# Too Early for Obama?



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

It looks like Senator Obama may run for President in 2008.

https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aypIIJQwhqzU&refer=home

He is smart and articulate and though I wouldn't vote for him (unless of course he wholeheartedly endorses a Manhattan Project style effort to find a replacement for fossil fuels) he is far more palatable than Hillary or Al Gore.

But I don't think he has enough experience yet to be President. Four years as junior Senator from Illinois is not enough. Clearly he could and probably will gain the necessary experience but he won't have it in 2008.

So do you think he really has a shot (with all this positive press so early in the 2008 election cycle he may be peaking too soon) or is he setting himself up as a VP possibility or perhaps for 2012 or 2016? I still think Gore will emerge as a dark horse and seriously contend for the nomination.

I do think its a mark of progress that we can finally seriously consider an African-American President (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ARE not serious!) I would be thrilled to see a McCain-Rice or McCain-Powell ticket for the GOP.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> ... He is smart and articulate ...
> Karl


He is? I sure haven't seen it. Except for the fawning over him by the media, I haven't figured out how he even got to be a Senator.

To answer your question: No shot.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have posted on this before. Unless a skeleton jumps out of his closet aka Gary Hart or he melts down like Dean, he has a great chance of being President. Hillary is really his only competition and any Obama/Clinton ticket is a shoe in. They are already so proud of him at Punaho, he is constantly mentioned in the alumni books the school sends my wife, I can only imagine if he becomes President. I wonder if he'll donate enough to get a building named after him like the Steve Case Middle School which now proudly sits on the Punaho campus. Then again, Presidents do not have to even donate, people are just happy to tie their institutions to them.

Qualifications? Low level concern with the US public likely to vote Democrat.

I have to say, I am a bit jealous. I feel if I had had the priviledged upbringing Barry had, I might have gone further in life. Maybe I should back Obama so he can make those mean rich people pay so we're all equal...oh wait, prestigious private school to prestigious private undergrad to prestigious private law school.....he is one of those priviledged few!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Even in the 'softball' Ed Bradley interview he had on 60 Minutes last year, he said some pretty stupid things about the economy. He seems totally clueless to me and he's clearly going to have to run on a domestic agenda. If I had to settle for a democrat I would pick Lieberman, Bye, or Biden over Obama or Clinton.

Don't you think it would be Clinton/Obama, not Obama/Clinton? As much as I despise her, she is by far more competent than Obama.

I would not be surprised to see Gore latch onto Obama early in the primary race. An implied Gore/Obama ticket would give Gore a good chance to win the nomination.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Boy ,you really dislike Obama! Were you on the Keyes campaign or something? Mind you there is almost no chance that I would vote for Obama but things seem to be going his way. I really do think that the hard Left in the Democratic party will turn to Gore and Hillary and Obama will split the centrist vote. 

I don't think any Dem will be able to beat McCain though. If only he can win the nomination.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think he is smart and articulate, and he has charisma, which is hard to fake. On the other hand, it may be too early for him. 

I think Obama may be another beneficiary of the blank slate phenomenon. Back in the 1990's, when Clinton was taking all kinds of conservative positions that mainstream Democrats didn't like, it was very common to hear people express the opinion, based on very little evidence, that Hillary's positions were more liberal than her husbands, and that she would operate as a moderating influence on him. More recently we've had people saying very similar things about Laura Bush, similarly based on very little evidence. (I don't think being a school librarian necessarily makes you a liberal, notwithstanding my liberal compatriots' general view that literacy and liberalism go hand in hand.)

Now, with Hillary looking not onlyl like the frontrunner, but not espousing liberal positions, liberal Dems want a liberal un-Hillary. Since he opposed the war Obama may qualify, but his record has enough question marks that he seems hard to pin down one way or another. (For example, I think he voted with the big business interests on the class action bill and against them on the bankruptcy bill (I could have that reversed) and he didn't lift a finger to help Lamont once he was the party nominee.)

What are his chances? I understand that the Hillary people are worried about him because they have been thinking all along that if Hillary loses Iowa and/or New Hampshire they can use the southern states on Super Tuesday as a backstop, but Obama is a threat to her chances in the South.

What about other leading black politicians? I think Powell has made it clear that he doesn't have a taste for electoral politics; he also clearly demolished his credibility in the leadup to the war. As for Rice, my extremely conservative brother-in-law says the real conservatives can't stand her, although I'm not quite sure why. He also says that as far as he can see, she really doesn't believe in anything. He had to agree with me, though, when I pointed out that she does--she believes we should defeat the Soviet Union; unfortunately for her, that is a political stance of limited usefulness in the 21st Century.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

JFK in 1954. The real deal, but needs time.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This is just my view, but I do not see a Repub ticket that will win yet. McCain/Rudy is not going to do it. I can not see any big names that can do it.

Any ticket that picks up Obama wins. Hell, I bet a Kerry/Obama ticket could win. Maybe I wasn't clear below...I am not sure if it will be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, but I think it will be that combo. It will win. Huge landslide.

It is not about qualifications this time. It is about the Dems putting up a minority and/or female candidate and that is what wins. Probably the worse ticket for the US would be a Gore/Obama win.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Boy ,you really dislike Obama! Were you on the Keyes campaign or something? Mind you there is almost no chance that I would vote for Obama but things seem to be going his way. I really do think that the hard Left in the Democratic party will turn to Gore and Hillary and Obama will split the centrist vote.
> 
> ...


I don't dislike him. I just don't see any reason for all the admiration. He hasn't done anything to impress. As far as I recall, he read one speech off a teleprompter without screwing it up and he was declared "Presidential material". WOOHOO! Jump on that bandwagon!

I do think it gets to W's idea of the bigotry of low expectations. Apparently, some people are so racist that finding a black man that can read and speak properly qualifies him in their mind to be President. Everyone else we judge what they say, but Obama - the fact that he can speak clearly and dress well in a suit is apparently enough. It makes me sick, but it's the actions of these condescenders I dislike, not Obama.

If we are just looking for a black man to be President, I can think of several black men off the top of my head that are excellent leaders, critical thinkers and successful business executives that I would vote for President. For example, The CEO of Time Warner strikes me as an excellent leader that has withstood tremendous criticism and has excellent character and skills. I'd vote for him no matter what color he was. Obama just doesn't make my list of top 100 smart people I've spoken with or listened to this year.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JM,

Considering that you are a Dem, who is your first choice to be the nominee in 2008? And do you think Gore will run?

Also with the way Putin has been acting lately, Rice's view that we need to defeat the Soviey Union may, sadly, have some more mileage to it. Plus it would be kinda neat to have a Russian speaking, concert level pianist as the VP.

But if the Dems nominate Hillary, Conservatives will support anyone short of Mark Foley that the GOP nominates. I just don't think Hillary can win. Evan Bayh might be your most electable candidate.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> literacy and liberalism go hand in hand.


:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:

Tears are rolling down my cheeks I am laughing so hard. I guess it is all in how you define "liberalism".


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I agree that it is too early for Obama to make a serious run. IMO, I wouldn't seek the VP position if I were him. A weak presidency or bad campaign could ruin his future chances of becoming President.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I think he is smart


Ok, I will ask you then ... Why do you think he is smart?

And; what has he done that has impressed you that makes you think he would be a good President?

When I saw him interviewed he showed me he could repeat good answers to questions, but could not at all think of answers to questions that he had not been prepared for ahead of time. I was curious and really unimpressed by the 60 minutes interview and he said some things about economics that showed a total lack of qualifications on that subject. I think we can all agree he is not going to run on foreign policy agenda, so it must be domestic. What has he done other than be articulate and black?

I understand he is articulate and has charisma and that makes him 'electable', but Tom Cruise was probably 'electable' by that definition too and he's clearly a wacko


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Ugh Anyone except Hillary. I don't have anything logical about this.

She just impresses my as totally ruthless.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> This is just my view, but I do not see a Repub ticket that will win yet. McCain/Rudy is not going to do it. I can not see any big names that can do it.


I think Lieberman's recent episode makes McCain/Lieberman a good ticket. They could work that out somehow.

I like Romney among the other Republicans.

I'm still hoping someone will emerge from the true Conservative wing.

Before you ask - if nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Concordia said:


> JFK in 1954. The real deal, but needs time.


I'm sorry, but that is an insult to JFK. JFK had ideas and understood economics. In addition, he was a proven leader.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think Lieberman's recent episode makes McCain/Lieberman a good ticket. They could work that out somehow.
> 
> I like Romney among the other Republicans.
> 
> ...


The thing about McCain/Lieberman is if you put two democrats in a race against Democrats, they Democrats are going to win every time.

Lieberman has lost 100% of my respect. When Gore tapped him, Joe totally reversed himself on many stances he had held for years. It was the most embarassing flip flop I had ever seen.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

JFK was also a decorated combat vet. But Obama doesn't have JFK's zipper problem (though it wasn't a PR problem back then) and I don't think Ted Sorensen wrote Obama's new book - Profiles in Courage was enough!

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc, you forgot the other reason Jack would think he was smart: Barry is also a lawyer. Jack seems to think his profession is full of nothing but brain trusts.

I actually have little doubt Barry is quite intelligent. He has achieved tremendous academic accomplishments. If that translates to real world smarts is, I feel, a yet unproven issue.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> JFK was also a decorated combat vet. But Obama doesn't have JFK's zipper problem (though it wasn't a PR problem back then) and I don't think Ted Sorensen wrote Obama's new book - Profiles in Courage was enough!
> 
> Karl


Yes, that was to what I was referring, but I don't think decoration is as important as his actual leadership under those circumstances and his military experience in total. Kerry was decorated too and I wouldn't call him a proven leader for it.

IMHO, all that book proves is that someone knew it is a weakness that will be exploited.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> ksinc, you forgot the other reason Jack would think he was smart: Barry is also a lawyer. Jack seems to think his profession is full of nothing but brain trusts.
> 
> I actually have little doubt Barry is quite intelligent. He has achieved tremendous academic accomplishments. If that translates to real world smarts is, I feel, a yet unproven issue.


Oh, I see. Well by those criteria (black, articulate, lawyer, charismatic) it's too bad Johnny Cochran can't run ...

Darden might still be available!


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

*McCain-Powell*

I like Obama, but, I need to know where he stands on the issues etc etc.
It would be very hard for me not to vote for a McCain-Powell ticket. I really like both of these guys. Dems would have to come up with a dream ticket for me to vote against them.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Obama seems like a great guy and very likeable however his view in some areas are quite liberal.

I don't think he has enough experience now for the job and I think much of the media hype is unsustainable.



> Well by those criteria (black, articulate, lawyer, charismatic) it's too bad Johnny Cochran can't run


Too bad Michael Steele did not do better. He is a quality guy.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Too bad Michael Steele did not do better. He is a quality guy.


Yes, from what little we saw of him here in Florida on the news he was certainly impressive. Obama x 5 on first impression.

Someone asked him about a federal appointment and he seemed headed that way. I can't remember which post.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I think Lieberman's recent episode makes McCain/Lieberman a good ticket. They could work that out somehow.
> 
> I like Romney among the other Republicans.
> 
> ...


McCain is DOA. The Republican right will beat him senseless for his support of McCain/Feingold. No real Republican (RINO's excluded) will vote for someone who sponsored a bill taking one's free speech rights away. Besides, just what does McCain bring to the table? Lieberman does not stand a chance, because he is too liberal on too many issues. Remember, the people of Connecticut re-elected him because he was a liberal on issues other than the Iraq war.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

It's a little misleading to call Obama an African-American. Yes, Obama is an African-American in the sense that his father was from Kenya, but he does not share the cultural heritage that most people think of when they hear the term "African-American," that is to say those Black Americans whose families were here during the days of slavery, emancipation, reconstruction, Jim Crow, and then the Civil Rights movement. Obama's father left when he was two, and Obama was raised by his white mother and her family. As an adult, Obama has visited his family in Kenya. His heritage is Kenyan, which is not the same thing as the heritage of those families with many generations of being African-American.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Dennis,

I don't consider myself a RINO but I am an enthuastic supporter of McCain. I disagree with McCain-Feingold but there are other issues. The GOP can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and has to nominate someone who can win. McCain can win and too be honest if he had won the nomination and the general election in 2000 I think we'd be in better shape now. Should be an interesting two years in any event.

Karl


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Obama surely seems articulate and is obviously intelligent. The problem is his senate record is weak and nearly no one knows his views on a wide range of issues.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rojo, you have hit on something very pertinent here. My wife was commenting on something very similar. He grew up in Hawaii, which even more so in his youth, lacked an urban or rural black sub-culture which is the case on the mainland. Not only that, he went to the most elite private school in Hawaii (yes, Kamehameha also exists, but all reports to me from people growing up there say it does not hold a candle to Punaho). So his upbringing was truly far from the daily life of 95% of those that grew up on the mainland or in Hawaii.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

whnay. said:


> Obama surely seems articulate and is obviously intelligent. The problem is his senate record is weak and nearly no one knows his views on a wide range of issues.


I'm confused. I agree on "seems articulate", but how is he "obviously intelligent" - because it has been so declared by the media? Because he gave a good speech? Not one person has commented on a substantive position or statement by Obama that demonstrates any level of subject matter knowledge/expertise or intelligence.

How many people commenting here actually watched his interview on 60 Minutes and listened to what the man said?

It was obvious to me he was not "intelligent" at all. Articulate, well handled and clearly groomed for his job? yes, yes, and yes.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Dennis,
> 
> I don't consider myself a RINO but I am an enthuastic supporter of McCain. I disagree with McCain-Feingold but there are other issues. The GOP can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and has to nominate someone who can win. McCain can win and too be honest if he had won the nomination and the general election in 2000 I think we'd be in better shape now. Should be an interesting two years in any event.
> 
> Karl


McCain has at least two character flaws - his temper, and his petty grudge holding. When push comes to shove, he can't survive voting against individual rights. In the primaries he will have to run to the right to be considered; and he will have to either come out against McCain/Feingold, or lose the right wing.

The same thing holds with Mitt Romney. He has now been on both sides of the abortion issue. The right won't let him off the hook for being pro-abortion, and he will have to be clean on this issue.

Had McCain won the nomination in 2002, I would have voted Libertarian. I can't bring myself to vote for him, regardless his credentials (former POW, etc.).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pendennis said:


> McCain has at least two character flaws - his temper, and his petty grudge holding.


He sure seems to have not held a grudge against W for South Carolina (and even if he did, IMHO it wouldn't be "petty" to do so).

I was amazed how often McCain came out to campaign for and try to rehab W and his administration.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> McCain is DOA. The Republican right will beat him senseless for his support of McCain/Feingold. No real Republican (RINO's excluded) will vote for someone who sponsored a bill taking one's free speech rights away.


Agreed. I don't like McCain and my thinking currently is along the lines of "let's get a real conservative in the White House for a change."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Artisan Fan said:


> Agreed. I don't like McCain and my thinking currently is along the lines of "let's get a real conservative in the White House for a change."


Steve Forbes?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Steve Forbes?


Not electable. Grew up too rich, too, too, way too nerdly. The US public would never elect someone that nerdly. The nerd factor hurt Gore I think and he's not nearly as nerdly as Forbes.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Not electable. Grew up too rich, too, too, way too nerdly. The US public would never elect someone that nerdly. The nerd factor hurt Gore I think and he's not nearly as nerdly as Forbes.


Agreed. The only real hope may be for Allen of Va, to resurrect. With a Santorum as VP...

Perhaps Forbes as Secretary Of The Treasury? We've got to simplify the tax structure, or collapse under the IRS's weight.

PS - I know that Allen is "damaged goods". However, the vote was very close.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Dennis,

I don't think an Allen-Santorum ticket would win 40% of the vote. I don't even have a second choice, for me its McCain or bust. You are right that he does have a temper but better that then the easy going demeanor of W.

Karl


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Dennis,
> 
> I don't think an Allen-Santorum ticket would win 40% of the vote. I don't even have a second choice, for me its McCain or bust. You are right that he does have a temper but better that then the easy going demeanor of W.
> 
> Karl


If his temper were only "righteously" placed, i.e. toward some deeply held belief, I might go along. However, his pettiness in setting up the "gang of 14", showed me that he was not true to any conservative beliefs. He had the opportunity to side with the President and get some real conservatives on the Federal bench, and he sold the rest of the Republicans down the river. That's turncoat material and "I have to be the center of attention" syndrome, from here. He's almost as bad as Lincoln Chaffee.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Dennis,

Now you have gone too far! You dont have to like McCain. You dont have to vote for Mccain. But to compare him unfavorably to Lincoln Chafee is beyond the pale. Take it back!

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Does anyone think we have a candidate, on either side, that is pro-business, wants low taxation, liberal social policy, limited welfare programs....basically, someone that wants to live and let live but not rape my wallet?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Does anyone think we have a candidate, on either side, that is pro-business, wants low taxation, liberal social policy, limited welfare programs....basically, someone that wants to live and let live but not rape my wallet?


We could bring back Bush #41! 

How about Pat Buchanan? He was anti-Iraq war all along.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> We could bring back Bush #41!
> 
> How about Pat Buchanan? He was anti-Iraq war all along.


Actually, I like Forbes on many issues, but as I said, totally unelectable. I am pretty tolerant socially, but that really is not as big a deal to me as my pocket book, the economy, and national security.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

rojo said:


> It's a little misleading to call Obama an African-American. Yes, Obama is an African-American in the sense that his father was from Kenya, but he does not share the cultural heritage that most people think of when they hear the term "African-American," that is to say those Black Americans whose families were here during the days of slavery, emancipation, reconstruction, Jim Crow, and then the Civil Rights movement. Obama's father left when he was two, and Obama was raised by his white mother and her family. As an adult, Obama has visited his family in Kenya. His heritage is Kenyan, which is not the same thing as the heritage of those families with many generations of being African-American.


Not misleading at all. African American was started, rightly or wrongly, simply as a euphemism for Black and to replace *****. Which is Obama refers to himself as African American. 
Personally, I prefer the term Black.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

He seems like a nice enough fellow however he's just a run of the mill liberal. He's the typical "boutique" candidate that Dems seem to love to trot out every four years. For Sen. Obama there is not a societal ill, injustice or shortcoming that a well funded, government run social program cannot fix. Let him answer tough questions and take positions somewhere far away from Oprah's couch.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Does anyone think we have a candidate, on either side, that is pro-business, wants low taxation, liberal social policy, limited welfare programs....basically, someone that wants to live and let live but not rape my wallet?


Newt Gingrich?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

AF,

Absolutely! One small problem though. He's unelectable on a national level. But definitely as Sect. of the Treasury in a McCain administration.

Karl


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Dennis,
> 
> Now you have gone too far! You dont have to like McCain. You dont have to vote for Mccain. But to compare him unfavorably to Lincoln Chafee is beyond the pale. Take it back!
> 
> Karl


Karl, please forgive me. I showed irrational exuberance in defense of my position.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> Not misleading at all. African American was started, rightly or wrongly, simply as a euphemism for Black and to replace *****. Which is Obama refers to himself as African American.
> Personally, I prefer the term Black.


Well, yes, African-American is a euphemism for Black. And I _did_ say that technically Obama actually is an African-American. But most of the time when we talk about the "Black American experience" or the "heritage of African-Americans" we are talking about those Blacks with long family histories in the U.S. Their heritage is different from the children of much more recent immigrants, such as Senator Obama.

Some Blacks themselves have criticized Obama as "not Black enough." See for example this commentary by Stanley Crouch, "What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me", here:

https://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/11/what_obama_isnt.php

Stanley Crouch flat out says, "when black Americans refer to Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about. In his new book, _The Audacity of Hope_, Obama makes it clear that, while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own-nor has he lived the life of a black American."


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Dennis,

All is forgiven. And in the end I think you will pull the lever for McCain if the other option is Hillary. But who is your first choice anyway?

Karl


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Dennis,
> 
> All is forgiven. And in the end I think you will pull the lever for McCain if the other option is Hillary. But who is your first choice anyway?
> 
> Karl


If he'd make a go of it, I'd vote for Allen of Virginia. The close senate race aside, he's got a lot going - executive experience as governor of a southern state, senator, conservative...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Speaking of McCain........



Posted Sunday, Dec. 10, 2006
As a rallying cry. "Common sense conservatism" doesn't have quite the ring of "Straight Talk Express." But the new slogan on the website of John McCain's presidential exploratory committee--a slogan he manages to repeat at least three times in every speech he gives these days--tells you all you need to know about how different this presidential campaign will be from his last one. McCain '08 will be a bigger, more conventional operation--a tank, not a slingshot. The prevailing wisdom about McCain used to be that his bipartisan appeal would make him a sure bet in a presidential race--if only he could get past the Republican primary. But as more and more of the party establishment climb aboard a campaign that McCain has not yet even formally launched, it's starting to look as if the opposite may be true. By trying to become the perfect candidate for the primaries, McCain could be creating difficulties for himself in a general election.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

pendennis said:


> If he'd make a go of it, I'd vote for Allen of Virginia. The close senate race aside, he's got a lot going - executive experience as governor of a southern state, senator, conservative...


Being a racist and showing overt support for an anti-American insurgency isn't enough to disqualify someone from being president in your view?



pt4u67 said:


> He seems like a nice enough fellow however he's just a run of the mill liberal. He's the typical "boutique" candidate that Dems seem to love to trot out every four years. For Sen. Obama there is not a societal ill, injustice or shortcoming that a well funded, government run social program cannot fix. Let him answer tough questions and take positions somewhere far away from Oprah's couch.


Senator Obama's hardly a "boutique" candidate, in that everyone who meets him seems to like him more than they did before they met him. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Also, far more people watch Oprah than listen to candidates dodging tough questions on Meet the Press or whatever (where, I might add, the Senator has admirably acquitted himself) so it's a very smart strategy for him to be seen as Oprah's guy in the race.

My gut feeling? He'll run and he'll win. Win big.


----------



## victorology (Dec 7, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I have posted on this before. Unless a skeleton jumps out of his closet aka Gary Hart or he melts down like Dean, he has a great chance of being President. Hillary is really his only competition and any Obama/Clinton ticket is a shoe in. They are already so proud of him at Punaho, he is constantly mentioned in the alumni books the school sends my wife, I can only imagine if he becomes President. I wonder if he'll donate enough to get a building named after him like the Steve Case Middle School which now proudly sits on the Punaho campus. Then again, Presidents do not have to even donate, people are just happy to tie their institutions to them.


Hey! Your wife graudated from Punahou, not Punaho. I haven't received\ my alumni magazine since I moved to Seoul. I wonder if they'd mail it here.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

The Dem's beloved old Senator Ted Kennedy once referred to him as "Osama Obama." And they criticize George Bush for talking funny...

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

rojo said:


> Well, yes, African-American is a euphemism for Black. And I _did_ say that technically Obama actually is an African-American. But most of the time when we talk about the "Black American experience" or the "heritage of African-Americans" we are talking about those Blacks with long family histories in the U.S. Their heritage is different from the children of much more recent immigrants, such as Senator Obama.
> 
> Some Blacks themselves have criticized Obama as "not Black enough." See for example this commentary by Stanley Crouch, "What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me", here:
> 
> ...


I can see your point. But, he's pretty assimilated into Black American culture, atleast from what I've read about him.
Stanley view probably isn't the majority's many Black Americans, rightly or wrongly, most believe Black is Black.
Personally, I don't consider him Black. I see him as mulatto or mixed, I'm not sure if mulatto is acceptable anymore. I don't understand how directly mixed people are always categorized as Black.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> Stanley view probably isn't the majority's many Black Americans, rightly or wrongly, most believe Black is Black.


Secretaries Rice and Powell as well Lt. Governor Steele might disagree with this statement.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rojo,

Well you do know that Obama's middle name is Hussein - I kid you not! If it was ok for Jim Webb to refer to George Allen as George Felix Allen then I see no problem calling the junior Senator from Illinois Barack Hussein Obama.

Karl


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> Secretaries Rice and Powell as well Lt. Governor Steele might disagree with this statement.


How so? Colin is very well regarded among Blacks. Rice garners far less admiration but recieves some level of respect. Most simply don't know who Steele is. Steele issue was he ran afoul of the Black political establishment, being so close to D.C that's a bad move.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> Personally, I don't consider him Black. I see him as mulatto or mixed, I'm not sure if mulatto is acceptable anymore. I don't understand how directly mixed people are always categorized as Black.


That is an interesting point. Apparently Obama is a 50-50 racial mix. However, he is always categorized as Black (or African-American). Given that he has one parent from each race, someone could just as easily categorize him as white, but nobody does.

The more I think about it, this seems like a modern, perhaps unconscious application of the old racist "one drop theory," which classified any person with even one distant non-white ancestor as non-white. Langston Hughes wrote in 1940, "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word '*****' is used to mean anyone who has any ***** blood at all in his veins." All these years later, maybe not much has changed, except we don't use the word "*****" anymore.

Edit: This quote from Professor Stephan Thernstrom maybe says it best: "The United States is the only country in the world in which a white mother can have a black child but a black mother cannot have a white child."


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> . Also, far more people watch Oprah than listen to candidates dodging tough questions on Meet the Press or whatever (where, I might add, the Senator has admirably acquitted himself) so it's a very smart strategy for him to be seen as Oprah's guy in the race.
> 
> My gut feeling? He'll run and he'll win. Win big.


I don't have empirical evidence of this but I would guess that those whose politics are informed by Oprah are least likely to vote.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> I don't have empirical evidence of this but I would guess that those whose politics are informed by Oprah are least likely to vote.


Middle Class white women?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Obama is a creation of the media. They need someone like him to play off of Hillary (who's all but been crowned Democrat nominee) in order to keep news interest high in the "race" for the Democratic nomination. Any other contender is old news or has been tried - Kerry, Edwards, Dodd? Please - no interst.

The media has built Obama up - and they will tear him down, if they can (depending on what's in his past). Who heard of this guy until the media decided to portray him as the great contender - it's laughable. They did this to Dean as well (built him up and then tore into him - not that I minded).

Obama is ridulously underqualifed to be President - US Senator for two years; no executive leadership, no leadership in general; he can deliver a speech - great. Next.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> Being a racist and showing overt support for an anti-American insurgency isn't enough to disqualify someone from being president in your view?
> 
> Senator Obama's hardly a "boutique" candidate, in that everyone who meets him seems to like him more than they did before they met him. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Also, far more people watch Oprah than listen to candidates dodging tough questions on Meet the Press or whatever (where, I might add, the Senator has admirably acquitted himself) so it's a very smart strategy for him to be seen as Oprah's guy in the race.
> 
> My gut feeling? He'll run and he'll win. Win big.


Obama will not survive the early primaries. He never met a government spend program he didn't like. Check his voting record in Illinois. He will have to move right-of-center to appear less liberal. The man has no chance.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

rojo said:


> That is an interesting point. Apparently Obama is a 50-50 racial mix. However, he is always categorized as Black (or African-American). Given that he has one parent from each race, someone could just as easily categorize him as white, but nobody does.
> 
> The more I think about it, this seems like a modern, perhaps unconscious application of the old racist "one drop theory," which classified any person with even one distant non-white ancestor as non-white. Langston Hughes wrote in 1940, "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word '*****' is used to mean anyone who has any ***** blood at all in his veins." All these years later, maybe not much has changed, except we don't use the word "*****" anymore.
> 
> Edit: This quote from Professor Stephan Thernstrom maybe says it best: "The United States is the only country in the world in which a white mother can have a black child but a black mother cannot have a white child."


He also classifies himself as African American, so he does embrace the label. You can't get called all kinds of names by directly mixed people for questioning their categorization as Black or suggesting they recognize both sides in anyway. I do differentiate between directly mixed and indirectly ,especially here in the U.S.
I guess in some way I can understand where they are coming from. I am a light skinned Black, but my whole family is Black no ones directly mixed and no one knows where their white blood came from (which basically means rape during slavery). And I would loathe if one described me as mixed race.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

victorology said:


> Hey! Your wife graudated from Punahou, not Punaho. I haven't received\ my alumni magazine since I moved to Seoul. I wonder if they'd mail it here.


I am surprised they have not hunted you down. She moved to the mainland 10 years ago to be with me and we have moved three other times. Each time they found her! Sorry about the spelling, many words and pronounciations there are beyond me.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I hope we don't rush too much.

Rushing to judgement based on appearances and not caring about whether the candidate has the necessary background and experience got us stuck with GW Bush.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I hope we don't rush too much.
> 
> Rushing to judgement based on appearances and not caring about whether the candidate has the necessary background and experience got us stuck with GW Bush.


You get extra points! Managing a Dubya bash in a thread about Obama is not for the beginner.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

To make the same mistake about a liberal politician would be to show we have not learned much from our previous mistake. 

Besides, give me some credit, I come in on the conservative side of these arguments sometimes, too. I blame Bush and his incompetence for the grave possibility that we could be stuck with a Liberal President supported by a Democratic Congress. (I am totally NOT in favor of that.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> To make the same mistake about a liberal politician would be to show we have not learned much from our previous mistake.
> 
> Besides, give me some credit, I come in on the conservative side of these arguments sometimes, too. I blame Bush and his incompetence for the grave possibility that we could be stuck with a Liberal President supported by a Democratic Congress. (I am totally NOT in favor of that.)


Heh, okay, credit given


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Osama is merely an opening act for the headliners- Sadly, a pack of Mick Jaggers who's stage mannerisms are known, expected and choreographed down to the smallest pelvic thrust.A plague on all of them. Give me a Barry Goldwater or Harry Truman.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

pendennis said:


> Obama will not survive the early primaries. He never met a government spend program he didn't like. Check his voting record in Illinois. He will have to move right-of-center to appear less liberal. The man has no chance.


I think you're misinterpreting (underestimating?) the mood of the electorate. Outside of the ideological fringes, Americans don't hate government. They hate government when it doesn't work. The last 6 years have given us ample examples of that, but these miserable failures are not inevitable. The beauty of Senator Barack is that in his message and mannerisms he evokes an era when Americans were more optimistic about our ability to get together and use our national institutions to get things done for the betterment of the whole nation. I think that's a winning position in 2008. But only time will tell which one of us is right.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> I think you're misinterpreting (underestimating?) the mood of the electorate. Outside of the ideological fringes, Americans don't hate government. They hate government when it doesn't work. The last 6 years have given us ample examples of that, but these miserable failures are not inevitable. The beauty of Senator Barack is that in his message and mannerisms he evokes an era when Americans were more optimistic about our ability to get together and use our national institutions to get things done for the betterment of the whole nation. I think that's a winning position in 2008. But only time will tell which one of us is right.


I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief but Sen. Obama is a died in the wool lefty. He is through and through a socialist. His voting record as a state senator speaks for itself. Right now people have a love affair with him because he's an oddity, a novelty act in a political environment that has too many familiar faces. People and the media were swooning over Howard Dean a few years ago the same way and remember what happened to him.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> I think you're misinterpreting (underestimating?) the mood of the electorate. Outside of the ideological fringes, Americans don't hate government. They hate government when it doesn't work. The last 6 years have given us ample examples of that, but these miserable failures are not inevitable. The beauty of Senator Barack is that in his message and mannerisms he evokes an era when Americans were more optimistic about our ability to get together and use our national institutions to get things done for the betterment of the whole nation. I think that's a winning position in 2008. But only time will tell which one of us is right.


pie in the sky


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*An unscientific poll*

Based on a small, and unscientific polling of people whom I know to be registered, and life-long, Democrats, I find that McCain beats both Obama and Clinton. These are admittedly Southern, and therefore more conservative Democrats, but they are also people who have never voted for a Republican before, and that includes Reagan. I know the war gets a lot of press for the recent Democratic victories, but if you actually read the polls taken just after the election and released by CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc., the corruption of the last Congress was the single biggest motivator in making people vote Democrat. It is the same reason the Republicans took power away from the Democrats twelve years ago. And it shows that swing voters and cross-over voters actually do matter, and that maybe Karl Rove doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. For either party to win the presidency, they will need to find someone who has cross-over appeal. The more conservative members of the Democratic party do not like Hillary, so it is doubtful she can pull anyone from the right. Obama seems to light a cross-over fire amongst youthful voters, but there are too few of them to matter.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> I think you're misinterpreting (underestimating?) the mood of the electorate. Outside of the ideological fringes, Americans don't hate government. They hate government when it doesn't work. The last 6 years have given us ample examples of that, but these miserable failures are not inevitable. The beauty of Senator Barack is that in his message and mannerisms he evokes an era when Americans were more optimistic about our ability to get together and *use our national institutions to get things done for the betterment of the whole nation. *I think that's a winning position in 2008. But only time will tell which one of us is right.


You are mis-casting the middle. Yes, on one fringe we have folks that hate government. On they other (yours) we have folks that seem to think government is *the answer*. The vast middle thinks that government has its plusses and has its minuses but that at the end of the day, it is the notion of personal initiative, responsibility, and individualism that has made the US what it is. That is the very notion that Kennedy captured, pulling the country back from the left, "Ask not what...." Come LBJ is where the Dems and the left went forever wrong.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Taking from above about Obama's optimisim appealing to the electorate ... I think Obama appeals to people who think feelings and words will solve our problems. I continue to hope that the majority of voters will be looking for an actual strategy and tangible solution. However, I will concede that the 2006 election certainly didn't prove this to be the case.

Four pages into this thread not one thing has been said about Obama that would justify the claims that he is intelligent and qualified or even a leader; only that he is articulate and charismatic.

I read an article that had some quotes from Obama and the one thing I have seen him say that I thought was intelligent is that the bandwagon is filling up way too early on him and that he hasn't staked out his positions on the issues yet. That's my assessment too and made me think maybe he is pretty smart.


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> He seems like a nice enough fellow however he's just a run of the mill liberal. He's the typical "boutique" candidate that Dems seem to love to trot out every four years. For Sen. Obama there is not a societal ill, injustice or shortcoming that a well funded, government run social program cannot fix. Let him answer tough questions and take positions somewhere far away from Oprah's couch.


Well said, here is a quote from Oprah:



> I don't consider myself political and I seldom interview politicians. So when I decided to talk with you [Barack], people around me were like, 'What's happened to you?' I said, 'I think this is beyond and above politics.' It feels like something new.


It is not about "qualifications" people...

.


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

Obama and his wife are a very good looking couple. The problem is we don't need that. The United States of America is a world leader in military, middle class society, and freedom for it's citizens. A youthful, liberal, charismatic will not serve the interest of our original values...

Thank you for reading...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pcunite said:


> It is not about "qualifications" people...


_feelings, nothing more than feelings ... _


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*Brand Obama*

No one needs to like it, but the Obama brand is strong. Strong enough for Prez? Stay tuned. One thing's for sure though:

We do like our marketing in America.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I see more people are coming around to my way of thinking. Qualifications are secondary, the packaging is everything. If you get *The Oprah* to back you, you are a shoe in. People talk about mindless Limbaugh followers? He just wishes he had the Borg Collective that *The Oprah* has.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

For better or worse, I think this is essentially true, and perhaps has been from at least the JFK/Nixon debate. Of course marketing has only become more prevalent/important since then.

Think Lincoln would be electable today? Answer: No.

The old lit-crit game of form v. content is what we have here. I remember during the 2000 election listening to some fraternity guys talking excitedly about George W. Bush and how they were going to vote for him. Why? Because he seemed to them the sort of chap with whom they could have a beer. They based this notion, in part, on Mr. Bush's appearance on The Tonight Show. I didn't have the heart to tell them that Mr. Bush would be unavailable to drop by their next kegger.

Still, they were sold on the "everyman" brand.

Best thing, it seems, is to hope that the brand reflects at least something of the underlying "content" or character of the person.

If marketing didn't exert a powerful influence on, well, nearly everything we do, there'd be a lot fewer commercials interrupting Prime Time.



Wayfarer said:


> I see more people are coming around to my way of thinking. Qualifications are secondary, the packaging is everything. If you get *The Oprah* to back you, you are a shoe in. People talk about mindless Limbaugh followers? He just wishes he had the Borg Collective that *The Oprah* has.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> On they other (yours) we have folks that seem to think government is *the answer*. The vast middle thinks that government has its plusses and has its minuses but that at the end of the day, it is the notion of personal initiative, responsibility, and individualism that has made the US what it is.


At the end of the day, middle-types people just want their lives to be better. They don't care how it happens, as long as it does. Is effective government part of that? Absolutely.

I think Obama will win easily for two reasons. First, just like with the GOP and Bush in 2000, I think that ultimately the party elders are going to look at him and the serious competition (HRC, Edwards) and ultimately very quickly throw their weight behind them. Also, I just have trouble seeing a viable GOP candidate. They have a choice between a racist who sympathizes with an anti-American insurgency (Allen), a mean old guy who's too friendly with gay people and has health issues that could lead to a nasty October campaign if he's within striking distance (Guiliani), a Mormon with a funny name and a flip-floppy history on a topic GOPers allow no dissent about, a person who may be fundamentally a decent guy but is too close to being a theocrat to get any real traction (Brownback), and a few other nonentities. I think the media darling who is riding high now but who will be thoroughly skewered by the process is McCain, not Obama. Obama is not like Dean, in that Dean basically just tapped into preëxisting (and entirely vindicated by recent history) antagonism towards the thugs and profiteers in charge. He was always direct and in-your-face, and that was good enough to ride a short-lived swell of popularity. (In 2004, I preferred a smoother, more elegant, more erudite approach to the same end in Gen. Wes Clark.) The problem with Dean was that there was always someone angry seething under the rather sensible and moderate policy prescriptions. The problem with McCain is that there's always someone mean and angry seething under a facade of moderation that hides just another Southern Republican.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> .... Come LBJ is where the Dems and the left went forever wrong.


LBJ was far worse for this country than even RMN. Let's see -

The Great Society - We have really suffered since. These social programs have been miserable failures, and they've spawned more failed social programs, as nauseum.
Vietnam - What can I write that hasn't already been written? JFK knew it was a no-win, especially within that moron McNamara's parameters. He also attempted micromanagement - Choosing daily bombing targets?
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Failure to impress that civil responsibilities go along with civil rights. See bullet 1 - Great Society
Failure to put JFK assassination to bed. No, I don't believe in a conspiracy. However, the JFK Commission ran a very flawed investigation; namely organized crime connection, if any.
Trying to have huge spending programs and fight a war simultaneously. Did he ever get his head out of his a$$?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

SGladwell said:


> I think Obama will win easily for two reasons. First, just like with the GOP and Bush in 2000, I think that ultimately the party elders are going to look at him and the serious competition (HRC, Edwards) and ultimately very quickly throw their weight behind them. Also, I just have trouble seeing a viable GOP candidate. They have a choice between a racist who sympathizes with an anti-American insurgency (Allen), a mean old guy who's too friendly with gay people and has health issues that could lead to a nasty October campaign if he's within striking distance (Guiliani), a Mormon with a funny name and a flip-floppy history on a topic GOPers allow no dissent about, a person who may be fundamentally a decent guy but is too close to being a theocrat to get any real traction (Brownback), and a few other nonentities. I think the media darling who is riding high now but who will be thoroughly skewered by the process is McCain, not Obama. Obama is not like Dean, in that Dean basically just tapped into preëxisting (and entirely vindicated by recent history) antagonism towards the thugs and profiteers in charge. He was always direct and in-your-face, and that was good enough to ride a short-lived swell of popularity. (In 2004, I preferred a smoother, more elegant, more erudite approach to the same end in Gen. Wes Clark.) The problem with Dean was that there was always someone angry seething under the rather sensible and moderate policy prescriptions. The problem with McCain is that there's always someone mean and angry seething under a facade of moderation that hides just another Southern Republican.


Since when is Arizona the South?

Obama as a presidential candidate is a farce - as I said, a creation of the media. There's no groundswell for him - nobody knows anything about him. He's being built up to create a news story and to create an interesting opponent to Hillary - he's there to drive consumption of news.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

You want to talk farce, see: Gardner, Chance.



Rocker said:


> Since when is Arizona the South?
> 
> Obama as a presidential candidate is a farce - as I said, a creation of the media. There's no groundswell for him - nobody knows anything about him. He's being built up to create a news story and to create an interesting opponent to Hillary - he's there to drive consumption of news.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> At the end of the day, middle-types people just want their lives to be better. They don't care how it happens, as long as it does. Is effective government part of that? Absolutely.


Depends what you mean by "effective". If you mean keeps up the roads, delivers the mail, runs a good public school system, and minimizes its impact on the population, sure. Anything else and you are only proving my contention you are on the opposite frings of the "I hate government" people.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Obama is impressing even veteran political observers. Some 1,500 people showed up at one rally in NH, when the locals expected maybe 500. Apparently he's also drawing enthusiastic receptions from citizens who do not ordinarily go out for rallies; some are saying he's the most hopeful candidate they've seen since JFK. I've met him and can say there does indeed seem to be a special quality about him--personal magnetism of a sort arguably even greater than that of Bill Clinton (who I've also met, by way of comparison).

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...061213obama,1,1225827.story?coll=chi-news-hed

And the guy can deliver a line:






Funny stuff.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Interesting thread.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Obama is impressing even veteran political observers. Some 1,500 people showed up at one rally in NH, when the locals expected maybe 500. Apparently he's also drawing enthusiastic receptions from citizens who do not ordinarily go out for rallies; some are saying he's the most hopeful candidate they've seen since JFK. I've met him and can say there does indeed seem to be a special quality about him--personal magnetism of a sort arguably even greater than that of Bill Clinton (who I've also met, by way of comparison).
> 
> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...061213obama,1,1225827.story?coll=chi-news-hed
> 
> ...


Yes, they are impressed (like we all are) that a guy with no qualifications and experience can be doing so well.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> He is? I sure haven't seen it. Except for the fawning over him by the media, I haven't figured out how he even got to be a Senator.
> 
> To answer your question: No shot.


Should we be more impressed with the above quote from you?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Should we be more impressed with the above quote from you?


I don't say things to impress anyone, Karl. I simply engage in the conversation/discussion. I am not afraid to be wrong. I gave my opinion.

However, I have proven to be largely right in that Obama is not proving to be that "smart or articulate" off-script.

Just look at the decisions he is making (like his foreign trip troop debacle) or how Katie Couric made him look ridiculous over the surge question.

Does he have a shot? Sure, that's the surprising part; as I said in the previous post.

Do you have a point or are you just back to your normal veiled and not-so-veiled attempts to troll and insult other members? Maybe your time-out didn't do you as much good as it first appeared. Your first few posts back were rather interesting and on-topic. I'd hate to see you return to your previous form, but so-be-it.

I think I have *more* than proven that I can live in peace if others will. It's your choice.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Its fine to wrong (though some seem to make a habit of it) and your opinion was not an unreasonable one in late 2006 but to hold it now seems to speak to a logic more wedded to ideology than the facts on the ground.

And your final comment seems animated by hubris but one can't expect that to change.

In any event I am delighted by today's US Today poll that gives McCain a slight lead among registered voters.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> In any event I am delighted by today's US Today poll that gives McCain a slight lead among registered voters.
> 
> Karl


I was too, actually. It's a bitter pill for me swallow, but Barr is not a reasonable choice for me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Its fine to wrong (though some seem to make a habit of it) and your opinion was not an unreasonable one in late 2006 but to hold it now seems to speak to a logic more wedded to ideology than the facts on the ground.
> 
> ...


That's why _in my hubris_, I volunteered two facts on the ground in the last week that support my view. A habit that you might employ - citing facts, even anecdotes, that support your arguments rather than just attacking the character and logic of those with whom you disagree.

I am hoping and thinking you will, but as you pointed out I thought Obama had no shot too. Perhaps I am also illogically wedded to an ideology of polite discourse?

Ciao, my tee-time is calling ... which should give you plenty of time to think about how you want to proceed.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> Perhaps I am also illogically wedded to an ideology of polite discourse?


I admire your keen sense of irony.

Karl


----------



## The Deacon (Nov 25, 2006)

it's over already...no?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

This is kind of interesting - Obama's law class syllabis and some of his final exams. I would be interested to hear your opinions on what if anything can we determine about Obama from his teaching style.



Karl


----------



## Victor123 (Jun 18, 2008)

Will be nice when this election is over.


----------

