Obama Considering Presidential Run In 2008

[USMCDevilDog]

He's got my vote, unless Rudy runs.

Same. They're the only two so far that have actually captured my attention. Regardless of what either has "done" in their past, it doesn't matter. It's what they can do in the FUTURE that matters. Honestly, who do you all wanna vote for in the 08 elections? Hilary? Kerry? McCain? Everyone that is in the main stream about running in 08 are people I would hate to see in office. We need someone new, someone that we haven't heard of. It might just do this country some good to have a fresh face in office. JFK anyone? Not like he had a huge background. How about Reagan? Once a movie actor, then a President...if that was happening now a days for the Presidency, you all would flip, but look how he turned out, one of the greats. So, why not Obama?

 

[MtnBiker]

Ran for Senate, won-because IL GOP sucks.

Didn't he beat Alan Keyes? Who (if memory serves me right) by the way was a last minute fill in due to the original canidate dropping out over some sex scandal. If so, Obama was more or less handed that Senate seat. Beyond that what are his accomplishments that would deserve the votes to become President?

 

[MtnBiker]

So, why not Obama?

For me, a new face does not qualify for my vote.

 

[Dr Grump]

He's inexperienced, which is NOT a good quality in any president, but especially in a time of war.

I agree. This is being shown in spades by the incumbant. In saying that, it is more who he has around him that matters in the regard (IMO)

All I can say is that I hope America's luck keeps holding out.

Has so far under Bush...

 

[theHawk]

Obama was in Arizona to campaign for assholes like David Schapira, a democrat who is running for a district he doesn't even live in. He's living out of a hotel during the campaign.


http://www.azdem.org/article/406/get-out-the-vote-rally-with-senator-barack-obama

 

[Annie]

Didn't he beat Alan Keyes? Who (if memory serves me right) by the way was a last minute fill in due to the original canidate dropping out over some se* scandal. If so, Obama was more or less handed that Senate seat. Beyond that what are his accomplishments that would deserve the votes to become President?

Exactly. The head of IL GOP refused to back Peter Fitzgerald, because he got Patrick Fitzgerald appointed to look into IL corruption, leading to most of GOP leadership being indicted, including the governor. So, they came up with Jack Ryan, that had some garbage from a divorce. Then the head of IL GOP refused to support IL candidates and brought in Keyes. Obama won 3:1.

Now the head of IL GOP is running for governor, she probably won't win, which is fine with me, since Blogo has a very good chance of being indicted and the LT Governor is good.

 

[jillian]

For me, a new face does not qualify for my vote.

Nor does being the son of a president.

 

[theHawk]

Nor does being the son of a president.

How about being the wife of one?

 

[jillian]

How about being the wife of one?

Who says I'd vote for her either?

 

[theHawk]

Who says I'd vote for her either?

Oh, so you won't vote for her if she is the Dem's choice. I didn't know you were so principled.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I see Obama as all flash and no substance, sort of like a liberal Hollywood actor.

Wasn't Reagan a Hollywood actor?

 

[jillian]

Oh, so you won't vote for her if she is the Dem's choice. I didn't know you were so principled.

Cause only the radical right are "principled"? *rolling eyes*.

I won't vote for her in the primary. As for the general election, I figure I'll cross that bridge when we get to it. When Bill Clinton ran for his first term, no one even knew who he was til late in the game....and a lot can happen between now and then.

 

[theHawk]

Cause only the radical right are "principled"? *rolling eyes*.

I won't vote for her in the primary. As for the general election, I figure I'll cross that bridge when we get to it. When Bill Clinton ran for his first term, no one even knew who he was til late in the game....and a lot can happen between now and then.

I say that because most liberals will vote with the party no matter what. And they certainly never critize their own.

By the way, I'm curious to know what you consider being "radical right"? A Christian conservative is radical?

 

[CharlestonChad]

I say that because most liberals will vote with the party no matter what. And they certainly never critize their own.

Both parties have voters like that. Sad thing is, neither of those groups will get the change in gov. they desire b/c the politicians are not out to get their votes.

By the way, I'm curious to know what you consider being "radical right"? A Christian conservative is radical?

I don't know about jillian, but I consider someone radical right when they try to pass legislation based on their religious beliefs.

 

[MtnBiker]

Nor does being the son of a president.

Well only 2 Presidents where the son of previous Presidents, so I can assume your comment was directed toward G W Bush. Was being the son of a President the only political experience and accomplishment GW had before being elected?

 

[theHawk]

Both parties have voters like that. Sad thing is, neither of those groups will get the change in gov. they desire b/c the politicians are not out to get their votes.



I don't know about jillian, but I consider someone radical right when they try to pass legislation based on their religious beliefs.

So laws against murder and rape can be considered "radical" because some people might of gotten their morals on such crimes from their religion? What about democracy? So if 70% of a population wants a law passed, it shouldn't be passed if most of that 70% get their belief from a religion? Every American has a right to believe in whatever belief they want, regardless if its considered "religious" or not. All a "religion" is is a set of beliefs. So you're saying that laws shouldn't be passed by people who have their own beliefs. Everyone has their own set of beliefs, including secular liberals. You're saying its "radical" for someone to pass a law on their beliefs, then how could you possibly support liberals when they try to pass a law? Oh thats right, because you're a hypocrit who beliefs only one side can rightfully pass laws while the other can't because you consider them "radical", simply because they have a different belief system than your own.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Perfect, a candidate with no record.

That makes him an unusually good candidate among his fellow Democrats. Most of them have MISERABLE records.

If you've never done anything, you've never done anything wrong. This fact now apparently forms the basis of the Democrats' last, best hope.

 

[glockmail]

Wasn't Reagan a Hollywood actor?

Yes, but he had substance.

About Osama, er, Obama. Not a chance with that name.

 

[jillian]

I say that because most liberals will vote with the party no matter what. And they certainly never critize their own.

By the way, I'm curious to know what you consider being "radical right"? A Christian conservative is radical?

I think you're mistaking democrats for Republicans since, near as I can tell, the Republicans on the board don't ever criticize their own and would never vote for a democrat.

Come on now.... truth... is there a dem you'd vote for? (Lieberman and Zell Miller don't count, they're DINO's).

Also, if you've read my posts, you might have seen me say that I've never voted for a mayor who's a democrat. Wasn't an intentional thing. Just worked out that way.

In answer to your last question, a Christian Conservative is radical when they want to destroy the separation of Church and State and impose their religious mores on us through legislation and Court decisions.

 

[jillian]

Well only 2 Presidents where the son of previous Presidents, so I can assume your comment was directed toward G W Bush. Was being the son of a President the only political experience and accomplishment GW had before being elected?

You mean other than unseating Ann Riuchards? I've seen the right-wingers on the board complain that certain candidates have no foreign policy experience. In Bush's case, it was lack of experience, lack of knowledge and lack of interest. I'd also remind you that he ran as a moderate "compassionate conservative" and said we'd conduct a "humble" foreign policy.