Barack Obama

Jack Sheehan

With his victory in the Iowa primaries Obama looks has a better chance than ever. So what are Boardsies opinions of the man? Too Young? A Visionary? Only popular because people don't want to vote for a clinton? Exactly what America needs?

I personally really like the guy and hope he goes all the way. I'm hoping America is smart enough to get him there.

mike65

Right now he's got the advantage of not being tainted by any political past. Being articulate is refreshing after 8 years of Bushisms, but he has yet to be tested to any real degree.

Mike.

_JOE_

Agreed...I think the US right now are faced with either following their heart or their head...the heart says Barack but the head is saying if this is the wrong option we could have made another huge mistake in a period where the US have faced their toughest challenges in many years with an unsettled period lying ahead...

Jimbo

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

I'm hoping America is smart enough to get him there.

Judging on the outcome of the two previous elevtions, I wouldnt bet on it.
Peronally, I think Obama looks the most promising, although this country might be better off it Clinton gets in.

qwertplaywert

Theres just too much infighting between the Obama/Clinton camps. Put your company on John Edwards when it comes to the wire.

kenco

Theres a real wind of change blowing in the states at the moment and right now Obama is the pulse of that nation. The Republicans dont look like they have a strong candidate and this could be year that the unlikely happens.

If he wins New Hampshire next week then he could be unstoppable.

At a minimum even if he does not win next week I think he is now a cert for the Vice Pres slot. Cant see this being with Clinton but stranger things have happened (still would not rule out Gore/Obama)

Akrasia

Obama is a very charismatic guy, but don't be fooled that he is any different from the other leading democrat candidates. He will do nothing to improve the lives of the millions of (mostly black) desperately poor people living in america today. He won't do anything to improve how America conducts their foreign policy abroad, he won't do much to help the environment or to reduce global inequality.

He's just another rich privileged candidate who will represent his class above the people who vote for him.

Manic Moran

Personally, I think he ran too early, but I like a candidate who's been around the block at least once.

Not that Hillary really is particularly experienced either, mind. I mean, she's been Senator for New York a bit...and... what.. has experience at being the wife of the President?

NTM

is_that_so

At the very least he has engaged young voters and made them believe that there is someone worth considering. But the cynic in me says that this is what politicians do anyway. He has a dream which is fine and one that you can certainly buy into.

But can he deliver and what is it he wants to deliver? Yes America seems a fragmented society and needs healing. Who's to say that the effect of Bush going may not be part of that healing process?

If the Republican fist fight doesn't resolve itself without too much blood-letting I would say that it is the Democrats' election to lose.

The war in Iraq is not something he has an exclusive on either. Whatever your position on it, it is obvious that the US needs to extricate itself sooner rather than later. As for healthcare, well it strikes me that it has the same appeal as the poisoned chalice we have here.

So where does that leave him? Much as he is charismatic I can't see any great substance to him just yet.

I am not sure he is "the man" at this time. His current inexperience and his poor knowledge of foreign policy will undo him - he knows even less than Dubya.

What I think he will turn out to be, is the catalyst for change, by forcing whoever gets in to recognise what needs to be done.

storka

The guy is simply too inexperienced to run the biggest country in the world. He's had a short term as a senator which hardly gives him anything.

His whole "change" thing is aimed at young voters. They get behind his hope of change but can he in reality actually make change? I don't think he can.

Hillary is clearly the better option for Democrats, America (and Ireland!). She has the experience and the know how better than anyone in the race.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

storka wrote: »

The guy is simply too inexperienced to run the biggest country in the world. He's had a short term as a senator which hardly gives him anything.

America isn't the biggest country in the world

storka

Akrasia wrote: »

America isn't the biggest country in the world

Ok i dont mean geographically but it terms of the most powerful and influential I think they are!

Hillary is better for Ireland because of her history with the North and she has also been supporting getting Visas for illegal workers in the US many of which are Irish. No other country would have the American president going in with such a knowledge of their country.

Hey i'm a Hillary supporter so i'm biased!

Manic Moran

storka wrote: »

Hillary is clearly the better option for Democrats, America (and Ireland!). She has the experience and the know how better than anyone in the race.

Well, I'm going to disagree with that, and vote for a different D.

NTM

starn

Obama's to young, inexsperianced, and as much as I hate to say it the wrong colour. Cant see him grtting much support outside the east and west coasts.

He might of been better off running as Hillarys VP. But not a hope of that happening now.

If the Democrats run Edwards as Prez and Clinton as VP. I reckon there a shoe in.

I really thought Guiliani would be able to generate support from both the left and right. But it dosent look lie he's even going to get the nod from the republicans


I reckon Edwards and Clinton, with Clinton making the whitehouse her own in eight years.

storka

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, I'm going to disagree with that, and vote for a different D.

NTM

And that is of course is your right!! I personally however think she is the best candidate.

Who are you thinking of voting for?

storka

starn wrote: »

Obama's to young, inexsperianced, and as much as I hate to say it the wrong colour. Cant see him grtting much support outside the east and west coasts.

He might of been better off running as Hillarys VP. But not a hope of that happening now.

If the Democrats run Edwards as Prez and Clinton as VP. I reckon there a shoe in.

I really thought Guiliani would be able to generate support from both the left and right. But it dosent look lie he's even going to get the nod from the republicans


I reckon Edwards and Clinton, with Clinton making the whitehouse her own in eight years.

I don't think Hillary will ever want to be second to anyone in the White House again!!!

Mr.Micro

storka wrote: »

The guy is simply too inexperienced to run the biggest country in the world. He's had a short term as a senator which hardly gives him anything.

His whole "change" thing is aimed at young voters. They get behind his hope of change but can he in reality actually make change? I don't think he can.

Hillary is clearly the better option for Democrats, America (and Ireland!). She has the experience and the know how better than anyone in the race.

What experience does one need? Two terms of Bush, after that a chimp could do it. Hillary Clinton had two terms by proxy in the form of Bill. Ireland needs to look to our European partners not keep cow towing to the US. Somebody new and fresh, and who knows it might be Obama or it might be the Republicans again, just need another war to bring the rednecks out to guarantee the latter.

flogen

Mike65 sums things up very well... political inexperience can be a curse and a gift depending on how you spin it and combining an inspiring message with the explicit implication that you're not tarnished by the "Washinton politics" that has dragged the US down will certainly sit well with many.

The importance and necessity for aspirational and hope-filled leadership should never be underestimated but the question is whether he can back all of that up with something more than blue-sky thinking. I think that'll become clearer in time for Super (dooper) Tuesday.

It's interesting to see Clinton now on the offensive, however, and her campaign have shifted into the politics of fear just like many on the Rep. side have.

ghostdancer

storka wrote: »

Hillary is clearly the better option for Democrats, America (and Ireland!). She has the experience and the know how better than anyone in the race.

absolutely not.

her "experience" is fanciful at best. Bill Richardson is more qualified to run the country than she is. Edwards too. even Dodd and Biden had just as much, if not more experience than her.
she's been a US senator for what? 7 years? versus Obama's 4. not to mention Obama being a State Senator from '96 onwards. this was while Hilary's job was basically having tea with various charitable organisations while her husbnad played away from home.
sitting around playing supportive first lady at various levels does not translate in to experience.

just because she happened to be involved in politics for 35 years, doesn't mean she's necessarily done much good. her most visible experience is her health care proposals when her husband was president, which failed miserably.

good for Democrats, hardly. the democrats need to take independents to have a real shot at winning the white house. hillary clinton is despised by many in her own party, let alone independents who've become sick of the usual Washington B.S., which she's up to her neck in. we saw this from the showing of how many independents backed her in Iowa, as well as national polls.

good for ireland? in theory, perhaps, in practice, do you honestly think she'll have time to be bothering with ireland. what exactly she'll bother/needs to do is beyond me, the Peace Process is motoring along nicely at the moment. what else do we need her involvement for? we've gotten by just fine with the token photo-op meetings with Bush over the years, and it'll be no different if Hilary was in charge.
incidentally, i was just reading on another message board about how the other night she claimed that she was involved in bringing peace to ireland, and the following link was posted, not only showing what her actual involvement here was, but how much she's really jsut riding on Bill's coattails:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317927,00.html


good for america? laughable. watching the ABC debate last night just cemented the fact that she''s little more than a mixture of Bill and George. without the fun.

Manic Moran

storka wrote: »

Who are you thinking of voting for?

Richardson.

12 years as a Congresscritter, former ambassador, cabinet minister, and currently in his second term as a State Governor (which voters tend to prefer over being a Senator due to more direct involvement in governance and decisionmaking).

And Hillary gets the claim to being the "Most experienced candidate" how, exactly?

Myself and Household 6 never seem to see eye-to-eye on politics. (I voted for Bush in 2000, she has an anti-Bush sticker on her car), but she revealed to me yesterday that she had joined the Richardson campaign which is interesting as I had long ago decided to go in that direction (Without telling her). The man has cross-party appeal by virtue of being the most moderate of the Ds (He's rated "A" by the NRA for crying out loud: He beats most of the Rs and that's no small voting block), he's hispanic so should get a good portion of the vote that inevitably goes along racial lines.. What's his problem?

Oh, right. He's not Democratic (big "D") enough for the Party. Stupidity. He doesn't have a hope, and I think this is just a result of the system: There's a lot of people in the "anyone but Hillary" camp, and I'll bet most are voting for Obama as the lesser of two evils because the Media have declared Obama "The person most likely to beat Hillary"

has also been supporting getting Visas for illegal workers in the US many of which are Irish.

Whilst this is a policy espoused by most (if not all) the Ds, and a number of the Rs, I don't see this as being a good thing. "Hi! We have laws in this country. Yes, I know you didn't follow them to get in, but here, we'll not only let it slide, we'll give you retro-active support to what you did illegally!"

NTM

Jack Sheehan

For once I'd like to believe that Obama isn't just another politician, that he really can change things. Then again the Americans arent the most receptive people to change, look at what happened to carter.

ghostdancer

starn wrote: »

Obama's to young, inexsperianced, and as much as I hate to say it the wrong colour. Cant see him grtting much support outside the east and west coasts.

He might of been better off running as Hillarys VP. But not a hope of that happening now.

If the Democrats run Edwards as Prez and Clinton as VP. I reckon there a shoe in.

I really thought Guiliani would be able to generate support from both the left and right. But it dosent look lie he's even going to get the nod from the republicans


I reckon Edwards and Clinton, with Clinton making the whitehouse her own in eight years.

well California and and New York would be the figureheads of both east and west coasts but Clinton is well ahead in those states. she'll obviously take New York since she rolled into town in '00 to position herself nicely to take the senator position, and then propel herself into the presidential race with a state with a hefty chunk of delegates. if Obama wins NH, he might be able to take California, otherwise i'd imagine Hilary will keep it. Edwards has little chance there.

"the Democrats" don't run anyone for president/VP. it's down to who has the most delegates at the DNC, and they pick who they want for VP themselves.
although the DLC is basically a fan-club for Bill Clinton, so it'd be obvious who they would be campaigning for.

anyway, considering Edwards claims to be so anti-corporation big business (i'm cynical to this but however...), and Clinton basically embodies corporate cronyism, i don't see this being a viable option. not least because Vilsack will quite likely get to be her running partner, and the debate last night highlighted Edwards/Clinton's contempt for each other.

Guiliani is a scumbag, with little in the way of experience, and plenty in the way of faults, but he's, much like Hilary, running on name recognition, and is putting his efforts into Super Tuesday, it wouldn't surprise me if he can grab plenty of these based on his 9/11 hero image. he's at least got NY anyway...

Mr.Micro

Compared to the current line up of Candidates for Republicans and Democrats, with the exception of Obama, GW Bush looks positively talented and charismatic.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

JFK was the other 'Obama style' candidate and he did just fine

What, getting us as close to nuclear war as we ever got, barring that technical glitch in the Soviet defense system in the 1980s? That's what inexperience got him in Vienna.

NTM

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Jesus Wept

kenco wrote: »

At a minimum even if he does not win next week I think he is now a cert for the Vice Pres slot. Cant see this being with Clinton but stranger things have happened (still would not rule out Gore/Obama)

Chris Rock:

Now as you know, there's been alot of talk about a black vice president. And I just wanna tell the world that it'll never happen. As long as you live you will never see a black vice president, you know why? Because some black guy would just kill the president. I'd do it. If Colin Powell was vice president, I'd kill the president and tell his mother about it. What would happen to me? What would they do? Put me in jail with a bunch of black guys that would treat me like a king for the rest of my life? I would be the biggest star in jail, alright, people would be coming up to me and I'd be signing autographs: "97-KY, here you go." Guys would be going: "You're the brother that shot Bush. And you told his mother about it huh? I hope my children turn out to be just like you, Man, you know I was getting ready to rape you until I realized who you were. And even if they had a death penalty, what would happen? I'd just be pardoned by the black president. So you see, Dennis, it would not be in George Bush's best intrests to place Colin Powell on the ticket.

jank

Manic Moran wrote: »

What, getting us as close to nuclear war as we ever got, barring that technical glitch in the Soviet defense system in the 1980s? That's what inexperience got him in Vienna.

NTM

I shudder to think what nixon would have have done in 1962.

"Lets nuke those commie bastrads!!"

Jack Sheehan

Well I don't know, Nixon was after all the one to open up relations with China.

purple'n'gold

Kennedy and Nixon are ancient history now. Why talk about them?

Manic Moran

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

For once I'd like to believe that Obama isn't just another politician, that he really can change things. Then again the Americans arent the most receptive people to change, look at what happened to carter.

Political pundit on the local all-news station made exactly the same comment. Both Bush and Clinton were elected on a campaign slogan of 'Change' (Bush for Social Security, Clinton for Healthcare), but when they actually tried to push for the changes when in power, the populace suddenly decided they were rather happy with the status quo, thank you very much.

The other thing that's getting to me is that all the soundbites of Obama recently are "Iowa voted for Change!" or "I will bring 'Change'"... leading the question... Change to what? Damnit, tell me what you want to change to! No matter who wins, there's going to be change in the White House!

NTM

moe_sizlak

Akrasia wrote: »

Obama is a very charismatic guy, but don't be fooled that he is any different from the other leading democrat candidates. He will do nothing to improve the lives of the millions of (mostly black) desperately poor people living in america today. He won't do anything to improve how America conducts their foreign policy abroad, he won't do much to help the environment or to reduce global inequality.

He's just another rich privileged candidate who will represent his class above the people who vote for him.

no one with your obvious views or prioritys like wealth distribution would be electable in america , american people dont think like that

moe_sizlak

starn wrote: »

Obama's to young, inexsperianced, and as much as I hate to say it the wrong colour. Cant see him grtting much support outside the east and west coasts.

He might of been better off running as Hillarys VP. But not a hope of that happening now.

If the Democrats run Edwards as Prez and Clinton as VP. I reckon there a shoe in.

I really thought Guiliani would be able to generate support from both the left and right. But it dosent look lie he's even going to get the nod from the republicans


I reckon Edwards and Clinton, with Clinton making the whitehouse her own in eight years.

what on earth would make you think ruddi guiliani would draw support from the left , ruddi is the neo con of the bunch and the bush administrations perfered choice to win

the only republican would could take votes from the left is john mc cain

ruddi is the last person i would want to win , hes a hawk of the highest order

Manic Moran

Rudy would have a fair belt of support from Blue New York alone. That city of 10 million people hasn't forgotten his generally positive two-term-tenure as Mayor or 9/11 (or Hillary: you will recall she got booed offstage at the 'thank you' show). He may be a war hawk, but the rest of his policies tend to appeal to the left: He's pro-choice, anti-gun, supports same-sex-unions, healthcare and so on and so forth. Indeed, he used to be a Democrat until he felt the Party lost its way.

I don't like him, but he's far from being as conservative as, say, Thompson, and even then at least Thompson's a straight-shooter.

NTM

FatherTed

Momentum is a big deal in this process in the US and right now Obama has it. Although there are still some big states where Hillary will probably win (NY & FL ), she is slipping badly in the polls. I think Edwards is more of a threat to Obama now if he manages to win NH or SC. If Obama wins NH this week and especially SC next week that would be a BIG plus for him and it would be tough to bet against him at that point.

DublinWriter

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

I personally really like the guy and hope he goes all the way. I'm hoping America is smart enough to get him there.

Nope. I believe he's currently enjoying a honeymoon period with the pre-election Democratic public.

The issues of his cocaine use and general lack of Senatorial experience will be the trump cards that get played late in the game by the Clinton camp and will eventually unravel his campaign.

There's something about Obama's campaign that smacks of Kinnock in 1992.

I'd call it for Hilary Clinton. She's not as dumb as her husband looks.

starn

Manic Moran wrote: »

He's pro-choice, anti-gun, supports same-sex-unions, healthcare and so on and so forth.

For exactly those reasons. I dont think Obama will get the nod. For all the hype and talk of the Iowa cacus. I dont buy it. It's just hype

1992 - Bill Clinton polls forth
1988 - George Bush Snr polls third
1980 - Ronnie Reagan polls second
1976 - The cacus went like this Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%)


My money at the moment is on Hilary as the democratic candidate. But I still think Edwards is a more electible candidate

Fuascailt

Obama's the man. Hilary is more of the same, she's like a celeb trying to revive her career.

is_that_so

Fuascailt wrote: »

Obama's the man. Hilary is more of the same, she's like a celeb trying to revive her career.

So what does he he actually stand for apart from not being one of the old school? I do like his talk but cannot really see a lot of substance to him. Change just for the sake of it, like using a single court case being used to create a new law - is not always a good idea.
Even if he does get in, he's likely to need to pull in a lot of "old school" experienced types to help him run the country.

starn

is_that_so wrote: »

Even if he does get in, he's likely to need to pull in a lot of "old school" experienced types to help him run the country.

I have this feeling whoever’s elected President like Clinton was, no matter what your promises you promised on the campaign trail bla bla bla when you win you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum who got you in there and you’re in this smoky room and this little film screen comes down and a big guy with a cigar, “Roll the film.”

Hicks

ghostdancer

DublinWriter wrote: »

Nope. I believe he's currently enjoying a honeymoon period with the pre-election Democratic public.

The issues of his cocaine use and general lack of Senatorial experience will be the trump cards that get played late in the game by the Clinton camp and will eventually unravel his campaign.

:rolleyes:
you clearly haven't been following the race too closely if you haven't seen her playing these before.

AngryHippie

Don't think it matters which of them get in. The lobby groups have far too much control over white house affairs. Outcome is not gonna change that much

ghostdancer

well the Iowa bump certainly seems to be having an effect:


New Hampshire:




South Carolina:

SurveyUSA (1/4-6)
Obama 50
Clinton 30
Edwards 16

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=066ea20c-d300-48cd-a585-cc9c356df4eb

Rasmussen (1/6)
Obama 42
Clinton 30
Edwards 12

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary




USA Today/Gallup National Poll:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/103615/Huckabee-Obama-Gain-National-Level.aspx





Rasmussen national tracking poll (4-day rolling average):

Clinton: 33%
Obama: 29%
Edwards: 20%

lostexpectation

oh oh hillary got out the waterworks... I as wondering who the party wants most, hillary?

I cna't believe dean really got dumped just cos of his awkard scream, it wasn't really just about that.

Hobbes

There is a program called "Penn and Teller BullSh!t". They do one episode on polling and how it is faked to give a particular answer.

TBH I wouldn't trust those polls at all. Obama + Clinton = same thing. Actually they are all pretty much the same.

Lirange

Hobbes wrote: »

Obama + Clinton = same thing. Actually they are all pretty much the same.

They may all have negative attributes. But they are not all the same.

Some disenchanted people put forward the same talk about GWB vs. Gore and again re: GWB vs. Kerry.

I can be as cynical as anyone sometimes but that attitude does not reflect reality.

Hobbes

Lirange wrote: »

They may all have negative attributes. But they are not all the same.

They are all the same in that they will do nothing to change the status quo of the mess the USA is in.

DublinWriter

starn wrote: »

when you win you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum who got you in there and you’re in this smoky room and this little film screen comes down and a big guy with a cigar, “Roll the film.”

...and they show you footage of the Kennedy assasination from an angle you've never seen before...an angle that looks suspiciously like it was shot from the Grassy Knoll.

The film stops and they turn around and ask you "Any questions Mr.President?", and you reply, "Yes...what's my agenda?".

starn

Didnt realise I hadnt included the last part of that quote till now. Cheers Dublinwriter

Jack Sheehan

To be honest what American politician stands for anything anymore? Beyond the old issues of Abortion, Same sex marriage, Gun control etc. No one has a conherent plan. Bush sr. stood for, er, No more taxes? Clinton for being a charming guy? Bush jr for war and anti terrorism?

What likely candidate for this election has any discernable strategy? I like Obama because I think that he is an intelligent man who would lead well not because I have heard a peep of policy out of him.