Premier Rock Forum

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

alex maiolo wrote:Senators don't win.

Until they do. It will happen again.

And I don't see a nice governor in sight. Do you really think a guy named Tom Vilsack will be elected? Or (shudder) Rod Blagojevich?

Spare us.

i have said a few times on this message board and to friends that Obama will not run in 08. it seemed impossible. it is now possible. i will be very glad to be proven wrong.

he says he won't decide until after the midterms. i tend to believe him. i'm not sure which outcome will cause him to run.

i read his first book earlier this year. he's lead about the most interesting life a Senator could lead without serving in a war. maybe i've been tricked or i've misjudged him but every time i hear him speak or read something he's written i get the overwhelming sense (and some evidence) of "real deal." i think he's a populist but moderate enough to actually get shit done instead of crowing about how progressive he is while getting dick passed.

if i lived in Illinois i'd volunteer for his campaign the day he announced.


also, i just started the book The Way to Win and Obama's new book. It is very funny to me that so far they are about the same thing from opposite perspectives. Way to Win basically says "politics have become polarized and freakish, you can't change it so here's how to work with it" Obama's book says "politics have become polarized and freakish, here's why and how we should change it."

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.

I don't see Obama doing well with foreign policy because he lacks experience in it.

i've talked about this and read about it and honestly i think this is only a concern to political analysts and people with a day to day interest in politics.
I'm willing to bet that nobody that voted for Bush in 2000 cared about the foreign policy decisions that would be made by a Governor who had been overseas once in his life (i think). Maybe they should have, but I don't think Obama has that problem. He doesn't have foreign policy experience as a legislator. He has lots of foreign policy experience throughout his life. He spent years living in Indonesia. He's been to Kenya numerous times and is beloved in Africa, at least in the spots he visited. The jazz lovers in Europe will embrace him, at least initially, because he's a Democratic black man.

basically I mean that any doubts about his foreign policy experience will be shot out of the water as soon as he eloquently answers a question about it in front of people. I think enough undecided voters will put aside "he's never brokered a treaty" when he talks about his time abroad and his ideas for Darfur or any other issue.

caix wrote: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.

i would consider voting for a clark/kerry ticket, in that order. clark/obama would be unstoppable. clark/gore is a loser. clark/clinton could win against most gop tickets. clinton/anything could beat a republican senator, but not the mayor. kerry/anything is a loser. obama/anything would be an uphill battle. gore/anything is a loser.
edwards is done. he lost the primaries and the national election. that's some lieberman shit right there.

"clark/obama"
If this one can happen, democrats shouldn't even have primaries. Primaries are a waste of time and credibility.
Look at the california current campaigning for gov. Agnold is as full of shit as it can be. Now he's claiming to give a shit about the environment but owns 4 Hummers.
Meanwhile, the Wesley and Angelides had a cut throat primary in which they seemed to have been working for Agnold.
Fuck Guliani.

I love Clark. I hope he runs. I think he can make things happen, and I think he could bring the country back together.
I'm ready for this experiment.

Just out of curiosity, is there anything that would prevent Bill Clinton from being Veep?

-A

alex maiolo wrote:Just out of curiosity, is there anything that would prevent Bill Clinton from being Veep?

No. There was actually an article advocating this recently; I can't remember the source. If the president were to die in office, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing him from ascending to the presidency. The 22nd amendment merely states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."

tipcat wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:Just out of curiosity, is there anything that would prevent Bill Clinton from being Veep?

No. There was actually an article advocating this recently; I can't remember the source. If the president were to die in office, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing him from ascending to the presidency. The 22nd amendment merely states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."

The max number of years a person can serve is 10, though. So there would be a limit if he did become VP and then become President.