Originally Posted by baddog (Post 13935320)

Oh, so he is old. Probably compared to you Obama is old too.

WTF does that have to do with change?

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 13935436)

There have been lots of candidates over the years that got young people excited about the process. Nothing new about that.

What will that do for the economy or anything else for that matter?

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 13935755)

I'm so sick of this argument that says that because Obama hasn't wrapped up the nomination yet it means he isn't a strong candidate.

On the contrary, the fact that he's still in this proves what a strong candidate he is.

Hillary Clinton had all of the money, all of the establishment support, all of the endorsements, 200+ superdelegates in her pocket before the first votes were cast, and a former president campaigning for her every day....a former president who left office with a 60%+ approval rating (and much higher than that among democrats)

Hillary Clinton had all of the advantages that Walter Mondale and Al Gore had when running for the democratic nomination, yet SHE hasn't been able to close the deal. A candidate with that much establishment support and name recognition should have closed the deal on Super Tuesday.
The Clinton campaign actually believed it would be over by Super Tuesday, they spent all of their money and had no strategy in place for the primaries and caucuses that took place after that.

The fact that she, who was 20+ points ahead in the national polls as recently as two months ago, wasn't able to wrap this up against an insurgent candidate goes to show what a weak candidate and polarizing figure Hillary is.
The fact that Obama has been ahead of her in pledged delegates ever since the first vote was cast in Iowa, despite all of his disadvantages (running against what was practically an incumbents campaign) shows what a strong candidate he is.

Originally Posted by latinasojourn (Post 13935765)

did not read that speech, must have worked from an outline, he was looking
everywhere while talking.

.

Originally Posted by ninavain (Post 13936173)

Oh really, please name some

Originally Posted by escorpio (Post 13936259)

Are you new? Just about every democratic candidate in my lifetime has made the "youth vote" claim.

Originally Posted by ninavain (Post 13936173)

Oh really, please name some

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor (Post 13935679)

It amazes me how hateful some people are....if Obama offered to make baddog Secretary of State he would still talk shit about him and dis him every chance he got.

Why can't people be reasonable at least?

I'm a dyed in the sackcloth liberal, I supported Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, John Edwards (in 2004) and now Obama, but I'm still willing to admit that McCain has been great on issues like campaign finance reform and earmarks during his tenure in the Senate.

I'm willing to admit that George W Bush has done more for the continent of Africa than any president in history and he should be applauded for it.

Obama just gave an incredible speech on race in America. It was a brutally honest take on race relations in this country that resonated with black and white people alike. It was an historic moment.

Why for the love of god can't you just admit that?

THIS sort of bickering is one of the reasons that I love Obama....he's willing to fight for what he believes in without demonizing the other side. He realizes there are smart people out there who disagree with him, and he doesn't have to belittle them or sling mud at them in order to make his point.
THAT is the kind of change America needs. One where people can disagree with a war and not be accused of being unpatriotic or accused of not supporting our troops. One where people can say our health care system is broken and needs drastic reforms without being called a socialist. One where people can be pro-choice and not be told that they want to kill babies.

If you want 4-8 more years of mud-slinging, gridlock, and demonizing people who disagree with you, then vote for someone else. If you'd like to see the end of that and the start of an honest intellectual debate on the issues the country faces, then vote for Obama.

Originally Posted by CosmicTang (Post 13936265)

true, but how many have delivered it?

Originally Posted by ADL Colin (Post 13936275)

Don't have to go back that far. Bill Clinton's appearances on MTV and Arsenio were said to have "energized young voters"

Originally Posted by CosmicTang (Post 13936265)

true, but how many have delivered it?

Originally Posted by escorpio (Post 13935280)

Then you should probably start backing Clinton. Obama doesn't stand a chance.

Originally Posted by escorpio (Post 13936310)

Are you asking what dems have won the election in my lifetime? JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. I was too young to remember the first two.

Why do people act like it's a BFD that Obama is going to deliver the youth vote? The dems have ALWAYS had the youth vote.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 13935487)

Originally Posted by escorpio (Post 13936310)

Are you asking what dems have won the election in my lifetime? JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. I was too young to remember the first two.

Why do people act like it's a BFD that Obama is going to deliver the youth vote? The dems have ALWAYS had the youth vote.

Originally Posted by CosmicTang (Post 13936354)

Not asking that at all. Nor am I disputing that Dems generally win the majority of the youth vote. Simply winning the majority of the young vote is not 'delivering' it.
I'm talking about getting numbers to the polls and participating and showing the passion that only young people can. Getting them involved in the process and feeling like they really have a stake in the system instead of the stereotypical apathy that's always associated with them.

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle (Post 13935827)

I don't know, something about Obama... when he talks, I just don't believe him. He comes across as a liar. It's purely a gut feeling but it really bothers me. Of course we all know Bush lies through his teeth but somehow he at least seems like he believes his BS as it comes through his lips.

Originally Posted by ninavain (Post 13936173)

Oh really, please name some

Originally Posted by escorpio (Post 13936395)

If you don't win the election it really doesn't matter how passionate you made the kids feel.

Originally Posted by escorpio (Post 13936310)

The dems have ALWAYS had the youth vote.

Originally Posted by cashpimps (Post 13936331)

If Clinton wins then voting doesn't seem worth it. Then again I'm in Hawaii and our votes mean shit.

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX (Post 13936370)

The problem with speeches these days is the people mouthing the words didnt have shit to do with writing the speech.

Fuck words, I believe in ACTION.

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 13935487)

Originally Posted by CosmicTang (Post 13936406)

I disagree. Motivating a generation to get involved is huge no matter what the outcome. Many might stay involved long past this election cycle. That's even bigger.

Originally Posted by TheSenator (Post 13936447)

Baddog is old skweel and would never understand.


I rather be inspired and believe.

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936420)

Time constraints essentially prohibit this. Presidents and candidates can't spend days ironing out speeches while campaigning, or reviewing legislation, or meeting with public figures, and flying all over the world etc. The days of Lincoln in the 19th century when politics was slower and there was no mass media are long gone and have been for decades now.

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 13936455)

Obama is getting people interested in politics for all the wrong reasons. Campaigns like his, which excel in marketing but lack in substance, change the political arena into something like "American Idol: The Political Edition".

People are choosing an idol, not policies. The success of this campaign will both stimulate future politicians to do the same and teach voters to expect inspirational talks rather than sound policies.

Of course, this is a process which started a long time ago, and has been accelerating ever since television became prominent as a political campaigning tool. Still, it's hardly something to be happy about.

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 13936465)

Candidates still have the option of acquiring a strong legislative record and extensive knowledge of the most important political issues before deciding to run for president.

Obama, however, clearly chose another path.

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936500)

...he's running against a polarizing candidate (Hillary)

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936471)

False, people are choosing based on character and policies. Obama and Clinton are virtually identical in policies (the substance), so what people are doing is choosing between the person they like better or feel will live up to their promises (the character).

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936500)

It's not rocket science, and a guy from a broken home who was able to excel and obtain a law degree from Harvard and become a Senator can probably handle it. If his heart is in the right place (those who know him personally probably have insight), and his speeches express what he really believes, and his political track record (albeit short) is consistent with both, and he's running against a polarizing candidate (Hillary) and a stay-the-course candidate (McCain), I see no reason why he shouldn't run.

Originally Posted by escorpio (Post 13936523)

Obama is also a polarizing candidate and if elected would easily be the most polarizing president we've ever had.

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 13936532)

They are choosing based on perceived character, yes. And indeed, they are much alike in policies.

The main difference lies in something that is another rather important part of substance, though: time spent acquiring political experience and knowledge.

Hillary spent her time in the Senate buried to the neck in legislative issues - doing the work senators are supposed to do. Obama, on the other hand, spent his time in the Senate working on his public image, basically campaigning for an eventual presidential bid already.

You are right. People are choosing which person they like better. Just like many people did in the 2000 election.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 13936419)

Precisely why McCain has this won.

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 13936570)

No, it's not rocket science. I'd say it's quite a bit harder than rocket science. Rocket scientists, after all, tend to have extensive knowledge of a single subject. Presidents, on the other hand, have to be knowledgeable about economics, international relations, legislation, etc.

"It's not rocket science, he can probably handle it." Does that really sound like a good justification for making someone the single most powerful person in the whole world to you?

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936576)

Experience is only worthwhile if one learns from it. Bush has had plenty of political experience and where has it gotten the nation?

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936571)

Lincoln is probably the most polarizing president we've ever had. He oversaw a bloody civil war.

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936607)

That's what advisors are for. A President is not an island. The President's vision, beliefs, and judgement are what guides which policies and actions he is likely to take. He has credentialed people around him giving him the pros and cons of every decision, he weighs it, puts in his two cents worth, and goes with what is consistent with his beliefs. Regarding Obama in particular, his plans for the economy, international relations, and legislation are all available just like it is for every other candidate.

The single most powerful person is a double edged sword because that power has checks and balances and can be vetoed.

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 13936621)

Bush was voted in based on the idea, among many, that he was a likable guy, that the job wasn't rocket science, and that he could probably handle it. Now where have I heard that before?

Obama has chosen not to spend his time in the Senate learning the boring, technical details of legislation, but rather building up his own popularity. That does not bode well for his desire and ability to learn.

Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 13936661)

That's what advisers are for, indeed. And how is someone who has not taken the effort to get to know the murky, boring, technical details of the issues supposed to choose the right advisers, and choose the right advice?

Obama is surrounded by competent people, yes. Those competent people will often give him conflicting advice. He doesn't actually have two cents to put in, so choosing the right advice over the wrong advice is a matter of sheer luck.

Once again: Bush. Bush had advisers, but little knowledge of his own. And look how well that turned out.

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936666)

Bush was voted in because he had experience as Governor of Texas (I think he was pretty successful at it too), had experience in business, was the son of a former President, came from money and influence, and was likable enough to have a majority vote for him.

Obama and Bush are apples and oranges. Obama's entire life is one of a desire to learn and help. If it wasn't he never would have finished high let alone Harvard law school and then into politics. He's obviously ambitious (this could be good and bad), and I'm not saying he'd make a good President. All I'm saying is that I think his bid makes sense.

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936678)

Anybody who has attended law school is familiar with murky, boring, technical details. Law school is nothing but technical laborious detail. Lawyers routinely come across conflicing advice and statements and it is their job to make sense of it and go with the 'right' decision. This wouldn't be something new for Obama.

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936743)

Very good points Libertine. I guess we'll see what happens and cross our fingers for the best.

Originally Posted by Mike33 (Post 13936399)

It should concern anybody that McCain has aligned himself and his policies with a person who has been voted as the worst President in history, and yet he still stands a chance to win.