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?