Should Al Gore Enter the Race?

[Plane]

Michael Tee
Hero Member

Posts: 5310


    Re: Should Al Gore Enter the Race?
? Reply #7 on:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulate him on his wisdom and perspecuity.  
 
  
 
 
 
Xavier_Onassis
Hero Member

Posts: 2878
Reply #8 on



      

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope Obama looses , I hope it isn't because he is black that he looses


==========================================================
What would be your favorite reason for Obama to lose, then?


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
I hope that there is a less liberal and otherwise better choice , just as dark skinned would be nice but Alan Keys is out of the running this year. If Barak Obama is actually the best I get offered I will be dismayed ,but I would vote for him rahter than someone worse .

Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice woud each be strong canadates , I hope they are both on John McCains short list for veep.

A black president seems inevitable to me now , it may as well be one of us that breaks the barrier.

 
 

[modestyblase]

How does a vote for Obama act as a vote against the party's apparatus? Where in his thin resume, (lack of outstanding) experience, and avoidability of controversial issues do you find that he is a vote against the party's apparatus?

[The_Professor]

Because the Party political machine is backing Hillary to the hilt. So, any vote other than Hillary could be construed as a vote against The Man.

[modestyblase]

It's been pointed out that Hillary and Obama are more similar than they are different. Edwards, of the three left running, is probably the most different.
Ergo, it could *also* be construed that Hilde's being backed because they(dems) know Bill will be influential to her presidency(as she was to his), and most dems miss the Clinton years. Also, compare resumes. Obama's resume is not brimming with experience-in fact, in addition to it being thin as rice paper(as most his age), it shows nothing outstanding or exceptional.

Just because you can run for president doesn't mean you are qualified to be president. Ask Lyndon LaRouche   

[The_Professor]

Edwards may as well save his money; he's dead as doornails. It is a two-headed monster at this point.

Hillary is so Establishment it is not even funny, to my way of thinking. That alone is enough to get her my ANTI-vote.

[modestyblase]

You know, there are what? 44 states left? Though, his campaign managers haven't shown strategic prowess.  They should have hired me lol.

Aside, how do we know Edwards isn't in the game to siphon votes away from Hilde or Obama so no majority is reached and a brokered convention will be necessary? At that point, they all three have a chance. If I were Edwards, thats what I would do. He already has Jim Wright endorsing him, all he needs is a few other well-connected Dems and he could have the nomination.

I still don't see Hilde & Obama being different. One has more experience and is more realistic, the other a rice-paper-resume and is more idealistic. Thats about it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Let's see, you want Obama to lose so that so that we can get Condi Rice or Colin Powell as Republican vice presidential candidates?

Powell would be a great candidate, but he won't run for VP. Condi is finished: the Stink of Juniorbush is upon her. Let's elect the National Security Director who presided over 9-11. Great slogan!  No, Condi will write her book and sink into a nice, cushy, obscurity with soem foundation or perhaps a right wing university. I am thinking Pepperdine would love to make her a president.

Alan Keyes will never rise to own his own talk show. Celling him the Black Harold Stassen demeans the real Harold Stassen. Keyes will never be elected to anything by anyone.

-------------------------------------------
It is not necessary that the US elect a Black President now or ever, especially because of his color. I suppose there were a few who voted for Dukakis because they felt it was time for a Greek-American, or against him  because Greek-Americans disgusted him, but that is the wrong reason.

If Obama is elected, it COULD be because he got a huge turnout of Black Americans to vote for the first serious Black candidate in history. If he is nominated but does not win, this COULD be because a lot of White Americans don't think even a half-Black man is smart enough to lead the nation. We will never know, because no one has to choose a reason.

Lots of votes are cast for a reason, but some are cast on a whim: George McGovern got a lot of votes of people who thought they were voting for George Wallace. Many votes are cast because of perceived visions, dreams, and because of the influence of friends and relatives.

[yellow_crane]

Excellent analysis, Crane.

But, is Bill Clinton's shenanigans enough to get Obama the nod? OR, just a major bump in the road?

It was racism and its exploding in the chamber of the blunderbuss that won South Carolina SO DRAMATICALLY.  (Watch Ami come back with 'there is no chamber in a blunderbuss.)

Will racism play in California?  Not likely the same.  But if racism is not the play in California, and Obama is still riding the drama wave of South Carolina, then he will benefit highly because that wave will carry the state over the small but tight racist element that will vote him no simply for that.

His roll is the important thing, and it was the surprising result element in SA that gives him a strong push, imho.

This has just begun.   I was only commenting on the South Carolina/Bill's boo boo incident.

Guess everybody knows that most of the pundits see this run as the most exciting in recent memory, and to about half the most ever???

[The_Professor]

You know, there are what? 44 states left? Though, his campaign managers haven't shown strategic prowess.  They should have hired me lol.

Aside, how do we know Edwards isn't in the game to siphon votes away from Hilde or Obama so no majority is reached and a brokered convention will be necessary? At that point, they all three have a chance. If I were Edwards, thats what I would do. He already has Jim Wright endorsing him, all he needs is a few other well-connected Dems and he could have the nomination.

I still don't see Hilde & Obama being different. One has more experience and is more realistic, the other a rice-paper-resume and is more idealistic. Thats about it.

This "game" is as much about perception as anything, though. And, weakness can compound easily in that kind of environment.

[Amianthus]

(Watch Ami come back with 'there is no chamber in a blunderbuss.)

Why do you think I would lie?

[Michael Tee]

<<Odd that not even his supporters can discuss how he could bring change, what in his past leads them to believe he can bring change, etc.>>

First of all, with Obama, I'd say there is the HOPE of change.  We have much more reason to hope for change from Obama than we do from Hillary.  That photo of Hillary with Bill, Madeleine and Wesley Clark says better than any words ever could what is the likelihood of real change from this woman.

Obama at least opposed the war in the beginning, even if he later went along with Hillary, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of them in voting to continue the war funding.  Not his finest hour, but he did at least have his moment of glory, standing almost alone in his opposition to Bush's criminal, fascist war.  And unlike the Clintons, he doesn't have any liberal blood on his hands.  I'd forgotten all about Lani Guiniere, who Bill unceremoniously booted in response to the very first wave of fascist complaints.  It's pretty obvious where Bill and Hillary are coming from.  With Obama, one can at least hope.

[The_Professor]

<<Odd that not even his supporters can discuss how he could bring change, what in his past leads them to believe he can bring change, etc.>>

First of all, with Obama, I'd say there is the HOPE of change.  We have much more reason to hope for change from Obama than we do from Hillary.  That photo of Hillary with Bill, Madeleine and Wesley Clark says better than any words ever could what is the likelihood of real change from this woman.

Obama at least opposed the war in the beginning, even if he later went along with Hillary, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of them in voting to continue the war funding.  Not his finest hour, but he did at least have his moment of glory, standing almost alone in his opposition to Bush's criminal, fascist war.  And unlike the Clintons, he doesn't have any liberal blood on his hands.  I'd forgotten all about Lani Guiniere, who Bill unceremoniously booted in response to the very first wave of fascist complaints.  It's pretty obvious where Bill and Hillary are coming from.  With Obama, one can at least hope.

Well, MT, as much as I am a rebel, there ARE times you  must support the group. I am sure he felt he needed to then. Plus, on a pragmatic scale, the Party leadership can make members toe the line if they need to and that is probalby always on their minds as well. So, basically, sometimes you must stand on principle and others, well, go with the crowd.

[modestyblase]

<<Odd that not even his supporters can discuss how he could bring change, what in his past leads them to believe he can bring change, etc.>>

First of all, with Obama, I'd say there is the HOPE of change.  We have much more reason to hope for change from Obama than we do from Hillary.  That photo of Hillary with Bill, Madeleine and Wesley Clark says better than any words ever could what is the likelihood of real change from this woman.

Obama at least opposed the war in the beginning, even if he later went along with Hillary, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of them in voting to continue the war funding.  Not his finest hour, but he did at least have his moment of glory, standing almost alone in his opposition to Bush's criminal, fascist war.  And unlike the Clintons, he doesn't have any liberal blood on his hands.  I'd forgotten all about Lani Guiniere, who Bill unceremoniously booted in response to the very first wave of fascist complaints.  It's pretty obvious where Bill and Hillary are coming from.  With Obama, one can at least hope.

What's wrong with the photo? I quite like Gen. Clark, btw. He looks great for a fellow his age(must be the embryonic stem cells he injects daily  ).
Obama may have spoken out against the war, but between present and yea he never really voted his words.
And all politicians get "blood on their hands", depending on who you talk to.
Voting on a matter of HOPE is something I cannot fathom. If you can, however, then go right ahead. I simply implore anyone to do their homework, especially since I realize less and less are doing so.

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

[yellow_crane]

  That photo of Hillary with Bill, Madeleine and Wesley Clark says better than any words ever could what is the likelihood of real change from this woman.

"Every Jewish person that is around the president is a dual citizen of Israel and the United States of America . . . And sometimes, we have to raise the question: 'are you more loyal to the state of Israel than you are to the best interests of the United States of America."   --Louis Farrakhan on mentioning National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and presidential advisor Rahm Emmanuel.

[modestyblase]

"Every Jewish person that is around the president is a dual citizen of Israel and the United States of America . . . And sometimes, we have to raise the question: 'are you more loyal to the state of Israel than you are to the best interests of the United States of America."   --Louis Farrakhan on mentioning National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and presidential advisor Rahm Emmanuel.

OMG. This is America. Was the KKK correct in lynching Catholics due to the possibility that loyalty to their church outweighed their loyalty to the US?? This is America, not England*, for a reason.

England passed a law-series of laws, actually-wherein loyalty to the church over the sovereign and law was punishable by denial of priviledges and immunities.
 EDIT : 15:26 CST : Actually, John Jay did discuss, in the Federalist papers, that the loyalists to the Church could pose a threat to New England. However, watching a threat is one thing, and revoking their rights due to the threat is unconstitutional, as many in this forum with all of Bush&Co's violations know all too well.