O-bama in O-Eight?
The Washington Post raises the possibility.
Certainly, Barack has lots of charisma and is making all the right moves. But he's not even served a single term in the US Senate, and as the piece points out, his legislative record is still somewhat sparse.
Is the enthusiasm for a nascent candidacy among some Democrats genuine, or is it an implicit reflection of some weakness in their field?
Certainly, Barack has lots of charisma and is making all the right moves. But he's not even served a single term in the US Senate, and as the piece points out, his legislative record is still somewhat sparse.
Is the enthusiasm for a nascent candidacy among some Democrats genuine, or is it an implicit reflection of some weakness in their field?
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:10 AM
15 Comments:
Obama seems to be a very articulate young politician. He's also black. Of course, we're not "allowed" to say that except in the most offensively amazed tone of voice. In other words, political correctness once again seems to be allowing people to ignore the elephant in the living room. Can a black democrat win the presidency? or rather...can a black win the presidency? can a democrat win the presidency? I don't know the answer. Political correctness means that to a large extent, the effect of color on electibility nationwide can't really be discussed. If he runs and fails, will it be due to color or party? If he wins and succeeds, will it be race or party? Or maybe because his only experience is a couple of years in the house of representative? How many members of the house of representatives have run for president and won?
Is it even _possible_ to take race out of the equation?
Villaraigosa????
Why Villagraigosa?
By the way...not that it matters, but it's an interesting point..he was born "Villa". He took the Raigosa name when he married. That's his wife's maiden name. Not sure just exactly _what_ that means.
Obama is a senator, not a congressman.
His race will be a negative factor for some (don't bother with South Carolina, Barack), a positve for others (if only EVERYONE in Mississippi would vote, huh?), and a non-factor for the majority.
Run, Barack, run! And let the Jim Crow sentimentalists go gentle (or otherwise) into that good election night.
>>Obama is a senator, not a congressman>>
You're right...my mistake. Is the record of Senators getting elected to President better than Representatives?
>>...a non-factor for the majority.>>
You really think we're _there_ ? I don't. I think we've come a very long way towards a time when people are taken completely on their own merits, but I don't think we've arrived. I agree some will vote for him _because_ he's black, and some will vote _against_ him because he's black, but I don't think it won't be a factor.
Don't think we're ready to elect a woman yet either.
I don't think a person's lack of time in the Senate makes them possibly unsuitable for the presidency.
Was George W. Bush ever a Senator?
Bush was elected Governor of Texas - twice!
I think Governors have a better track record for getting elected to the Presidency than Senators. It probably has to do with experience and track record at the executive level.
I could be wrong, though.
And then, once or twice a century, our country takes complete leave of its senses and elects someone like George Dubya Bush.
More accurately, you had to think little. Period.
My beef is with "democracy" as manipulated by greedy, vituperative (neo)Conmen who forge a formidable voting bloc of the three R's (rich, racist, and religious) and use a drawling idiot to unite them all into a misguided, chest-thumping exercise in futility in a desert halfway around the world, wherein we needlessly fritter away the lives of our sons, our equipment, our credibility, and our national treasure.
As for whom I will support in '08, that remains to be seen, as I actually make that decision on my own, at the appropriate time, and without the "advice" of Rush Limbaugh and his fat-mouthed ilk.
Oh, much. Thank you. ;-)
Duke-Stir,
"And then, once or twice a century, our country takes complete leave of its senses and elects someone like George Dubya Bush."
Thanks for admitting George Bush was elected rather than "appointed".
That's refreshing!
Nixon was a senator, Also - perhaps I am wrong on this, but ALL senators are congressmen, but not all congressmen are senators?????
Thanks Pete. I love you.
What do you have against people who have amassed more of a fortune than you have? (The Rich)
What do you have against people who are "religious"? (I'm assuming you mean people who are also out-spoken about it, and not just anyone.)
Heck, you even have it out for Rush Limbaugh because he's fat. What's wrong with that, really?
I was starting to think Duke had joined in with some reasonable debate discussion until he unleashed this recent "My beef with "democracy"...(rich, racist, religious)" diatribe.
If the left wing didn't have it's rich (Soros, Moore, hollyweirds), or it's racists (JJackson, Sharpton, Byrd), or it's religious (Choamsky...yeah, just read "Godless"), they wouldn't have anyone.
Democracy in an of itself is not good, because it ends up just being rule by majority, and the majority can be wrong (as we saw for 50 years of a Democrat congress)...but I digress...and America's Republic with it's checks and balances is the best any country has done in the history of the world. The Democrats want to remove the checks and balances by inserting the Judiciary into the Legislative.
Post a Comment
<< Home