DEMOCRATS EYEING OBAMA FOR 2008
Democrats are urging Sen. Barack Obama to run for president in 2008. Read the article from MSNBC.
This conversation came up on the show on Thursday. And here's the problem I have with Obama.
I like Obama. I like what he has to say and I like the way he inspires people. I believe he has the "it" factor, and that's something you CANNOT manufacture. However, even with the "it" factor, if you are planning on running for President, don't you have to have some sort of track record of doing something for the people you plan on leading? I'm thinking at least with the people you are representing before you take on the whole country? (Clinton had 8 years as Gov. So did George W. So did Reagan. Carter was Gov, wasn't he? Ford was a senator for a while before he became VP, wasn't he?)
I'm afraid if Obama isn't careful, he'll end up like John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. Now, I'm no fan of Edwards, for lots of reasons.
Edwards did NOT have the "it' factor, but he did have support from his party who decided to groom him for the presidency; and then launched him long before he was ready. He had only been a U-S Senator for 2 years before he publicly launched his campaign for the presidency. HE HAD DONE NOTHING FOR THE PEOPLE OF NORTH CAROLINA. He was absent on most votes in the senate, introduced very little legislation, etc. Edwards hadn't even been a local politician. So he knew little about representing the people who elected him to do so.
Obama, on the other hand, at least has a little history with a section of the people of Illinois as a former state legislator. HOWEVER, he really has yet to do much for the state in DC...mostly because he hasn't had that much time there. That's the part that scares me, if he decides to run for President.
He says the right things, has the right friends, and is raising a ton of money. BUT IS THAT ENOUGH? Is America ready for an African-American President in 2008? What about a VP if he runs on a Hillary ticket?
I think he should stay where he is and do some good for Illinois first...
I expect great things from Obama. I'm just waiting with great anticipation for those things to happen.
This conversation came up on the show on Thursday. And here's the problem I have with Obama.
I like Obama. I like what he has to say and I like the way he inspires people. I believe he has the "it" factor, and that's something you CANNOT manufacture. However, even with the "it" factor, if you are planning on running for President, don't you have to have some sort of track record of doing something for the people you plan on leading? I'm thinking at least with the people you are representing before you take on the whole country? (Clinton had 8 years as Gov. So did George W. So did Reagan. Carter was Gov, wasn't he? Ford was a senator for a while before he became VP, wasn't he?)
I'm afraid if Obama isn't careful, he'll end up like John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. Now, I'm no fan of Edwards, for lots of reasons.
Edwards did NOT have the "it' factor, but he did have support from his party who decided to groom him for the presidency; and then launched him long before he was ready. He had only been a U-S Senator for 2 years before he publicly launched his campaign for the presidency. HE HAD DONE NOTHING FOR THE PEOPLE OF NORTH CAROLINA. He was absent on most votes in the senate, introduced very little legislation, etc. Edwards hadn't even been a local politician. So he knew little about representing the people who elected him to do so.
Obama, on the other hand, at least has a little history with a section of the people of Illinois as a former state legislator. HOWEVER, he really has yet to do much for the state in DC...mostly because he hasn't had that much time there. That's the part that scares me, if he decides to run for President.
He says the right things, has the right friends, and is raising a ton of money. BUT IS THAT ENOUGH? Is America ready for an African-American President in 2008? What about a VP if he runs on a Hillary ticket?
I think he should stay where he is and do some good for Illinois first...
I expect great things from Obama. I'm just waiting with great anticipation for those things to happen.
posted by Pamela Furr at
8:57 AM
8 Comments:
The "Is America ready for [...]?" (fill in the blank) question sets the normative parameters of the debate in such as fashion as to automatically preclude serious consideration of anyone who's not a white male christian and preferably a WASP at that.
If the have to "overcome" a question designed to make their candidacy unlikely, then the debate has been set not on the merits of a candidate but on our own unsubstantiated suppositions about the biases and prejudices of others.
Look at the polls most people are "ready" but they think their neighbours are "not ready", the question is nothing but shadows on a cave, our attempt at insight into the presumed biggotry of nameless others.
I think you need to ask a different question.
How about. Is he a good candidate? or Is she a good candidate?
Apologies, that should read - "if they have to "overcome".
I don't disagree..the question should be IS HE A GOOD CANDIDATE. However, as I stated above, we don't know that yet. He hasn't been in office long enough to give an qualified answer to the question.
I do believe that most people believe that the country isn't ready for an African-American President. If my callers were any indication on Thursday, most Illinoians believe he was elected strictly for the color of his skin. Most callers believed that the Democratic party supported him because a) he's black b) he's smart c)he's young d) he's black.
I wish it wasn't an issue for them.
Easy for an Irish person to say in that much as my country has lots to apologise for we don't have a long history of anti-black racism (maybe we will in time...I hope not)easily done as for many years the country was boringly homogenous. So far integration of recent African and other immigrants and refugees is going smoothly.
This whole race thing is quite sad (I'm not referring to any country in particular in this context). I wish people weren't suspicious of each other. I'm in London (a very international place at the moment) meeting people from many different countries. We're all the same really, from Chinese to Irish to Indian to German and to Nigerian. It's all so sad. I feel like Jack Nickolson in "Mars Attacks" at the moment - that "why can't we all just get along".
In terms of his race being a factor. I can understand it in once sense. The parity argument. As a feminist I have to admit I'm in favour of gender parity even if it has to be enforced through Swedish style regulations. I can see why people would feel the same about race. I understand the resulting (anecdotal) evidence for black people having voted Republican initially, having seen the positive diversity of the Bush administration (unfortunate consequences though), I might have done the same in their position. As it is I'm too much of a liberal to cross that ideological divide but who knows.
If people want a leader who reflects their diversity for a change (it can't always be a white man) then I understand that.
Why the need to spread all the misinformation about Edwards?
Firt of all, the Senator announced his run in 2003 and he was elected to office in 1998. How does that add up to 2 years?
Secondly, if Edwards doesn't have the "it" factor, then only god knows who does. But then that is a subjective matter so you are fully entitled to your opinion on that.
Third, Edwards actually did do a lot for North Carolina. I live here and he did much for our farmers, victims of the hurricane, and numerous other measures that brought a lot of good policy to NC.
Lastly, John Edwards had a 99% voting attendance for his second and fourth year in the senate. And, he had a 100% VOTING ATTENDANCE for his first and third year in the senate. Unfortunately myths spread faster and more efficiently than facts. The abovementioned are the facts. Of course, his last two years saw his voting record decline due to his campaigns for president and vice president. But for you to say that he was never present to vote is either an ignorant statement or a blatant attempt to misguide your readers.
Let me be clearer -- I should have said absent for "most important votes" in the Senate.
In truth, Edwards has an 84.8% voting record in the Senate. In each of his first four years, he had a perfect or near perfect record:
1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record
OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.
Please note that when he "officially" declared his candidacy for the Presidency, he was absent quite a bit, something that the state of NC was NOT very happy about.
I understand sir, you're from NC. So am I. Lived there the first 20 years of my life. I'm still in contact with friends, family, colleagues from the state and I know very well the reputation of one Mr. John Edwards.
You are correct in saying that he didn't begin running until 2002, HOWEVER, he let it be known in many circles long before then his intent to run. In fact, he has been quoted as early as 1999 that his eye was on the White House. Thus, my statement that after only 2 years in the US Senate did he announce his intent to run for President.
No freshman Senator gets a lot done in their first year. That's the nature of the US Senate. Obama does have a long, positive track record in the Illinois Senate. I know this will dissapoint you conservative talk show hosts but there's no way Hillary will win the Democratic nomination.
you wrote:Clinton had 8 years as Gov. So did George W.
sorry, but GWB was only governor of Texas for 6 years. Considering the facts that Texas' legislature only meets every other year, and that Texas' governor is in essence only the third most powerful person in its state government (following the Speaker of the House and the Senate president),the guy had very little actual governing experience when he became president.
Not that you could tell from his performance over the last 6 years....
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home