Win-Win If He Runs

Locked
Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Win-Win If He Runs

Post by Barry » Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:34 am

www.realclearpolitics.com
October 27, 2006
Obama Can Win by Losing
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- When just a week ago Barack Obama showed a bit of ankle and declared the mere possibility of his running for the presidency, the chattering classes swooned. Now that every columnist in the country has given him advice, here's mine: He should run in '08. He will lose in '08. And the loss will put him irrevocably on a path to the presidency.

Obama's political challenge is to turn his current fame and sizzle, which will undoubtedly dissipate, into something concrete. In physics, it's the problem of converting kinetic energy into potential energy: Use the rocket fuel behind his current popularity to propel him to a higher national plane from which he would eventually move almost laterally to the presidency.

The reasons for running are clear.

First, at a time of ideological weariness, he has the persona: an affecting personal history, fine intelligence, remarkable articulateness and refreshing charm.

Second, this is a uniquely open race. Not since 1952 has there been a presidential election with no incumbent president or vice president running. Right now, there is no serious challenger to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The Democrats' quadrennial great white hope -- the young attractive Southern governor in the mode of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- was going to be Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia. Warner has bowed out.

Third, the country hungers for a black president. Not all the country, but enough that, on balance, race would be an asset. It is no accident that when, a decade ago, another attractive, articulate African-American with no experience in electoral office went on a book tour, he was met not just with rock star adulation but with a loud national chorus urging him to run for the presidency.

The object of affection then was Colin Powell. Today it is Obama. Race is only one element in their popularity, but an important one. A historic one. Like many Americans, I long to see an African-American ascend to the presidency. It would be an event of profound significance, a great milestone in the unfolding story of African-Americans achieving their rightful, long-delayed place in American life.

Of course there is racism in America. Call me naive, but I believe that just as Joe Lieberman was a net positive for the Democrats in 2000 -- more people were attracted to him as a man of faith than were turned away because of anti-Semitism -- there are more Americans who would take special pride in a black president than are those who would reject one because of racism.

These are strong reasons for Obama to run. Nonetheless, he will not win. The reason is 9/11. The country will simply not elect a novice in wartime.

During our last great war, the Cold War, no foreign policy novice won the presidency, except for Carter in the anomalous Watergate election of 1976. The only foreign policy novices elected in the last half-century -- Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- won the presidency during our holiday from history between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

In any circumstance, it is fairly audacious for any freshman senator to even think of the presidency. When freshman Sen. John F. Kennedy began his preparation for 1956, he was really seeking the vice presidency. And, unlike Obama, he had already served three terms in the House, which in turn had followed a celebrated military tour in the Pacific in World War II.

In 1956, Kennedy was preparing for a serious presidential run in 1960. Obama should be thinking ahead as well -- using '08 to cure his problem of inexperience. Run for the Democratic nomination and lose. He only has to do reasonably well in the primaries to become such a compelling national figure as to be invited onto the ticket as vice presidential nominee. If John Edwards, the runner-up in '04 did well enough to be made running mate, a moderately successful Obama would be the natural choice for '08.

Then, if the Democrats win, he will have all the foreign policy credentials he needs for life. Even if the ticket loses, assuming he acquits himself reasonably well, he immediately becomes the presumptive front-runner in the next presidential cycle. And if by some miracle he hits the lottery and wins in '08, well, then it is win-win-win.

He's a young man with a future. But the future recedes. He needs to run now. And lose. And win by losing.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26594
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:03 am

Krauthammer should be subjected to random urine testing.

An aspect of this upcoming campaign that no one seems to have addressed is the oddness of, not availability of candidtates, but unwillingness of same. But it is not the first time in US history that there have appeared to be no viable willing candidates. If you think about it, it is a reasonable scenario. Modern presidential campaigns are torture, among other things.

The idea of drafting a candidate, along with the idea of a dark horse, goes back a long way. Ralph and I agree that George Pataki is not presidential material, and of course he is a Republican to boot, but who is to say that if he or Romney gets in through the back door he might not surprise us all? It's happened plenty of times before. (Of course, if you consider Warren G. Harding, it could go the other way, too.)

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Post by karlhenning » Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:26 am

I make it a practice not to consider Warren G. Harding :-)
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:11 pm

Krauthammer is a fossiland he thinks like a fossil and I can prove that.
Every now and then Pizza throws one of his articles in the mix, which he believes helps support his position. Fossils one and all

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:46 pm

Lilith wrote:Krauthammer is a fossiland he thinks like a fossil and I can prove that.
Every now and then Pizza throws one of his articles in the mix, which he believes helps support his position. Fossils one and all
Nice, in depth analysis of the subject there.

Krauthammer has had some nice columns lately. He's one of a number of people who I think are wisely calling for the US to unleash Japan and encourage it to beef up it's military so we can have a strong ally in that region and not have to maintain forces there.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Haydnseek
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Haydnseek » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:11 pm

jbuck919 wrote:Krauthammer should be subjected to random urine testing.

An aspect of this upcoming campaign that no one seems to have addressed is the oddness of, not availability of candidtates, but unwillingness of same. But it is not the first time in US history that there have appeared to be no viable willing candidates. If you think about it, it is a reasonable scenario. Modern presidential campaigns are torture, among other things.

The idea of drafting a candidate, along with the idea of a dark horse, goes back a long way. Ralph and I agree that George Pataki is not presidential material, and of course he is a Republican to boot, but who is to say that if he or Romney gets in through the back door he might not surprise us all? It's happened plenty of times before. (Of course, if you consider Warren G. Harding, it could go the other way, too.)
Krauthammer and many others are writing about Senator Obama's chances of becoming President because he said he was thinking about running in 2008 recently on "Meet the Press."
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

Modernistfan
Posts: 1720
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:23 pm

Post by Modernistfan » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:54 pm

For him to say that Lieberman was a net plus for the Democrats indicates that he does not analyze thoroughly. In fact, it is likely that Lieberman's presence on the ticket probably cost the Democrats West Virginia and Tennessee, and possibly Arkansas as well. West Virginia generally leans Democratic, at least in reasonably competitive national elections, and Tennessee was Gore's home state. Yet the Democrats lost both states, as well as Arkansas. What those states had in common is that they are filled with rural fundamentalist Christians that tend to see Jews as the spawn of the Devil, "man of faith" or not. (In that, they are to be differentiated from fundamentalist Christians in cities, suburbs, or exurbs, who have considerably more contact with Jews in their daily lives and probably are not so quick to make such judgments.) In general, such voters will not admit their prejudice to pollsters, but the pollsters did pick up some signals. The disaffection of such voters was attributed to the the dislike of these voters for the Monica Lewinsky shenanigans, notwithstanding the fact that Lieberman was one of the strongest critics of said shenanigans.

Sad--but true given the present mindset of far too many Americans. An African-American candidate probably would fare even worse.

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:19 pm

Am I really suppose to come up with a serious response to a writer who supported Bush and the Iraqi war & Republicans (and STILL DOES- how amazing is that)
and now offers the expected criticism of a Democratic Senator thinking of a White House Run. Compare Obama to Bush - he's brighter, he speaks better, he knows that issues aren't always 'black and white'...I mean, what more could you ask for compared to Bush.
Is that serious enough Barry? Did I really have to spell it out?

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:25 pm

Lilith wrote:Am I really suppose to come up with a serious response to a writer who supported Bush and the Iraqi war & Republicans (and STILL DOES- how amazing is that)
and now offers the expected criticism of a Democratic Senator thinking of a White House Run. Compare Obama to Bush - he's brighter, he speaks better, he knows that issues aren't always 'black and white'...I mean, what more could you ask for compared to Bush.
Is that serious enough Barry? Did I really have to spell it out?
Criticism? I should have guessed you didn't even read the piece.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:29 pm

"He's a young man with a future. But the future recedes. He needs to run now. And lose. And win by losing"
-----------------------------------

Well, you guessed wrong- the piece is an attempt to put the candidate down. It doesn't fool me one bit. It reads like something out of the Rove/ Cheney/ Bush White House. Oh.....was it?

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:32 pm

Talk about paranoia :roll: .
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:51 am

Barry Z wrote:Criticism? I should have guessed you didn't even read the piece.
Knowledge might compromise the purity of her feelings about Krauthammer.

Re: Obama running. If he's so smart, he can't be that dumb. He doesn't even have Clinton or Carter's bona fides.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

RebLem
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:52 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
Barry Z wrote:Criticism? I should have guessed you didn't even read the piece.
Knowledge might compromise the purity of her feelings about Krauthammer.

Re: Obama running. If he's so smart, he can't be that dumb. He doesn't even have Clinton or Carter's bona fides.
I generally don't like Krauthammer. Too conservative for me. But I agree in general with this article.

Corlyss, notice Krauthammer isn't saying Obama has what it takes to go all the way in 2008. He thinks Obama will lose the attempt to become the party's nominee. But lots of folks make a trial run once and either get the second spot on the ticket or use it as a test to make a real run 4 to 8 years later. If he doesn't run, time's a wasting. For one thing, Eliot Spitzer is coming up fast. And there are 38 governor's races up this year. NY isn't the only one, and Republicans are expected to lose lots of them. No telling who besides Eliot Spitzer will be appearing on the horizon for 2012 or 2016. It is quite rational for Obama to think that 2008 is the year to make at least a first move.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:45 pm

RebLem wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:
Barry Z wrote:Criticism? I should have guessed you didn't even read the piece.
Knowledge might compromise the purity of her feelings about Krauthammer.

Re: Obama running. If he's so smart, he can't be that dumb. He doesn't even have Clinton or Carter's bona fides.
I generally don't like Krauthammer. Too conservative for me. But I agree in general with this article.

Corlyss, notice Krauthammer isn't saying Obama has what it takes to go all the way in 2008. He thinks Obama will lose the attempt to become the party's nominee. But lots of folks make a trial run once and either get the second spot on the ticket or use it as a test to make a real run 4 to 8 years later.
I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:13 pm

Corlyss_D wrote: I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.
Reagan
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:42 pm

Barry Z wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote: I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.
Reagan
Okay. One, who had far more bona fides in 1976 than Obama does now or will have in 08 or 12.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26594
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:02 pm

Corlyss_D wrote: St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination.
Assuming he actually wants it. My previous post may have sounded off to the side, but we are looking at a campaign where both parties might have to draft a candidate.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

RebLem
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:27 pm

Barry Z wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote: I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.
Reagan
And George Herbert Walker Bush, who ran in the primaries in 1980, did well enough to get picked as VP by Reagan, and then got to the presidency on his own in 1988.
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:18 am

RebLem wrote:
Barry Z wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote: I know, Reb. Name one in the last 40 years who's actually made it from failed test run to president. Politics today is not what it was in 1956. Between expense and oppo research, I don't think it is possible for people to come back winners after trying and losing in the national arena. St. John the McCain may be the first to do it since Kennedy, assuming that he actually gets the nomination. Americans have to get over this obsession with know-nothing outsiders as the answer to messy but effective politicians.
Reagan
And George Herbert Walker Bush, who ran in the primaries in 1980, did well enough to get picked as VP by Reagan, and then got to the presidency on his own in 1988.
It wasn't Bush's showing in the primaries that got him his spot on Reagan's ticket. Reagan wanted James Baker and taking Bush was the only way to get him.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Alberich
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:08 am
Location: Springfield MA

Post by Alberich » Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:41 am

Corlyss_D wrote: Okay. One, who had far more bona fides in 1976 than Obama does now or will have in 08 or 12.
Bona fides? Since when do bona fides mean anything?
Here is being discussed the possible Presidential
campaign of a person who has, what?, two years'
experience in national government? Two years?
And he is being touted as Presidential material?
Forget bona fides Ms. Corlyss.
It's all about photogenics, popularity,
media hype, a cynical and dumbed-down
electorate, bashing your opponent instead
of promoting your own platform, and on and
on.
Bona fides? Toss 'em out the window.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26594
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:48 am

Very odd how this thread has turned. George H.W. Bush was on paper the most qualified man in the 20th century to be president in terms of his resume. Go back a century and Abraham Lincoln had never been anything but a one-term congressman.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:09 pm

An interesting note, John.

But then, look how we got our current incumbent.
Werner Isler

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26594
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:33 pm

Werner wrote:An interesting note, John.

But then, look how we got our current incumbent.
Well, state governorships have always been a segue to the presidency. I would not even know how to begin the list, except that it includes both Roosevelts and goes back as far as Thomas Jefferson. John Adams was never governor of Massachussetts (John Hancock was), but he did write that state's constitution, which still prevails.

Our current president cannot be blamed because he was in the lineage of men who go back to Sam Houston, the only man to be governor of two states (the other was Tennessee). He can be blamed for a lot of things, but not that.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:02 pm

Alberich wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote: Okay. One, who had far more bona fides in 1976 than Obama does now or will have in 08 or 12.
Bona fides? Since when do bona fides mean anything?
Here is being discussed the possible Presidential
campaign of a person who has, what?, two years'
experience in national government? Two years?
And he is being touted as Presidential material?
Forget bona fides Ms. Corlyss.
It's all about photogenics, popularity,
media hype, a cynical and dumbed-down
electorate, bashing your opponent instead
of promoting your own platform, and on and
on.
Bona fides? Toss 'em out the window.
I sympathize with your dismay, but bona fides do mean something. Americans like governors and generals to run the country. The number of times a VP has succeeded a president just because he was a VP is about the same number of times Americans have elected a lip-diddling blow-hard directly from that cesspool of ineffectual pompous asses, the Senate. Americans like some evidence that the candidate knows how to run a big operation, like a state or a war. Obama brings nothing to the table except his genial personality and his race. I don't think that would be lost on the public, certainly not the 37% that self-identifies as conservative.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:05 pm

jbuck919 wrote:Very odd how this thread has turned. George H.W. Bush was on paper the most qualified man in the 20th century to be president in terms of his resume.
Yeah, and he turned out to be the true amiable dunce. He like Clinton wanted to be president but had no idea why, i.e., he brought no greater public purpose to the task.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Madame
Posts: 3552
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Madame » Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:35 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
I sympathize with your dismay, but bona fides do mean something. Americans like governors and generals to run the country. The number of times a VP has succeeded a president just because he was a VP is about the same number of times Americans have elected a lip-diddling blow-hard directly from that cesspool of ineffectual pompous asses, the Senate. Americans like some evidence that the candidate knows how to run a big operation, like a state or a war. Obama brings nothing to the table except his genial personality and his race. I don't think that would be lost on the public, certainly not the 37% that self-identifies as conservative.
I feel like I've tuned into a horse handicapping exercise :)

I think you can throw all the stats out the window, if you are referring to what AMERICANS want. Now, AMERICANS and POLITICAL PARTIES aren't necessarily one and the same. Americans get to choose between two candidates nominated by the party, and recent grumblings have been that they haven't been happy with either choice.

Right now, Americans are looking for someone they can trust, and he is giving them a new message, he's addressing exactly what has happened in today's harshly divisive arena and how it has hurt the country. I don't think you can reduce Obama to simply a genial personality and black in terms of what he could bring to the table. (I think being black is less and less relevant, and particularly in his case, he's not stumping that way.) I think his greatest handicap is that the old-school Dems know he'll be a hard dog to keep under the porch if he gets elected. And of course they are stupid enough to let that sway them, and once again the public will be given a choice they probably won't get too excited about. (Gee, with the new voting machines with no paper trail, will voters be able to write in candidates? :) )

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:26 pm

Madame wrote:I think you can throw all the stats out the window, if you are referring to what AMERICANS want. Now, AMERICANS and POLITICAL PARTIES aren't necessarily one and the same. Americans get to choose between two candidates nominated by the party, and recent grumblings have been that they haven't been happy with either choice.
Well, history has certainly proven that Americans vote for some and not others, and that the some have particular characteristics that the others lack. Those characteristics are ex-governor or ex-general or both. To divorce the public from the parties is fatuous sophistry. If the primary system delivers up candidates that the public won't tolerate, at the very least, the solution is for the public to get involved in the primaries. But they don't. Hell they don't even get out to vote. That doesn't spell hostility to the results so much as indifference because there's not really that much difference between the two parties.
Right now, Americans are looking for someone they can trust, and he is giving them a new message, he's addressing exactly what has happened in today's harshly divisive arena and how it has hurt the country.


"New message" me arse. Americans right now are not paying attention to 08 - they are scarcely paying attention to 06. It's the media that swoons over Obama and we pretty much know what the media like: fresh meat that tells them what they want to hear.
(I think being black is less and less relevant)


Agreed, but for novelty factor, it's hard to beat. I saw similar slobbering over Doug Wilder in Virginia.
I think his greatest handicap is that the old-school Dems know he'll be a hard dog to keep under the porch if he gets elected.


Um ah just what is your factual basis for that assessment? What in his microscopic 2 year career thus far has demonstrated any striking departure from Democratic orthodoxy? Granted, he's not as strident in his statements as the old bulls and presidential wannabes, but he votes is just like he's been told to vote: straight party line.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Madame
Posts: 3552
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Madame » Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:03 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
Right now, Americans are looking for someone they can trust, and he is giving them a new message, he's addressing exactly what has happened in today's harshly divisive arena and how it has hurt the country.


"New message" me arse. Americans right now are not paying attention to 08 - they are scarcely paying attention to 06. It's the media that swoons over Obama and we pretty much know what the media like: fresh meat that tells them what they want to hear.
And what facts do you have to make this assessment? :) Seriously, what potential candidate doesn't court the media and take opportunities for exposure wherever ... it isn't like people weren't already aware of him. You think GWB handlers weren't putting him in front of media long before people were thinking about 2000?
I think his greatest handicap is that the old-school Dems know he'll be a hard dog to keep under the porch if he gets elected.

Um ah just what is your factual basis for that assessment? What in his microscopic 2 year career thus far has demonstrated any striking departure from Democratic orthodoxy? Granted, he's not as strident in his statements as the old bulls and presidential wannabes, but he votes is just like he's been told to vote: straight party line.
Oh crap, can't I just have a gut feeling? ;) What is a straight party line anyway? Could it be that he voted the way he believed was right? Some DO that, ya know!

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests