SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ~digs who wrote (288)12/12/2006 6:20:15 PM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
Enough with the Obama hype, people. We get it. Even Obama himself is saying it's too much. He hasn't earned it. Time for Obama to back up the hype with substance, like what are his ideas and is he running or not? because if he is running this is the time to tell us, at the max of his hype.

For all we know the GOP is helping to hype him. Why would they?
Harold Ford. Ford is not that different from Obama and they beat him with a single sleazy ad.

I know for a fact the GOP has been hyping Hillary for a long time. They want to run against her. Because McCain beats Hillary in every poll I've ever seen. and so would Romney.

Might the GOP also want to run against Obama? Yes. Because they are cynical pragmatists to the extreme. They know they can challenge Obama to solve the country's problems and he won't have many (if any) new ideas except very liberal ones. So then all he has is youth, charisma and the fact that he's half-black with a Muslim "enemy" sounding name. Then they beat him by scaring Middle America. Those bastards know how.

Who does the GOP fear the most? Probably Gore, but definitely also Kerry, Bayh, Biden and maybe Edwards too. Richardson they're not afraid of. Clark and Vilsack are longshots. The reason they still fear Kerry is because they know the cheating and smear campaign won't work a second time. And without that, they lose, especially if Kerry can convince the country that all the bombs thrown at him in the past were total BS. And they were. The GOP also feared Warner, but he's out. Unfortunately.



To: ~digs who wrote (288)12/14/2006 3:14:33 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Four reasons Obama should run for president in '08

suntimes.com

December 14, 2006

BY GEORGE WILL

New Hampshire was recently brightened by the presence of Barack Obama, 45, who, calling the fuss about him ''baffling,'' made his first trip to that state, and not under duress. Because he is young, is just two years distant from a brief career as a state legislator and has negligible national security experience, an Obama presidential candidacy could have a porcelain brittleness.

But if he wants to be president -- it will not be a moral failing if he decides that he does not, at least not now -- this is the time for him to reach for the brass ring. There are four reasons.

First, one can only be an intriguing novelty once. If he waits to run, the last half-century suggests that the wait could be for eight years (see reason four, below). In 2016, he will be only 55, but there will be many fresher faces.

Second, if you get the girl up on her tiptoes, you should kiss her. The electorate is on its tiptoes because Obama has collaborated with the creation of a tsunami of excitement about him. He is nearing the point when a decision against running would brand him as a tease who ungallantly toyed with the electorate's affections.

Third, he has, in Hillary Clinton, the optimal opponent. The contrast is stark: He is soothing; she is not. Many Democrats who are desperate to win are queasy about depending on her. For a nation with jangled nerves, and repelled by political snarling, he offers a tone of sweet reasonableness.

What people see in him reveals more about them than about him. Some of his public utterances have the sponginess of Polonius' bromides for Laertes (''neither a borrower nor a lender be . . . to thine own self be true''). In 2005, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO rated his voting record a perfect 100. The nonpartisan National Journal gave him an 82.5 liberalism rating, making him more liberal than Clinton (79.8). He dutifully decries ''ideological'' politics, but just as dutifully conforms to most of liberalism's catechism, from ''universal'' health care, whatever that might mean, to combatting global warming, whatever that might involve, and including the sacred injunction Thou Shalt Execrate Wal-Mart -- an obligatory genuflection to organized labor.

The nation, which so far is oblivious to his orthodoxy, might not mind it if it is dispensed by someone with Obama's ''Can't we all just get along?'' manner. Ronald Reagan, after all, demonstrated the importance of congeniality to the selling of conservatism.

Fourth, the odds favor the Democratic nominee in 2008 because for 50 years it has been rare for a presidential nominee to extend his party's hold on the presidency beyond eight years. Nixon in 1960 came agonizingly close to doing so (he lost the popular vote by 118,574 -- less than a vote per precinct -- and a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and 24,129 in Texas would have elected him), but failed. As did Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (he lost by 510,314 out of 73,211,875 votes cast), Gerald Ford in 1976 (if 5,559 votes had switched in Ohio and 7,232 votes had switched in Mississippi, he would have won) and Al Gore in 2000 (537 Florida votes).

Only the first President Bush, in 1988, succeeded, perhaps because the country desired a third term for the incumbent, which will not be the case in 2008.

So the odds favor a Democrat winning in 2008 and, if he or she is re-elected, the Democrat nominated in 2016 losing.

Furthermore, remember the metrics of success that just two years ago caused conservatives to think the future was unfolding in their favor: Bush carried 97 of the 100 most rapidly growing counties; the center of the nation's population, now southwest of St. Louis, is moving south and west at a rate of two feet an hour; only two Democratic presidents have been elected in the last 38 years; in the 15 elections since World War II, only twice has a Democrat received 50 percent of the vote. Two years later, these facts do not seem so impressive.

In 2000 and 2004, Bush twice carried 29 states that now have 274 electoral votes; Gore and Kerry carried 18 that now have 248. Not much needs to change in politics in order for a lot to change in governance. And Obama, like the rest of us, has been warned, by William Butler Yeats: All life is a preparation for something that probably will never happen.

Unless you make it happen.



To: ~digs who wrote (288)12/15/2006 12:38:55 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Taking 'Obama-mania' in stride
_____________________________________________________________

The Monitor's View
The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 15, 2006 edition
csmonitor.com

This is less about me, and more about you. That was Barack Obama's explanation for his rock-star welcome in New Hampshire last weekend. The possible presidential candidate said he's become a "symbol" of voters' desire for "something new."

Such self-deprecation could be sincere sentiment - or it could be skilled political rhetoric. It doesn't matter which, though, because the words of the junior senator from Illinois are true.

People don't know much about this Democratic fresh face; he's too inexperienced to have a long political track record. But they're obviously responding positively to what he symbolizes: a call to reach across the partisan and ideological divide in America.

What voters are looking for in 2008 is "someone who is seen as independent and detached from the traditional centers of power of each party," says Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan polling and research group.

Those qualities aren't the sole purview of any single candidate, though. Indeed, the field that's shaping up (and these look to be about two dozen so far), contains several examples of folks who have reached across the aisle.

John McCain, the senator from Arizona and an expected Republican presidential candidate, has earned a reputation for independence. In his 2000 presidential bid he criss-crossed the country in his "Straight Talk Express" bus. He can pull any number of bipartisan credentials from his pocket, including campaign-finance reform.

And what would you call, for instance, former GOP mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani, who brought his city together after 9/11? A unifier perhaps? And yes, the rap on New York Sen. Hillary Clinton - the accepted Democratic presidential front-runner - may be that she's polarizing, but didn't she and her husband storm the country in 1992 as "new Democrats," i.e., centrists? She's made a concerted effort to work with Senate Republicans, including a 2005 bill she co-sponsored with GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham related to incentives for domestic manufacturing.

Senator Obama is tapping into a public desire for a unified approach to today's challenges. "There's a moment that we are living through in our history right now where we've got a series of very important decisions to make, and we have the opportunity to make them, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans," he said last weekend. As the son of a white Kansan mother and black Kenyan father, he literally embodies cross-cultural and cross-racial unity.

But it's not as if Obama is stripped of ideology. He's pro-choice, pro- affirmative action, and supports "universal" health care - traditional Democratic causes. The National Journal, a nonpartisan publication, gave him an 82.5 liberalism rating, higher than Sen. Clinton (79.8).

McCain, meanwhile, has been insisting that he's more conservative than people think he is. Last May for instance, he spoke at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University - after blasting him for intolerance in 2000. So, is his conservative claim a feint to partisan primary voters or true confessions?

Voters indeed may yearn for a candidate above the political fray. But will they be able to recognize one?