Congratulations Obama supporters!!!!

[J-girl]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080603.wclinton0603/BNStory/International/home

:)

PS: Is it wierd me being a Canadian is the first one to make a post about his victory! :D

[PenforPrez]

I'm just silently praying Hillary DOESN'T get the V.P. nod. :neutral: Jim Webb or John Edwards, please. :)

[mahlerssecond]

How about Mark Warner, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson as VP? I sometimes wish these guys could of been the nominee for Prez.

[Krishna]

I'm just silently praying Hillary DOESN'T get the V.P. nod. :neutral: Jim Webb or John Edwards, please. :)

I'll throw up a little if Hillary gets the VP slot. It would make voting for Obama difficult for me, just because I dislike her.

[gemma-dahl]

I think Obama would make a tactical mistake in picking Clinton; he's going to invalidate his "time for a change" motto. I also think that I get a bad feeling from Edwards, because of '04. I agree with Richardson as a choice. What do you guys think of Evan Bayh? Charismatic, Middle American, was speculated to be a serious contender in '08 several years ago ...

I think Edwards would make an excellent secretary of labor or atty. general, tho.

I wish Nancy Pelosi were an option, but I think she offends too many middle-of-the road voters. And most elections are about those middle voters, and crafting the right soundbytes for Americans who read at a 7th-grade level.

If McCain is smart, he'll choose Condeleeza Rice. The woman is brilliant, and might sway the DINOs and the older female Clinton supporters who want to see a woman in a position of high authority.

GO OBAMA!!! :D

[old_school_soul]

Yeah, I wouldn't be particularly happy if Obama picks Clinton either.

[and1grad]

I cant see any reason why he would pick Clinton. Personally, I hope he goes with Edwards.

[PenforPrez]

How about Mark Warner, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson as VP? I sometimes wish these guys could of been the nominee for Prez.

I desperately want to see Mark Warner run for higher office (The only Democrat who was ever able to tell the NRA to shut the fuck up!). But he's guaranteed that open Senate seat in Virginia as long as he doesn't get caught in anything suspicious. We need more seats in the Senate, and his time will come around. :)

I like the idea of Bill Richardson; Obama does need help with Hispanics. Biden has good foreign policy experience, but he's too old. My desire to see Kathleen Sebelius get the VP nod is gaining traction, but it's not looking like the good idea it seemed to be on paper. :(

I'm still rooting for Jim Webb to get the nomination. If Obama can win Virginia (and possibly North Carolina), McCain's in trouble. Webb has a lot of military experience, and he's very lively (to a distinct fault, which is a huge minus).


Paul

[gemma-dahl]

I cant see any reason why he would pick Clinton. Personally, I hope he goes with Edwards.

Edwards definitely appeals to Clinton supporters. Do you think he can bring the die-hard Clinton voters, who swear they'll vote for McCain, back over to the Left?

For the record, I really REALLY like Edwards (almost as much as Obama :p ).

[PenforPrez]

Edwards would be possibly the most likely to do so, I think. Either him or Webb (another reason I like Webb).

Paul

[and1grad]

Edwards definitely appeals to Clinton supporters. Do you think he can bring the die-hard Clinton voters, who swear they'll vote for McCain, back over to the Left?

For the record, I really REALLY like Edwards (almost as much as Obama :p ).
I do. I think the Clinton/Obama race went on for so long that people felt like they had to draw a line in the sand and say "Its my candidate or bust." There's very little difference b/w Obama & Clinton (none, in my opinion). People need to be reminded of that.

[Bman120]

I was wrong in my prediction of how it would turn out. But i'm glad he won. I disagree with the man on many of his points, and I think he is a weak candidate, definitely weaker than Senator Clinton, but his campaign is good for this country. It's a shining example of what makes America great.

Whomever he picks as his VP needs credentials because Obama has few. One of his biggest weaknesses is how unknown he is.

[PenforPrez]

Hillary's campaign has announced that Hillary will suspend her candidacy later this week and endorse Obama. Thank God! Now we can finally get on with it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/democrats.wednesday/index.html

The anti-Hillary-for-V.P. faction has a strong supporter: Jimmy Carter. In comments to the U.K. Guardian, Carter said exactly what I was thinking.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/04/carter-says-unity-ticket-would-be-worst-mistake/

"That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates," Carter told the Guardian, saying that both candidates' vulnerabilities could overshadow that the ticket if the two team up together.

"If you take that 50 percent who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds," he said.

Says a lot about Americans, doesn't it?

Paul

[cameralady]

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell's two cents re: the possibility of Hillary as VP: (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?&aid=82340&search_result=1&stid=245)

Rendell added that Obama would have to be an “enormously big person” to pick Clinton as his running mate and that Clinton sometimes “couldn’t help but upstage” Obama on a joint ticket.

This is from someone who was a big Hillary supporter.

[and1grad]

Thats actually the reason I would prefer Obama NOT pick Clinton as VP. I dont think she'd be able to help herself.

[PenforPrez]

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell's two cents re: the possibility of Hillary as VP: (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?&aid=82340&search_result=1&stid=245)

There's been talk of Rendell for V.P. to shore up Pennsylvania, but I don't think Obama will need that. Besides, Rendell is from the Philadelphia political machine, which clashes with the image Obama is trying to project.

Paul

[PenforPrez]

A Rasmussen poll out today has Obama ahead here in Missouri by one point (which is a vast improvement). Huzzah! :D

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

What is really interesting is this:

The new poll shows the number of voters who say they will cross party lines has already started to decline. Just 13% of Missouri Democrats currently say they will vote for McCain, down from 21% a month ago. Obama attracts only 8% of GOP voters, down from 14%.

I know a lot of Hillary supporters here who couldn't stomach Obama. But a lot of them face the same trial my father did. Dad loves Hillary and was just too racist to give Obama a fair shake. Dad doesn't like Obama, but his conscience simply will not allow him to vote Republican. Add one vote for Obama. :) Wouldn't be the first time; Dad didn't like George McGovern either, but he hated Nixon.

Paul

[PenforPrez]

All of a sudden, everybody is comparing this election to 1968. I don't really see it, do you?

I see this election more like the 1960 election, Kennedy vs. Nixon. The Democrat is a young, charismatic Senator that appeals greatly to younger voters. The Republican is an experienced political veteran, getting his turn to shoot for power. JFK's Catholicism was a big deal in 1960. So was the "missile gap" with the Soviets that Kennedy described (and turned out not to be the case).

1960 was a razor-thin election; a shift of 5000 votes in Missouri and Illinois would have given the election to Nixon. This year, I can easily see a scenario where neither candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, and the election would be forced into the House (which hasn't happened since 1824). So I see more similarities with '60 than '68.

On the V.P. issue, I just realized something. Five of the last six Democratic V.P. nominees (and 12 of the last 14, dating back to Harry Truman, 1944) were sitting senators when they were first nominated.

John Edwards, 2004 (North Carolina)
Joe Lieberman, 2000 (Connecticut)
Al Gore, 1992-'96 (Tennessee)
Lloyd Bentsen, 1988 (Texas)
Walter Mondale, 1976-'80 (Minnesota)

The only exception being Geraldine Ferraro (1984), who was a Congresswoman from Long Island. Before that, the last non-Senator to be nominated by the Dems was Sargent Shriver (former director of the Peace Corps) in 1972.

Seems time to break this pattern, no? :idea:

Paul

[Bman120]

All of a sudden, everybody is comparing this election to 1968. I don't really see it, do you?


I don't see it either. But then most of the historical comparisons done between our time and the past have been horrible. Comparing Obama to the Kennedy brothers, Iraq to Vietnam/WW2. Neither are applicable. In 68, the country was tearing itself apart, that is nowhere near what is happening now. At this point, we've had nearly 8 years of one administration, people want change and that is natural.

Obama is no Jack or Bobby Kennedy. Both had more experience than Obama brings to the table and Obama is far more liberal than either of them. Also, Jack Kennedy lived in a different era where a politician could keep his secrets buried. Today, it's much harder and so far, Obama hasn't been able to keep his hidden despite his best efforts. The question is how will Americans view them.

I think his connections to militant black groups isn't as worrisome as some think. Its natural that he would be exposed to them as a black leader and just because he has connections doesnt mean he believes that nonsense. Where he is weakest is his liberal viewpoints and votes in the senate. If McCain capitalizes on them as well as his weaknesses in foreign policy, he can win the election.

[and1grad]

I think given the present situation regarding the war (unpopular) and Obama (far more popular than his opponent), the comparisons arent so far off that its a big deal. Of course, the situations arent IDENTICAL but would that even be possible? I tend to think not.

In terms of McCain, I just dont think he inspires people to come out and vote like Obama does/can. Not that I dont think he could do the job adequately, but with the economy circling the drain and people still unsure about whats going on in the Middle East (not to mention Asia), I think the ability to inspire people to act is a big deal. I also dont like this "Town Hall Meeting" idea. It caters to McCain's strengths in that his wit makes him "likable." Obama's strength is in his speeches. I hope his people arent forgetting that in an attempt to beat McCain at his own game.

[PenforPrez]

I think given the present situation regarding the war (unpopular) and Obama (far more popular than his opponent), the comparisons arent so far off that its a big deal. Of course, the situations arent IDENTICAL but would that even be possible? I tend to think not.

History doesn't work that way. It's always the strangest possibilities that seem to occur.

I just see a lot of JFK in Obama. A lot of Europeans have been saying that; the German media was referring to him early in the primary season as "the black Kennedy." I see the same charisma, the same youthfulness, the same indescribable aura that just surrounds him.


In terms of McCain, I just dont think he inspires people to come out and vote like Obama does/can. Not that I dont think he could do the job adequately, but with the economy circling the drain and people still unsure about whats going on in the Middle East (not to mention Asia), I think the ability to inspire people to act is a big deal. I also dont like this "Town Hall Meeting" idea. It caters to McCain's strengths in that his wit makes him "likable." Obama's strength is in his speeches. I hope his people arent forgetting that in an attempt to beat McCain at his own game.

McCain has his own base of appeal. He's definitely more moderate than Bush turned out to be. The fiscal conservatives love McCain because so many of them feel disaffected by Bush's spending policies.

I'm surprised by how funny McCain really is. I watched McCain's appearance on SNL on YouTube yesterday, and I cracked up. "You [Democrats] might want to kick the tires on John Edwards one more time." :rolleyes:

Where he is weakest is his liberal viewpoints and votes in the senate.

I've never agreed with the statement (which some conservatives have made) that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. The argument could be made that Obama's fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is more liberal than Obama. There's a lot of Senators I'd rate more liberal than Obama.

Obama is definitely an idealist (a la Bill Clinton 1992), but Obama is also very much a pragmatist. Obama has shown a willingness to listen to both sides of an argument and reach for a compromise.

I recently read an article where they interviewed the deputy chairman of the Illinois Sheriff's Association (something along those lines). The man was a registered Republican, and he said that Obama cannot be called soft on crime. He said that Obama (when he was in the Illinois Senate) showed a strong willingness to work with law enforcement on crime issues, and voted to allow retired officers to carry guns. A stereotypical liberal would have a fit over that. His tone seemed to be very positive.

Paul

[kellybeen18]

I agree with Paul: I see a much stronger resemblence to the 1960 election.

Ed Rendell as VP? I don't think so! I doubt if he is even on the short list actually. He was such an out-spoken supporter of Hilary that he said some things he shouldn't have. I don't think that jives with the Obama campaign.

[PenforPrez]

Ed Rendell as VP? I don't think so! I doubt if he is even on the short list actually. He was such an out-spoken supporter of Hilary that he said some things he shouldn't have. I don't think that jives with the Obama campaign.

John Kerry nominated John Edwards after the two fought a heated, fairly protracted primary campaign in 2004 after Howard Dean imploded. So there's precedent for the idea.

But I don't think Obama will need to secure Pennsylvania with the V.P. pick. Not with Democratic strength in PA where it is and with so many red states in play. Tom Daschle said recently that Obama will be competitive in Montana (which the polls are indicating) and even North Dakota. If North Dakota becomes a swing state (with all of 600,000 people and three electoral votes), I'm just going to bust out laughing. :p

Paul

[Bman120]

In terms of McCain, I just dont think he inspires people to come out and vote like Obama does/can. Not that I dont think he could do the job adequately, but with the economy circling the drain and people still unsure about whats going on in the Middle East (not to mention Asia), I think the ability to inspire people to act is a big deal. I also dont like this "Town Hall Meeting" idea. It caters to McCain's strengths in that his wit makes him "likable." Obama's strength is in his speeches. I hope his people arent forgetting that in an attempt to beat McCain at his own game.

That is very true. But along with inspiration comes the question of who can get the job done best. I think that's what Bush won on in 2004. The the belief that he could wage the war on terrorism better than John Kerry. Neither man was very inspirational but people believed at that point that the man we had could best continue the fight.

In that area, I think McCain has the edge. Obama represents change, but at the same time, he also represents the unknown, and when people are uncertain, they don't like to go to the unknown. McCain has to knock Obama off the speakers podium and get him talking on issues.

I just see a lot of JFK in Obama. A lot of Europeans have been saying that; the German media was referring to him early in the primary season as "the black Kennedy." I see the same charisma, the same youthfulness, the same indescribable aura that just surrounds him.


The key differences are intelligence and experience there though don't you think? JFK had years in congress and was very intelligent and well read. Obama has less experience and thus far, hasn't come off as that intelligent, ie Americans liberating a death camp in Poland, comparing discussions with Iran to Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK. Anyone with a grasp of history knows that all of those examples were given incorrectly, something I don't think Kennedy would have messed up, considering he wrote a major historical paper on the Munich pact.

[gemma-dahl]

I guess I'm in the minority in that I also see similarities to 1992!

Forget the war for a minute (tho there was Persian Gulf in '91) - what we have is a young, charismatic newcomer butting heads with the establishment.

The fact that George H.W. Bush was the sitting president going up against the lesser-known candidate (Wasn't Paul Tsongas supposed to sweep the '92 primaries or something?) doesn't detract from the comparison, to me. The themes carried over from 1992 to now are the current disillusion with the GOP machine (8 years of Reagan + 4 years of HW Bush compared to 8 years of more of the same today) and the economy going down the crapper.

The NYTimes is already going with the JFK comparison. Apparently, according to the Style editors, Michelle Obama is the second coming of Jackie O (and also the second coming of Barbara Bush, which is hilarious). :rolleyes:

[gemma-dahl]

Also, Clinton dirt and Obama dirt are similar: Dirt's over issues that really don't affect a man's ability to do the job. (Does he affiliate with radical Blacks? Does he dabble in BJs outside of marriage?)

[PenforPrez]

The team vetting V.P. possibilities for Obama showed a list of about 20 names to Senate Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota today to get his thoughts on each.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/10/senator-says-obama-vp-search-team-discussed-20-names/

I like Kent Conrad, but he gave a very political description: vague and cryptic. :rolleyes:

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota told CNN that some of those on the list are “top officials now,” others are “former lawmakers” and others are “former top military leaders.”

That list could theoretically include Norman Schwartzkopf, Rick Santorum and Ted Kennedy given those parameters. :rolleyes:

Paul

[and1grad]

The key differences are intelligence and experience there though don't you think? JFK had years in congress and was very intelligent and well read. Obama has less experience and thus far, hasn't come off as that intelligent, ie Americans liberating a death camp in Poland, comparing discussions with Iran to Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK. Anyone with a grasp of history knows that all of those examples were given incorrectly, something I don't think Kennedy would have messed up, considering he wrote a major historical paper on the Munich pact.
You're the first person I've seen question Obama's intelligence. I'm struggling with your basis for questioning it. A historical reference?

[PenforPrez]

The key differences are intelligence and experience there though don't you think? JFK had years in congress and was very intelligent and well read. Obama has less experience and thus far, hasn't come off as that intelligent, ie Americans liberating a death camp in Poland, comparing discussions with Iran to Roosevelt, Truman, and JFK. Anyone with a grasp of history knows that all of those examples were given incorrectly, something I don't think Kennedy would have messed up, considering he wrote a major historical paper on the Munich pact.

Everybody makes accidental mistakes in quoting history and facts. I have a history degree, and I make historical errors sometimes. I don't think it occurred because Obama didn't know better. There's no excuse for it, but it does happen.

JFK didn't have all his facts straight, either. When he claimed there was a "missile gap" with the Soviets in 1960, he had it dead wrong. The U.S. had far more ICBM's in 1960 than Russia did.

It happens. Gerald Ford famously claimed in 1976 that Poland "was not under Soviet domination." He should have known better (and certainly did). In the rigors of a Presidential campaign, it surprises me that candidates don't make more mistakes than they do.

Paul

[Bman120]

You're the first person I've seen question Obama's intelligence. I'm struggling with your basis for questioning it. A historical reference?

Well his historical mistakes are a big issue because of the implications it has on how he does his job. More below on that because Paul touched on where I was going with this.

Also, if you look at his speeches, he is amazing in his delivery, and his language. But the substance is lacking. Also, there is his lack of experience combined with his youth. Apart, neither would be that bad since there is no school for Presidents, but combined..... along with some of the statements he has made, have me concerned.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not calling Obama unintelligent, no man can gain the nomination for President who isnt intelligent. But I do think some of the signs we've seen so far are concerning.

Do you think this could be part of the reason he is weak in a one on one town hall like environment? Because he wouldn't be as fast on his feet with answers as McCain, who has age and experience on his side? When you write a speech, you can research, become familiar with the topics and so on. In a town hall setting, its more spur of the moment.

Everybody makes accidental mistakes in quoting history and facts. I have a history degree, and I make historical errors sometimes. I don't think it occurred because Obama didn't know better. There's no excuse for it, but it does happen.

JFK didn't have all his facts straight, either. When he claimed there was a "missile gap" with the Soviets in 1960, he had it dead wrong. The U.S. had far more ICBM's in 1960 than Russia did.

It happens. Gerald Ford famously claimed in 1976 that Poland "was not under Soviet domination." He should have known better (and certainly did). In the rigors of a Presidential campaign, it surprises me that candidates don't make more mistakes than they do.


I agree, everyone makes mistakes. The issue is, and this addresses and1's point as well, is how does this affect policy? With Obama, his historical mistakes were used to justify policy decisions and be proof that his methods have been proven correct by history.

I could let the death camp mistake go, many people lump those horrible places together and think more of what happened rather than where they were. But the comparasion of talking to Ahmadinejad vs talking to Stalin? That is very concerning.

When Roosevelt talked to Stalin, they were allies. Also, Roosevelt was very weak at Yalta, possibly leading to some of his concessions on East Europe. Had they been done on the Ambassadorial level, it could have been different. Truman also worked with Stalin as an ally. Then after the war, when he saw what Stalin planned to do, that all changed and eventually the Korean war started.

As for JFK, someone whom I admire btw, there is a lot of evidence that the confidance that Kruschev (sp?) was so confidant in his ability to bully Kennedy after Vienna that it may have been a trigger for the Berlin wall and later the missle crisis, because he thought Kennedy would be too weak to put up a fight. He was wrong, but the missle crisis brought us to the brink of complete destruction, hardly worth it to prove his mettle.

I can understand Obama's reasons for wanting to talk, its a lot better than a stalemate while Iran kills Americans and rakes in petrodollars because we cant sanction his oil industry, but start slow. I understand the historical background isn't the only reason he wants to do this, but this has to make us wonder how far he has thought his stance through.

[and1grad]

I guess I dont share your concern since just about every leader finds justification from the past using their own interpretation of history. And I think the 2004 elections went a long way into proving just how much voters are interested in historical accuracy. Swift Boat Veterans anyone? Also, when you say that a person "hasnt come off as that intelligent," you ARE saying that they are unintelligent. You cant really follow up "he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer" with "But not that he's dumb or anything."

Anyway, he'd be weaker b/c McCain has a quick wit and he doesnt. I doubt it would be due to McCain being more knowledgeable. I also wonder how much McCain would lean on Fiorina to answer his questions for him.

In terms of Iran, how far has anyone thought the situation through? Seems to me like there isnt anyone who has a clear plan on what to do with them.

[wordsmith]

I've also personally never felt that Obama's speeches or writing lack substance at all, even though that's the trendy thing for naysayers to say right now. It makes me laugh in a perplexed way when conservative talk radio hosts are all, "He's a great speaker, but he lacks substance." To me, you can't BE a "great speaker" if your comments lack substance. That's not what being a "great speaker" is.

[J-girl]

PUH-LEASE the only thing that got Obama this far is his oratory skills. He is packed with Charisma.
And Obama has been a great speaker even before he landed the nomination.

As for his intelligence, he has more intelligence in his right toe nail than Bush has in his entire body

[wordsmith]

And charisma alone doesn't make you a strong speaker...you have to be saying something. And if he weren't, people wouldn't be listening as they are. This "no substance" thing is, honestly, nothing more than sour grapes.

The other thing on the right wing radio shoes that makes me snort is the whole, "We don't know him!!! We don't know ANYTHING ABOUT HIM!!" caterwaul. Ummm, I wouldn't ADMIT that, on air. If you're ill-informed about a political candidate, you have nobody to blame but yourself. "Don't know anything about him?" Learn.

[Bman120]

I guess I dont share your concern since just about every leader finds justification from the past using their own interpretation of history. And I think the 2004 elections went a long way into proving just how much voters are interested in historical accuracy. Swift Boat Veterans anyone?

Interpretation, I have no problem with. I have a problem when false historical examples are used to justify a current policy. He has tried to justify personal talks with the government of Iran by citing past examples, 2 out of 3 are black and white false. The third, JFK's example, isn't as black and white but Soviet documents do back up the fact that the Soviets had a big boost in confidance after the Vienna summit. But again, its not certain so i'd be willing to cut some slack to him there.

If he messed up his history in a speech about memorial day or something, I wouldnt care, most Americans don't know their history anyhow. But this was more than that with the connection to policy. Do you see what I mean in that sense?

Also, when you say that a person "hasnt come off as that intelligent," you ARE saying that they are unintelligent. You cant really follow up "he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer" with "But not that he's dumb or anything."


So you don't see a middle ground between smart and stupid? I personally disagree with that but to each his own.

In terms of Iran, how far has anyone thought the situation through? Seems to me like there isnt anyone who has a clear plan on what to do with them.

Fair enough, it's damn near a no win senario. Though the fact that Europe has swung to the right in the last few years and has come closer to our position gives me hope that once the oil bubble bursts, the sanctions will hit them hard and fast, which will mean far greater leverage. I wish it would happen during Bush's last year so he can turn the screws on the bastards but that's not looking likely.

It makes me laugh in a perplexed way when conservative talk radio hosts are all, "He's a great speaker, but he lacks substance." To me, you can't BE a "great speaker" if your comments lack substance. That's not what being a "great speaker" is.

Do you think the definition of a great speaker is universal? To me, it's different things to different people. I listen to his speeches, and he makes a lot of good points, but he rarely gets into the how. And without the how, you end up with the League of Nations or the Great society, things that sound great, but fail in implementation. That is what the "lacks substance" argument is attempting to articulate. Do you see a lot of how in his speeches to match his high rhetoric?

As for his intelligence, he has more intelligence in his right toe nail than Bush has in his entire body

I disagree. Bush is in some ways the opposite of Obama. He is a poor speaker in that his voice doesnt command and grab attention. He often sounds too informal and like he is trying too hard. But if you go past the style and look into the substance, you see that he is actually very intelligent and has an extremely expansive vision of what he is trying to do. Especially on foreign policy. The news always shows soundbites of him, but if you really listen to his whole speeches on the war on terrorism, his viewpoint and intentions are very well thought out. I think the flaw in them tends to be that he was too arrogant in assuming that American military power could achieve them in his presidency. Had he used soft power a bit more, he may have been far more successful in the last 7.5 years.

And charisma alone doesn't make you a strong speaker...you have to be saying something. And if he weren't, people wouldn't be listening as they are. This "no substance" thing is, honestly, nothing more than sour grapes.


Define "something". What I see Obama doing is giving just enough to tell democrats/liberals what they want to hear. But not going deep enough to show how or even if, it can happen. That is something. But is it enough?

Do you see his speeches filled with enough that you know he can do what he says? If so, cite an example or two.

The other thing on the right wing radio shoes that makes me snort is the whole, "We don't know him!!! We don't know ANYTHING ABOUT HIM!!" caterwaul. Ummm, I wouldn't ADMIT that, on air. If you're ill-informed about a political candidate, you have nobody to blame but yourself. "Don't know anything about him?" Learn.

In all honesty, how much can you learn about a man who has only a few years in the senate under his belt? That isn't enough of a timeline to establish patterns and trends. His stregnth in politics has no backing in that sense.

And what we do learn can be concerning. Especially because he has tried to hard to keep it hidden while at the same time, calling that practice a thing of the past. Look at Michelle Obama's thesis in college. If he is so behind change, why did he go out of his way to keep that buried?

What we have is a hodgepoge of facts with very little background on which to base them or if its a trend or an abberation. This is very dangerous since it really means we don't know what he will do or how he will hold up in office.

[and1grad]

Interpretation, I have no problem with. I have a problem when false historical examples are used to justify a current policy. He has tried to justify personal talks with the government of Iran by citing past examples, 2 out of 3 are black and white false. The third, JFK's example, isn't as black and white but Soviet documents do back up the fact that the Soviets had a big boost in confidance after the Vienna summit. But again, its not certain so i'd be willing to cut some slack to him there.

If he messed up his history in a speech about memorial day or something, I wouldnt care, most Americans don't know their history anyhow. But this was more than that with the connection to policy. Do you see what I mean in that sense?
I see what you mean. I just dont, at this point, share your concern.

So you don't see a middle ground between smart and stupid? I personally disagree with that but to each his own.
I dont believe there's anything that I've said that would suggest that. Either way, this reeks of a semantics argument that isnt worth our time.

I'll try to speak to some of your other points w/o quoting. I agree with you about Iran. I think what you bring up is the type of pressure that is necessary, however, I'm unsure of just how hard conservatives are willing to push. They recently blocked sanctions against oil companies. On its face, that seems contradictory to putting pressure on anyone.

In terms of Obama, I think I agree that perceptions of a great speaker are subjective in many ways but it also is objective in just as many ways. Especially when the example is as clear as it is with Obama. That said, yes the explanations of "how" are lacking...but that is what happens in a Presidential race, or any race for office really. You get a lot of "I'll do this and that" but not a lot of explanation. To get into a lot of in-depth how explanations is to set yourself up for being discredited. I've just seen far too many campaigners do the same to be really concerned with this as of yet. Personally, I dont think everything he says, or Dems in general say, are realistically implementable or enforceable but...thats the game.

In regards to Michelle Obama, I think its human nature to hide things in your past that could hurt you for some reason or another. I also believe the challenge of explaining to white America what it feels like to be black in America is a daunting one. Especially if the audience doesnt want to hear you and I think its common knowledge that many conservatives (liberals as well) arent trying to hear that. However, I've heard Barack speak very eloquently on the issue of race and I have no doubt that he can do so again.

[Bman120]

That said, yes the explanations of "how" are lacking...but that is what happens in a Presidential race, or any race for office really. You get a lot of "I'll do this and that" but not a lot of explanation. To get into a lot of in-depth how explanations is to set yourself up for being discredited.

I agree with that. My question is, do you think, out of the two sides, that the emphasis for a deeper explaination is on the democratic side since they are arguing for a change in the status quo?

As a republican, and especially as one who agrees with Bush on major themes like the war on terrorism, and the economy, McCain can cite aspects of Bush's policies that have worked, then expand on how he would make it better. That is a major advantage as it gives him a background to draw on and expand on.

Obama however, has the burden of saying that things are wrong, and change is needed. And in order to make that point stick, in my opinion he would need to really expand more than he has. I think this question will probably be answered in the next few months as these two really start to go at it, especially if McCain keeps up the attacks on what substance Obama has provided. The more McCain does that, the more it will force him to reveal details when he may not be prepared to do so.

In regards to Michelle Obama, I think its human nature to hide things in your past that could hurt you for some reason or another. I also believe the challenge of explaining to white America what it feels like to be black in America is a daunting one. Especially if the audience doesnt want to hear you and I think its common knowledge that many conservatives (liberals as well) arent trying to hear that. However, I've heard Barack speak very eloquently on the issue of race and I have no doubt that he can do so again.

True, my thinking though is that if Barack and Michelle intend to have that talk with the American people, they need to be prepared for it to get very ugly. Despite all the liberal/PC rhetoric about how we're all the same, many blacks and whites see the racial divide differently and try to approach it differently, and at times, interpret the other sides approach incorrectly, leading to people being offended by accident.

I'd hate to see those two try to start a dialogue and have it blow up because many whites misunderstand what they mean. I can see how some would take Mrs. Obama's thesis as very offensive. I am not offended, and as a white, I don't think either of the Obama's are anti white. But some might, especially older Americans who lived through the race riots in the 60's and distrust anything that sounds like militant black groups of that era.

Personally, I think that just his presense in the oval office would do wonders for race relations and would be better than him trying to do something. If he were to win the election, in that sense I would be happy because i'd like to see race relations get better.

[Bman120]

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.



That is from Barack Obama's official website, which I have to give him props on, it's much better than John McCain's. It's from the Iraq policy section.

Notice the nice little out he built himself at the end. He'll withdraw, but if things keep going as well as they have been lately, all he has to do is tell the generals to say what they've been saying all along, that Al-Qaida is in Iraq. That means, by his own words, he can keep troops there as long as he would like. And he isn't a liar or hippocrite. It's a brilliant move that lets him stay if he feels we can win and then take the credit for it. And of course, Americans don't pay enough attention and the media is head over heels in love with the man so nobody even sees this little gem.

Sneaky moves like this is why I question his "Change we can believe in" mentality. I think the only change here is the shiny coat of paint he has put on the same old political machine every candidate uses.

[and1grad]

I agree with that. My question is, do you think, out of the two sides, that the emphasis for a deeper explaination is on the democratic side since they are arguing for a change in the status quo?

As a republican, and especially as one who agrees with Bush on major themes like the war on terrorism, and the economy, McCain can cite aspects of Bush's policies that have worked, then expand on how he would make it better. That is a major advantage as it gives him a background to draw on and expand on.

Obama however, has the burden of saying that things are wrong, and change is needed. And in order to make that point stick, in my opinion he would need to really expand more than he has. I think this question will probably be answered in the next few months as these two really start to go at it, especially if McCain keeps up the attacks on what substance Obama has provided. The more McCain does that, the more it will force him to reveal details when he may not be prepared to do so.
I actually think the climate of the war puts the onus on McCain to say why there SHOULDNT be widespread change to the approach. As I'm sure you know, the media is extremely uninterested in saying that there may be something GOOD happening in Iraq. So since a lot of America seems to be of Obama's opinion that things aren't going well in Iraq, I think the burden sits more on McCain to prove that he isnt just following Bush's lead.

True, my thinking though is that if Barack and Michelle intend to have that talk with the American people, they need to be prepared for it to get very ugly. Despite all the liberal/PC rhetoric about how we're all the same, many blacks and whites see the racial divide differently and try to approach it differently, and at times, interpret the other sides approach incorrectly, leading to people being offended by accident.

I'd hate to see those two try to start a dialogue and have it blow up because many whites misunderstand what they mean. I can see how some would take Mrs. Obama's thesis as very offensive. I am not offended, and as a white, I don't think either of the Obama's are anti white. But some might, especially older Americans who lived through the race riots in the 60's and distrust anything that sounds like militant black groups of that era.

Personally, I think that just his presense in the oval office would do wonders for race relations and would be better than him trying to do something. If he were to win the election, in that sense I would be happy because i'd like to see race relations get better.
Totally agree. Better to not call attention to race if you can avoid it b/c unfortunately there are people, on both sides of the media, who's job it is to misinterpret and inflame. Which, to be honest, isnt any less sad on Fox News than it is on Comedy Central.

Sneaky moves like this is why I question his "Change we can believe in" mentality. I think the only change here is the shiny coat of paint he has put on the same old political machine every candidate uses.
Arent you kinda nitpicking here tho? This is what government does...build yourself an out in case the situation changes. Thats foresight. I honestly think this is more smart policy than an attempt to deceive. Having this kind of language early on looks a LOT better than having to amend what you said after the fact.

[Bman120]

I actually think the climate of the war puts the onus on McCain to say why there SHOULDNT be widespread change to the approach. As I'm sure you know, the media is extremely uninterested in saying that there may be something GOOD happening in Iraq. So since a lot of America seems to be of Obama's opinion that things aren't going well in Iraq, I think the burden sits more on McCain to prove that he isnt just following Bush's lead.


Good point. Unfortunately, trying to get good coverage of the war at this point is a lost cause. That's due as much to the media's liberal slant as Bush's poor PR offensive. The man has done pretty much nothing since 2004 to really highlight what can be done there. And he's let the negative images fester to the point where poor John McCain can't really do much except say his experience will help him lead. Maybe this move to get Obama to go over there will help by drawing attention to the environment itself over there. Do you think Obama can go over there and use the trip to help him? Or do you see it as more of a move to help McCain and Obama is in a no win senario?

Arent you kinda nitpicking here tho? This is what government does...build yourself an out in case the situation changes. Thats foresight. I honestly think this is more smart policy than an attempt to deceive. Having this kind of language early on looks a LOT better than having to amend what you said after the fact.

Oh absolutely. I don't hold what he did against him, it shows his skills at politics and boosts his intelligence in my mind.

My only point is the man pushes change, but when it comes right down to it, he uses the same old tricks as the other politicians. And if change is why we're electing him, it means the media and the democrats need to take a closer look at him to make sure he really will try to do the things he says he will do.

[and1grad]

Good point. Unfortunately, trying to get good coverage of the war at this point is a lost cause. That's due as much to the media's liberal slant as Bush's poor PR offensive. The man has done pretty much nothing since 2004 to really highlight what can be done there. And he's let the negative images fester to the point where poor John McCain can't really do much except say his experience will help him lead. Maybe this move to get Obama to go over there will help by drawing attention to the environment itself over there. Do you think Obama can go over there and use the trip to help him? Or do you see it as more of a move to help McCain and Obama is in a no win senario?
I actually dont think it would wind up helping/hurting either of them. However, I do think McCain is the only one who could actually benefit from that scenario.

Oh absolutely. I don't hold what he did against him, it shows his skills at politics and boosts his intelligence in my mind.

My only point is the man pushes change, but when it comes right down to it, he uses the same old tricks as the other politicians. And if change is why we're electing him, it means the media and the democrats need to take a closer look at him to make sure he really will try to do the things he says he will do.
Well..."change" can be taken a lot of ways. The mere fact that he's in a position to be in office signifies a change that people are willing to believe in. But he cant completely re-invent the way politics is done in this country, especially if his goal is to cut across party lines while in office (which would also be change). So I belive the central theme of change in his campaign is valid but there will also need to be a degree of sameness in order to be effective.

[gemma-dahl]

True, my thinking though is that if Barack and Michelle intend to have that talk with the American people, they need to be prepared for it to get very ugly. Despite all the liberal/PC rhetoric about how we're all the same, many blacks and whites see the racial divide differently and try to approach it differently, and at times, interpret the other sides approach incorrectly, leading to people being offended by accident.

I'd hate to see those two try to start a dialogue and have it blow up because many whites misunderstand what they mean.

Oh god, yes, I agree - he is really wise to avoid all future talk of race relations.

My favorite reaction to the famous (quite moving, really) Obama speech, which has been re-hashed countless times on blogs, message boards, and my by own townfolk was, "Obama just gave a speech on how black people have the right to treat whites badly and be mad at them. And he didn't apologize about Rev. Wright."

What? He said nothing of the kind. Also, why should Obama APOLOGIZE? One man is not responsible for what comes out of another's mouth. Because of how this speech was interpreted by some, I'm afraid that Barack Obama's manner of speaking is too nuanced, and intellectual for a lot of people - especially because I assumed the speech was fairly easy to understand. I'm not being snobby - I thought the man was pretty damned plain and straightforward.

[wordsmith]

... I'm afraid that Barack Obama's manner of speaking is too nuanced, and intellectual for a lot of people - especially because I assumed the speech was fairly easy to understand. I'm not being snobby - I thought the man was pretty damned plain and straightforward.

One of my favorite things about him is that he doesn't dumb it down...after eight years of The Anti-Intellectual, it's a breath of fresh air.

[Bman120]

My favorite reaction to the famous (quite moving, really) Obama speech, which has been re-hashed countless times on blogs, message boards, and my by own townfolk was, "Obama just gave a speech on how black people have the right to treat whites badly and be mad at them. And he didn't apologize about Rev. Wright."

What? He said nothing of the kind. Also, why should Obama APOLOGIZE? One man is not responsible for what comes out of another's mouth. Because of how this speech was interpreted by some, I'm afraid that Barack Obama's manner of speaking is too nuanced, and intellectual for a lot of people - especially because I assumed the speech was fairly easy to understand. I'm not being snobby - I thought the man was pretty damned plain and straightforward.


He shouldn't apologize for Wright's comments. But it's pretty ironic that after explaining why he stood by him, when Wright goes on another rant again, he gets thrown under the bus. Obama's race speech was very good. But look what happends when reality drags down his attempt to move past this. He basically throws the speech to the side and dumps Wright, then later his church that he belonged to for many years when another priest started saying similar things.

Let's face facts here, nobody could be a member of this church for as long as he has and not have known about these things. He knew. Does this mean he feels the same way? No. Honestly, I don't think he does. But I think he did hear these types of things and shrugged it off, not thinking it was a big deal. Again, I have no issue with this if it is true. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and if he really felt the same way as Wright, he would never have made it this far considering he has had to interact and work with many whites to get where he is.

But its actions like this, and like my other examples that show how this man can deliver a powerful speech, but that the words can still end up ringing hollow after. And considering how so many pro-Obama comments tend to have to do with either his speechmaking, or the appearance and image he projects, I think this is a serious issue seeing as it impacts why so many like him. Nobody is directly confronting him and forcing him off the podium and down into the details. Clinton didn't dare seeing how important to the party he is win or loose, the media is in love with him and won't lift a finger on the matter. Now that the general election is on, hopefully someone will finally push him a little.

[Umbra]

I disagree. Bush is in some ways the opposite of Obama. He is a poor speaker in that his voice doesnt command and grab attention. He often sounds too informal and like he is trying too hard. But if you go past the style and look into the substance, you see that he is actually very intelligent and has an extremely expansive vision of what he is trying to do.


His voice doesn't command and grab attention? That's putting it mildly. Whenever I hear him talk, I cringe and hit the mute button. His speaking skills are atrocious, and I believe he is one of the dumbest presidents in our nations history. I see no substance. None.

[PenforPrez]

Obama is making good on his plan to make red states competitive. I'm shocked at how Obama is doing in some solidly red states.

Obama is currently ahead by about 5 or 7 in Colorado; Obama has consistently led in Colorado for months and looks likely to flip it. Obama is leading by 5 in the latest poll in Montana. But the biggest surprise I just saw this evening is that Obama is tied in North Dakota. There's just nothing in North Dakota politics to indicate any sort of Democratic groundswell. But they like Obama, apparently. If Obama can keep states like ND and MT competitive, that will keep McCain on his toes.

I was worried about one blue state early in the primary season: Wisconsin. But Obama now leads by double digits in WI. Obama also leads strongly in Minne-soo-ta (double digits there) and Iowa. I'm not worried about Pennsylvania. Obama is consistently leading there by mid-single digits. John Kerry only won PA by 4 or so points, so Obama could actually improve.

Obama has shown a slight weakness in New Jersey, which is interesting. The Republicans were talking about New Jersey and even California (gasp!) as possibly low-hanging fruit. Obama was ahead by 28 points in the last poll in CA (which would be a much wider margin than Democrats usually have there). Not happening.

But I worry about one blue state that could be an Achilles heel for Obama: Michigan. I'm worried about four states (MO, OH, VA and MI), and Michigan is the biggest. In the last poll that I trust, Obama was ahead by only three points. McCain led there for a good while.

My worry here is what would happen if McCain picks Mitt Romney for VP. This would be the biggest risk the Republicans have taken since nominating Dan Quayle 20 years ago. The Christian conservatives will go absolutely berserk if Romney gets the nomination. I'm anxious to see this. But Romney's popularity in Michigan would be the best chance (and a good one) for the Republicans to flip a large blue state. If McCain wins Michigan, he doesn't need the Christian Right. Not that McCain really likes them anyway.

If McCain wins Michigan, Obama is in big trouble with the Electoral College map. In this scenario, Obama would have to hit the political equivalent of a trifecta. Obama would have to win Ohio and Virginia and one smaller red state (Iowa, Montana, Colorado, Nevada).

I can see one or two Electoral College scenarios where McCain and Obama tie at 269; 270 are required to win. In this case, the election goes into the U.S. House (which has not occurred since 1824). Each state gets one vote in a House election based on voting by that state's representatives. Obama will win in this case because 26 states (I believe) have a clear Democratic majority in their House delegation.

Obama and McCain are dead even (mostly) in Ohio and Virginia. Obama really needs to win Ohio. Obama has the problem of needing to pick up one large red state no matter what else happens. On the other hand, if Obama picks up Iowa, North Dakota, Montana and Colorado (I think all four are unlikely), that puts Obama with the win at 275.

McCain is narrowly ahead in Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and slightly more so in Missouri. I was never convinced Obama could win here in Missouri, and McCain is averaging a six-point lead in the last two polls in Missouri.

So Obama is changing the American political map. Thank God for that. The question now is: will it be enough?

Paul

[Bman120]

Obama is making good on his plan to make red states competitive. I'm shocked at how Obama is doing in some solidly red states.


This is in part due to some of the smart moves to the center he has been making lately. Of course, these speeches and votes can't mask his very liberal record, but its enough to get his far left base angry enough to stay home if he isn't careful.

Either way, he is doing well. The question is will the country survive 4 years of him in office?

[Jersey_Steve]

This is in part due to some of the smart moves to the center he has been making lately. Of course, these speeches and votes can't mask his very liberal record, but its enough to get his far left base angry enough to stay home if he isn't careful.

Either way, he is doing well. The question is will the country survive 4 years of him in office?

Of course it will. Every candidate promises and preaches change, and then when they get elected, nothing changes. I can't imagine it would be any different if Obama gets elected.

Obama's rhetoric reminds me of the coach for my favorite hockey team. They brought in a new coach and he was promising and vowing to change the team's style of play. His changes lasted all of 20 games, after which he realized he can't change how the team plays. It's the same thing here. Obama can talk about change all he wants, but things move slowly in Washington (if they ever move at all, sometimes I think grass grows faster).

He can talk about change all he wants, but if he gets elected, a lot of his changes will make voters mad. Especially since it's going to involve more taxes. Which is another reason why nothing gets done. We want more for less. More services, less tax. Freedom from foreign oil, but lower gas prices. Better health care at lower cost. So why should anything get done? Principled and educated policies don't get politicians reelected. Tax cuts and rebates do.

McCain is rarely mentioned compared to Obama, because I really think this is Obama's election to win or lose. McCain, in my opinion, is a non-factor. It'll all come down to if people want Obama as President or not. Doesn't matter who the other person is.

It's almost a reverse of 2004: most people didn't vote for Kerry, they voted against Bush. People aren't going to vote for McCain, they're going to vote against Obama.