Barak Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]disciplined wrote:
DS, you raise interesting points. But did you also ask similar question when Bush Jr. ran for president and was eclected twice? Bush Jr. is far from intelligent, far from well-spoken, and lacks the qualities that most intelligent and rational people expect from the leader of a great nation. [/quote]

Be serious. Bush is not dumb, and had executive experience at the highest level the nation can afford. This canard that ‘intelligent, rational’ people could not have voted for Bush is evidence of your own shortcomings, not his.

Your naivete is astounding. People pay attention to the candidates’ track record. Witness how Kerry was routinely pilloried for trying to shift the focus off of being a Senator for 20 years on to a 4 month stint in Vietnam as the reason he should be elected. Moreover, even as far back as 2000, being a governor of Texas weighed in most people’s voting calculus - as it should.

Obama is now in a similar position, and it is the people on his side of the aisle that are damning him for lacking substance. You know, the ‘intelligent, rational people’ you no doubt think are pretty heady - i.e., they agree with your politics.

22

[quote]tme wrote:
Well he is articulate. For a black guy, I mean.[/quote]

Well, since Obama is only half-black, that must make you half-racist.

23

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
tme wrote:
Well he is articulate. For a black guy, I mean.

Well, since Obama is only half-black, that must make you half-racist.[/quote]

That’s a sight better than being half-fast, I guess.

24

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Be serious. Bush is not dumb, and had executive experience at the highest level the nation can afford. This canard that ‘intelligent, rational’ people could not have voted for Bush is evidence of your own shortcomings, not his.
[/quote]

So what? It doesn’t matter what position he’s held before when anyone can see for themselves what a fool this guy is. In countless public scenes he’s been in, you can see this for yourself. Do you really need me to link you to sites with video and transcripts of ridiculous things Bush Jr. has said over the years? Anyone who tries to defend GWB’s intelligence, IMO, is most likely a partisan. Like I said, he puts his lack of intellect on display every time he speaks. This is plain for many of us to see. It’s so obvious it’s seems silly to debate it. Remember that politics isn’t like the private sphere. It’s much less of a meritocracy in the public realm.

But if you do want to discuss benchmarks of intellect, there are many things that can be brought up that reflect poorly on Dubya’s judgement. Poor business decisions (as well as some good ones), average performance in school, drunk-driving arrest, alleged poor performance in the military excused due to his family status, etc…

No, they don’t. Do you really need me to cite public surveys showing the poor scores regarding the public’s knowledge of public figures? Come on, and you’re claiming that I’M being naive? Look at campaign ads, look at the media’s portrayal of the candidates and the issues at stake during the elections, does it get any more dumbed down? I really don’t feel like getting deeply into this, but it’s common knowledge among intelligent people that the public (myself included) are POORLY informed of the candidates’ track records, shortcomings, and achievements.

I’m not sure what your point is, here.

So you’re saying that Bush’s previous status as Governor of Texas was helpful in getting elected as President? Wow. Insightful.

WTF are you talking about?

25

[quote]disciplined wrote:

So what? It doesn’t matter what position he’s held before when anyone can see for themselves what a fool this guy is. In countless public scenes he’s been in, you can see this for yourself. Do you really need me to link you to sites with video and transcripts of ridiculous things Bush Jr. has said over the years? Anyone who tries to defend GWB’s intelligence, IMO, is most likely a partisan. Like I said, he puts his lack of intellect on display every time he speaks. This is plain for many of us to see. It’s so obvious it’s seems silly to debate it. Remember that politics isn’t like the private sphere. It’s much less of a meritocracy in the public realm. [/quote]

Well, you are all over the place, so I will address one issue - Bush isn’t dumb. He is not articulate or well-spoken. Is he truly dumb? No - this is the lazy slur that gets peddled by those who can’t quite articulate things all that well themselves. Bush’s opponents - those that actually have to tangle with him - routinely say he is not an idiot. I trust their word over yours.

Good idea - now go through the litany of Abraham Lincoln’s decisions and get back to me.

Perhaps the most important measure you seem to skip is his performance as twice elected governor of Texas and his decisions in that job. You don’t have to like his tenure as governor or even agree with his policies - but let’s stop pretending that somehow that we are dealing with someone as dumb as you have depicted.

If this be absolutely true, then why are so many people discussing whether or not Barack Obama lacks substance? Why would anyone care? I don’t expect ‘the public’ to have actual wonkish knowledge, but it is ‘the public’ that is actually wondering aloud about Obama’s substance.

We aren’t talking about having detailed files - we are talking about candidates who have some kind of a policy game plan. No more, no less. This is basic stuff.

The point was Kerry was effectively attacked as being a ‘do nothing’ candidate who offered up little substance and just opted for an ‘I’m not Bush’ campaign. The man serves as a Senator for 20 years and he wants his entire campaign to focus on his 4 months in Vietnam. More plainly stated - his lack of substance hurt him in 2004. These things that you say don’t matter - Kerry’s track record - was considered one of the primary weaknesses of his campaign by many Democratic pundits assessing the loss.

So make up your mind. My point was that Bush’s track record as a governor mattered to people pulling the lever, even if only generally - you agree with me now, is that it?

26

It’s spelled Barack Obama, not Barak.

Yes, I think Obama can win, because 1) he has a positive message and 2) a pathetically weak GOP field of candidates and 3) Bush will still be president in 2008 and will be more unpopular than ever and 4) the war in Iraq will still be happening in 2008 and it’s correctly perceived by the public as a Republican failure.

A friend of mine thinks Obama will clean up with Republican women, who will vote for Obama big time, once inside the privacy of the voting booth.

Of course, for all those reasons, ANY Democratic presidential candidate has an advantage… be it Hillary, Wes Clark, Edwards, Obama (hopefully not John Kerry. Lets get some fresh faces in there).

27

[quote]disciplined wrote:
DS, you raise interesting points. But did you also ask similar question when Bush Jr. ran for president and was eclected twice? Bush Jr. is far from intelligent, far from well-spoken, and lacks the qualities that most intelligent and rational people expect from the leader of a great nation.

BUsh Jr. was elected on simple, stupid premises. He was positioned as an honest, ‘everyman’. He was positioned as principled and a man of integrity. He was psotioned as courageous. And he also was running under the name of his father.

At the end of the day, the office of the presidency has become a joke in the sense of what methods are use to seize it. Candidates do not win elections based on principles, accomplishments, or track records. They win based on simple ideas and successful undermining of their opponents (‘flip flopper’, etc).

So although I agree with you regarding Barak Obama, thise is nothing new. Presidents always win based on silly premises. Look at Reagan and Schwarzenegger. The campaigning process efffectively destroys real debates between political candidates vying for the same position.[/quote]

Well, I’m not sure what my thoughts on GWB in 2000 has do with this post, but I did had the same feelings about Bush back then. My post was not meant to be an indictment on Obama. My feeling is that he’s being pressured to ‘fast forward’ his political career path by his party, the media, etc.

Obama himself is a guy that engenders good feelings in just about everyone, mostly due to superficial, exterior reasons. Comparable to Bush on the campaign trail. Seemed like a nice guy (albeit in a MUCH different way then Obama).

That said, elevating Obama for similar reasons that Bush was elevated just BECAUSE it happened with Bush doesn’t seem very good reasoning. Many of the same people pushing Obama (while knowing little about him outside what he’s written about himself) are the same people who attacked Bush as lacking substance and being unqualified.

My main point was that Bush will be figure of the past in a few years and run up to that is now. Both parties are looking for candidates. Who will be the guy? Obama could be it. Would that be good? Would it be bad? Who else is out there?

Is Obama’s rise obscuring other more qualified candidates that in any other year would be a front-runner? It’s simply intersting to me. And not everything has to be about George W. Bush, does it?

28

[quote]disciplined wrote:
Ok, wow… did I ever make a lot of spelling mistakes in my original post. I’ll pay attention to the screen this time and try to type without staring at my hands.

I’m not sure if I made this clear, but my point is that the office of the president isn’t reserved exclusively for people of great character, intelligence, integrity, or accomplishment. The stuff that wins elections does not include the qualities of an individual that I listed above. Rather, elections are one through one-liners and rhetoric. I do not blame the electorate for not being well-informed of candidates and their positions/opinions/accomplishments/controversies… I mean, we all have jobs, school, social lives, etc… we can’t be expected to keep up with all the details. Not to mention that most of the information presented to us is bullshit, anyways. We depend on the media to provide us accurate information regarding the candidates running for leadership, but what do we really get? We simply get partisan bickering and talking heads trying to tell us who to vote for. And don’t get me started on campaign ads.

So at the end of the day, I know what the OP is trying to say when he talks about Barak Obama being an overnight sensation, with his book and Oprah and media hype and him being half-black and not having a typical white American name… but so what? Bullshit of all flavors gets presidents and other politicians elected. Bush Jr. winning because of his name and his bullshit ‘everyman’ vibe, Reagan and Schwarzenegger and that professional wrestler dude (Jesse something?) winning because of their celebrity status, Colin Powell’s son chairing the FCC, etc… same bullshit year after year.

This whole Barak Obama shenanigan is the same bullshit, just a different flavor. This time the gag is that he’s a good-looking young guy, not (yet) surrounded in any type of controversy, and he’s black (or half-black, or whatever… he’s NOT white!). To his credit, though, he’s much more well-spoken than the current president.

My question to the OP is this: were you asking the same questions when Bush Jr. ran and won for the office of the presidency twice?[/quote]

I agree with you 100%. I think the reason that I’m asking the questions about Obama (and any candidate of either pary that’s going to appear on the horizon) is because we shouldn’t HAVE to choose elected officials in the manner you described. We have the ability to do research for ourselves and get passed the media hue and cry, right? Just because it’s been like that does not mean that it should always be like that?

I’d also say that I don’t put much stock in people who speak well, are polished, etc. To me that just says that they are polished and speak well. It doesn’t mean that they have good ideas and are great thinkers. Bush may be neither but he’s certainly not the former.

I think the voters have elected the wrong man in each of the last four presidential elections (myself included in a few of those). This time around, I want to do my to do my homework so that I am prepared and can be confident with my vote. This forum seems as good a place as any to engage in some reasonable debate and discussion. I think that can serve us all. It already has, really. Someone posted some good info on Obama. Let’s see more of that, on more candidates, good and bad as we move toward the election.

29

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
tme wrote:
Well he is articulate. For a black guy, I mean.

Well, since Obama is only half-black, that must make you half-racist.[/quote]

Which half?

30

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
he has a positive message
[/quote]

This is the weakest argument ever. Name one candidate who has a negative message. Secondly, nobody can even tell us what Obama’s message is.

This is what his campaign ads will sound like:

[quote]Hello, I’m Barack Obama and I have a positive message. I’m half black and a newly elected democratic senator of a historically democratic state. I am strong and handsome and religious and the ladies really dig me–and my mom is very proud of me. Oh and did I mention I have a positive message and I am half a minority. Please vote for me.
[/quote]

Will someone please tell us what his positive message is?

31

Obama will win in '08. People are in the mood for style over substance, as in 1960.

Obama has an extremely liberal voting record, but the Republicans don’t have a powerful figure waiting in the wings. Demographics DOES indicate an increasingly conservative America, but w/o a candidate to articulate those values, Obama will win.

32

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
he has a positive message

This is the weakest argument ever. Name one candidate who has a negative message. Secondly, nobody can even tell us what Obama’s message is.

This is what his campaign ads will sound like:

Hello, I’m Barack Obama and I have a positive message. I’m half black and a newly elected democratic senator of a historically democratic state. I am strong and handsome and religious and the ladies really dig me–and my mom is very proud of me. Oh and did I mention I have a positive message and I am half a minority. Please vote for me.

Will someone please tell us what his positive message is?[/quote]

The same can be said about every other candidate in both parties. It's 2006, not 2008. They will all need to say a lot more about their plans and visions for this country in the next few years.
As far as Obama goes, I like him a lot as a person. And I think he's intelligent and a man of substance. I would need to hear more about his various policies before I could commit to him. I think Hilary is smart as well, but I don't like and don't trust her. At heart, she is more liberal than I would have our president be. I do like Giuliani as well from what I know of him. I think he's a real human being and also intelligent and a man of substance, and I like that he is more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative, but still reasonably moderate.  I think he's a lot of what the country is looking for. But I'm not so sure that's what the Republican party is looking for and am doubtful that he'd get the nomination.
33

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama will win in '08. People are in the mood for style over substance, as in 1960.

Obama has an extremely liberal voting record, but the Republicans don’t have a powerful figure waiting in the wings. Demographics DOES indicate an increasingly conservative America, but w/o a candidate to articulate those values, Obama will win.[/quote]

What demographics? And increasingly conservative as opposed to what and when? I think recent events indicate a decidely more moderate and centrist America than the current administration. Both parties are off. That is always true to some degree in a two-party system and has been true throughout our history.

Candidates are always more leftist or conservative than the bulk of the population because most of the population is centrist and they hope to capture the smaller portion of more liberal or conservative elements to tip the balance in their favor. But I do think in recent years, the parties have been more polarized and extreme and less in line with the citizenry than ever before.

34

Actually, I see Obama as all style and no substance. It’s a pretty package but there seems to be nothing inside. I don’t mean on a personal level. He does seem like a good individual. But politically (checked his record) he’s voted partyline since he’s been in office. Right down the line.

I also can’t find any definitive stance on any key issue. Still looking, though. And this could ALL change when '08 comes around. He could be unbeatable with a solid recored (from now to then) or he could be unelectable. Two years is an eternity in politics.

35

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
Actually, I see Obama as all style and no substance. It’s a pretty package but there seems to be nothing inside. I don’t mean on a personal level. He does seem like a good individual. But politically (checked his record) he’s voted partyline since he’s been in office. Right down the line.

I also can’t find any definitive stance on any key issue. Still looking, though. And this could ALL change when '08 comes around. He could be unbeatable with a solid recored (from now to then) or he could be unelectable. Two years is an eternity in politics.[/quote]

Which means the greatest mistake someone could make is to give everything up at this point in the game and have a public that seems to be influenced by simple jargon like “flip flop” make solid opinions about you.

36

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
Actually, I see Obama as all style and no substance. It’s a pretty package but there seems to be nothing inside. I don’t mean on a personal level. He does seem like a good individual. But politically (checked his record) he’s voted partyline since he’s been in office. Right down the line.

I also can’t find any definitive stance on any key issue. Still looking, though. And this could ALL change when '08 comes around. He could be unbeatable with a solid recored (from now to then) or he could be unelectable. Two years is an eternity in politics.

Which means the greatest mistake someone could make is to give everything up at this point in the game and have a public that seems to be influenced by simple jargon like “flip flop” make solid opinions about you.[/quote]

My expectation is that, as a member of the United States Senate, he is there to do his job, not protect his image and perception in order to make a strong bid for the Oval Office. That means voting as he sees fit, giving his opinion on major issues, becoming part of the debate and discourse, etc. Not to hide in the shadows and write books about himself. I’m saying that’s what I’d like to see, not what I think that others want to see. You’re probably right. What he is doing is probaby the best strategy when you consider the voters.

37

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
Actually, I see Obama as all style and no substance. It’s a pretty package but there seems to be nothing inside. I don’t mean on a personal level. He does seem like a good individual. But politically (checked his record) he’s voted partyline since he’s been in office. Right down the line.

I also can’t find any definitive stance on any key issue. Still looking, though. And this could ALL change when '08 comes around. He could be unbeatable with a solid recored (from now to then) or he could be unelectable. Two years is an eternity in politics.[/quote]

I really don’t know how you can say he’s all style over substance. Especially since, as you said, two years is an eterntiy in politics. I do agree that he has not as of yet articulated his stance on important [or unimportant] issues. But he only did JUST announce his candidacy.

38

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
Actually, I see Obama as all style and no substance. It’s a pretty package but there seems to be nothing inside. I don’t mean on a personal level. He does seem like a good individual. But politically (checked his record) he’s voted partyline since he’s been in office. Right down the line.

I also can’t find any definitive stance on any key issue. Still looking, though. And this could ALL change when '08 comes around. He could be unbeatable with a solid recored (from now to then) or he could be unelectable. Two years is an eternity in politics.

Which means the greatest mistake someone could make is to give everything up at this point in the game and have a public that seems to be influenced by simple jargon like “flip flop” make solid opinions about you.

My expectation is that, as a member of the United States Senate, he is there to do his job, not protect his image and perception in order to make a strong bid for the Oval Office. That means voting as he sees fit, giving his opinion on major issues, becoming part of the debate and discourse, etc. Not to hide in the shadows and write books about himself. I’m saying that’s what I’d like to see, not what I think that others want to see. You’re probably right. What he is doing is probaby the best strategy when you consider the voters.[/quote]

Yeah. It is the best strategy for NOW. But I think he will need to have something more to show as the election draws nearer. Many but certainly not everyone is interested in smoke and mirrors. And it’s definitely something for the opposition to hone in on if he doesn’t. Failure to espouse an agenda has been the biggest legit criticism of Democrats to date. It on worked in the last election because of the atrociousness of Republican policies and the severity of their failures. If the Republican forerunner is putting forth new policies and plans, the Democrat counterpart, be it Obama or whoever, will have to respond in kind.

39

I would say that Obama is not engaging in a good strategy.

Obama must prepare for the Democratic nomination. As we have seen, presidential candidates are already declaring themselves in the running, which means campaigning effectively begins now, not a few years from now. Candidates are already thinking of how they are positioning themselves and, even better, how to position the other candidates they will be running against.

The worst thing you can have in politics is your opponent defining who you are instead of you doing it yourself. Ambitious politicians like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are no doubt already interested in defining Obama right now to strengthen themselves.

More plainly stated - if Obama decides to wait around a bit to flesh out ‘who he is’, it will likely be too late - his rivals will have done it for him long before the Convention.

As someone with little leadership experience and absolutely no executive experience, Obama needs to get in with some substance now. This, I think, is actually hard for him, in light of his only selling point right now, which is his ‘ethereal being of Obamaness’.

40

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
he has a positive message

This is the weakest argument ever. Name one candidate who has a negative message. [/quote]

You only need to look back as far as 2004, with Bush and Cheney, or last Fall’s congressional elections…

“If you vote for the Democrat, we will be hit by terrorists” (Dick Cheney said something directly along those lines).

Democrats will take away your guns and your bibles. Etc. The elections are LOADED with negative messages.

I think Obama DOES have positions, and you guys are just unaware of what they are because the media hasn’t spoonfed you this information.

“Democrats don’t have any positions or any plans”… biggest line of horsehit ever.