[bestonlinepharmasy2]

Hmmm, like I said, we can be idealistic in our thinking, but the reality is that when it comes to voting in elections, common sense and rationality tend to go out the window. People often ignore the issues (eg education, health, etc) and focus on divisiveness (eg gay marriage, immigration, and ... race). I would dearly love to be proven wrong though. I can only hope that I am.

I hope you're wrong too, Noahath. I would suggest taking the risk to support and vote for Obama- after all nothing ventured nothing gained, and we all know the only true failure is the one that never tries.

Gem

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

I would love to agree with you Gem, but we only need to look back to last Nov and see how much of an issue race became in Tennessee. To say that we have moved beyond that I think is a bit premature. Like I said to Samantha though, I would dearly love to be proven wrong.

Racism and pockets of racism will always exist, Noahath. We can't eliminate it, but we can, by our vote, relegate such attitudes and locales to the backwaters of the American landscape.

Gem

[space-on-s]

Obama is going nowhere.

NOT because he is black. {He is barely black}.

But because he is waaaaay to inexperienced.

[DrCeshing]

I'm sick of reading about his apparent lack of credentials. He's got more foreign policy experience than Bush had should he become president. The other thing about credentials that bugs me is that America doesn't vote for credentials, they vote for the candidate who speaks to their values and hopes in a way that captures our emotions. Lately, America has just been voting for the guy they'd most want to hang out and have a cookout and some beer with. And maybe that's Obama's edge: he's running just at a time when America is in search of renewal and redemption. Having a fresh face makes him the favorite in that regard.

You can't forget that he's a rock star, too. Obama and Clinton are the only two presidential candidates in recent memory who've had to actually turn people away when they visit Iowa and New Hampshire where the primaries begin next year. Obama drew over 15,000 people to a speaking engagement a couple of months ago in Iowa while Giuliani, Edwards, McCain et al are lucky to draw a couple thousand if that. So, the numbers don't lie. And Obama can speak. He's not only smart and charismatic, but he's a touch poetic. He captivates every audience he appears before. His views are moderate: for civil unions, against gay marriage, anti-war, anti-deficits, anti-foreign oil.

Someone wrote earlier that Obama is just using this run as a primer for the next time he runs, but guess what? I don't really think he'll have to run again. Clinton has the credentials and the money, but Obama's got the magic that very few people have had, reminding us of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, JFK, and Martin Luther King. Once the mainstream gets a hold of him, I think we'll see how people's hopes and dreams get projected onto his fresh face. Yeah, I'm really high on him, but it's because his star is undeniable. Hillary Clinton or Bill Richardson are the two candidates most qualified to lead the country, but Obama brings the spark that makes people want to pitch in and change the country, and no amount of credentials can guarantee something like that.

[DrCeshing]

America didn't vote for W, Clinton or Reagan because of experience or credentials. Some who have experience are shitty presidents, some aren't. Sometimes the candidate is elected just at the moment when the country felt that they had what it took at that moment in time. Bush Sr would be about the only candidate in memory who was elected strictly on the basis of credentials. Nawt....Gawn...Due-it...'gain.

[LsrSRVxR]

Civil rights activist backs Obama's presidential bid
United States civil rights activist Jesse Jackson says he will almost definitely throw his support behind US presidential hopeful Barack Obama. Civil rights activist backs Obama's presidential bid. 11/02/2007. ABC News Online

What did Jackson promise in the last election?

[casinobonusnolimit]

I disagree Sam. No matter how positively ideological we might be, the US is not about to elect a black man as President. Despite all the PC, there is still an inherent level of racism abounding.

Noahath, I think I have to agree with Gem and Samantha.

I have been following Barack Obama’s rise since his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and what has struck me is how much appeal he seems to have among Americans from a wide political spectrum.

In terms of the racist factor, I tend to agree with Gem’s comments about the desire for change being strong enough for people to move forward on that question.

I also believe that voicing any reservations about his chances to win office won’t help his run. No doubt, many Americans are asking themselves whether or not they would vote for a Black president. I think it is important for us to voice confidence that they will, if the man is right for the task.

Tethys

[casinobonusnolimit]

P.S....I listened to Obama's speech today on our ABC Radio. He's good.

Public, where abouts in Australia are you? I have not welcomed you to the forum yet...so, welcome.

Well, nighty night everyone. It's just gone past midnight in Sydney.

Tethys

[Plulpangepler]

Racism and pockets of racism will always exist, Noahath. We can't eliminate it, but we can, by our vote, relegate such attitudes and locales to the backwaters of the American landscape.

Gem

YEP, you got that right. Racism is only permissible when its government sanctioned. Such as affirmative action. Such as tax breaks for hiring minorities, etc.
All government mandates giving ''SPECIAL" RIGHTS/BENEFITS TO ANY GROUP BASED UPON RACE are unconstitutional.
You are all for racism when it is used against the white American.
How unenlightened the enlightened ones reallly are!
Thats a truth which people such as you will reject outright. Too bad really. -TZS

[Heliosprime]

obama stands zero chance..( and NOT because hes black, because of ISSUES...because he has a 99% lib voting record..for instance..amongst other things)....please...I impore you....walk off now before you break your legs juming off the bandwagon.....once he begins to 'define himslef' and really disuss issues not touchy feely nonsense..that is just pabulum..

[annouhMus]

Click



He is a pretty-boy candidate and nothing more. A clinton without the savvy and the experience with politics.

It won't take long for Hillary to turn this into a blow-out.

I would guess he is doing this for the experience for his next attempt.

Regarding your three points:

1. yep, he has charisma, but I think you underestimate him.

2. Perhaps of herself. She is NOT looking to good in the eyes of most of us.

3. That is quite possible, and if so he will try again.

[annouhMus]

Lots of Democrats are cashing in their chips vying for the big chair in the Oval Office. It makes strategic sense.

Right now they are dealing with frustrated Americans willing to vote for anything that isn't Republican.

At least they have credentials. Take that mayor of NY that wants to run for President. What's his qualifications? Well, he did bullhorn speeches like Bush after 9/11.... that's it! He wasn't even questioning or inquiring about the toxicity of the smoke and debris left by the tragic event that was immediately cleared and deemed safe to breath. Subsequently, it was unsafe to breath and many Americans became seriously permanently ill due to the hasty and suspicious clearance of the aftermath. When I read stories about it, I saw that mayor's name no where to be found. He seemed like the most uninvolved mayor I have ever seen in the face of a tragic event. For some reason, people regard him a hero. I find that very insulting to the intelligence of the American people. He just made grandstanding speeches.. that's it folks!

As for McCain, that two-faced scumbucket doesn't have a chance in hell in being elected. He has been outed as being an obvious panderer to the religious base and has been such a horrible flip-flopper that people can't tell which lobbyist's ass he'll be kissing the next day because it is ever changing. See what I did there? I gave valid reasons why this man wouldn't be elected and it had nothing to do with him using a government plane or a school he went to when he was a itty-bitty kid.

There are valid reasons not to vote for Obama, but you're oblivious to those reasons because you blind allegiance to the Republican party has voided all possible relevant thoughts and concerns on this man just so you can prove to yourself that your a true trooper to a fallen disingenuous political party.

What is so interesting is that you are using precisely the same tactics in your rant as the poster to whom you are responding. Personally I think you are both full of unadulterated partisan Crap.

[annouhMus]

blackascoal: I agree with you.

conformfailure: If Obama voted to fund the troops in the past two years, that's not the same as voting for the war. He was against the war from the beginning.

noahath: I have to believe that there are more good and intelligent people in my country, than ignorant and stupid ones.

At this point I don't think either one of them will end up with the nomination----

OBAMA, partially because of assumed inexperience, but because he is Black, have an odd middle name, etc. (none of which would affect my vote)

HILARY: because she is Virtually hated by those who oppose her, (Including Your's truely)

.However, we have a full year before the nomination and primaries.

[petrarkaponye]

OBAMA: Not a chance of winning the nomination (.1%). If he did there would not be a chance of him winning the general. A couple issues. Yes, race is still a big issue. People are more racist in many ways than chauvinistic...but the only way for someone to overcome this racism is to have the depth and breadth of experience of Richardson...and the charisma of Obama or Clinton (Bill). In my little area of the country I live in (northwest) it is easy to think that race is no longer a significant issue. However, I also spent two years in the southeast...and even for the liberal democrats I knew down there they still made racist comments and called blacks "niggers". Not everyone, but some still. Many of the democrats in the south are still conservative...and aren't going to vote for a black man named Obama. Not generalizing about all conservatives, all southern democrats, all anything...but he would not get enough of the base let alone conservative republicans. The main issue, however, is his lack of experience.

HILLARY: Decent chance of winning the nomination at this point...but would not be able to win the general unless possibly as a V.P. candidate. Chauvinism still plays a part, but her main problem is being Clinton. It is her biggest asset and also her largest liability. As someone else stated, republicans aren't going to vote for her. She has some experience, but still not enough direct experience in my opinion...although this doesn't preclude being elected to the Office (e.g. Bush).

RICHARDSON: The absolute best resume' of any candidate out there in my opinion, republican or democrat. However, definitely doesn't have the "magnetism" or "charisma" a candidate will need to become the nominee. If he is somehow able to bridge this gap quickly he would be a likely nominee or V.P. candidate.

[bettingonosports]

Noahath, I think I have to agree with Gem and Samantha.

I have been following Barack Obama’s rise since his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and what has struck me is how much appeal he seems to have among Americans from a wide political spectrum.

In terms of the racist factor, I tend to agree with Gem’s comments about the desire for change being strong enough for people to move forward on that question.

I also believe that voicing any reservations about his chances to win office won’t help his run. No doubt, many Americans are asking themselves whether or not they would vote for a Black president. I think it is important for us to voice confidence that they will, if the man is right for the task.

Tethys

I think the best way to examine the issue is to ask whether or not Obama would win every single state that Kerry won in '04, as Obama has to do that - ans then some, in order to win. Obama would not win in the south or mid-West (with the possible exception of New Mexico). This simple calculation shows the odds are stacked against him.

[unsamiSlini]

I think the best way to examine the issue is to ask whether or not Obama would win every single state that Kerry won in '04, as Obama has to do that - ans then some, in order to win. Obama would not win in the south or mid-West (with the possible exception of New Mexico). This simple calculation shows the odds are stacked against him.

If he had Richardson on the bottom of his ticket he might be able to.

[bettingonosports]

If he had Richardson on the bottom of his ticket he might be able to.

I actually think they should be swapped. It would certainly negate the "experience" factor.

[annouhMus]

I actually think they should be swapped. It would certainly negate the "experience" factor.

Seems reasonable, and at this point regarding Dems, he is my first choice I'd like to have him pitted against Hagel in the general election. That way either direction I wouldn't be too disappointed. But ----Stay tuned, things can change.