• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama in the ring

billydkid

Illuminator
billydkid
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
4,917
Earlier, on the way to pick up my son's friend for skiing, I heard some of Borack Obama making his announcement to enter the presidential race and I have to say I felt inspired. Humbly, I have to say that I have been somewhat perspicacous in some of the predictions I have made in here. My feelings about Obama is that he is going to be a huge historical figure. I can remember being a young boy when JFK was running for President against Nixon and, frankly, I have not felt about a political figure the way I felt about Kennedy (even at that young age) until Obama appeared. I told my son to remember this moment, because one day it will reveal itself to be an important moment in your life and in American history.

I predict here that Obama will become the POTUS and he will transcend every President who has served since Kennedy. Now, I am a libertarian and disagree with Obama about many things, but he is my man this go around and I think he will inspire the millions in a way that no president has since JFK. These are fairly extravagant pronouncements, but I have never been afraid to stick my neck out or to be spectacularly wrong.

Speaking of the Libertarians - they now have an offer available to anyone who donates $2000.00 to the Libertarian presidential campaign effort to appear as a speaking character in a South Park/Libertarian presidential promotional campaign. YOU could BE a South Park character.
 
I'm with you on Obama. I think he'll be transformative and expanding of the American space in a symbolic way the way that JFK was, and before him, perhaps Andrew Jackson was (yes, I know about Jackson's many flaws). People forget, however, how spectacularly Jesse Jackson did in '88, winning the Michigan primary and coming 2nd overall in delegates to Dukakis. What would truly be transformative is if Obama keeps his dignity throughout his political career, after the '08 campaign has run its course. I think the odds favor him doing that, but Jackson's shrinking moral authority from '88 to '08 is instructive.
 
What a relief! After reading the title of this thread I was worried that Obama was claiming paternity of Anna Nichole's love child.

I don't think Obama can survive the primary and he certainly would not survive the general election. Too little time in the bigs makes him very vulnerable.
 
Cylinder said:
What a relief! After reading the title of this thread I was worried that Obama was claiming paternity of Anna Nichole's love child.

I don't think Obama can survive the primary and he certainly would not survive the general election. Too little time in the bigs makes him very vulnerable.
Click to expand...

I think he has better odds than winning powerball, and this could position him well for '12 or '16 (think McCain).
 
Cylinder said:
What a relief! After reading the title of this thread I was worried that Obama was claiming paternity of Anna Nichole's love child.

I don't think Obama can survive the primary and he certainly would not survive the general election. Too little time in the bigs makes him very vulnerable.
Click to expand...

Now this is what I don't understand. Who was George Bush before he was elected? He had never served in national office of any kind and clearly he was unequiped for the job, yet he was twice elected. I don't believe that Obama's lack of experience is going to bother most voters.
 
billydkid said:
Now this is what I don't understand. Who was George Bush before he was elected? He had never served in national office of any kind and clearly he was unequiped for the job, yet he was twice elected. I don't believe that Obama's lack of experience is going to bother most voters.
Click to expand...
It won't, but he's going to actualy have to propose specific solutions now instead of giving the same old rah-rah speeches he's given to date.

BTW, he looked very nervous in his speech today, I've never seen him so nervous in an appearance!
 
We Illinois Republicans voted him in over that scoundrel, Alan Keyes. His job, we thought, was to represent Illinois and represent ALL THE PEOPLE, as both aisle sides voted for him. Now he is in Iowa spewing platitudes..."Where we were struggling, we now have hope...where there was a rush to make war, we can now rush toward peace"...etc.

Well, when the gay community starts marching in the thousands for gay marriage, and when the Kyoto Accord is again brought to the senate, and as the immigration barrier on the Southern border readies, the good senator of Illinois will no longer have the luxury of straddling the fence, but will be forced to move beyond platitudes and take a stand. He can play on being kind of black, and also kind of white, but on matters of policy he cannot be kind of liberal and kind of conservative. America won't buy it.
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
We've got a real theme going here, haven't we?
Click to expand...
I think I've been following the career of Barack Obama a bit longer than you have Dr. A.

He said today he doesn't believe in a "rash war". He regurgitated the same stuff we've heard from every presidential candidate to date. We need to not be dependent on oil, we need to help the working man, same old same old.

The specifics are what matters, and it will be his specific ideas that get him to the Oval Office or don't. Sooner or later he'll have to debate Hillary and Edwards and the rest.
 
I disagree fundamentally about all this policy/platitude stuff. In fact, I believe Americans elect PEOPLE (sorry, I know how to do italics - I don't see that option anywhere) and will elect people they disagree with on specific issues if they like them. They gloss over the disagreements in their minds if what they believe what they are electing is a fundamentally decent human being. I don't believe Obama has to take hard positions which will alienate certain segments of the population. In fact, I don't think he has to take any particular positions, but can rather talk about what he considers to be his guiding principles and this will be enough for most people. Besides, it's a little early to be fretting about lack of specificity in politics. Platitudes have gotten many a politician elected.
 
WildCat said:
I think I've been following the career of Barack Obama a bit longer than you have Dr. A.

He said today he doesn't believe in a "rash war". He regurgitated the same stuff we've heard from every presidential candidate to date. We need to not be dependent on oil, we need to help the working man, same old same old.

The specifics are what matters, and it will be his specific ideas that get him to the Oval Office or don't. Sooner or later he'll have to debate Hillary and Edwards and the rest.
Click to expand...
I meant that, like billydkid, your choice of words also reminded me of Boney M.
 
billydkid said:
I disagree fundamentally about all this policy/platitude stuff. In fact, I believe Americans elect PEOPLE (sorry, I know how to do italics - I don't see that option anywhere) and will elect people they disagree with on specific issues if they like them. They gloss over the disagreements in their minds if what they believe what they are electing is a fundamentally decent human being. I don't believe Obama has to take hard positions which will alienate certain segments of the population. In fact, I don't think he has to take any particular positions, but can rather talk about what he considers to be his guiding principles and this will be enough for most people. Besides, it's a little early to be fretting about lack of specificity in politics. Platitudes have gotten many a politician elected.
Click to expand...
But Hillary has been long on specifics for years, and her campaign will press that early and often. Obama will avoid as long as possible, but he'll have to come out w/ it sooner or later, probably sooner. And he won't have Dick Durbin whispering in his ear telling him what to say this time around.

My feeling at this point is that Obama is far more liberal than what most people now suspect, definitely more so than Hillary who has made a move to the center. Hillary will hit hard on the issues, to bring out the real Obama. She is not going to give him a pass.
 
WildCat said:
But Hillary has been long on specifics for years, and her campaign will press that early and often. Obama will avoid as long as possible, but he'll have to come out w/ it sooner or later, probably sooner. And he won't have Dick Durbin whispering in his ear telling him what to say this time around.

My feeling at this point is that Obama is far more liberal than what most people now suspect, definitely more so than Hillary who has made a move to the center. Hillary will hit hard on the issues, to bring out the real Obama. She is not going to give him a pass.
Click to expand...
My own opinion is that Hillary does not have a prayer in hell to be elect, although I might wrong. I believe Obama can be elect and would hate to see him derailed by the likes of Hillary.
 
billydkid said:
I disagree fundamentally about all this policy/platitude stuff. In fact, I believe Americans elect PEOPLE (sorry, I know how to do italics - I don't see that option anywhere) and will elect people they disagree with on specific issues if they like them. They gloss over the disagreements in their minds if what they believe what they are electing is a fundamentally decent human being. I don't believe Obama has to take hard positions which will alienate certain segments of the population. In fact, I don't think he has to take any particular positions, but can rather talk about what he considers to be his guiding principles and this will be enough for most people. Besides, it's a little early to be fretting about lack of specificity in politics. Platitudes have gotten many a politician elected.
Click to expand...

You miss half the gist of my post. Obama was elected by Republicans to function in Illinois. Many of us feel he has been disloyal by flying all over the country to sell his book, fund-raise, and now go national without doing the job we had hired him to do.
 
steverino said:
You miss half the gist of my post. Obama was elected by Republicans to function in Illinois. Many of us feel he has been disloyal by flying all over the country to sell his book, fund-raise, and now go national without doing the job we had hired him to do.
Click to expand...

Good point. He sounds like the biggest slacking scumbag since Lincoln.
 
steverino said:
You miss half the gist of my post. Obama was elected by Republicans to function in Illinois. Many of us feel he has been disloyal by flying all over the country to sell his book, fund-raise, and now go national without doing the job we had hired him to do.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Steve. Unfortunately, that is sort of the nature of the system. I do believe if you run for office and win you have a responsibility to serve in the post to which you were elected. Along the same lines most of us in NY felt that Hillary was nothing but a carpet bagger - but she did serve a whole term I guess before deciding to run for President. I might add, in defense of Obama, that he was as heavily recruited to run for president as a person can be. It is tough to resist all that adulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom