Will Barack Obama be our next President?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>Or cannot differentiate between the Shiites, Sunnis, Al Quida, and Iran. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YF4THiNvVX4" width="425" height="350" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" quality="high" wmode="transparent"></embed></p>
 
<p><em>NSR, but what do you base your concern upon? It seems that most Obama detractors are worried about the unknown.</em> </p>

<p>No, it's a distrust of the known. It's also the distrust of populists and bunch of idealists supporters that don't see the pied piper for who he really is. Can you say Chavez? </p>

<p>He is NOT CHANGE. He is an accomplished survivor of the Chicago political machine. None of the candidate are clean. Neither of the two other primary candidate may be any better.</p>

<p>But please, take of the rose colored glasses and see him for what really is, just like Bush just a different set of corrupt friends.</p>
 
<em>"What would be your idea of a good candidate? "</em>





Personally, I have always like the rich guys because they already have enough money so money usually doesn't corrupt them. Arnold comes to mind. But then again Eliot Spitzer was rich...





Then there are the poor candidates who have strong moral fiber, but this can be faked to easily...





Then there are the religious candidates... ditto above...





I guess they all suck.
 
IR,



I am a member of the GOP, and we do have a lot of party problems. However, general elections are more often than not about the candidate, rather than the party. If you need evidence of this, look no further that California. Every trend since '90 has favored Democrats in the gubernatorial race, yet the Democrats cant solve the problem of how to win and hold the statehouse in a blue state. New York follows under this observation as well.



Obama is lucky in that he is competing in a primary against someone who has the exact same policy positions that he does. The primary is largely about who presents these positions better. In the general, he will be competing against someone who has been on the opposite side of the issues. Iraq is one. Hillary doesn't remind that public that Obama voted against the surge (because she voted against it), McCain will. Hillary and Obama are trying to have the same position on NAFTA. McCain will stand up for free trade.



But again, the biggest problem that Obama will have is the one that Gore and Kerry had, and that is the visceral reaction from voters. Exit survey after exit survey in '00 and '04 showed that a large part of the general electorate did not feel like they knew who Gore and Kerry really were (the "regular guy problem"). Obama is already getting into that quicksand: NAFTA and the Canadiens; Reverend Wright; even calling his grandmother a "typical white person" (believe me, that last one may not hurt him in California or Illinois so much, but in the border swing states - watch out!).



Finally, look at the head to head polls in the swing states such as Rasmussen.



Oh, and on housing - I do not think we need large programs or bailouts. The only way any program can work is to subsidize previous purchases by re-writing the principal amount, or by propping up home prices above affordable levels (artificial price floors). I am opposed to either.
 
>I do not understand people who say that Obama is not legit because he speaks too well.



I would add to No_Such_Reality's comment on this by adding the "gut instinct, fishiness" factor. In life, the people with the best blah blah tend to be the biggest manipulators (real estate agents, salespeople...not all, of course!) and tend to accomplish the least. I think the other ladies on the board will know what I mean when I say the guys who talk the best game are usually the ones to avoid, as another example. Talk really IS cheap. The older I get, the more true I find that to be. There are exceptions and I would not dismiss Obama solely b/c he's a good speaker, but it instinctly makes me take a step back.



While I'm at it, the popularist nature of Obama also freaks me out on instinct as well. When the masses clamor so fervently around a new person or idea, I find, in general, it very often turns out to be the wrong way to go. I think people individually are smart, but not so much en masse. Look at the housing mess, for example. So there is a gut reaction to gifted speakers that I think bothers some people, myself included. An inherent distrust.



Does the that help explain it?
 
<p>Please, let's quit confusing being a great speaker with being a great salesman. There is a huge difference between telling you what you want to hear in order to con you and public oration. Obama can give inspirational speeches, but Bill Clinton could sell a camera to a blind man. The difference isn't just in the content but in style and approach. Great public speakers give inspirational speeches based on great ideas and a grand vision, and and touch on common experiences. Great salesmen work on a more personal level, creating a bond and instilling trust. Obama is asking you to follow and believe, not buy a used car.</p>
 
What's this about being "unknown"? Obama has a long and consistent legislative record. He has an obsession with open and honest government and has always been center-left in his positions. It's McCain and Hillary who are unknown. Hillary has scrupulously avoided any bold positions or initiatives during her Senate career. Will she be a compromising moderate like her husband or the liberal firebrand some think lurks in her heart? McCain always used to be a relatively moderate Republican and then completely switched to toeing the Republican line and kissing up to Falwell about 4 years ago. What would we get with McCain: the independent maverick or the obedient Republican? Tune in next year for the answer - maybe.<p>



With Obama we know what we'll get and what he'll work for.
 
Hey Nude,



>Please, let's quit confusing being a great speaker with being a great salesman. There is a huge difference between telling you what you want to hear in order to con you and public >oration.



But it IS confusing! How do you know which is which? It's very hard to tell, especially with so little experience to give context. In my case, it's a moot point b/c I disagree with Obama on most issues and wouldn't vote for him anyway. And, for the record, I think Obama IS definitely selling something.



>Obama is asking you to follow and believe, not buy a used car.



A lot of people ask me to follow and believe them. Without actions (and actions I believe in) they all (including Obama) can merrily pound sand.



Definitely not trying to pick a fight, just explaining a POV. Have a good Saturday :-)
 
I guess that desire to avoid the smooth-talker is how we got saddled with Bush. Voting for the one that can't speak well didn't work out there. He can't form a good sentence for his life because he can't form a good thought. Should we also avoid voting for anyone with intelligence? Do we really want a President to be someone that can't give a good speech? It is really sad to me that people now hold it against someone for being good at a useful skill. I never thought I would see "must not be a good speaker" as part of the job description for the most powerful job in the world.
 
skek - I agree with you about those types of interview questions. Do people not see the irony in talking about getting past race and gender discrimination, but then expecting blacks to vote for Obama and women to vote for Clinton? I wish most people would vote based on the issues, but most people don't bother to find out where candidates stand. I will be voting for Obama based on his stance on the issues.

You know, I just now thought of a reason that some people may not vote based on issues. Too many Presidents change what they do once they get into office. Remember Bush saying he didn't believe in nation building? Maybe these voters figure it doesn't matter what a candidate says.
 
<p>skek, I respect your reasons for not voting for Obama. I understanding that you do not like Obama's policies and would not vote for him. Same reason I would not vote for McCain regardless of his race or gender.</p>

<p><em>While I'm at it, the popularist nature of Obama also freaks me out on instinct as well. When the masses clamor so fervently around a new person or idea, I find, in general, it very often turns out to be the wrong way to go. I think people individually are smart, but not so much en masse. Look at the housing mess, for example. So there is a gut reaction to gifted speakers that I think bothers some people, myself included. An inherent distrust.</em> </p>

<p>I understandt the sentiment but that just sounds like a recipe for more of the same. We have been so jaded regarding politicians since JFK that we cannot even imagine the existence of a well spoken and well intentioned politican. I understand the cynicisms and jadeness but at a certain point, one has to aspire to more than just more of the same. I am so sick of the Democrat/Republican division in this country. Nothing gets done because the two parties are too busy blaming the other side. The Democrats kept blaming the Republicans for doing nothing between 2000 and 2006 and then basically have done nothing since being elected in 2006. My vote for Obama is a "hope"/"desire" to have a more civil discussion in our government and society. No matter what side one stands on, the Washington stalement is not doing anyone any good.</p>

<p>My question is still out there: What is your idea of a perferct candidate? Obama comes pretty close for me.</p>
 
<p><em style="">The second and third paragraphs were not directed at you; I had a good head of steam going and kept on ranting, but I was careful to say "I" and not "you". Apparently I wasn't clear enough.</em></p>

<p>Oh, so only you can speak to the world at large and not me, huh? You might note that I didn't use either "I" or "you" in the sentence you found offensive.</p>

<p><em style="">Eva, to my knowledge no one on this board has posted that black people shouldn't run for office because they are black. </em></p>

<p>I concur, and I did not say that anyone did.</p>

<p><em style="">The only possible audience for your sarcasm is the people that do read/post here. </em></p>

<p>Actually, you might wish to go back to the original post and read the three or four posts prior to it, and keep those posts in mind as you go back to my post that put you put you on the defensive (<em style="">i.e.,</em> note the context). Do I think Ken Mehlman thought Ford shouldn’t have run because he was black? No. I do believe Mehlman chose to use the people in Tennessee who think that to win an election. (And I don’t think all those folks are Republicans or that all Republicans in Tennessee think that way, but campaigns don’t spend millions on advertising that has been shown in testing to be ineffective.) If, in light of all that, you are still offended, I apologize. As noted, that wasn't my intent.


</p>

<p><em style="">I don't see how it could fail to put conservatives who read these forums on the defensive, and thereby start things off on the wrong foot for rational discussion. That kind of mocking is deserved when confronted with the argument that you laid out, but no one on these boards has ever made that argument, which leaves me to assume you are grouping all Republican voters in with the racists in Tennessee.</em></p>

Uh, no. My goal was to point out that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy">Southern Strategy</a> is alive, well, and, as previously noted, unfortunately effective. I am also sad that it has been used, and continues to be used.

 
Way to go Eva, you managed to completely ignore the point which was that sarcasm and mocking aren't helping to resolve anything. You continually defend your statement based on 'why' you said it, while ignoring that it is the 'what' that I was objecting to in the first place.
 
Hey Nude!!



I totally hate the cartoon! It's harsh. I don't believe people are that full of fear, prejudice, anger, and resentment. I have found people are, in fact, basically good :-) No one I know really wallows in those negative things, unless they have other emotional problems. People just want to build good lives for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top