DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,805
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 17, 2007 13:43:24 GMT -5
The move away from choosing a candidate at the convention to the primary system certainly has affected the depth and breadth of Democratic candidates. It frontloads the entire process to a few states, forces candidates to raise money more than raise ideas, and probably scared a few away over the years who just wouldn't put up with the mudslinging and the media's one strike and you're out system of coverage (Muskie, Dean). Clearly the previous candidates under the convention system seemed to have a little more gravitas than those who have followed, and you wonder how some of them would have ever made it to the nomination if they had to go through the current process.
Prior to 1968: FDR, Truman, Stevenson, Kennedy, LBJ, Humphrey
Since 1968: McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 17, 2007 15:33:24 GMT -5
Good point DFW, however Dean was not scared away, he was swept away after his own party recognized he's daft.
As for the current system, the real shame of allof it, on both sides, is that what passes for a media in today's political climate is really a gropup of undertalented would be entertainers who are better suited to judge reality shows. Thus candidacies are boiled down to sound bites, likeability and nonsensical puff pieces.
While I am certainly no New Dealer, could a man in a wheelchair get elected preesident today? I tend to doubt it.
Could a man hopped up on amphetamines with Addison's disease and a constantly descending zipper get elected? I doubt it.
I'd like to hear one of the talking heads on tonight's news tell me one position the Rock Star Obama has espoused. 5-1 says they can't. They like him because he's different. That's as racist as not liking him because he's different, no?
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 17, 2007 15:40:55 GMT -5
If the dems go with someone electable over someone with ideas they would be doing the same thing the gop did in 2000. at that point conservatives still liked mccain and he had some ideas. Bush didnt have ideas or a philosphy, just sound bites and catch phrases but he was more electable. And what happened in that election? More Americans voted for an animatronic robot from Tennessee than the "electable" Republican candidate.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 17, 2007 23:52:25 GMT -5
It is sad that the attack machine is already after this man. Of course, the "Hussein" mention in his name plays right into the Republican playbook as if we're to associate Obama with Saddam. Then again, Iraq had a lot to do with 9/11 too [sic]. The "experience" card is a good one to play. George Bush's "experience," Rummy's "experience," and Cheney's "experience" brought us the Iraq War "experience." If that's the experience we need in this country, count me out. It comes as no surprise that some Republicans, even on this message board, are pounding their chests when the policies they supported have caused greater instability in the Middle East, with NO end in sight. How about we value experience when it involves good policy as opposed to experience for its own sake? I've read Obama's book and was mildly impressed. It is too short on details, especially in policy areas, but the general themes resonate, and that's what one needs in presidential campaigns these days. Bush was elected on the "ownership society," "compassionate conservative" and"uniter not a divider" mantles, nevermind it took him 3 years to own up to the reality of his mistakes in Iraq and the demographic facts that Americans are more divided now than they have been in years. If Americans like the messenger and the message passes a cursory sniff test, they'll buy in. So, bring on the fringe, right wing attacks. Hopefully, for your sake, it will go some way toward covering up the "experience" that some of the more "experienced" Republican contenders bring to the table. Jersey, I'm not sure one anonymous e-mail traveling through the World Wide Web leads to the conclusion that the attack machine is operating at full throttle. Also, you concede Obama hasn't put forward many policy ideas, or worked on many policy ideas on a national level. Yet you still like Obama. What's more important to hard-core Dems: policy ideas or getting elected? If it's the latter, the Republicans will probably maintain the presidency as they did in '04, in the manner they did it in '04, and probably with a similar candidate as in '04. I vote for both parties, and I am not likely to be happy about a vote for Obama unless his campaign is able to do what no candidate has done in the past two presidential elections: articulate clear and innovative policies to better the nation. I didn't say the attack machine is running at full throttle. I merely said that it is after Obama. I don't know what's more important to Dems -- electability or ideas -- in 2008 nor do I care really. I think both will be important. I've argued in the past but maybe not on the board that the two are intertwined, or, at least, conveying a marriage between the two is critical to winning. Bush, at least, was able to tie "stay the course" to his Iraq war policy in 2004, which has since changed, and "flip-flop" to Kerry's policy. In 2000, "compassionate conservatism" was tied to policies that we haven't heard about since. The boilerplate stuff makes you electable, but it is tied here to the policy. Kerry didn't have a true slogan that I can remember. That deteriorated from his electability, although there were laundry lists of ideas that he had on policy. That's a problem. I think Obama has A but not B right now. That's the opposite of a Hillary who has B but not A. As a result, I like Obama more because he passes the sniff test, whereas Hillary is still stuck in Kerryland with image problems. Obama would be an idiot to engage on policy right now when all others are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so. Hillary is explaining her Bush 2.0 Iraq policy and others are trying to figure things out after supporting the war resolution, why should Obama interrupt that? There will be time for the ideas to be debated. BTW, I do like Obama, but I support another "candidate." (Read: I hope someone else jumpts in). I do hope, however, that Obama turns into the Dems' VP nominee.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 18, 2007 14:33:44 GMT -5
Don't know whether or not this is true but there is an email online which says that Obama attended a Wahabi school in Indonesia for a while after his mother remarried another Muslim and relocated to Indonesia. Wahabism is regarded as radical Muslin followed by many terrorists. The email also says he attended a Catholic school for 2 years. Is this important? If true rest assured his Democratic and Republican opponents will talk about it. I can't believe there haven't been more people to call out easyed on this one. This has to be one of the single most pointless posts in the history of this board. First of all, there was ZERO fact-checking on this. Second of all, even if there was fact checking, why does any of this crap matter? What is the thought process advocated here? "Oh my goodness.... if he travelled to Indonesia, he MUST be a terrorist... after all look at his name!" Former President H. W. Bush worked with several Wahibist Muslims before and after his Presidency (see Saudi Arabia business and diplomacy)... does that mean we should be asking questions about his patriotism? And the fact that Obama attended a Catholic school? I'm not Catholic and I went to Georgetown... does that mean I should be answering "questions" from people like easyed? This post was insulting to the intelligence of most people on this board and I would hope that future political posts don't invoke speculation and thinly-veiled attacks that are based on ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 18, 2007 14:38:25 GMT -5
I didn't say the attack machine is running at full throttle. I merely said that it is after Obama. I don't know what's more important to Dems -- electability or ideas -- in 2008 nor do I care really. I think both will be important. I've argued in the past but maybe not on the board that the two are intertwined, or, at least, conveying a marriage between the two is critical to winning. Bush, at least, was able to tie "stay the course" to his Iraq war policy in 2004, which has since changed, and "flip-flop" to Kerry's policy. In 2000, "compassionate conservatism" was tied to policies that we haven't heard about since. The boilerplate stuff makes you electable, but it is tied here to the policy. Kerry didn't have a true slogan that I can remember. That deteriorated from his electability, although there were laundry lists of ideas that he had on policy. That's a problem. I think Obama has A but not B right now. That's the opposite of a Hillary who has B but not A. As a result, I like Obama more because he passes the sniff test, whereas Hillary is still stuck in Kerryland with image problems. Obama would be an idiot to engage on policy right now when all others are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so. Hillary is explaining her Bush 2.0 Iraq policy and others are trying to figure things out after supporting the war resolution, why should Obama interrupt that? There will be time for the ideas to be debated. BTW, I do like Obama, but I support another "candidate." (Read: I hope someone else jumpts in). I do hope, however, that Obama turns into the Dems' VP nominee. Good points. And you're right, both "A" and "B" are important, even among the swing voters. I do wonder, if a candidate is able to successfully marry electablity to ideas, will we see an end to this 40/40/10 thing DFW describes? (I'll add that's a large if.)
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 18, 2007 19:42:03 GMT -5
Don't know whether or not this is true but there is an email online which says that Obama attended a Wahabi school in Indonesia for a while after his mother remarried another Muslim and relocated to Indonesia. Wahabism is regarded as radical Muslin followed by many terrorists. The email also says he attended a Catholic school for 2 years. Is this important? If true rest assured his Democratic and Republican opponents will talk about it. I can't believe there haven't been more people to call out easyed on this one. This has to be one of the single most pointless posts in the history of this board. First of all, there was ZERO fact-checking on this. Second of all, even if there was fact checking, why does any of this crap matter? What is the thought process advocated here? "Oh my goodness.... if he travelled to Indonesia, he MUST be a terrorist... after all look at his name!" Former President H. W. Bush worked with several Wahibist Muslims before and after his Presidency (see Saudi Arabia business and diplomacy)... does that mean we should be asking questions about his patriotism? And the fact that Obama attended a Catholic school? I'm not Catholic and I went to Georgetown... does that mean I should be answering "questions" from people like easyed? This post was insulting to the intelligence of most people on this board and I would hope that future political posts don't invoke speculation and thinly-veiled attacks that are based on ignorance. With all due respects I started the post by saying I didn't know if it were true or not. Read it! Second, if he did, in fact, attend a Wahabi school, I think that is important to know. Third, fact checks are very difficult to do since you don't know the agenda of the fact-checker. What I now believe is that no one knows if the school he attended was Wahabi or not but he did attend a Muslim school and a Catholic school as he has personally stated. Fourth, I see posts almost every day on this board that contain things that have not been fact-checked. For instance the one about the President being stupid because he entered an armored car instead of going into a shelter when there was a tornado warning. Fifth, I don't see any hesitation on this board when it's said that someone is an Evangelical Christian, so why not Muslim or Catholic? Finally, I'll repeat that I don't know whether it is true or not and neither do you.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 19, 2007 10:16:51 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2007 10:41:33 GMT -5
So he'll get pounded for being put in a school by his father before the age of 10. Nice. Politics is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jan 19, 2007 13:26:34 GMT -5
Actually, there is speculation in the blogosphere that this information is being put out by right-wingers and attributed to the Clinton camp as a way to smear both Barack and Hillary. In any event, I would love Ed to explain why this is relevant. I agree that the fact that Obama is a born-again Christian is relevant because it says something about how he might govern. I don't have any idea how the affiliation of his grammar school could possibly be relevant. Please enlighten me.
Look, I think Obama is great but those of us who are inclined to support him have to be prepared for this sort of stuff to happen. His names (first, middle and last) will be an issue, as will his childhood spent in a Muslim country, as will his race (in a big way). The shadow of Lee Atwater still looms over the Republican Party and this stuff is pure gold. Let's just hope Americans can look past it. If my country elects a black man named Obama, I will be one proud American.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 13:54:46 GMT -5
If my country elects someone, or fails to do so, based upon his color, I'll be ashamed. Obama is to date, an empty suit.
Check his record, especially the vote to deny funding for medication for babies which survive late-term abotions. Nice stuff. The Audacity of Hope, my ass.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 14:01:33 GMT -5
Put another way. Obama is such a fanatic on abortion rights that he actually voted against preserving the lives of infants delivered during late-term abortions. If infanticide is your thing, go hard for Barack Hussein Obama, baby-killer deluxe.
Before I am assailed as a zealot on pro-life, I am not. However, human decency requires that once life is delivered, the babies must be saved. They are no longer the subject of Mommy's or Babykiller Barack's concept of choice.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 19, 2007 14:04:43 GMT -5
"Actually, there is speculation in the blogosphere that this information is being put out by right-wingers and attributed to the Clinton camp as a way to smear both Barack and Hillary."
I demand you do a fact-check before posting this on the board.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 19, 2007 15:01:37 GMT -5
They are no longer the subject of Mommy's or Babykiller Barack's concept of choice. I think St. Pete's head just exploded. Nah, he's entitled to his opinion on abortion just like everyone else. IMO, its a really tough call. The Roe case emphasizes how hard of a call it is because other than finding a way to punt the case SCOTUS had to make a highly politicized decision either way. I happen to think that abortions will happen no matter what the law is regarding them so I'd rather have them be safe, available, and rare than the alternative. Calling someone a baby-killer is a little low though. Its not like he legalized abortion up to the 12th trimester. If 24 has taught me anything, the way to defeat terrorists is to think like a terrorist. Therefore, I believe Obama's wahabi schooling is an asset. FWIW, I'm not sold on Obama's electability as of yet. But when compared to the alternatives - Biden, Clinton, Vlasik (don't care about him enough to figure out how to actually spell his name), John "Do you know where my daddy worked?" Edwards, and Kerry - I am sold on his electability - at least in a primary - he's the only dynamic candidate. Pair him with someone with outside the beltway experience, that has Clinton campaign contacts, can appeal to Latino voters and that geographically balances the ticket like Bill Richardson and I think you'd have a pretty appealing Democratic ticket. On the Edwards thing - my problem isn't that he was a trial lawyer. Whatever your opinion of lawyers the guy was helping families get the medical expenses they needed to care for their children (in many cases as he handled a large number of pool drain injury cases). I wouldn't call it a windfall that the tort system sees fit to compensate disembowled children for their years of lost productivity. What I do think is disingenuous is that the man is and was rich - I don't really care who his Dad is - a person who made several million dollars in his first 20 years out of law school has very little concept of how to relate to the urban rural poverty in this country no matter what he says.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 15:09:59 GMT -5
Obama voted to deny funding to preserve the lives of babies who survive partial birth abortion. That sir, with all respect, is infanticide.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,823
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 19, 2007 15:13:19 GMT -5
On the Edwards thing - my problem isn't that he was a trial lawyer.
...
What I do think is disingenuous is that the man is and was rich - I don't really care who his Dad is - a person who made several million dollars in his first 20 years out of law school has very little concept of how to relate to the urban rural poverty in this country no matter what he says. Sure he does - they make a great backdrop for announcing you are running for President.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 15:33:38 GMT -5
Obama voted to deny funding to preserve the lives of babies who survive partial birth abortion. That sir, with all respect, is infanticide. Roll call vote number or article link please? Otherwise this is pure mudslinging on a vote that could have been about anything and had this provision stuck in it somewhere or as Fox News calls it "fair and balanced" reporting.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 15:40:20 GMT -5
Illinois State Senate: 2001, 2002, BAIPA Act Sen. Obama votes against. As Chairman he refuses to bring Act out of committee.
See if he denies it.
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jan 19, 2007 15:54:49 GMT -5
So Obama DOES eat babies. Glad we got that cleared up.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 15:59:38 GMT -5
No. He just preferred to let them die in the name of choice and personal liberty. Just your basic mainstream Democrat after all.
|
|