Obama - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

jacktruth · 10-23-2006, 11:18 AM

So, the democratic party has inquired of his interest in running for President in 08.

I'm not completely sure how parties operate and position, so the questions that came to are:

Are they trying to pit him in the primaries for public exposure to give hope to the future democratic party (knowing he is likely to lose the primary to more experienced politicians)?

Have they lost faith in the electability of Hillary?

Is Hillary really electable?

Is Obama electable with so little experience in politics?

Mavdog · 10-23-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacktruth

So, the democratic party has inquired of his interest in running for President in 08.

I'm not completely sure how parties operate and position, so the questions that came to are:

Are they trying to pit him in the primaries for public exposure to give hope to the future democratic party (knowing he is likely to lose the primary to more experienced politicians)?

he's a fresh face who appeals to the party faithful as well as to the "youth". I'm not so sure as you appear to be that he will falter on the campaign trail.

Quote:

Have they lost faith in the electability of Hillary?

there is and always has been a large group of anti-hillary people, barak appears to be the best anti-hillary candidate available.

second, it isn't clear that hillary will run for president, because

Quote:

Is Hillary really electable?

I am not confident that the nation is progressive enough to elect a female president.

Quote:

Is Obama electable with so little experience in politics?

that little amount of experience is a double edged sword...he also doesn't have a ton of baggage. just look at all the senators who have attempted to win the presidency, the last to do so successfully was kennedy over 45 years ago....

kg_veteran · 10-23-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

he's a fresh face who appeals to the party faithful as well as to the "youth". I'm not so sure as you appear to be that he will falter on the campaign trail.

So are you declaring him the frontrunner?

Quote:

there is and always has been a large group of anti-hillary people, barak appears to be the best anti-hillary candidate available.

Really? Is he that much different than her?

Quote:

second, it isn't clear that hillary will run for president, because

because...?

Quote:

I am not confident that the nation is progressive enough to elect a female president.

I don't think the nation would elect Hillary Clinton. Another female candidate? Maybe, maybe not.

Quote:

that little amount of experience is a double edged sword...he also doesn't have a ton of baggage. just look at all the senators who have attempted to win the presidency, the last to do so successfully was kennedy over 45 years ago....

He may not have a ton of baggage, but he's going to have to start taking some positions on the tough issues. When he does, we'll have a better idea of what his Presidential chances are.

Mavdog · 10-23-2006, 01:20 PM

yeah, it seems that he might have that frontrunner tag. not a good thing this early on, esp with the clamor for his "positions" you yourself ask for.

is obama different than hillary? absolutely.

I can't see any woman being elected. you have someone who could?

chumdawg · 10-23-2006, 01:27 PM

There was a poll on AOL about this a couple days ago. The results were VERY favorable to Obama. They stacked him up against six different candidates (Rudy, Hillary, McCain, Edwards, Kerry, Frist) and asked who you would vote for. He won every poll, most by very large margins. And the AOL audience is generally very much Republican in polls like these.

jacktruth · 10-23-2006, 01:31 PM

I don't know if he would win a nomination or not. I'm too conservative to know what the democrats will do. I can't think like one.

It does seem strange though that every democrat I know has already put Hillary in the white house in thier minds. Obama certainly appeared to be the Democratic golden boy during his election campaign. If appearances, speaking ability, and quiet confidence wins elections, he will probably do well. But if he is shackled to the same democratic talking points and platform, he has some overcoming to do. But I guess that is true of any candidate.

I personally think Hillary cannot win an election. She understands the climate of current events well, but she does not have a vision for our future, which is how Bill won. I also think that the public is sick of the Clintons. Nobody wants to see him back in the whitehouse. HillaryCare is far too exemplary of a liberal agenda. People don't trust her. Men are annoyed by her. Just some thoughts.

kg_veteran · 10-23-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yeah, it seems that he might have that frontrunner tag. not a good thing this early on, esp with the clamor for his "positions" you yourself ask for.

Right, because he hasn't committed to much of anything. He'll have to take serious positions if he wants to be President, and that will be rather interesting to watch. Much has been made of how the "fundamentalists" wield too much influence in the Republican party, but the far left wing is definitely running the show in the Democratic party at the moment. That's not a good thing on the national level.

Quote:

is obama different than hillary? absolutely.

Okay. How?

Quote:

I can't see any woman being elected. you have someone who could?

The more I think about it, probably not this time, but by 2012 or 2016? I think it's very possible. I just don't think it will ever be Hillary.

Pirate · 10-23-2006, 02:49 PM

Re Obama, all that we really know is that: he's Democrat, he's new, he's well spoken, and he's black. That tells me the appeal of his candidacy at this point is all about style not substance. I am amazed or bothered that such a thin set of credentials is all it takes to be anointed by the Democratic Party these days as a serious presidential candidate.

I dont know if he'd make a good president or not, but I'd like to wait until 2012 and let him be in the public consciousness a bit longer before I have to vote yes or no.

Re Hilary, in my opinion her problem in getting elected president is more her radical liberalism than her sex. I think a moderate female from either party with political charm, savvy, and connections would be highly electable.

In fact, these days a woman or a "minority" offers as many positives from those traits as negatives, and it's more a matter of time/chance than anything else as to when they land the top job. In fact, I bet the strongest Republican candidate possible would actually be a minority (Colin Powell) if he could be persuaded to run.

MavKikiNYC · 10-23-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirate

Re Obama, all that we really know is that: he's Democrat, he's new, he's well spoken, and he's black.

Mixed race, actually--Kenyan father, American mother (Caucasian).

Drbio · 10-23-2006, 03:14 PM

He's to date all style no substance. Don't get me wrong....I want to learn more about the guy. He comes off as a well spoken intelligent young man, but so far I've seen nothing but style and the Dems are sure working hard to prop him up. That said, if he goes against the hildabeast I foresee grave danger to the young man.

Drbio · 10-23-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

There was a poll on AOL about this a couple days ago. The results were VERY favorable to Obama. They stacked him up against six different candidates (Rudy, Hillary, McCain, Edwards, Kerry, Frist) and asked who you would vote for. He won every poll, most by very large margins. And the AOL audience is generally very much Republican in polls like these.

Did you actually type that with a straight face? Of greater interest....do you actually believe it?

Darth Ape · 10-23-2006, 03:16 PM

I Osama were white, would anyone give a crap about him?

Pirate · 10-23-2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Mixed race, actually--Kenyan father, American mother (Caucasian).

re "mixed race" - Aren't we all?

That's interesting info, to be sure. But from what little I've seen he is regarded as "black" in the public consciousness.

I can't see how the "mixed race" distinction is one that anyone will care to make on either side, and I doubt it matters much anyhow at this point.

mcsluggo · 10-23-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Right, because he hasn't committed to much of anything. He'll have to take serious positions if he wants to be President, and that will be rather interesting to watch. Much has been made of how the "fundamentalists" wield too much influence in the Republican party, but the far left wing is definitely running the show in the Democratic party at the moment. That's not a good thing on the national level.

.

I agree completely. BOTH parties have charged to the outside and have been embracing their lunatic fringes too damn much. A bad bad thing for the country, and a bad bad thing for the parties. Either one of tthe parties could REALLY MAKE THE OTHER ONE SUFFER, if they would move to the middle, and try to capture the ground that 70% of the country occupies.

MavKikiNYC · 10-23-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pirate

re "mixed race" - Aren't we all?

That's interesting info, to be sure. But from what little I've seen he is regarded as "black" in the public consciousness.

I can't see how the "mixed race" distinction is one that anyone will care to make on either side, and I doubt it matters much anyhow at this point.

Yours is an interesting perception/perspective as well. I was actually surprised to hear someone who didn't know of Obama's mixed parentage. Tough to make the argument that he's (culturally) "Black" too, given that neither his mother nor his father were really of Black American culture either. Tough to say where he self-identifies either.

Who knows if he would be an appealing candidate, or a candidate with whom minority voters would identify. And frankly there's no way that wouldn't be made an issue in a campaign--either explicitly, or more likely implicitly inserted into an opponent's campaign. That's the kind of thing the Clinton camp would do masterfully with targeted voting demographics--"He doesn't really share your experience. He's not REALLY one of you. Bill Clinton is Blacker than he is. "

I actually agree with the point that you make--that he's being promoted more on apparent form than known content. I'd probably go with a devil I knew.

jacktruth · 10-23-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I agree completely. BOTH parties have charged to the outside and have been embracing their lunatic fringes too damn much. A bad bad thing for the country, and a bad bad thing for the parties. Either one of tthe parties could REALLY MAKE THE OTHER ONE SUFFER, if they would move to the middle, and try to capture the ground that 70% of the country occupies.

I think McCain could very well get the Republican nomination. If he does, he'll be tough to beat in an election. He would pick up more votes from the middle than he would lose from the far right. Being regarded as a war hero and sensible on the Iraq issue would probably seal the election.

kg_veteran · 10-23-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacktruth

I think McCain could very well get the Republican nomination. If he does, he'll be tough to beat in an election. He would pick up more votes from the middle than he would lose from the far right. Being regarded as a war hero and sensible on the Iraq issue would probably seal the election.

I am not necessarily endorsing McCain, but what makes you think he'll lose votes from the far right? He's basically a moderate Democrat in Republican's clothing, but I doubt extremely conservative voters would prefer Hillary to him.

dalmations202 · 10-23-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacktruth

I think McCain could very well get the Republican nomination. If he does, he'll be tough to beat in an election. He would pick up more votes from the middle than he would lose from the far right. Being regarded as a war hero and sensible on the Iraq issue would probably seal the election.

McCain would garnish some, but I don't think he has the charisma to win the presidency, unless the Democrats run Hillary out there.

From what I have seen in my lifetime, Charisma has won more presidency's since JFK than anything else.

jacktruth · 10-23-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I am not necessarily endorsing McCain, but what makes you think he'll lose votes from the far right? He's basically a moderate Democrat in Republican's clothing, but I doubt extremely conservative voters would prefer Hillary to him.

He won't lose loyal republicans from the right, but there are a lot of people in this country that vote strictly on abortion and other social conservative issues. If they don't see a difference between the candidates, you just won't see the huge evangelical turnout you saw in 2004. It won't be a huge reduction, but it will be less.

McCain also won't get near the financial backing from Christian Conservatives as Bush did. I think dollars significantly correlates to at least a few handfuls of votes.

chumdawg · 10-23-2006, 06:32 PM

He does have ten years worth of record for you to look at. It's not as if he is entirely unknown.

I think the groundswell is forming.

dude1394 · 10-23-2006, 07:12 PM

I'm still thinking rudi gets it. McCains been on the wrong side of too many issues for my taste and I don't get a good sense of where his center is.

kg_veteran · 10-23-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

He does have ten years worth of record for you to look at. It's not as if he is entirely unknown.

I think the groundswell is forming.

If Obama runs in 2008, we may have to place a friendly wager.

mcsluggo · 10-23-2006, 11:14 PM

I still can't believe Warner dropped out.

He was my choice to take it all.

chumdawg · 10-24-2006, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

If Obama runs in 2008, we may have to place a friendly wager.

Of course a lot can change between now and then, but at the moment I'm thinking his chances are good. It's an unstable, unhappy political climate, and we may well be looking at historically weak fields on both sides. It could be that '08 is Obama's best ever shot.

I'd like Giuliani to win it all, but I don't know that the Republicans will ever nominate him.

Someone else is going to have step up strong before I believe that Obama is not at least as viable as anyone else, if not more so.

MavsX · 10-24-2006, 07:53 AM

PEROT!!

Drbio · 10-24-2006, 01:14 PM

Obama is too close to Osama for my liking.

purplefrog · 10-24-2006, 02:28 PM

I think the reason Obama's name keeps coming up is that the Dems really don't have a strong candidate. Maybe it is Hillary, but I am guessing that alot of Dems think she is not electable when running against most any Republican. So, who are they left with?? I could envision another primary like that in 1988 or 2004 when they had seven or so candidates all with very little appeal. Can you imagine another Dem primary with the likes of Gore (he is now waivering about running, whereas before he was more of a definitely NOT), Kerry, Edwards, and maybe Sharpton again?? There are no winners in that lineup (even though Gore and Kerry came close). I actually think the Dems are REAL desperate to find someone in their party that would be competitive. So.... given the lack of alternatives it is either Hillary or Obama.

It is shocking how a political party can continually come up with such ineffective communicators (McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.. ) to run for the presidency. At least Obama has a bit of charisma and real presence when speaking in front of a crowd. As for Hillary......

u2sarajevo · 10-24-2006, 02:49 PM

I really hope we catch him soon....

Oh wait..... wrong person?

MavKikiNYC · 10-24-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I think the reason Obama's name keeps coming up is that the Dems really don't have a strong candidate. Maybe it is Hillary, but I am guessing that alot of Dems think she is not electable when running against most any Republican.

Not sure why Obama's name keeps popping up, but...Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate whoever the Republican nominee is.

In the recent past, Republicans might have been able to count on her name turning out a huge anti-Hillary bloc of voters from the Right. Given the legitimate scandals (and the faux scandals) that have become associated with the Republican party, and given the fickle public's war weariness, the Republicans might not be able to count on that reflexive anti-Hillary vote to the same extent.

Against, McCain and/or Giuliani, I'd like the Republicans chances. Against pretty much any other Republican contender at this point, I think she would make hay.

purplefrog · 10-24-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Not sure why Obama's name keeps popping up, but...Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate whoever the Republican nominee is.

The reason why I think Hillary will have problems is that her candidacy will really mobilize the Republican base and even those who are disillusioned with the current Republican leadership will rally if Hillary is there as a candidate. Second, imo her personality even turns off many Dems. I saw a poll not too long ago in one or more of the New England states saying that Hillary's disapproval rating was 60% or higher among likely Democratic voters. Maybe she could make some headway with those Dems, but it would make me nervous if I was part of the Democrat leadership.

Thespiralgoeson · 10-24-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplefrog

The reason why I think Hillary will have problems is that her candidacy will really mobilize the Republican base and even those who are disillusioned with the current Republican leadership will rally if Hillary is there as a candidate.

That's a very good point. Right now, Obama's chances are looking better and better. I'm almost positive that it will be either him or Hillary in '08. '08 could be a very rough one for the Republicans. I think the only one who could really have a shot at beating Obama or Hillary is Guilliani. Mccain is unelectable IMO. I would personally love to see Rice run, but I just don't see it happening.

MavKikiNYC · 10-24-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplefrog

The reason why I think Hillary will have problems is that her candidacy will really mobilize the Republican base and even those who are disillusioned with the current Republican leadership will rally if Hillary is there as a candidate. Second, imo her personality even turns off many Dems. I saw a poll not too long ago in one or more of the New England states saying that Hillary's disapproval rating was 60% or higher among likely Democratic voters. Maybe she could make some headway with those Dems, but it would make me nervous if I was part of the Democrat leadership.

To start, I am definitely not a supporter of hers.

But on both points, your perception seems off. Again, I am not so sure that the Republican base will mobilize anymore (i.e., Far Right, Evangelicals, etc.) .....even to vote against her. At least for the moment, they seem to be disilluisioned enough with Republican leadership that they will just sit this one out. I think it's a wild card factor at best.

And I'd be interested to see that poll. She is VERY popular, not only among NY Dems, but she got a considerable degree of support from upstate Republicans and moderates when she was elected. That's why the Republicans put out such a lame candidate this time to run against her--they knew that whoever they would put against her would likely lose, and they didn't want to "waste" a legitimate candidate against her.

jacktruth · 10-24-2006, 04:39 PM

Found this article on the Web published earlier this year. Obama is not only pro-choice, but stood against the Alive Infants Protection Act, which not even NARAL would take on.
---------------------------
Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 19, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jill Stanek
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the "alarming news" that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.

Michelle called partial-birth abortion "a legitimate medical procedure," and wouldn't supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against "cynical ploy[s]" to stop it?

But that's not why Obama's opponent Alan Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for him.

Obama recalled Keyes' statement in a recent USA Today opinion piece but omitted his reasoning.

I know his reasoning, because I was there.

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)

So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.

I have framed on my wall a Chicago Sun-Times cartoon published during the campaign. Obama is holding a sign with "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION" on it. God is reaching down from heaven to a baby in front of Obama, and the baby is reaching up to God. Obama is yelling at God, "You keep out of this!"

In his USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.

Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash.

Neither do I recall religion being brought into the partial-birth abortion ban debate. I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.

Obama stated pro-life proposals must be "amenable to reason."

OK, Sen. Obama, let's reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.

Then, since you brought it up, explain how, despite all that, you think Jesus should vote for you, either now or in the hereafter, particularly given His statement, "It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones."

Pirate · 10-24-2006, 06:02 PM

Yikes.

Ninkobei · 10-24-2006, 06:12 PM

^ so much for objective writing! jeeze. she acts like Obama is going around stabbing little kids or something. In fact I'm tempted to vote for Obama just to piss this lady off..

jacktruth · 10-24-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

^ so much for objective writing! jeeze. she acts like Obama is going around stabbing little kids or something. In fact I'm tempted to vote for Obama just to piss this lady off..

Yea, nevermind how horrible the acts really are that he is defending.

Ninkobei · 10-24-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacktruth

Yea, nevermind how horrible the acts really are that he is defending.

so now women have absolutely no rights to control what goes on in their body? give me a break...

ps. I'm not touching this issue any further with a billion foot pole.

kg_veteran · 10-24-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

so now women have absolutely no rights to control what goes on in their body? give me a break...

ps. I'm not touching this issue any further with a billion foot pole.

Yeah, because your position is completely untenable.

chumdawg · 10-24-2006, 11:50 PM

Except that the baby was "delivered" at 22 weeks, and the mother didn't want to bring it to term because it had Down's Syndrome. And the legislative issue in question had to with an IL Supreme Court case dealing with the definition of a "viable person" in regard to a murder trial. And that Obama believed that the Democrats should support the federal law, the way that law was written in text.

It's always easy to twist an issue like this to suit your own perspective.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350472/posts

Mavdog · 10-25-2006, 08:36 AM

yes, it's clear that the 2008 race has begun, the character attackers have emerged to try and damage the "front runner"....much to their dismay those darn facts seem to get in the way!