First major-party African-American presidential nominee

" Obama could have done a whole of a hell lot more not to piss off Hillary's supporters too"

Huh? I assume you are talking about the whole campaign, not just last night... but still, Obama has run a campaign that was dramatically less confrontational and nasty than any we have seen in recent years. I would love to have you elaborate on this statement.

Obama talking abut Hillary last night:


ummm.... that's not exactly ripping into her now, is it? Pretty complimentary I think...


Yes, I was talking about the entire campaign. And I've already posted here that they had both been playing nice-nice for the past week in preparation for the next phase of this.


And to the discussion at large, I don't think Hillary has missed (for some time now) that she wasn't going to get the nomination. I find all of the Machiavilian "she'll still find a way to steal it" stuff floating around here sort of silly. I sense few here have actually worked a political campaign. Politics is an ongoing process, not an isolated event.
 
I agree completely. I like Rice, but she brings very few positives and a bunch of negatives. If she had any interest in breaking that ceiling, she needs to get elected to something and develop her own political record. At the moment, Bush has damaged her to the point where she'd be a drag on the ticket.

I have to keep asking. What in the heck has Rice ever successfully done to qualify her to be president of the United States (or any other elected job, for that matter)? Truth be known, she hasn't been impressive in either of her appointed jobs: she couldn't hold her own as national security adviser--she let Cheney and Rumsfeld run roughshod over her to the tune of national disaster--and she isn't even a successful secretary of state--and the job of president goes way beyond anything she's ever had even the most remote professional experience with. What is it makes people pine for her?
 
Obama clinched it today. I feel proud of the USA, as if we've done something that ought to be ordinary but is extraordinary.

Whatever happens in November, this step feels good.

I hear ya. Here here.

I do wish he wasn't just a doctrinaire liberal though (most liberal voting record in Senate). I wish he was someone who got here not from being an exceptionally slick politician but from a record of being devastatingly competent, a'la' Colin Powell.

But I should put my quibbling on hold until tomorrow, because what you say is correct.

Congrats, B.H.O.

~~~~

As I'm typing my sister calls to say something similar, and reports that McCain said something nice about Hillary too, like if her dad could see her now he'd think, yep, when we told her she could be anything we were right . . . (third hand report, probably butchered in detail but not in spirit).

B.L. - Even though they are both lefties and I am not, the whole spectacle of the past nine months and its outcome says good things about who we are as a people. Yay us. :) :rose:
 
It will be for a lot of Independents/Moderates. Then again, if he tried to hedge a position he's held for 25 years in the Senate, he'd be making himself out to be a complete panderer and untrustworthy.

He became a complete panderer and untrustworthy when he hugged George W. Bush. I had a lot of respect for McCain until then - wouldn't have voted for him because of the anti-choice thing, but respected him nevertheless.

His stand on gay marriage seems to embarrass him. If he's not truly against it but pretending to be, he should be ashamed of himself.

That said, I have to admit I'm relieved that someone of at-least normal intelligence and exceptional courage will be on the Republican ticket this year. My fears of a McCain presidency are twofold: that he will have the opportunity to completely turn the tide where Roe v. Wade is concerned, by appointing a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court; and that his choice of Veep will have the incumbent advantage in 2012. Chances are, a man in his seventies will be a single-term president. So it's no joking matter if the second candidate on the 2008 ticket is some airhead like Mitt Romney.

Romney was suspicously willing to drop out of the primary race at a point when he still had a fighting chance. I think they made a deal.
 
Last edited:
Don't be pissed at Hillary. Intentionally or not, she's done the democratic party and Obama a great favor...
It's usually the case in US politics that a tough primary is good for a candidate. It's always the case that while it's going on pundits and partisans say it's bad for whoever the candidate will be.
 
I hear ya. Here here.

I do wish he wasn't just a doctrinaire liberal though (most liberal voting record in Senate). I wish he was someone who got here not from being an exceptionally slick politician but from a record of being devastatingly competent, a'la' Colin Powell.

But I should put my quibbling on hold until tomorrow, because what you say is correct.

Congrats, B.H.O.

~~~~

As I'm typing my sister calls to say something similar, and reports that McCain said something nice about Hillary too, like if her dad could see her now he'd think, yep, when we told her she could be anything we were right . . . (third hand report, probably butchered in detail but not in spirit).

B.L. - Even though they are both lefties and I am not, the whole spectacle of the past nine months and its outcome says good things about who we are as a people. Yay us. :) :rose:

Well said, Rox.
 
McCain is anti-choice on abortion rights. That's a deal-breaker for me.
I used to have that position. Then one morning in the 1980s I woke up and realized, "Hey, I don't really care very much if RvW is repealed, because all that means is abortion will be banned in one-third of the states, semi-infanticide will be legal in one-third, the rest will be somewhere in between, and Planned Parenthood will resume the role as travel agent it fulfulled before RvW."

It was liberating, and on reflection I further recognized that RvW has created a toxic polarization in our politics that's given small groups on either side who are passionate about a single issue unwarranted leverage in electoral campaigns. Further, that the damage from this outweighs the marginal increase in personal liberty (there are no border checkpoints between states).

But hey, this is a threadjack, and should be put on hold for tomorrow. Here's the proper subject for today:

Obama clinched it today. I feel proud of the USA, as if we've done something that ought to be ordinary but is extraordinary.

Whatever happens in November, this step feels good.
 
It's usually the case in US politics that a tough primary is good for a candidate. It's always the case that while it's going on pundits and partisans say it's bad for whoever the candidate will be.

I've always admired Hil, and I have had nothing but respect for Bill, but even I had become frustrated at the tone of their campaign. I'm glad it's semi-over.

I'm still cynical enough that I don't believe Obama can win the presidency. Twenty percent of voters in the West Virginia primary said race was a factor - and if twenty percent admit it, how many more are in the closet?

I'll vote for him, of course, and campaign for him locally if I'm able, and I'll hope for the best. I don't think the next president will be able to reverse very much of the damage that's been done, but he will make at least one critically important decision: we are one judicial appointment away from a solidly anti-abortion Supreme Court. That appointment will be something we all have to live with for a long, long time.
 
I used to have that position. Then one morning in the 1980s I woke up and realized, "Hey, I don't really care very much if RvW is repealed, because all that means is abortion will be banned in one-third of the states, semi-infanticide will be legal in one-third, the rest will be somewhere in between, and Planned Parenthood will resume the role as travel agent it fulfulled before RvW."

It was liberating, and on reflection I further recognized that RvW has created a toxic polarization in our politics that's given small groups on either side who are passionate about a single issue unwarranted leverage in electoral campaigns. Further, that the damage from this outweighs the marginal increase in personal liberty (there are no border checkpoints between states).

If you are a girl or woman facing an unwanted or medically dangerous pregnancy and without the means to travel to someplace where abortion is legal, Roe v. Wade is a precious gift.

If you are just someone who believes in personal liberty, Roe v. Wade is one of the remaining assurances that our bodies are ours alone. That's a pretty big deal.

[/threadjack]
 
If you are a girl or woman facing an unwanted or medically dangerous pregnancy and without the means to travel to someplace where abortion is legal, Roe v. Wade is a precious gift.

If you are just someone who believes in personal liberty, Roe v. Wade is one of the remaining assurances that our bodies are ours alone. That's a pretty big deal.

[/threadjack]

Honors [/threadjack] by deferring response for now - we each had one shot :D - but I do have a doozy of a response. ;) (Hint: the word 'balancing' is part of it.)
 
I've always admired Hil, and I have had nothing but respect for Bill, but even I had become frustrated at the tone of their campaign. I'm glad it's semi-over.

I'm still cynical enough that I don't believe Obama can win the presidency. Twenty percent of voters in the West Virginia primary said race was a factor - and if twenty percent admit it, how many more are in the closet?

While you have a point, I don't think West Virgina is a good gauge for the majority of Americans.
 
I'm still cynical enough that I don't believe Obama can win the presidency. Twenty percent of voters in the West Virginia primary said race was a factor - and if twenty percent admit it, how many more are in the closet?

I consider that having a realistic view of things.

I'll settle for the Republican party not openly or subtly making the race about Race... and that includes the people like the Gunboat Veterans too... fuck, if the only one that talks about Obama's race is what's her StupidHead and the TalkingIdiots on Fox... I'll count my chips and walk home happy.

But win?!? I'll put the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy back on the table if it happens and accept it as objective proof that Bush is the worst President possible... because quite frankly it's not even that obvious that I'm a person of color and I've been on the short end of racism many times in my life AND I live in a liberal state & went to a poster child of liberal colleges.

I don't think we're ready yet.
 
I don't think we're ready yet.
If we're not ready yet, we never will be. The world is moving on without us and we can be with those going forward, or those going back into the dark ages. I think this is make or break time for us.

I don't have much faith in my country any more, and I won't be surprised if it decides to remain stupid and backwards. Hey, people are lazy and afraid to leave their comfort zones, I get it. But I don't think I can stay in it any longer if it goes that way.

Edited to add: I don't mean that I'll leave if Obama loses, but I do mean that I'll leave if he loses on the topic of race rather than on the topic of him being unworthy of the presidency or because McCain magically says or does something that makes him very popular. If McCain wins simply because the U.S. isn't ready to have a black person in charge, then I do think we're hopeless.
 
Last edited:
If we're not ready yet, we never will be. The world is moving on without us and we can be with those going forward, or those going back into the dark ages. I think this is make or break time for us.

I don't have much faith in my country any more, and I won't be surprised if it decides to remain stupid and backwards. Hey, people are lazy and afraid to leave their comfort zones, I get it. But I don't think I can stay in it any longer if it goes that way.

Edited to add: I don't mean that I'll leave if Obama loses, but I do mean that I'll leave if he loses on the topic of race rather than on the topic of him being unworthy of the presidency or because McCain magically says or does something that makes him very popular. If McCain wins simply because the U.S. isn't ready to have a black person in charge, then I do think we're hopeless.
Forget race for a minute. The dems have nominated the most liberal member of the US Senate, a person whose only accomplishment of note is being an extremely slick politician. The repubs have nominated a centrist with an awesome biography. Why should anyone expect this to be anthing other than a 49-state rout a'la' Reagan/Mondale, Nixon/McGovern or Bush/Dukakis? The repubs don't need to play the race card.
 
IBut win?!? I'll put the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy back on the table if it happens.

Do keep them dusted off then. It's been very amusing to see posters on this forum declare what would never happen--that turns around and happens.
 
Forget race for a minute. The dems have nominated the most liberal member of the US Senate, a person whose only accomplishment of note is being an extremely slick politician. The repubs have nominated a centrist with an awesome biography. Why should anyone expect this to be anthing other than a 49-state rout a'la' Reagan/Mondale, Nixon/McGovern or Bush/Dukakis? The repubs don't need to play the race card.


And you might just hold that thought as well--the primary votes for Obama alone swamped those of all of the Republican candidates together. Not to say Obama will win in the end--a lot can happen before November--but anyone who makes blanket declarations like this has a good chance of eating crow in the unusual circumstances in play in this election. Except, no, no one's going to check back on what posters here said would never happen, will they? And those who make the declarations certainly won't own up to having done it.
 
And you might just hold that thought as well--the primary votes for Obama alone swamped those of all of the Republican candidates together. Not to say Obama will win in the end--a lot can happen before November--but anyone who makes blanket declarations like this has a good chance of eating crow in the unusual circumstances in play in this election. Except, no, no one's going to check back on what posters here said would never happen, will they? And those who make the declarations certainly won't own up to having done it.

I didn't make a blanket declaration. I made some factual observations and asked a reasonable question based on them.
 
And you might just hold that thought as well--the primary votes for Obama alone swamped those of all of the Republican candidates together. Not to say Obama will win in the end--a lot can happen before November--but anyone who makes blanket declarations like this has a good chance of eating crow in the unusual circumstances in play in this election. Except, no, no one's going to check back on what posters here said would never happen, will they? And those who make the declarations certainly won't own up to having done it.

I'll own up to it... because I will be outside my house holding up my arms and shouting "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
 
Forget race for a minute. The dems have nominated the most liberal member of the US Senate, a person whose only accomplishment of note is being an extremely slick politician. The repubs have nominated a centrist with an awesome biography. Why should anyone expect this to be anthing other than a 49-state rout a'la' Reagan/Mondale, Nixon/McGovern or Bush/Dukakis? The repubs don't need to play the race card.

Iraq.
 
I didn't make a blanket declaration. I made some factual observations and asked a reasonable question based on them.

OK, then. The answer is that people vote on other criteria than the logic you state. John Kennedy had practically no more political experience when he won than Obama has now (but then, Daddy bought JFK up to a certain level of "win"). People vote for Camelot. For many--Obama has brought bunches and bunches of people into the process who never bothered to vote before--Obama has a magic that doesn't depend on any of the logic you state (which is based on what you want to be taken as important based on who you are pushing, incidentially). Just like, as I noted above, some folks see Camelot in Condi Rice when she has even less to show than Obama does.
 

That too. People tend to vote on single issues. McCain's major problem (other than the fact that he shows his age badly when he moves on stage--which his handlers really should get him to stop doing) is that he has a whole lot of single issue "won't vote for him nohow" voters on both sides of the spectrum. That and the Bush anchor he has hanging around his neck.
 
That too. People tend to vote on single issues. McCain's major problem (other than the fact that he shows his age badly when he moves on stage--which his handlers really should get him to stop doing) is that he has a whole lot of single issue "won't vote for him nohow" voters on both sides of the spectrum. That and the Bush anchor he has hanging around his neck.

The age thing is so right... I never thought about McCain's age until the other day when I saw him on stage and moving around... I was like "If you pick a social conservative for your VP, I'm DEFINITELY voting Democratic.."
 
OK, then. The answer is that people vote on other criteria than the logic you state. John Kennedy had practically no more political experience when he won than Obama has now (but then, Daddy bought JFK up to a certain level of "win"). People vote for Camelot. For many--Obama has brought bunches and bunches of people into the process who never bothered to vote before--Obama has a magic that doesn't depend on any of the logic you state (which is based on what you want to be taken as important based on who you are pushing, incidentially). Just like, as I noted above, some folks see Camelot in Condi Rice when she has even less to show than Obama does.


When JFK started running in 1960, he was a war hero with 13 years in Congress and he was a member of a politically active family. Obama has three years in the Senate and a few years as a machine politician in Illinois.
 
When JFK started running in 1960, he was a war hero with 13 years in Congress and he was a member of a politically active family. Obama has three years in the Senate and a few years as a machine politician in Illinois.


JFK had scant background for a presidential run in terms of the period in which he ran (and his elections were bought and arranged in back rooms--Obama actually had to earn his way up). And they said just the same things about JFK's inexperience for being president then that people are saying about Obama now (and that I've said, by the way. I don't think Obama is prepared to be president). (I was there to hear it--were you? I find the similarities striking--even those concerned about Kennedy's Catholicism then and Obama's race now.)

JFK's family wasn't all that politically active until after he won the presidency--certainly not in elected office terms; JFK was the first Kennedy elected to anything. Nothing else to point at other than Joseph buying his appointments as ambassador to the Court of St. James and chairman of the SEC. JFK did have years in Congress then, but he had a miserable record of ever being in Washington or doing anything in Congress. War heros were a dime a dozen then, and JFK's Pulitzer Prize winning book (Profiles in Courage) was ghost written. We were still in the era then of the public persona hiding private reality--which the media has pretty much torn away now.

I believe, as I posted, that Obama shines now as JFK did then because of the Camelot phenomenon. People are dazzled by the persona. And he gets away with saying he isn't mired in such things as the Iraq business (in contrast to Clinton, who, as the senior senator from New York could hardly have taken a soft stand on the Twin Towers attack) simply because he was a nobody when all of that was happening. No one asked what his stance was, so he now can say it was anything that he finds convenient to say.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top