obama for president?

[Walter]

obama for president?

what's your take on it?

 

[GrassRootPolitician]

Hillary and Obama would make a good team.

obama for president?
what's your take on it?

God knows that I respect and support Obama to the upmost. However now isn't the time for a Black or Muslim President, and the white media and others would BB-Q Obama. Now if Hillary runs and win Obama would make a good V.P for Senator Clinton. That's funny how the United Snakes is loose in all other countries in the world, but here at home we can't get over racism or discrimination, and if CLINTON/OBAMA 08 should win watch all hell break aloose.

As I said earlier Obama would be placing his life on the line if he ran directly for President. He has a good record in the Senate, but I feel that he still need a few more years in politics, and if he should become V.P the experieces
will prepare him for a higher future political position.

 

[InterestedParty]

Why is it not the time for a black President? I would agree on the Muslim part but why not a black one? No offense, but who here is being racist and discriminatory? I think there is a black man that would make an absolutely excellent President and if the gentleman would miraculously decide to run *everyone* better hold on because he has the potential to run the show. Put the man on a ticket as the Vice-Presidental candidate and I think he could hand the Presidency to his runningmate. Colin Powell.

Obama? I hope not. He isn't ready. He also is not ready to be one heart beat away from the Presidency. He needs to stay right where he is and strenghten his influence inside of Washington and internationally. He may have thoroughly impressed his constituents back in Illinois and people around the country but he is still just a Junior Senator with less than a full term of service on his resume. I'd bet the farm that his peers in Washington don't view him as any more than he is, a Junior Senator. It is a sad day when the most appealing and notable characteristic that qualifies him to be our next President is the fact that he is black. His largest "accomplishment" to date has been that he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He does not yield the power necessary inside of Washington to have a successful Presidency. Simply put, he hasn't paid his dues yet. Never mind the fact that he is inexperienced at any level above where he is now. To be honest I wouldn't even call him exprienced *enough* at the position he holds right now. The people who are falling all over themselves to line up behind Obama are not doing so for the right reasons.

 

[GOTV]

Personally, I'm all for an African-American president. However, I cannot say the same for this country as a whole - I just don't see it happening. In general (regardless of his race), I don't see Obama winning (at least at this point in time). He' not seasoned enough - he doesn't seem ready for the national spotlight, he doesn't seem ready to go up against the Repub party machine, etc. Additionally (as of right now at least), he is all fluff. His speeches are great, but when you break it down and really look at what he is saying, he isn't saying anything at all. It's all ideas and hope and whatever - there's nothing concrete. For example, what exactly does he mean when he says "universal healthcare", how exactly is he going to achieve it, and how exactly is he going to pay for it? Also, the primary calendar is stacked against him. For example, I just don't see him appealing to the white, male, 40+ farmers in rural Iowa.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

His speeches are great, but when you break it down and really look at what he is saying, he isn't saying anything at all. It's all ideas and hope and whatever - there's nothing concrete. For example, what exactly does he mean when he says "universal healthcare", how exactly is he going to achieve it, and how exactly is he going to pay for it?

Exactly. This is a huge problem in Washington and in American politics in general. The only politicians who I can think of that really don't fit this mold are, in order:

(1) Newt Gingrich
(2) Tom Tacredo
(3) Ron Paul

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Exactly. This is a huge problem in Washington and in American politics in general. The only politicians who I can think of that really don't fit this mold are, in order:

(1) Newt Gingrich
(2) Tom Tacredo
(3) Ron Paul

Im not sure what mold you are talking about, but Newt Gingrich in the oval office is quite possibly the worst thing that could happen to this country. I wouldn't figure you to be a Ron Paul Republican, so I'm not sure what to make of this list you have.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Im not sure what mold you are talking about, but Newt Gingrich in the oval office is quite possibly the worst thing that could happen to this country. I wouldn't figure you to be a Ron Paul Republican, so I'm not sure what to make of this list you have.

The mold I'm talking about is actually having ideas with the means to actually achieve them. That is, instead of using fluffy, general, inane language like "we need to reconnect with our allies, secure Iraq, turn it over to the Iraqis, and fight the terrorists" they actually have ideas of how to do this. Just look at Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." That's the mold I'm talking about -- concrete, solid action, none of this "non-binding resolutions" bull****, and most importantly, he focuses on the details -- not the broad sweeping language that kills politics today. No one has better ideas than Newt. I would certainly vote for him above just about any other person in Washington, but I don't see him being elected by the general population (for reasons I don't understand). At any rate, I hope he becomes Secretary of State or some other similar position. No one is smarter than Newt, nor does anyone have the ideas for solutions in the 21st century.

My guess is that you don't like Newt because you don't read anything he writes, don't listen to his speeches. You merely dismiss him because of what you remember of him in 1994.

Check out his recent civilized debate with NY Governor Cuomo: http://www.americansolutions.com/media/video.aspx

Or browse around Newt.org and you'll get a picture of what I'm talking about. Just look at his recent Congressional testimony regarding Iraq: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4029

You can't get much more specific and detailed than that.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

The mold I'm talking about is actually having ideas with the means to actually achieve them. That is, instead of using fluffy, general, inane language like "we need to reconnect with our allies, secure Iraq, turn it over to the Iraqis, and fight the terrorists" they actually have ideas of how to do this. Just look at Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." That's the mold I'm talking about -- concrete, solid action, none of this "non-binding resolutions" bull****, and most importantly, he focuses on the details -- not the broad sweeping language that kills politics today. No one has better ideas than Newt. I would certainly vote for him above just about any other person in Washington, but I don't see him being elected by the general population (for reasons I don't understand). At any rate, I hope he becomes Secretary of State or some other similar position. No one is smarter than Newt, nor does anyone have the ideas for solutions in the 21st century.

My guess is that you don't like Newt because you don't read anything he writes, don't listen to his speeches. You merely dismiss him because of what you remember of him in 1994.

Check out his recent civilized debate with NY Governor Cuomo: http://www.americansolutions.com/media/video.aspx

Or browse around Newt.org and you'll get a picture of what I'm talking about. Just look at his recent Congressional testimony regarding Iraq: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=4029

You can't get much more specific and detailed than that.

I understand your list now. It definitely makes sense, although Gingrich for President is still worse than any other possible candidate with a legitimate chance of winning. I'd rather see Hillary win than Newt and i have nothing but contempt for Hillary's politics.

Gingrich-

"We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate. We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat."

Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment."

It amazes me that Republicans will debate Free Speech and civil liberties but try and take away their guns and all of the sudden they are consitutionalists.

Don't be so sure about what I read. Unlike you, i read ALL sides of the political spectrum. Armed with all ideas i can come to a conclusion/opinion that is of my own mind. Not talking points and rhetoric that fit a "party".

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Gingrich-

"We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate. We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat."

Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that these proposals would trigger "a serious debate about the First Amendment."

The 1st Amendment wasn't meant to be a suicide pact, and the Founding Fathers acknowledged this. History has shown dating back to the 18th century, that in times of war, civil liberties were not meant to interfere with the national security and defense of its people. Newt is best historian in Washington -- he knows what he's talking about.

It amazes me that Republicans will debate Free Speech and civil liberties but try and take away their guns and all of the sudden they are consitutionalists.

Because the 2nd Amendment never interfered with our national security. In fact, that Americans generally owned guns and knew how to use them (from fighting with the Indians and hunting) during the Revolutionary War is actually one reason why we won -- the British Army knew they couldn't occupy and substantial portion of the colonies.

Don't be so sure about what I read. Unlike you, i read ALL sides of the political spectrum. Armed with all ideas i can come to a conclusion/opinion that is of my own mind. Not talking points and rhetoric that fit a "party".

The only political news website I go to is www.realclearpolitics.com

It is the most balanced site on for politics on the web. When searching for the news I go to both Fox and CNN to get a balanced view, so I don't know where you're pulling this stuff out of but it's completely wrong.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

The 1st Amendment wasn't meant to be a suicide pact, and the Founding Fathers acknowledged this. History has shown dating back to the 18th century, that in times of war, civil liberties were not meant to interfere with the national security and defense of its people. Newt is best historian in Washington -- he knows what he's talking about.

Because the 2nd Amendment never interfered with our national security. In fact, that Americans generally owned guns and knew how to use them (from fighting with the Indians and hunting) during the Revolutionary War is actually one reason why we won -- the British Army knew they couldn't occupy and substantial portion of the colonies.

Suggesting that the 1st amendment is a suicide pact is a stretch. Fear mongering is going the way of the Bush administration.

If national security is protecting american lives than talk to me when terrorists kill as many americans as american gun owners.

You are either a constitutionalist or you are not. You can't favor curtailing the 1st amendment (it was 1st for a reason) in the name of security. But then be unwilling to discuss the 2nd amendment under the same circumstances.

Just like Liberals can't have it both ways and cry for protection of the civil liberties yet rewrite the 2nd amendment.

The only political news website I go to is www.realclearpolitics.com

It is the most balanced site on for politics on the web. When searching for the news I go to both Fox and CNN to get a balanced view, so I don't know where you're pulling this stuff out of but it's completely wrong.

Fox and CNN does not represent a balanced view.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Suggesting that the 1st amendment is a suicide pact is a stretch.

I didn't say it was -- I said it wasn't meant to be a suicide pact.

If national security is protecting american lives than talk to me when terrorists kill as many americans as american gun owners.

The Southern Conservative from Texas who goes hunting on weekends with his buddies isn't killing anyone. Guns don't kill people -- people kill people. To blame any murders on guns is stupid. We don't blame the planes for 9/11, why would you assert that guns are the reason for any deaths?

You are either a constitutionalist or you are not.

Jefferson wouldn't agree with you.

You can't favor curtailing the 1st amendment (it was 1st for a reason) in the name of security. But then be unwilling to discuss the 2nd amendment under the same circumstances.

I'm not unwilling to discuss the 2nd -- it just has absolutely nothing to do with national security, other than it being a tool for preventing foreign occupation (like in the American Revolution). And I'm not in favor of permanantly curtailing the 1st Amendment -- I, like nearly all other wartime presidents, just think that it needs to be re-examined to best serve American interests during a period of conflict. I'm not saying we pass an Alien and Sedition Act like John Adams, or suspend habeas corpus and round up all dissenters and send them to Canada like Abraham Lincoln, or pass a Sedition and Espionage Act like Woodrow Wilson, or create interment camps like FDR -- I merely believe that the 1st Amendment shouldn't be extended to terrorists and their sympathizers who use the internet as a vehicle for recruiting future jihadists.

I also feel that it is not only appropriate, but responsible, for our government to listen in to phone calls of people found in al Zawhiri's rolodex -- regardless of whether or not they're within the borders of the United States. This is what I'm talking about.

Just like Liberals can't have it both ways and cry for protection of the civil liberties yet rewrite the 2nd amendment.

Completely different scenarios, and thus, a faulty comparison.

Fox and CNN does not represent a balanced view.

Sure it does.

 

[TNConservDem8604]

Obama for President? Too Liberal

Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton. Alan Keyes. These are all names that spring to mind when one considers a black Presidential candidate. However, none of these are like Barack Obama. The first two are preachers who have based their careers on civil right activism. The latter is a "utility" politician who has pretty much tried everything he can to please the American public -- and they just don't care. Barack Obama, only the 5th Black American to serve in the US Senate, is something different. He actually tried to fulfill campaign promises -- only to have them shut down. Barack Obama, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is a staunch liberal. He is pro-choice, is a fiscal liberal, and is pro-stem cell research. While he may seem good as a change of pace, I just don't see how having a liberal in charge is going to help matters. Who do I think we need? A Conservative Democrat.

Having studied politics almost as long as I have been able to read (and I began reading at the age of 2), I have noticed that the best presidents have fit the mold of being a conservative Democrat. John F. Kennedy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In fact, even though Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, he was more of a moderate, bunching him in with this mold. We need someone who is going to lower taxes while lowering government spending. We need someone who is going to appoint competent people to jobs (note the Harriet Miers fiasco). Bush is too conservative. Obama is too liberal. What does this country need? Here's what I think we need:

• Lower taxes, interest rates, and government spending. With a poor economy, taxing the pants off of people will not help.
• Social liberals or moderates. Someone who is going to step up to the plate for America's rights, the rights of the few and not the majority, is vital in this time. These rights include the right to a secure border and the security of personal freedoms within the law.
• A revised tax scheme. The income tax, which was opposed by many of the Founding Fathers, is way too complicated. The new tax idea, which is an indirect tax, taxing goods and not income, is a good way of thinking. This system also helps those at or below the poverty line get the goods they need to survive.
• A viable plan for Iraq. Our president has my head spinning, at least, in regards to the plan in Iraq. He has no clue what is going on. Putting a review board to the challenge of figuring out a strategy for Iraq is not cutting it. Working out a balance between democracy and a place for both Sunni and Shi'ite is a must. If we had a president who understands the minutiae of this area of the world, more could be accomplished.
• Universal gasoline prices. A gas station pays a set price for a load of petrol, then fluctuates the price. Yes, it is pertinent to be able to gain the money to pay the price of the next shipment, but not at such rates as currently apply. There should be a system in which gas stores are not allowed to raise prices by more than 5 cents per gallon for what they paid on the petrol they currently have. This would eliminate "gouging".
• More grants for underprivileged prospective college students. How do we expect people to raise themselves up from impoverished upbringings if we don't help more? With the rates of tuition now, it is incredibly difficult for poor propsective college students to find the money to gain an education. I had a wealth of problems in this field; I know about this firsthand.

There are many more things America needs. We do, in fact, need healthcare for all. We need leaders in office, not people who pander to polls and public opinion as the sole motivation of each move. Courage is what we need, and I don't see a brave soul in the running for office, other than Barack Obama. Can you choose "none of the above" on a ballot?

 

[TNConservDem8604]

Obama for President? Too Liberal

Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton. Alan Keyes. These are all names that spring to mind when one considers a black Presidential candidate. However, none of these are like Barack Obama. The first two are preachers who have based their careers on civil right activism. The latter is a "utility" politician who has pretty much tried everything he can to please the American public -- and they just don't care. Barack Obama, only the 5th Black American to serve in the US Senate, is something different. He actually tried to fulfill campaign promises -- only to have them shut down. Barack Obama, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is a staunch liberal. He is pro-choice, is a fiscal liberal, and is pro-stem cell research. While he may seem good as a change of pace, I just don't see how having a liberal in charge is going to help matters. Who do I think we need? A Conservative Democrat.

Having studied politics almost as long as I have been able to read (and I began reading at the age of 2), I have noticed that the best presidents have fit the mold of being a conservative Democrat. John F. Kennedy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In fact, even though Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, he was more of a moderate, bunching him in with this mold. We need someone who is going to lower taxes while lowering government spending. We need someone who is going to appoint competent people to jobs (note the Harriet Miers fiasco). Bush is too conservative. Obama is too liberal. What does this country need? Here's what I think we need:

• Lower taxes, interest rates, and government spending. With a poor economy, taxing the pants off of people will not help.
• Social liberals or moderates. Someone who is going to step up to the plate for America's rights, the rights of the few and not the majority, is vital in this time. These rights include the right to a secure border and the security of personal freedoms within the law.
• A revised tax scheme. The income tax, which was opposed by many of the Founding Fathers, is way too complicated. The new tax idea, which is an indirect tax, taxing goods and not income, is a good way of thinking. This system also helps those at or below the poverty line get the goods they need to survive.
• A viable plan for Iraq. Our president has my head spinning, at least, in regards to the plan in Iraq. He has no clue what is going on. Putting a review board to the challenge of figuring out a strategy for Iraq is not cutting it. Working out a balance between democracy and a place for both Sunni and Shi'ite is a must. If we had a president who understands the minutiae of this area of the world, more could be accomplished.
• Universal gasoline prices. A gas station pays a set price for a load of petrol, then fluctuates the price. Yes, it is pertinent to be able to gain the money to pay the price of the next shipment, but not at such rates as currently apply. There should be a system in which gas stores are not allowed to raise prices by more than 5 cents per gallon for what they paid on the petrol they currently have. This would eliminate "gouging".
• More grants for underprivileged prospective college students. How do we expect people to raise themselves up from impoverished upbringings if we don't help more? With the rates of tuition now, it is incredibly difficult for poor propsective college students to find the money to gain an education. I had a wealth of problems in this field; I know about this firsthand.

There are many more things America needs. We do, in fact, need healthcare for all. We need leaders in office, not people who pander to polls and public opinion as the sole motivation of each move. Courage is what we need, and I don't see a brave soul in the running for office, other than Barack Obama. Can you choose "none of the above" on a ballot?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

I'm not unwilling to discuss the 2nd -- it just has absolutely nothing to do with national security, other than it being a tool for preventing foreign occupation (like in the American Revolution). And I'm not in favor of permanantly curtailing the 1st Amendment -- I, like nearly all other wartime presidents, just think that it needs to be re-examined to best serve American interests during a period of conflict. I'm not saying we pass an Alien and Sedition Act like John Adams, or suspend habeas corpus and round up all dissenters and send them to Canada like Abraham Lincoln, or pass a Sedition and Espionage Act like Woodrow Wilson, or create interment camps like FDR -- I merely believe that the 1st Amendment shouldn't be extended to terrorists and their sympathizers who use the internet as a vehicle for recruiting future jihadists.

I also feel that it is not only appropriate, but responsible, for our government to listen in to phone calls of people found in al Zawhiri's rolodex -- regardless of whether or not they're within the borders of the United States. This is what I'm talking about.

Thank you for making my point. Playing founding father with the 1st ammendment leads to the examples above.

If guns don't kill americans, then americans kill americans. maybe every murderer should lose his rights to habeus corpus, be detained indifinitely, and tortured? I mean that is if its all about "protecting americans".

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Thank you for making my point. Playing founding father with the 1st ammendment leads to the examples above.

Were the Founding Fathers were playing Founding Father in regards to the 1st Amendment in 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Act?

If guns don't kill americans, then americans kill americans. maybe every murderer should lose his rights to habeus corpus, be detained indifinitely, and tortured? I mean that is if its all about "protecting americans".

What makes you bring up torturing?

And you're misrepresenting my point. As I've stated here previously, the 1st Amendment was not a suicide pact. The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned with limiting the size of the federal government to prevent the degradation into tyranny that had polluted the political environment of every other country. Thus, they declared that American citizens are "endowed by their Creator" (NOT the government) and that they loan those rights to the government (Lockean philosophy) with the belief that the government will act in the best interest of the people.

The point I'm getting at is that the Founders' intent was clear: American citizens own their inalienable rights, not foreign invaders bent on turning the United States into a theocracy ruled by Sharia law. The right to freedom of speech should not be extended to jihadists who set up websites overseas to help recruit future terrorists.