alex maiolo wrote:Senators don't win.
As I mentioned in another thread, the last sitting senator to become President was JFK. Comin' up on 50 years...
If Obama wants to become Pres., he should run for governor. A Senator's voting record can be distorted into anything the oppostion wants, but governors are perceived as harmless. Also, they usually have accomplishments, even if they have just been sitting on their hands.
Kerry's "flip-flop" voting record was one of the major things that killed him. Nobody looked into what he voted for, or all the times he voted for military cuts on then Sec Of Defense Cheney's recommendation. They just knew, *knew* that he hated the military and his voting record "proved" it.
Hillary Clinton has become a pandering joke. I used to like her quite a lot.
She can not win. The people who like her don't like her as much as the people who hate her hate her.
I really like Obama. I think he's a good guy. He is the embodiment of the American Dream.
He can not beat McCain, even as lame as he's become.
Dems, please, run a nice governor.
-A
JFK won. Many senators have won, it's just harder. And the reason Governors usually win isn't because they're "harmless." It's because running a state is fairly close to running a country. Your success as a Governor would be a good barometer on how you would run a country. But it looks as if the right is either going to have a senator or a mayor running for them, so what's the difference? I don't see any democratic governors leading the party. Mark Warner just made it official that he's not running, which is why Obama's name is everywhere.
So, I started this thread thinking that Obama shouldn't run, but the fact that Bush has no experience and is incompetent is a good comparison, on the surface. I don't see Obama doing well with foreign policy because he lacks experience in it. He's a constitutional lawyer with state senate experience. There's nothing in there that screams foreign policy and his platform is about domestic issues. Our country is lacking a strong backbone in foreign policy. The current hawks have decimated us with their arrogance. I would like to see a candidate like Wes Clark, who has not only a strong foreign policy background, but is also concerned about domestic issues.
Obama/Edwards, as I've mentioned, would be incredible for a domestic policy package, but would probably lose in today's political climate. What would they do about Iraq? Can we trust their position? Would they surround themselves with the right people? Do they know the right people? The right, if they had McCain, would have a much easier time selling the american people on their foreign policy. Gulliani? Shit, the mofo is a crook and was only a mayor, but he's got that vision of himself being America's Mayor still in the minds of the right and probably a lot of those in the center.
Domestic issues should be a priority, but the rise of terrorism and the fuck ups of the Bush administration seriously have us at odds with the rest of the world and the next presidential election is going to be a defining moment for us. We need to heal the wounds we've caused around the world as well as the ones at home. I don't think the republicans
have the best plan to do this, but they could probably win against a democratic opponent with little or no foreign policy experience. Or at least, it would be that much easier to attack these weaknesses in their opponents.
Things may change in the next two years, but I doubt it. We'll still be in Iraq and even if we "aren't", we'll still be there in some form of peace keeping. Terrorism won't be gone and I can imagine there'd be another major terrorist attack somewhere not in Iraq or Afghanastan before then.