If Obama Weren't Black

[Texarkandy]

Consider: Hilary/Edwards vs McCain/Watts

Who would win that one?

 

[haha]

Well, they were/are entertainers & self-promoters and everybody knows/knew it. Even they knew they didn't have a snowballs chance of a nomination (and not because of their race). They were only in it to keep their own careers in the media spotlight.

"Race hustling poverty pimps" in the words of J.C. Watts (look for him by the way as a surprise on McCains short-list for VP possibles)



Quality? Afraid I'll have to question that characterization loosechickens. (I'm sure he's a quality person - but as a presidential candidate I don't think he's necessarily earned that stripe.)

Sure, he's not a clown like those other two - but "quality" - how about "perceived quality" - and how much does that "perception" of quality stem from the fact that he's the first black (well, semi) candidate who is young, good looking, has some genuine credentials (academic as they may be), and happens to be a very good (inspiring to some) public speaker.

But, where's the beef? His platform is not really all that different from Hilary's (and the generic democratic playbook). It seems to me calculated to win an election - not anything really new there. (big nanny govt will solve your problems & we'll "tax the rich" to pay for it)

He has minimal legislative experience; zero foreign policy experience; and zero executive (CEO or Governor) type experience. There's no track record there - it's all academic theory.

Sure he's got plenty of "vision" - "vision" & $3.65 will get you a Latte at Starbucks in Northern Virginia.

TexarkAndy, you're a pretty good political analyst, and well informed on news.

Who are you?

Ha

 

[Maurice]

On a public radio show the other night, a guest was saying that if Obama were white, that he would already have easily won the nomination. What do you think?

Its a long thread, so this point may have been made, but that statement seems ridiculous, even silly.

Remember Obama came to national attention through the key note address at the Democratic convention in 2004.

Had Obama been a white Illinois state senator running for the US Senate for the very first time in 2004, he would have had trouble getting tickets to the convention for his senior staff. The only speech he could have made would have been in the parking lot.

 

[ChrisC]

Quality?
He has minimal legislative experience; zero foreign policy experience; and zero executive (CEO or Governor) type experience. There's no track record there - it's all academic theory.

Hmmm, that also a very apt description of candidates JFK in 1960 and John Edwards in 2004, 2008. Of course, you have your own views of what constitutes quality candidates or great presidents. As I recall, Lincoln was not a great president in your view; perhaps you're still seething over Lincoln's decision to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War (or is it still the War Between the States for you.)

 

[FinanceDude]

I think most people see a difference between the war on terror (Afghanistan, Covert Ops, intel, etc) and Iraq. Of course Iraq is a terrorist magnet now. But that was not the case before we invaded.

I think most agree that Afghanistan was/is a no-brainer.

I think most people believe one of two things about Iraq: GWB and his crew made a judgment error or they intentionally misled us. He was at best wrong and perhaps he was worse than wrong. Either way, most of us went along because of the threat of WMD... including me. Now that I know they distorted the truth (and facts), I have little respect for the man.

I think that the Bush camp thought is would be over in a couple years and that it was a risk worth taking. Just because we never found RMD's doesn't mean that Iraq never had them, but I think they were likely moved or destroyed. Either way, they didn't HAVE them when we invaded, which should NOT be made light of..........

The real travesty is what happened to Colin Powell, he basically had to "take one for the team". He wasn't sure of the things he was telling us about the WMD potential in Iraq, felt he was put up as a sacrifical lamb, and got pissed and left. Can't say I blame him.

FWIW, I honestly thought that Colin Powell would be the 1st African American President. I guess I was wrong..........

 

[FinanceDude]

Hmmm, that also a very apt description of candidates JFK in 1960 and John Edwards in 2004, 2008. Of course, you have your own views of what constitutes quality candidates or great presidents. As I recall, Lincoln was not a great president in your view; perhaps you're still seething over Lincoln's decision to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War (or is it still the War Between the States for you.)

 

[Texarkandy]

Hmmm, that also a very apt description of candidates JFK in 1960 and John Edwards in 2004, 2008. Of course, you have your own views of what constitutes quality candidates or great presidents. As I recall, Lincoln was not a great president in your view; perhaps you're still seething over Lincoln's decision to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War (or is it still the War Between the States for you.)

Ouch - don't paint me with that brush. (re: your "War Between the States" barb)

Now, I don't personally feel like I really "seethe" over anything, but - what can I say - I calls em like I sees em.

If you & GW are OK with suspension of habeas, I'm happy for you both.
For the record, I'm not a big fan of JFK, Edwards, or GWB for that matter, but hey, to each his own. (it shouldn't be too hard to guess who I do like though)

As to different folks "views of what constitutes quality candidates" - that was exactly my point!! - the other poster just laid it out there as fact that Obama is a "quality" candidate as though it were a given.

 

[ziggy29]

Consider: Hilary/Edwards vs McCain/Watts

Who would win that one?

If Watts weren't so far removed from Washington that most have forgotten about him, I'd say it would be a brilliant pick, IF Hillary wins because the superdelegates take away from Obama.

But really, he's been out of Congress (and the public eye) for what, 8 years now?

In theory, if Obama lost only because of the superdelegates, I could see a LOT of Democrats (particularly the black vote) drawn to a McCain/Watts ticket because they feel like the Democrats disenfranchised them. But I think the establishment would "Uncle Tom" Watts pretty quickly. Whether or not enough black Democrats would ignore it remains to be seen. Fascinating thought, though.

 

[Marquette]

Superdelegates pick Clinton. McCain gets Obama to RINO himself and picks Obama has his running mate.

In a fit of blind passion, Bloomberg jumps in with Buffet as his running mate to challenge.

 

[HFWR]

Superdelegates pick Clinton. McCain gets Obama to RINO himself and picks Obama has his running mate.

In a fit of blind passion, Bloomberg jumps in with Buffet as his running mate to challenge.

Make it Jimmy, and I'm in!

 

[ERD50]

I just hope the superdelegates don't override the people's choice here. It would be ironic if some of these superdelegates were the same people who complained that Gore received more popular votes than Bush.

I was thinking about this today also. I keep wondering if 'ironic' is the right term. It's so typical of the hypocrisy we see from politicians, it almost isn't ironic anymore.

But I think that HRC's talking about how the delegates should choose her for her experience over Obama's possible lead in popular votes will work against her. It just makes her sound pompous, like 'I know what is good for you, and it's me'. Pompous and desperate. It feeds right into making Obama look strong and reinforces him as the 'people's man'.

-ERD50

 

[bright eyed]

if superdelegates decide the vote - and it is obviously different from what the people voted for - the dems will lose all the trust they have been gaining from the non-party active public...i'm glad to see some superdelegates speaking out about it recently (donna brazile said she would quit the party if this happens)...

 

[Texarkandy]

.......... But I think that HRC's talking about how the delegates should choose her for her experience over Obama's possible lead in popular votes will work against her. It just makes her sound pompous, like 'I know what is good for you, and it's me'. ......
-ERD50

'I know what is good for you, and it's me'

But that's exactly the mindset that appeals to many in this country (regardless of political affiliation) for whom the issues have become too complex and real freedom too scary. (Just put it in a nutshell for me & tell me what to do - or take my money & do it for me)

 

[Texarkandy]

If Watts weren't so far removed from Washington that most have forgotten about him, I'd say it would be a brilliant pick, IF Hillary wins because the superdelegates take away from Obama.

But really, he's been out of Congress (and the public eye) for what, 8 years now?

I would have to say you are most probably right on that. He is a big buddy of McCain though.

 

[ERD50]

'I know what is good for you, and it's me'

But that's exactly the mindset that appeals to many in this country (regardless of political affiliation) for whom the issues have become too complex and real freedom too scary. (Just put it in a nutshell for me & tell me what to do - or take my money & do it for me)

Yes, but Obama is doing essentially the same thing - his approach is mostly the general 'hope' & 'change' message. He is an appealing, charismatic speaker and he is getting public support. But light on the issues, I would say.

So HRC also has the simple message, but as I said, it seems pompous for her to say to the super-delegates 'override the popular vote - we know better than the stupid public'. At least to me. It makes her part of the old school back room deal makers, just what Obama represents 'change' from.

I think it plays right into his 'change' message. Big time.

-ERD50

 

[Maurice]

Superdelegates pick Clinton. McCain gets Obama to RINO himself and picks Obama has his running mate.

In a fit of blind passion, Bloomberg jumps in with Buffet as his running mate to challenge.

That would certainly make for an interesting election season!

 

[bright eyed]

I would have to say you are most probably right on that. He is a big buddy of McCain though.

I'm not sure it would be brilliant - he would immediately be seen as a token and the RNC has had enough trouble with that issue already...

 

[Texarkandy]

Make it Jimmy, and I'm in!

Ditto !!!

 

[chinaco]

I read that Julian Bond is backing Hillary.

Al Sharpton has weighed in and is backing Obama. That is probably an endorsement he would just as soon be left in the closet.

 

[Grizz]

From what I've seen, Obama seems to be a reasoned, and just as importantly, soft spoken gentleman. Americans should realize that in foreign lands, earned or not, they are often stereotyped as brash and arrogant. I think that Obama could would soothe a lot of the fear, loathing, and distrust that much of the rest of the world has toward the U.S.

 

[retire@40]

...I think that Obama could would soothe a lot of the fear, loathing, and distrust that much of the rest of the world has toward the U.S.

Great. Now Al-Quaeda won't fear us anymore.

 

[HFWR]

Part of the "problem" is that Merkins think the President is like Superman or Houdini or some such nonsense...

If we're not willing to do the things we need to do as a country to "change" (ugh...), then it's all just masturbation...

 

[TromboneAl]

If we're not willing to do the things we need to do as a country to "change" (ugh...), then it's all just masturbation...

So you're saying we need a leader who is charismatic, inspirational, and gives good speeches.

 

[haha]

So you're saying we need a leader who is charismatic, inspirational, and gives good speeches.

Heck no! He's just saying forget this election crap and do something guaranteed to satisfy.

Ha

 

[Marquette]

I have a question, and I suppose it's just my simple-minded misunderstanding.

What, exactly, does the president do? I mean, I know they've been issuing a lot of executive orders over the last few decades, but what do they do. They can't declare war (although, I guess they can choose to take whatever actions necessary if needed... but Bush even got Senate approval for that). They can't pass laws. They can veto laws but only if they're not popular enough to get a veto-proof majority. They get to make justice appointments and such, but it seems like they still need some approvals for that, right?

Does 100 years of Senate experience or a 64 page action plan really matter all that much if you're president?