Obama 08?
 

Saw my first Obama '08 bumper sticker on a car today. I happened to park next to it and talked to the guy for a few minutes. He said he made it himself in photoshop and is selling them trying to Obama to run for president in '08. There have been numerous stories around the news recently about him potentially running. I think he would be an interesting test case.

Pros: Seems to be a middle of the road kind of guy, very strong speaker, good fundraiser, religious, well educated.

Cons: Currently a senator and other threads have mentioned the probelms with that, not really tested in his senate race, black (I hate to say it but even today I think this would be a negative), funny name (again this shouldn't be a factor but it definitely was something he has had to overcome).

I actually think VP might be the next step for him. He certainly would be a VP that would help move the needle for the presidential candidate. Anyway, any thoughts?

excellent public speaker, but i'm not ready for a black president.

VP, maybe.

still, i love the way he talks. makes GWB look even more incompetent with the ease he has onstage in front of a podium. is he a Republican or Democrat?

He could be a formidable candidate, but he's awfully young and inexperienced for such a big step so soon.

To be fair, Barack has been doing a few things as Senator that are casuing people to question his competance. I remember him passing a bill or an amendment a few months ago that was his that the Senate needed to emergency change because of some issues with it.

I'd vote for him.

I think the better question might be who would be better than Obama for the Dems in '08? I have a hard time coming up with anyone.

As ridiculous as it sounds, I bet the fact that his name is so close to Osama would be a factor.

Regardless of how the American public actually feels, I think the current Democratic party is so hell bent on trying to please everybody, with a platform based on being as bland as possible, that a black man on their ticket wouldn't even be considered an option.

doesn't make it right but it's a huge factor

Based on the result of the last two Presidential elections, competance is not something the majority of American voters look for in a president. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Joe Lieberman. Oh, shit...

Sadly, I think you are right.

And yet Hillary Clinton is? Because that's what I'm hearing...

Or Zell Miller! Or Strom Thurmond!

It's something I care about. By the way, the amendment that he proposed and was passed was to Immigrant legislation in May.

I can't remember the specifics but if memory hoplds correct, it ended up essentially giving foreign workers in America cheaper hourly wages than domestic workers. This was ostinably designed to protect domestic worker salaries but ended up giving companies reasons to hire foreign workers in America. That's what I remember, but the details are fuzzy.

-Anxiety

Well, he's about to win the Senate seat in Connecticut, a fairly liberal state, AFTER being kicked out of the party. I think that indicates that those who were opposed to his nomination are outside the mainstream, not Lieberman himself.

did he come out and say "my bad" after?

I'm not a huge fan of Obama yet. He keeps giving speeches like, 'We need leadership on this', 'We need leadership on that'...well, you're a United States Senator that has a throng of media writing down your every word whenever you speak! Provide some leadership! But instead he just seems to be keeping from taking a stand which would make him vulnerable. Not exactly a profile in courage.

Care to explain that?

A majority of his support comes from Republicans. I heard Glenn Beck on the radio today say he was going to vote for him, and Sean Hannity and O'Reilly have endorsed him. So why would the Democrats want him in office? What would be the point of even holding the office if it was a Republican in sheep's clothing there anyway? It's like saying that the Dems should nominate McCain.

Hell, I'd register as a Democrat again if they nominated him.

Exactly, and if the GOP were fiscally responsible and socially libertarian I would register as a Republican. But none of that is going to happen, which is why you aren't registered as a Dem and I'm not registered as a Rep.

He's an intellectually-challenged race-baiter.

I mean, this is the same guy who goes bananas over the idea of having a midget at his draft party. Do you honestly expect better than that from him?

I wouldn't be surprised to see a big Al Gore push. But who I'd really like to see on the Democratic ticket is Mark Warner (former Governor of Virginia).

It does say something (I'm not sure what) that no one really blinked an eye when HA posted that. I think if it had been anyone else, the response would have been swift. With HA, notsomuch.

It's better not to give such comments a response. That's what "they" want.

Honestly, I expect Al Gore to actually be the Democratic nominee in '08.

I think it's a prevalent thought throughout much of the country. It's obviously the definition of racism, but at least HA doesn't hide what he thinks.

Posts like that, though, are why HA should really be banned.

He won once, he can do it again. ;)

I'd vote for Gore in a second if he ran. I don't know much about Warner, but heard good things. Governors are usually good because they don't have the long voting records to distort like Senators do, but they are usually weak on foreign policy, and this will more than likely be a big foreign policy election.

I think for better or worse (probably worse), Hilary pretty much has the nomination locked up if she runs. I don't see how anyone else can really beat her, except if Gore runs, and a Gore-Clinton primary would be extremely bloody and very bad for the Democratic party.

Btw, since when was Liebermann "KICKED out" of the Democratic party? He lost the primary. That doesn't mean they take away his Democrat card or something. When he wins (and he will), he'll probably simply rejoin the Democrats. He knows that the Party has to back their nominee. Some Dems are still backing Libermann.

I think the Dems would really like to see Hilary on the ticket, but ultimately that will only happen if she's listed under VP. It's still too early for a woman President. I see a black President before a woman (unless someone like Condoleeza sneaks in under both criteria). I only see a black or woman President winning if they are Republican, and the voters will see that. It'll be the whole "Vote against the Republicans" situation where people vote who they think is more likely to win against the Republican candidate. A Republican woman or black candidate is more likely, IMO, to get Democrat votes, than vice versa.

If Clinton runs, it will be a landslide for the Republicans.

IMO, Warner is no good. He acts and seems like a politician. There is a swarminess to the man. And I think while the democrats view him as a Southerner (who could carry the South), everyone south of Virginia knows Virginia is not in the South.

I'm a fan of Tom Vilsack. Based on my time in Iowa, I think he is a good public speaker with genuineness about him. He represents what Gephardt wants to be. I also think a midwest democrat stands a much better chance than a coastal democrat. His personal history is also fascinating and could appeal to a lot of people (abandoned orphan raised by Roman Catholic parents in PA). He was also the first democrat governor from Iowa in 30 years.

Unfortunately, Vilsack doesn't have the war chest of someone like Hilary, so I don't think he stands a chance. But I think he would be a solid democrat candidate who would win the general election if he could get past the primary.

For those of you liked Bill Clinton, you're going to LOVE Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico.

Because Democrats never learn from their mistakes?

Everyone seems to love Richardson, and I've heard good things about Vilsack too. I think there are a lot of decent Dem prospects for '08, even Edwards.


This probably isn't the right thread for this, but how bad of a job is Rice doing as SecState? Between the whole Isreal/Lebanon thing, the North Korea thing, the Iran thing, the continuing deterioration of relations with our allies, etc. Combined with the fact that she was NSA director during 9/11, she doesn't have much of a resume. I guess poor policies though influence her work a lot though.

lololololololololololololololololololololol

Well, actually I'm not sure about this, but I think he has a similiar stature in the party that McCain has with some independents - that there are Democrats who would make it their life's work to get him nominated.

I don't think there is anything like that with Hillary or anybody else. I think he inspires more passion in that party than anybody.

:confused:

One other thing in Vilsack's favor - he is the current chair of the DLC. These are the past chairs of the DLC:

President Bill Clinton
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma
Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana
Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia
Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia
Former House Democratic Leader Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri

That's a good group of people to be associated with if you want to be viewed as a moderate candidate (and the DLC is pretty much as moderate democrat as you get in terms of perception).

As a conservative republican who supports bush, ill admit Obama is third on my list of people id vote for. Only powell and mccain are higher. And thats saying something, as im generally very conservative.

On the other hand, lieberman and clinton are on the very bottom of my list.

That's a pretty good list. I miss Sam Nunn.

I agree if Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans get a free pass to another four years.

A McCain-Obama presidental election race would be a moderates' dream and it's my biggest fantasy.

I think Hillary inspires more passion than any of the other Dem candidates, certainly more than Gore. And I don't think it will be a landslide like everyone thinks. A Clinton/Richardson ticket would be pretty strong. Remember, after the 1994 congressional elections nobody thought Clinton had a chance of getting re-elected. He was as divisive then as Hillary is now. Also, people were laughing when Hillary decided to run in NY. People have counted out the Clintons in the past and it has always been a mistake.

McCain has had nothing but good press for the last 6 years, but when the campaign starts and he's the frontrunner, they will come after him. He's no longer the glory boy. His involvement in past scandals will come to light. His flip flopping on Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones university will be spotlighted. McCain's image as this maverick independent will be tarnished, especially as he continues to placate the right wing fundamentalists. You thought the Swift Boat Veterans were bad? Wait until you see what the Clintons do to McCain.

I think, sadly (though not necessarily with regard to Gore), that we've come to the point where it will be virtually impossible for a losing Presidential candidate to run again. The "he's a loser" mentality will not allow it to happen. Gore came as close to winning as any loser has, and he still wasn't a part of the action 4 years later. Kerry came close, too, and although he hasn't ruled himself out, I think pretty much everyone else has. I have no doubt that the Republicans saw Clinton easily winning in 1996, so they threw a bone to Dole as a lifetime achievement award that doubled as a "don't taint a legit candidate down the road" nominee.

Just the way it is these days.

I don't quite see it that way. Dole wasn't a "throw the bone" nominee. He had the most money and organization. Candidates starting getting ready in 1994, when a Clinton victory was anything BUT assured. If anyone wanted to challenge him, they certainly could have. But I don't know who would have had a legitimate shot in 1996. The next biggest name (other than Powell, who said no) was probably Jack Kemp, and he ended up with the VP slot.

2004 had nothing to do with Gore previously losing. It was his nomination to take. If he had run, the field would have cleared for him and those that stayed in would have got steamrolled.

A better example would have been 1992, where the top Dems (Cuomo, Gephardt, Gore) stayed away because Bush Sr. seemed a certainty. Clinton was the best of the leftovers (no matter how good of a campaigner he is, he would not have beat Cuomo in 92), and still ended up winning the election.

I don't know a single Republican who really thought 1996 was up for grabs. Dole got the nomination because he was the senior member of the old Republican guard, and it had nothing to do with his chances to win. Not to say there was another Republican that could have done better, but they didn't "waste" a candidate on a losing campaign.

am i the only one whos underwhelmed with all the names being put foward?

Clinton's approval ratings were in the 40's in 94 and 95. After the huge victory in the 94 midterms, why would they not think they had a chance? It wasn't until 1996 (when everyone had already decided to run or not) that Clinton's ratings begin to rise and his election seemed inevitable.

If Obama runs he will blow everyone out of the water (primaries and general election). His inexperience, race, name will all be relative non-factors. That sort of thing gets talked up a lot early one, but once you're into it personality is the key factor. In 2000 Bush was supposed to have these sorts of problems (inexperience, dark history, etc.), but no one cared. In 2004 Kerry was supposed to be great because of his ideal background (experienced Senator, decorated veteran, etc), and it didn't help him at all. Attention to those sorts of details is overanalyzing things. It really just boils down to who do you like. And people will like Obama. A lot. He's very smart, very eloquent, comes off incredibly well on TV. He conveys his convictions and beliefs effectively, but never in a way that makes people who disagree with him defensive. He's a statesman and he connects well with people (not a common combination). He is an ideal politician (and would probably be a good president). And I think the timing is good for him. If a dem wins he might not have another chance until 2016, at which point he's probably past his freshness date.

Obama is too young. He may be stale by 2016, but he is really young and inexperienced now. It is also pretty well known that he has a couple small, but notable skeletons in his closet that are hard to overcome at a young age (whereas Bush overcame them by being older and born-again).

If I were in the Democratic Party "brain trust", I think I would try to find the safest candidate possible. I don't think they can afford to give away another election like the last one.

Huh? Going by this strategy is exactly how we ended up with Kerry.

A war protester was the safest candidate in the middle of two wars? I guess my definition of safe is skewed.

Kerry was the very conservative choice. In fact, he was far less against the war then most other canidates it seemed to me. I felt kerry was the safe choice, and thats why you lost.

I'm sure you meant last FOUR elections. Then I would guess you would go even further back than that. :)

huh. guess they were wrong.

A war protester who voted for the latest war and had the most experience of any candidate? Versus a first term senator, a random General with no political experience, the outspoken governor of Vermont, the House Minority Leader that nobody liked, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton. Yes he was the safest candidate. And during the primary his whole campaign was based on the fact that he was the most electable candidate.

i would have gone with the general.

I'll ditto this. Dole was given the nod because it was "his turn". He was a loyal trooper and had ran for the VP job in 1974, lost in the primaries in 1980, lost in the primaries in 1988, and now they decided to give the old guy a chance at the big prize. Unfortunately Dole was doomed by the same thing that'd doom Gore 4 years later in that instead of being himself, he let his handlers try to shape him.

True in 1994, Clinton was vulnerable, but by late 1995 and early 1996, people realized Clinton was going to be very hard to beat... especially after he outmanuvered the Republican Congress on the government shutdown issue at the end of 1995.

That is very true and very obvious to any who had followed the 96 election at the time. Glad you remembered your history, Imran. You'd be surprised by all those thinking that they know politics but don't have a clue what went on before 2000.

Dude, HA is a jerkoff. But this is about the 4th time I've seen you react in a similar manner. Rule #1 at FOFC is to have a thick skin.

Ha. Ha. I know you're trying to be cute, but he DIDN'T win once. And thank god for that.

I would have too.

Huh? I saw a racist comment asked for him to elaborate. I was genuinely interested in what he would say. I didn't know I had some reputation for flying off the handle and didn't think I had done so.

"By late 1995" everyone would have already decided whether to run or not. In 1994 and throughout 1995 the Republicans were very confident. And they thought their moral statesman war hero Bob Dole (who was everything that Clinton was not) could beat Clinton. If they weren't so confident they wouldn't have faced him down over the budget situation in late 1995. And even after that, a January 1996 poll had Dole up 49-48.

But apparently I don't know what went on before 2000.

Why do you hate America?

I supported McCain in the 2000 primary because I thought he was a moderate. But right now his foreign policy is MORE hawkish than Bush's, and that just makes me cringe.

dola foul

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ad.php?t=50903

Because Gore got destroyed in the election? Or didn't win the popular vote? It's not like he's Dukakis. In the time since he lost I think he has gained more support and shown that he actually does have somewhat of a personality.

How about the repubs? I haven't heard any real candidates thrown around except Rice. I she going to be the nom for the GOP?

I think Gore looks worse post election. When he legally challenged the election, it made him look like a sore loser and someone you cannot trust.

Contrast that to the "above the battle" or "respectful to the election process" behavior that Nixon garnered by not challenging the 1960 election results. In 1960, it is largely believed that Mayor Dailey's machine in Chicago committed fraud, helping deliver Illinois to Kennedy, which at the time was the closest election in history.

Nixon felt the peoples faith in the election process was more important than the individual outcome. To call the process a fraud would do more damage. He returned in 1968 with an image of trust and respect. I don't believe Gore has that image outside of core democrats.

To name a few:

Rudy Giuliani
Condoleezza Rice
John McCain
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
Bill Frist
George Allen
George Pataki

I think Rudy can win the whole thing. It would be great to see the Rudy versus Hillary election we missed in the New York senate race.

Ironic, considering how much Nixon's actions in the White House ended up eroding the public's trust in elected officials, especially the office of the President.

I think the Foley thing really damages Giuliani's chances. It's going to be hard to run as the morality party when right after the Foley scandal you nominate Giuliani whose mistress was living in the same house with his wife.

Gingrich, Allen, and Frist would be dreams for the Dems. Rice isn't going to run and would be a terrible candidate.

I don't know if irony is absolute there. His actions in 1960 garnered the results he wanted in 1968. Then again, the entire decade of the 70's resulted in a loss of respect for the executive branch. Nixon is a very interesting study from a biographic view. If you study his life, I think you come away thinking he is a good guy. But, from a policy standpoint, not a favorite Republican.

I don't see the marital issue form Guiliani being anything bundled with Foley. Foley is an individual and not linked to Guiliani in any way. His activity is nothing comparible to divorce and fidelity.

It would be hard for any democrat to demonize Guiliani having supported Clinton. It's a non issue for the future. Plus Guiliani would be a social moderate. I would guess the republicans will run on security. Despite the fact that no political party is acting right regarding border security, the republicans are viewed as more trustworthy on security.

"But by God, they're exceptions. But Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on us."

"The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards."

"The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like."

What a good guy!

Can we all get back on topic...its not just you larry, but this thread is becoming less of a 08 canidates thread and more of a dem vs repub mud fight

seems pretty straightforward, no explanation required.

I don't see Hillary winning (see hasn't done squat for our state). Also, Bill might be overshadowing. Her support for the war may be a sticking point. I pry she isn't elected. Socialized medicine, higher taxes-not for me.

I hope the long-shot rumors of Bloomberg running are true.

no, me wishing that you get AIDS or testicular cancer - that is what should get me banned.

expressing my opinion, is not. and what, exactly, is so bannable about "i'm not ready for a black president"? do you automatically deem something ban-worthy if you don't agree with someone? it's called having an opinion and expressing it, and it doesn't cost anything to do it so i hand out my opinions freely and frequently.

don't like my opinions then you have the option not to read them.

i really don't want anything bad to happen to you for a long time. rather, i want you to live out what has become an awful excuse for a life for the rest of your days, and know that one day you'll be on your death bed and actually believe the folly that you at one point made a difference in this world. please, live a long time.

You're kidding, right??? Who is floating that idea?

Anyway, the local news has been reporting that ex-Wis Gov. and HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson is forming a PAC and exploring a run for President. Most people around here also think Russ Feingold will run.

i agree with this. it's not my biggest fantasy (mine involves a drunk Jessica Alba and Britney Spears circa 1999), but i'm all for McCain as Pres.

the only thing i don't like about those two is they're both somewhat soft on immigration. i wouldn't be surprised if either of them made life very pleasant for illegal aliens, and that disturbs me. but, you gotta take the good with the bad so i can overlook that flaw either candidate.

if any Mayor from NYC is gonna run and have a chance, it'll be Rudy Guiliani. i don't know exactly what Bloomberg has done to make him a candidate.

and no one from NYC ever wins anyway.

Bloomberg has been rumored to run in the same mold as Perot of the 90's for the 2008 Presidency. However, how much of a shot he would have to win is something I'm not sure of.

Personally, I'm not much of a fan of Guiliani. Another candidate is Mass Governor Roomey.

MSNBC polls show those as the top candidates right now.

I didn't say you would like them, in fact if you are a democrat, you likely hate all of them. :)

Wait, his mistress lived in the same house as him and his wife?

Guiliani's got skeletons. Hell, Bernie Kerik was his right hand man.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...0&postcount=10

I don't see much difference between saying you wouldn't vote for someone based solely on their race, and saying you wouldn't vote for someone based solely on their religion. Sure, the latter implies the person has a certain set of morals, but there's no reason why that would need to impact their public policy decisions in such a way that would completely disqualify them from being President. Kerry is a catholic and had several public policy views against the teachings of the church, and Bush is born again yet feels he can torture at will.

On Obama. He seems to have a lot of the requirements. But, didn't it take a sex scandal for him to finally win an actually contested election?

Was that inexperience? I don't know, but early on, in the Obama Ryan race, I seem to recall the biggest knock on him was that "he was a loser" well at least a losing record politically.

On McCain. I'd vote for him. On Lieberman. I'm hoping he greases the Dem candidate in the general. Well okay the Rep. as well. Oh I'd vote for him too.

On Gingrich, I actually think Newt would be a great president. He wasn't anywhere near the figure the Dems painted him to be. The contract with America was a great thing, and it wasn't just a tool to win elections. It was a principled movement, that placed so many controls on unethical campaigning behavior, that it took Delay, Hastert, and company several years to undo them all. Newt was demonized by the Dems, and that is why he can't win a general election. Too many people believe he was what they were told he was.

This reminds me of the St. Louis Cardinal fans who still insist that they won the 1985 World Series (Denkinger call). Get over it. It's been in the books for some time now.

Yeah thank god because america is really kicking ass now!

dola

The dems have got to stay OUT of the Northeast for their next candidate. I know that sounds simplistic, but I think anyone from the border states up the eastern seaboard is going to have zero chance of being elected.

Mark Warner is nice, but you can't elect a guy with no foreign policy experience when your country is in the middle of a war.

The dems really have next to nothing right now - not a single name tossed out in this thread has a realistic chance of winning an election. In fact, I think the only dem that could win right now would need to have the constitution amended to make that happen.

Seems rather appropriate doesn't it? I mean, that's what will determine the '08 candidates anyway, so how could it really be any different here?

You know the political scene is in a bad state when you go to the poll trying to figure out who you should vote for that will cause the least damage.

You'll certainly get no argument from me on that sentiment at this point.

But I will go you one worse: you know it's bad when you wonder if there's any candidate on the ballot for many offices that will even manage to avoid a string of unforgivable screw ups during their term.

That's what I'm down to probably 90% of the time right now. Even before I consider whether they'll get anything right, I look at how much stuff they're likely to get wrong.