Originally Posted By jonvn This is an interesting article, because I've been saying pretty much the exact same thing. I think he's dead on. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/02/29/notes022908.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/02/29/notes022908.DTL</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X I saw a TV show last year where they were interviewing "people on the street" and asking questions like "do you think Obama is dangerous for America?", and "do you think Obama is looking to attack our nation?", and stuff like that. Everyone answered "yes". This was before, though. Name recognition wise, he's got a lot more recognition now I think. Still, interesting (though pathetic and sad) angle.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 And if HiIllary is the nominee (unlikely but u never know),the GOP will use sexist attacks.Either way,the GOP will attack the Dem nominee. At least Obama didnt vote FOR the Iraq war,its kind of hard for Hillary to debate anything related to the Iraq war being she voted FOR the war back in 2003.Plus alot of people hate Hillary,very few Republicans and Independents will vote for Hillary.Obama is far less polarizing and much more able to get cross over votes. Its no secret that Obama is black and its certainly no secret his middle name is Hussein,yet he is still attracting ENORMOUS crowds and has almost a cult following.So these racial attacks from the GOP dont mean much,Americans are not as ignorant as they are portrayed in the media.
Originally Posted By jonvn There already are sexist attacks on her, and there have been for years. Of course he didn't vote for the war. He wasn't in the Senate at that time. I would have voted for the war, given the lies the Bush Admin was telling people about Iraq. There is no shame in voting for the war. I do think, however, there is some in voting against it, considering what was being said at the time. By voting against it, it was akin to voting to let us be attacked. That won't play now, though, because McCain is not going ot trash the Bush admin over that. But he, and his cronies will attack him for being black, being moslem, and for being whatever else they can dredge up about him. It is going to get ugly, and if he doesn't win, it's going to damage race relations further here.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 Your right,he wasnt in the Senate so he couldnt vote against the war officially,but he was still very vocal about his opposition to the war from the START,to put a play on Clintons' own words.Obama was RIGHT from day one. Obama had the judgement to know it was not a good idea,he didnt blindly trust Bush like Hillary and many other Democrats did.I respect that,it shows GOOD judgement. And yes,the GOP attacks Hillary with sexist remarks,and they will attack Obama with racist remarks,so really its a moot point,both candidates are going to get venom from the GOP side.Its not an Obama issue or a Clinton issue,albiet the GOP has ALOT more dirt on Hillary than they do Obama. PLUS Hillary is losing to McCain in just about every poll while Obama is LEADING against McCain in just about every poll.Obama is a much better general election candidate than Clinton,especially against McCain. McCain really has NO base,conservatives hate the guy,and Democrats dislike him too,his core support comes from Independents which Obama would cut into pretty nicely since Obama does very well with Independents.he stands the best chance to win against McCain
Originally Posted By jonvn "but he was still very vocal about his opposition to the war" It's a lot easier to be against the war when you don't have to vote on it. His being vocal against the war is not very meaningful. "PLUS Hillary is losing to McCain in just about every poll while Obama is LEADING " Either one will lose, I believe.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << PLUS Hillary is losing to McCain in just about every poll while Obama is LEADING against McCain in just about every poll.Obama is a much better general election candidate than Clinton,especially against McCain. >> In the polls that only consider likely voters, and not just any registered voter, Obama is lagging behind McCain. The only polls where Obama leads McCain right now are the ones that accept results from any registered voter and not the ones that are likely to show up at the polls in November. Additionally, the two polls with the largest sample sizes and weighted towards likely voters show McCain with a lead over Obama. So, the strawman that Obama has the edge in November is not entirely accurate. I expect November to be a very close race. I don't expect McCain to play the race card overtly, but I do expect him to aggresively pursue the Latino vote and the underlying race issues that exist between the black and Latino communities. If the McCain is able to win over the Latinos, it will be much harder for Obama to win. I still think it would be next to impossible for a Republican to win if the economy continues to deteriorate for the rest of the year, but the Obama supporters who think he has some sort of advantage in November are going to be disappointed at how hard he has to fight to win this election.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 Going into this primary season I remember you also telling me on Mouseinfo that you felt Obama would lose against Hillary in the fight to win the nomination and now we all know its looking like it will be Obama that does in fact secure the nomination,it would be very difficult for Clinton to get the landslide in texas and ohio that is needed to catch up to Obama in delegates. Youve underestimated Obama in the past,and I think your doing it again with his match up against McCain..
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < His being vocal against the war is not very meaningful.> I know what you're saying, but I still give him points for it. Remember what the atmosphere was like in the run-up to the war. Politicians (and much of the public) were completely cowed and unlikely to come out against the war for fear of being branded "unpatriotic." Obama was already gearing up for his '04 run for the senate, and he must have known that if the war really was the "cakewalk" that the neocons were saying it would be, that his GOP opponent in '04 could easily use his anti-war position against him. And since in '02 he was still just a state senator and the US senate race hadn't really gotten going, it would have been very safe for Obama to just say nothing either way on the subject. Instead, he put himself out there, came out against it, and exposed himself to potential political suicide if the war had gone well. So it was actually a gutsy thing to do - that he didn't have to do - and, of course, he was also right.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy And for someone who was so "vocal" in his opposition against the war, I never heard of Barack Obama until he ran for the U.S. Senate. There are several politicians out there that I admire for their vocal opposition to the war. Senator Byrd is one of them. He voted against the war and presented an outstanding speech on the Senate floor against that measure. Sen. Feingold, Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Corzine, Sen. Chafee, and Sen. Wellstone also come to mind when I think about politicians who were vocal in their opposition to the war. There are many others from the House of Representatives who belong in this category, too. For all his "vocal" complaints against the war, Obama was in no position to make a decision one way or the other. He has used his hypothetical opposition to the war as a campaign ploy from day one. I admire the Congressmen who voted against the war in Iraq, but don't fault those that approved of the measure. Although I was against the Iraq War from the start, I certainly recall the seeds of doubt being planted by the Bush administration that would make just about anyone question whether there might be just cause to invade Iraq. In hindsight, we see the lies in deception that were not fully evident in real time.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 "I expect November to be a very close race. I don't expect McCain to play the race card overtly, but I do expect him to aggresively pursue the Latino vote and the underlying race issues that exist between the black and Latino communities. " It really is sad how the Latino community holds so much distain for blacks,I seriously dont understand it.They can not find themselves to vote for a black person,not sure why.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I never heard of Barack Obama until he ran for the U.S. Senate.> Perhaps you hadn't, but if the war had gone well, his Illinois GOP opponent would have been all over his statements - which he didn't have to make - and made them well known in Illinois.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <.They can not find themselves to vote for a black person,not sure why.> For what it's worth, that is not at all the case in NY. For one thing, there's a lot of overlap between the groups here (Dominicans are black AND Hispanic, for instance), a lot of intermarriage, and Latino support for black candidates is high here, and vice versa. I know it's different elsewhere.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I remember you also telling me on Mouseinfo that you felt Obama would lose against Hillary in the fight to win the nomination " Yes, I was wrong in that the anti-woman sentiment in this country is much stronger than the anti-black. The democrats split their traditional base of blacks and women. Women going for Hillary, blacks for Obama. He won a couple of things, and when Edwards quit because he couldn't get black or women votes, a lot of the guys went for the guy instead of the female. I didn't figure that to happen. In the meantime, he's still black, and not a white male christian, and I don't think therefore he can win.
Originally Posted By jonvn " I never heard of Barack Obama until he ran for the U.S. Senate." Me neither. As Sport Goofy says, there are people who actually DID vote against the war. They are far braver than someone standing on the sidelines who have no real stake in the matter.
Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, I'm not so sure that being against the war in the first place is that great. It did not turn out well, no. But at the time, Bush was spreading the word that Hussein had nuclear weapons pointed at us and were ready to launch at any moment. That was the impression he was trying to give, anyway. So, in that atmosphere, the most reasonable thing to do probably would be to vote for it. Who would figure Bush to be such a total liar about the thing? You ahve to expect some sort of conccientious duty to the office and for putting our people to war. Unfortunately, Bush had none, and we are stuck with the outcome.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I'd have to say that I'm conflicted about our withdrawal at this point. I'd really like to get rid of the $250M a day that we are throwing down this rabbit hole in Iraq. We need to withdraw. But as irresponsible as it was for us to get this mess going in the first place, I think it would be just as irresponsible for us to withdrawal without any plan for stabilization in the region. We need to fix the mess we made before we just make it worse. I don't fully understand Obama's withdrawal plan, other than he wants it done quickly. Quick is fine if there is a lot of detailed planning behind keeping the region stable, but my gut tells me there is no quick solution that gets us to that end state.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Actually, I'm not so sure that being against the war in the first place is that great.> I think so. Believing that someone is a threat, and believing you ought to take the monumental step of invading and occupying that country are two very different things that do not necessarily go together (and in fact, almost never should). We know today that North Korea has actual nukes, but does that mean it would be WISE to invade the Korean penninsula? Of course not. Bill Clinton thought Saddam probably had WMD, but didn't invade. Those two things did not have to go together. So those who said at the time that EVEN IF Saddam didn't destroy all the WMD he had in the 80's, nonetheless it would not be wise to invade and occupy that country because of the negative consequences that would follow if we took a little bit longer view... i.e. we depose Saddam. THEN what??... we're now the occupying power of an Arab country... that probably shouldn't even BE a country, since it's made up of three groups who have fought for centuries and only exists as a country because of lines foolishy drawn by Europeans after WWI... are the ones who have most of my respect.
Originally Posted By Nemo88 "As Sport Goofy says, there are people who actually DID vote against the war. They are far braver than someone standing on the sidelines who have no real stake in the matter." The Iraq vote was in 2003 when Obama was in a highly contested campaign for senate,there was alot of risk in his opposition to the Iraq war at that time,but he stood up for what he beleived in. He went against the grain at a time when the Bush administration made you feel like you were less American if you didnt go along with thier pre-emtive wars. It was MORE risky for Obama to oppose the Iraq war at that time because he was not elected yet and he was running a campaign.So to say there was no real risk for Obama to come out in opposition to the war is totally off base. "Yes, I was wrong in that the anti-woman sentiment in this country is much stronger than the anti-black. The democrats split their traditional base of blacks and women. Women going for Hillary, blacks for Obama. He won a couple of things, and when Edwards quit because he couldn't get black or women votes, a lot of the guys went for the guy instead of the female. I didn't figure that to happen. In the meantime, he's still black, and not a white male christian, and I don't think therefore he can win." Yea you didnt figure that would happen,and now you figure because hes black he cant win,perhaps your "figuring" and "assuming" isnt in line with the American public? you were wrong once before,and its likely your wrong again. As I said before,dont underestimate Obama,hes come up from nothing and has beaten Hillary both in funding and in delegates so far,he wnet up against the Clinton machine and all the 'inevitablity" of your nimation,and has all but beat her...dont write Obama off just because hes black,its foolish.
