a relatively weak executive power. I don't personally think Bush is all that good a president, though I give him high marks on a few things.

So in this statemnent you have just argued that GW Bush was an even weaker candidate as president than even JFK. I was living in Texas when he was gov and they do not have a full meeting of the legislature for ratification of laws but every two years. And, Bush only served a term and one half (only 6 years)...his depth of experience compared to other Rep candidates in 2000 was mind numbingly low. Bush had ZERO foriegn policy experience and even his knowledge obtained through his Dad showed a great deal of ingorance...we are paying for this today.

My point is that anyone who wants to argue 'the lack of expereince issue' from the right is sadly mistaken. You can disagree all you want about policy issues but even Teddy Roosevelt was in with very little experience; he was 43 and he turned out to be one of our greatest presidents (and was Republican).

Izdaari · #26 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

So in this statemnent you have just argued that GW Bush was an even weaker candidate as president than even JFK. I was living in Texas when he was gov and they do not have a full meeting of the legislature for ratification of laws but every two years. And, Bush only served a term and one half (only 6 years)...his depth of experience compared to other Rep candidates in 2000 was mind numbingly low. Bush had ZERO foriegn policy experience and even his knowledge obtained through his Dad showed a great deal of ingorance...we are paying for this today.

I supported John Kasich in the 2000 primaries and voted for Harry Browne (Libertarian) in the general election. I still think Kasich would've been a good president; even though his experience was all legislative, he was masterful as chairman of the House Budget Committee. I like him as host of Heartland on FNC, so I guess I'll have to take that as a consolation prize.

No question Gore was more experienced than Bush, but I couldn't stomach his positions on the issues. Couldn't quite bring myself to vote for Bush either. That left Browne and the LP who I did (and do) mostly agree with.

Quote:

My point is that anyone who wants to argue 'the lack of expereince issue' from the right is sadly mistaken. You can disagree all you want about policy issues but even Teddy Roosevelt was in with very little experience; he was 43 and he turned out to be one of our greatest presidents (and was Republican).

As I said, experience doesn't tell the whole tale. Individual gifts play a large part too. For that reason, I wouldn't discount Obama; perhaps he will turn out to be another JFK or TR. But if I were voting solely on the basis of experience (which I wouldn't do), he'd be low on the list.

cat's meow · #27 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izdaari

...I wouldn't discount Obama; perhaps he will turn out to be another JFK or TR.

This will sound funny from a DEM but...

Barak Obama:

If he gets in and we get another TR then we are great shape...

(TR was one of our greatest and most innovative presidents in the Whitehouse)

If he gets in and we get another JFK I am not sure if that is good or bad right now...

(JFK made people feel good but was mixed bag of success and failure...he did hold firm against Castro/USSR in a nasty showdown)

rob · #28 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 04:29 PM

Cat, as you have said, it is still too early for either party to have any idea about who will be leading. The advantage for Republicans is that for the most part we know enough to either like or hate McCain. But we really haven't heard from any of the others in regards to what they will support.

coldconservative44 · #29 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 05:36 PM

EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyhigher

I also want to express my feelings about the US having a muslim President...
Never must we let this happen....

cat's meow · #30 (**permalink**) 02-18-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob

Cat, as you have said, it is still too early for either party to have any idea about who will be leading. The advantage for Republicans is that for the most part we know enough to either like or hate McCain. But we really haven't heard from any of the others in regards to what they will support.

Did you hear the interview with Newt Gingrich and Tim Russert from earlier today? Newt had some very funny but (I think) true statements about this pre-pre campaigning. He said basically the candidate can really wear out their welcome with the voter. "It will be like Survivor and the voter will want people they are tired of voted off the island." Well, that is the 'beauty contest' part of the system and I think Newt is probably correct on this one.