The ridiculousness of Obama

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: The ridiculousness of Obama

Originally posted by DanS

If the Dems overall think that Obama is electable in the general election, they are seriously detached from reality. Who is going to vote for a "real progressive?" There ain't no votes there!

Hey, maybe the Dems ought to nominate the lightweight instead: John Edwards.

I'm very, very agnostic about Obama. But I find it amusing that a thread entitled "The ridiculousness of Obama" was posted by someone with the GOP's 1856 campaign slogan in his sig. Obama, inexperienced as he is, is at least as qualified -- and as mainstream -- as Lincoln was, let alone Fremont.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


There isn't much daylight between Hillary's and Obama's voting records, and Obama's positioning himself as someone who can better bridge the divide between the parties (relative to Hillary).

But all the folks who despise the DLC are agin Hilary, and salivating over Obama. Ive got to think theres a reason. And no, I dont think its electability. You can say its that they hate DLC corruption, but for a hundred reasons, I dont buy that.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

"There hasn't been a single negative ad thrown at him yet. "


except for the ads Bush threw at him in 2000. And the general whispering against him by GOP pundits (not excluding your friend and mine, George Will). McCains been threw the ringer, if not that intensely, and so has Hilary. Obama is still getting a lovefest - like the press gave Edwards last time around.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


Unfortunately for the GOP, they're going to have real issues making any further headway into the African-American population following the Hurricane Katrina fiasco. The same might hold true WRT Latinos, due to many Republicans' stance on border enforcement.

It's a shame that some white Americans wouldn't vote for a Democratic Party presidential ticket simply because it had a minority or a female (or minority *and* female) on it. Surely it's time for the Curse of Geraldine Ferraro to wear off?

Gatekeeper

Geraldine Ferraro (who I met once, nice lady) had the dual problems of being A. Unqualified for the office to which she was nominated and B. Representing a fading style of politics (white ethnic northeastern urban)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'd vote for Colin Powell.

if only he'd run against clinton in '96 I doubt we'd ever have been subjected to W.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Kontiki
You guys aren't going to elect a black president in my lifetime.

Colin Powell proboably would of won if he ran in 2000. A lot of democrats liked him too.

[Ramo]

But all the folks who despise the DLC are agin Hilary, and salivating over Obama. Ive got to think theres a reason. And no, I dont think its electability. You can say its that they hate DLC corruption, but for a hundred reasons, I dont buy that.

Look at the voting records. Can you name any bill of note where they differed substantially? All I can recall is that Obama voted for higher CAFE standards (one of the many bills he's sponsored) and Hillary voted against it, and that Hillary voted for the Flag Burning Amendment, while Obama voted against it.

As for your question, because Obama comes with less baggage and quite simply, he's a better politician. Maybe not in terms of fundraising or retail politics (yet), but Obama has mastered the politics of authenticity. He exudes warmth, while Hillary doesn't. He's easily one of the best public speakers in politics today, while Hillary isn't. And it's also manifested through the voting record. Not in big things that really matter but in small things, like the Flag Burning Amendment knowing that it won't pass. Is there anything that says cynicism and calculation more than doing something like that?

As for the "DLC despisers" all loving Obama, that's not really true. If you look at the lefty blogosphere, there's considerable resistance to Obama (but not as much as Hillary). Some of the resistance is due to his lack of experience in national politics, others see him as often reinforcing right-wing frames in his rhetoric (i.e. Democrats are anti-religion), and other people believe that he's an overly cautious politician not willing to publicly commit his considerable amount of political capital to a large-scale agenda (i.e. Edwards and poverty or Feingold and civil liberties). Some of this criticism can be unfair, but it's by no means uncommon.

except for the ads Bush threw at him in 2000. And the general whispering against him by GOP pundits (not excluding your friend and mine, George Will). McCains been threw the ringer, if not that intensely, and so has Hilary. Obama is still getting a lovefest - like the press gave Edwards last time around.

I was referring to Giulliani. McCain I think has a decent shot, but I'd still give the edge to Romney at this point.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Look at the voting records. Can you name any bill of note where they differed substantially? All I can recall is that Obama voted for higher CAFE standards (one of the many bills he's sponsored) and Hillary voted against it, and that Hillary voted for the Flag Burning Amendment, while Obama voted against it.

As for your question, because Obama comes with less baggage and quite simply, he's a better politician. Maybe not in terms of fundraising or retail politics (yet), but Obama has mastered the politics of authenticity. He exudes warmth, while Hillary doesn't. He's easily one of the best public speakers in politics today, while Hillary isn't.

Hillary is a very smart cookie about everything political, Id say. Even a book/movie that set out to trash her (Primay Colors) showed that. Best public speaker? Yeah, they said that about Edwards, too.

Obama just isnt "ready for prime time" (and yeah, im thinking of his general abilities, not his speechifying)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Is there anything that says cynicism and calculation more than doing something like that?

Obama, boy scout. Last time the Dems elected someone so pure, he failed of reelection four years later, and gave us Ronald Reagan.

I'll take the sadder but wiser gal.

[Jon Miller]

I don't know how you can say Obama is ridiculous, and even talk about Giulliani.

JM

[Ramo]

Obama, boy scout. Last time the Dems elected someone so pure, he failed of reelection four years later, and gave us Ronald Reagan.

I'll take the sadder but wiser gal.

It's not necessarily about being Mr. Smith (or Mr. Feingold), it's about looking the part. As I was saying, in terms of actual votes or willing to risk political capital, Obama's not all different from Hillary. But Hillary exudes cynicism.

As for his legislative skills, he is definitely no Carter. He got a considerable amount done as a freshman in the Minority.

Hillary is a very smart cookie about everything political, Id say. Even a book/movie that set out to trash her (Primay Colors) showed that. Best public speaker? Yeah, they said that about Edwards, too.

I never believed that about Edwards. He was good the first time you heard him, but he wears on you. While Obama gave IMO the greatest political speech I've ever heard by a person who is currently alive.

Obama just isnt "ready for prime time" (and yeah, im thinking of his general abilities, not his speechifying)

If we're talking general abilities, there's a reason why Obama decisively won a crowded primary against self-funders who were throwing millions at the race, and then went on to win an open Senate race by a record-breaking margin (besides Alan Keyes). Why Obama developed one of the best grass-roots organization and funding apparatus by anyone not running for the Presidency in 2004. Why Obama was the best fundraising draw in the party last election (with the possible exception of the other Clinton).

[Ned]

My take is that Obama has a lot of charisma. He reminds me of Kennedy.

Not Kennedy also had a lot of gravitas that became clear during his debates with Nixon. His positions on issues was "centered" if not to the right of Nixon's.

From my understanding, Obama is far left. If this is true, he will come off as a lightweight vs. Hillary and/or any likely Republican candidate. He himself needs to move to the center in order to win either the nomination or the presidency.

[SlowwHand]

Obama or Vampira would hand the election to the Republicans.

[Ned]

Slow, not so. Obama has no fixed public image other than the positives that came out of his speech at the Dem convention. He can adjust his policies to the center and win on charisma.

[SlowwHand]

I don't know much about him; but I'd take him, even as an unknown, over the other.