RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Barack Hussein Obama in '08?

Yeah, MEM, that's pretty much what Hillary said in response:



I'm sure Obama's response would be that he had other political and legal experience before he became a Senator. And would again use Bill Clinton's 1992 line, that: "experience counts, but it's not everything", and that good judgement means more than experience.

I'm just sayin', I've heard several liberals make the argument, and more persuasively than I paraphrased it, not recalling the exact phrasing.


There are many firsts in this election:

Barack Obama: first viable black candidate (honorable mention to Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson, and possibly Colin Powell).

Hillary Clinton: first viable woman candidate (honorable mention to Elizabeth Dole, and Geraldine Ferraro).

John McCain: oldest man to ever run for office

Mitt Romney: first Mormon to run for president

Mike Huckabee: first baptist minister, and first blue-collar republican in a long time.

Ron Paul: first viable republican to run on independent-candidate issues

John Edwards: first Democrat to basically run as an independent candidate.


I'm kind of pushing it with a few of these. But there's no doubt that these are some radically different candidates this year. None of them are flawless, but it's certainly an interesting race.

I agree that it would be silly for Obama, or anyone else, to expect other candidates to step aside on some sort of "affirmative action" theory.

Of course, some would argue that is exactly what Hillary expected would happen for her; that male candidates would be forced to step aside on the theory that "a woman president would be progressive."

Too bad for her it may not work that way. Hotline's Blogometer has a good roundup of liberal blog reaction to the race war between the Clinton and Obama camps. I found this Noam Scheiber post particularly astute:

• On Friday I said that, if you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in polarizing the nomination fight along racial lines--the idea being that, even if it hurts them in the short-term (with African Americans in South Carolina), Obama can't win if he becomes the "black candidate," which is what racial polarization accomplishes.
  
  Well, I no longer think you have to be cynical to make that argument. This is just despicable stuff.

Say what you want about Obama: that he's too liberal, too inexperienced, etc. And you might be right. I know I'd never vote for him.

But one of the truly positive aspects of his campaign is that he is running for office not as a black candidate, but as a candidate for president who happens to be black. He has simply not played the race card the way Clinton has played the gender card. While Hillary integrated the fact that she would be the first woman president into her standard stump speech, Obama does not emphasize race. That, at least, deserves our respect...certainly a lot more than crocodile tears and hinting that we're all sexists if we don't support here.

Who's some? You? Let's here that arguement & see how much of it is actually based on anything Hillary said.


Wow you put alot of words into Hillary's mouth besides being emphathic to boot since you "know" what she's feeling. Obama just got done playing the race card & quickly backed out of it today. Trying to spin the Clintons as putting down MLK just wasn't going to play out as credable.

Those are silly liberals! Same thing goes for those backing Hillary because she would be the first woman President if elected.



That is pretty refreshing & a nice departure from '04 where both Bush & Kerry had similar backgrounds, went to the same school & were both "skulls".

Yeah, both attended Harvard at roughly the same time, and both shared almost exactly the same "D" average.

I'd like a president who was at the top of his class. Which is one of my objections to McCain, who graduated West Point near the bottom of his class.

Who are you rooting for these days WB or are you undecided?

Alan Keyes and Jesse Jackson were never "viable." And Colin Powell never even explored the idea of running, his wife wouldn't let him.


Again, those other two weren't "viable" as President. And Ferraro ran for Vice President


He'll be 72 on election day. But Bob Dole was 73 on election day 1996.


Actually Joseph Smith the founder of the mormon faith ran in 1844 (though he died a few months after he started his campaign).

In 1984, "Jackson, who had been written off by pundits as a fringe candidate with little chance at winning the nomination, surprised many when he took third place behind Senator Gary Hart and former Vice President Walter Mondale [in the Democrat primaries]. Jackson garnered 3.5 million votes and won five primaries and caucuses, including Louisiana, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, Virginia and one of two separate contests in Mississippi."

In 1988, "he captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries and four caucuses .... Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates."

But thanks for the "Rayfact"[TM]

by the time of the convention everyone but Dukakis (the clear frontrunner) had asked their delegates to support Dukakis. Jackson made a respectable showing but that's a far cry from the lead and wins Obama has had. You're just being an ass again which is evident by your attempts to reuse an old joke that no one thought was funny to begin with.
such as...

The fact Jackson lost in no way means he wasn't "viable" before that. By your logic, Kerry and Gore were never viable Presidential candidates because each lost to Bush at the end.

Clinton is just doing what presidential spouses do in tight races. Obama & Edwards spouses have done the same thing. Clinton has just been more effective than the others.

Feel free to bring that up that defense at your next Democrat caucus, MEM. It's members of your own party that are criticizing Bubba.

And I acknowledge that, I was just adding my observations to what you posted. Clinton has been effective in getting Obama off message which allows Hillary to spend more time talking about the real issues. That's helped her win the last two states.

well they were both nominees. I personally feel that someone isn't truly "almost president" or viable unless they're a nominee. I only say that Obama now (though I believe wondy actually said it) because we're in the middle of it all and he looks good to be the nominee. But until the primaries are over it's just infighting in the party.

By that logic, your argument that Obama is more viable than Jackson is a sham. Obama hasn't been nominated yet either. Similarly, the implication of that argument is that McCain isn't a viable candidate by virtue of having lost the nomination in 2000 to George W. Bush.

In fact, by your logic, no one running is yet a viable candidate except made Edwards, due to having been the 2004 VP nominee.

That would be a good point to make except that the full post was:




grow up, G-man.

I was trying to interpret your remarks to assume that you hadn't, in fact, contradicted yourself in a single post.

But even if we interpret your remarks that way you're logic still falls apart.

If, as you say, Barack is "viable" because he enjoys frontrunner, or near-frontrunner, status, then Jackson was also viable. As noted earlier, there was a period of time during that election when Jackson was, in fact, the frontrunner. Which brings me back to my earlier point that Jackson was, in fact, a viable black candidate and that you're earlier statement to the contrary was a "Rayfact." (TM)

I have leanings, I'm not fully decided.

I actually slightly favor Romney at this point over the other Republicans. He has a track record as governor in Massachussetts, that proves he can govern. Although conservative, he governed favorably in a liberal state, which indicates he would not be a divisive figure. He takes a hard stance on immigration. And what I like most is he advocates enforcing our existing laws, rather than complicating things in McCain-Feingold ways, with news laws that might make things even worse, as happened with campaign finance. He expresses a vision for how he plans to lead the nation. And despite being wealthy, he expresses a vision for reforming Washington.
McCain, Thompson, Paul, or Guiliani, I could possibly be convinced to support. McCain is arguably the best military leader, which is an important consideration.
Huckabee, who I initially liked, has revealed himself to have too many flaws for me to support.

On the Democrat side, I've gained some respect for John Edwards, as another populist Washington reformer, who isn't just campaigning, but passionately believes what he says.
Obama also has appeal as a reformer, and I like the guy, but his expressed ideas are too vague, although I like that he urges healing the partisan divide.
And as I said before, him and Hillary sucking up to illegals to get the hispanic votes leaves me unconvinced that either Obama or Hillary will secure our borders.

But unlike Obama, I despise Hillary, who I think combines the corruption of Bill Clinton with the divisive partisanship of George W. Bush, and would just further divide the nation politically, and further undermine our sovereignty with continued business-as-usual globalization and out-of-control immigration.


So in a nutshell, Hillary is the only candidate I've completely rejected. And Huckabee. Sorry about that, I know you favor her. Maybe you can tell me what you see in her that I don't.

You know, rex, if you're going to stalk WB the same way that you stalk Beardguy, you ought to at least pay attention to what he writes.

WB didn't say Hillary was the only one he had completely rejected. He also said the same thing about Huckabee.

I would like to think you can still tell that Huckabee isn't a woman, but maybe all the sock fucking has finally rendered you incapable of distinguishing between the sexes.

Polls in 1992, 1996 and 2000 showed that if Powell wanted to run, he out-polled anyone, Democrat or Republican. That to me was the turning point, where a majority of Americans (polled in three different election years!) would have elected Powell as our first black president, if he wanted the job.

As G-man explained above, Jesse Jackson was far more viable than you give him credit for. At this point, he has still won more primaries than Obama or Hillary. And if not for a back-room deal, he might have obstructed or weakened Dukakis' nomination in 1988. There was a moment during Dukakis' nomination acceptance speech where Dukakis verbally reached out to Jackson at the DNC convention, and the TV cameras preserved a long, intimidating angry stare at Dukakis fro about a minute or so.

I mention Alan Keyes because he's run in at least 4 elections I can recall, and is an impressively intelligent and insightful black American who at least has the freedom to run for the presidency. He participates in debates and widens the discussion in those debates. Which I think earns him considerable recognition, even if he hasn't had wide support.
But I concede, as you say, that he isn't "viable" in the sense that he has a high probability of getting elected. But in being a qualified and well-versed black American who is at least qualified to run (something I never gave Jesse Jackson credit for), I think the mere fact that he runs and is competent to run, is noteworthy.



Ferraro was viable as Vice President. During a good portion of the 1988 election, Dukakis was 20 points ahead, and Ferraro was part of the ticket that polled that high. Ultimately she wasn't elected, but she was arguably electable, if election day was before the tide turned in November 1988.

Elizabeth Dole was qualified and widely liked, but ultimately she chose not to run. But the mere fact that many in the media tossed her up as a possible candidate I think demonstrates that she was a contender.
She wasn't "viable" in the technical sense because she didn't run, but she certainly had the potential.




McCain would be as well, byt the time he was inaugurated.



Ah. But by your own standard, Smith wasn't a viable candidate, whereas Romney has the nationwide campaign organization to actually get elected.

Well... yes and no. I'd expect anyone to campaign aggressively for their spouse. But Bill Clinton is stepping on some toes.



On a This Week Sunday morning panel discussion a few weeks ago, one of the panelists suggested that Bill Clinton might be somewhat threatened by Hillary potentially overshadowing his presidency, and with his charisma and rhetoric actually might be deliberately undermining her campaign. Despite campaigning for her, he might have ulterior reasons for not wanting her to win.

That's in the same mode as liberal pundits who (as I mentioned above) think that Bill and Hillary, being true progressive liberals, will at some point have to stand aside and let Obama, the first black man with wide popular support, be elected president. And that this would be the ultimate national healing for past U.S. racism, to elect a black man president, bla bla bla, liberal social theory ad nauseum.

I think she's got the experience to get right in there & get more of the things done that I want done.

It's pretty hard to run a campaign where it's so close not to step on some toes. The question becomes who's toes are being stepped on & is it worth it. I think Kennedy is being overly sensitive when it comes to Obama. If voters in general think like Kennedy, Bill Clinton will probably go softer on Obama. I don't think they do though.

but if that's true then why did her husband feel the need to seek gratification elsewhere? did she not get right in there and get more of the things done that he wanted done?

Good article.

Some insightful pun-ditry.

Please.

Most Democrats are still waiting for that day to roll around when her and the other entrenched Democrats find their spine to actually challenge this Administration with the power they possess TODAY.

It seems the only Democrat with any real backbone in Congress is John Conyers and Russ Feingold.

And did you like Hillary's response for having voted for the Iraq war? I voted FOR it but I hoped it wouldn't pass.

WTF??!!

It's not hard to understand that answer. Many Democrats voted to give authorization to Bush but it was done with many assurances that it would be a last resort measure. As you mentioned she had alot of company in that decision of trusting the President to act wisely.

Once you recognize who you're dealing with, it really wasn't that hard to figure out...



Y'know, I saw the same sordid assholes from Watergate, The Church Committee hearings and Iran Contra and managed to figure out that they'd be up to no good. And 'm not paid to figure it out.

Maybe you should run for office Whomod.

Maybe I will.

I'll just have to watch out for Wonder Boy trying to accuse me of having allegiances to Moscow of the 1970's.

I'd vote for you, ya little commie

Not if he ran against a Clinton you wouldn't

that's not cool. Bobby Fischer just died.

Top South Carolina paper endorses Obama

• South Carolina’s The State endorsed Obama for Saturday’s Democratic primary Tuesday, calling the Illinois senator “a groundbreaking nominee” and the best candidate to unite the country and repair America’s reputation around the world.
  
  “Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum,” The (Columbia) State said on its Web site.

I wonder how MEM feels about this, given he seems to think endorsements are very important in deciding primary races?

I didn't reallize that I thought that. Since you feel endorsements have no value I also wonder why you even bother posting them for your Rudy & Obama?