Sen. Barak Obama considering a run for President ..

blackascoal · January 17, 2007

To the dismay of the DLC, the republican wing of the Democratic Party, Sen. Obama may soon run for president against their chosen candiddate, Hillary "Xena the War Queen" Clinton.

excerpt ...

January 16, 2007

Obama Takes First Step Toward Running in ’08

By JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON – Senator Barack Obama took his first step into the Democratic presidential race today by opening an exploratory committee to raise money and begin building a campaign designed “to change our politics.” He said he would make a formal declaration Feb. 10 in his home state of Illinois.

“Running for the presidency is a profound decision – a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone,” Mr. Obama said in a video address e-mailed to his supporters. “So before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the country.”

Mr. Obama disclosed his decision on his Web site and was not planning to make other statements today. Instead, he was making a series of telephone calls to key Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states with early contests on the party’s 2008 nominating calendar.

Mr. Obama, 45, was elected to the Senate two years ago. He became the sixth Democrat to enter the prospective field, joining Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is expected to join the Democratic field soon and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he would make his decision known by month’s end. Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts also is weighing another run.

By now, the rapid trajectory of Mr. Obama is a well-established tale, rising from law professor to state senator to U.S. senator in less than a decade. He is the only African-American serving in the U.S. Senate and could be only black presidential candidate this year.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't think his lack of experience will hurt him given that he has opposed the Iraq war since its beginning by calling it "dumb unnecessary war", while the more experienced politicians on both sides of the aisle, including the war queen, were supporting what has ultimately turned out to be dumb unnecessary war.

The American people are looking for something different to lead the country besides the same worn-out sellout politicians .. and Obama is about as different as America has ever seen as president. But his "difference" isn't his trump card .. his intelligence is

Comparing him to Bush is like comparing Einstein to Mr. Froggy.

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

The best thing that could happen to this country for the entire 21st century would be if Obama becomes president.

I am absolutely convinced. - The guy has a brilliant mind, a winning personality and a phenomenal work ethic. He may be just the leader we need to deal with the stupendous screw ups of the current admin.

blackascoal · January 17, 2007

The best thing that could happen to this country for the entire 21st century would be if Obama becomes president.
I am absolutely convinced. - The guy has a brilliant mind, a winning personality and a phenomenal work ethic. He may be just the leader we need to deal with the stupendous screw ups of the current admin.

I completely agree.

sharkman · January 17, 2007

You two fellas are pretty funny. You go on and on and on about how Bush has single handedly decimated America, even called it the end of the American empire or some such thing. He's lied and schemed and taken tribute from the world. Good will and friendship towards the U.S. has been poisoned beyond all repair.

And then you comment on this topic like all will be forgiven of the U.S. and the empire will miraculously rise from her death bed if only Obama can be the next American leader, by which I assume you mean president.

Perhaps things aren't as bad as you two nay sayers are letting on. :lol:

August1991 · January 17, 2007

Perhaps things aren't as bad as you two nay sayers are letting on.

Well said.

One of the great things about the United States is that no one knows who will be the next president, not even George W. Bush.

In far too many countries in the world, death or violence is the only way to change leaders. How anyone can admire Cuba (Castro in power since Eisenhower was president) and consider themselves "progressive" is beyond me.

As to Obama, he still smokes cigarettes and has admitted to both marijuana and cocaine use. That might work for a PQ leader but I don't think it'll work for a Democratic candidate and much less a president.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is a smoker. He's also admitted to smoking marijuana in the past and using cocaine. But while the drugs are from his youth, he continues to smoke cigarettes.

Link

I'm staying with my prediction of John Edwards as the Democratic candidate.

blackascoal · January 17, 2007

You two fellas are pretty funny. You go on and on and on about how Bush has single handedly decimated America, even called it the end of the American empire or some such thing. He's lied and schemed and taken tribute from the world. Good will and friendship towards the U.S. has been poisoned beyond all repair.
And then you comment on this topic like all will be forgiven of the U.S. and the empire will miraculously rise from her death bed if only Obama can be the next American leader, by which I assume you mean president.

Perhaps things aren't as bad as you two nay sayers are letting on.

It would help in conversation if you challenge things that are actually said.

Post any comment I've made that suggested athat all will be forgiven if Obama becomes president. In fact, post any comment where either of us said it.

If you've been reading my posts I have clearly stated that, in my opinion, America will never be the dominant force in the world it once was .. nor should it be .. and that things could be better when Bush is out of office, but never the same.

I'll be happy to continue this conversation from there .. what was actually said.

blackascoal · January 17, 2007

August 1991,

As to Obama, he still smokes cigarettes and has admitted to both marijuana and cocaine use. That might work for a PQ leader but I don't think it'll work for a Democratic candidate and much less a president.

Surely this is satire.

Bush has set a new low for standards to be president. He's an ex-cocaine using drunk of average intelligence who appears new to the english language .. and he's the president.

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

You two fellas are pretty funny. You go on and on and on about how Bush has single handedly decimated America, even called it the end of the American empire or some such thing. He's lied and schemed and taken tribute from the world. Good will and friendship towards the U.S. has been poisoned beyond all repair.
And then you comment on this topic like all will be forgiven of the U.S. and the empire will miraculously rise from her death bed if only Obama can be the next American leader, by which I assume you mean president.

Perhaps things aren't as bad as you two nay sayers are letting on.

this is a misrepresentation of what I have said on both sides of your little circle jerk debate

Bush couldn't, 'single handedly,' balance a checkbook. It took a lot of avaricious corporate slugs all surrounding him and kissing his pansy ass, to accomplish ALL of the precipitous drops in America's position, economically, structurally and diplomatically.

Nor is a single president going to undo all of them - that national debt is going to be around a lot longer than anyone who, today, walks the face of the Earth.

but you clowns can't see a thing except through the filter of extremism -- exactly the kind of misdirected view that created this Iraq quagmire which has cost America so much

sharkman · January 17, 2007

And so the back pedaling and the name calling ensues! :lol: Perhaps I should leave blacky and guthrie to their little circle jerk thread. You're hypocritical but can't see it, no surprise. Long live the New American Empire, hail to Obama.

JerrySeinfeld · January 17, 2007

You two fellas are pretty funny. You go on and on and on about how Bush has single handedly decimated America, even called it the end of the American empire or some such thing. He's lied and schemed and taken tribute from the world. Good will and friendship towards the U.S. has been poisoned beyond all repair.

And then you comment on this topic like all will be forgiven of the U.S. and the empire will miraculously rise from her death bed if only Obama can be the next American leader, by which I assume you mean president.

Perhaps things aren't as bad as you two nay sayers are letting on.

this is a misrepresentation of what I have said on both sides of your little circle jerk debate

Bush couldn't, 'single handedly,' balance a checkbook. It took a lot of avaricious corporate slugs all surrounding him and kissing his pansy ass, to accomplish ALL of the precipitous drops in America's position, economically, structurally and diplomatically.

Nor is a single president going to undo all of them - that national debt is going to be around a lot longer than anyone who, today, walks the face of the Earth.

but you clowns can't see a thing except through the filter of extremism -- exactly the kind of misdirected view that created this Iraq quagmire which has cost America so much

If you think America's most pressing economic problems just happen to materialize over the past 6 years - you have no understanding of economics at all.

I can confidently say that, even if a presiding President WANTED to INTENTINALLY single handedly ruin the economy, he'd have a hard time of it.

The huge trade deficit and current account deficits which have contributed to the depreciation of the US dollar have been mounting for decades, and are not controlled by the President in the first place.

The "tech-wreck" brutal correction in the stock markets, if anything, was a hangover from years of excess and bloated prices (and sexual cigars) of the clinton era.

One could even reasonably argue that the 9-11 attacks were planned, by and large, during the Clinton years and only executed during the Bush Presidency.

Whether it's dot-com wrecks or long-ignored terrorist threats, it seems the Democrats love to have a feel-good party, and the conservatives have to come along and clean up the mess left behind.

Kind of sounds like the general personalities of lefties and righties don't it?

As far as Obama is concerned - his name sounds too much like OSAMA to run for president. He'll get crucified on the dirty attack ad circuit.

Pray tell, can someone please articulate for me this man stands for and what qualifies him for being President, other than being black, hanging with Oprah and having a nice smile?

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

straightening you guys out is not backpedalling --- but I'm going to call you every time you misrepresent my previous posts or my stated position - rely on it, I don't give slack to backward looking loud mouths - give me a fair argument and you'll get one back

as of yet, you haven't put up a single one

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

If you think America's most pressing economic problems just happen to materialize over the past 6 years - you have no understanding of economics at all.

What I think is that Bill Clinton took the American annual budget from an extreme deficit expense to a surplus - and began paying down the debt --- Shrub took the national debt and spent it up over thirty percent higher in less than 6 years. He has given America more debt and more crooked political deals than any other president in history.

You guys can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. Deal with it.

JerrySeinfeld · January 17, 2007

If you think America's most pressing economic problems just happen to materialize over the past 6 years - you have no understanding of economics at all.

What I think is that Bill Clinton took the American annual budget from an extreme deficit expense to a surplus - and began paying down the debt --- Shrub took the national debt and spent it up over thirty percent higher in less than 6 years. He has given America more debt and more crooked political deals than any other president in history.

You guys can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. Deal with it.

Clinton had peacetime and falling interest rates. Deal with it.

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

If you think America's most pressing economic problems just happen to materialize over the past 6 years - you have no understanding of economics at all.

What I think is that Bill Clinton took the American annual budget from an extreme deficit expense to a surplus - and began paying down the debt --- Shrub took the national debt and spent it up over thirty percent higher in less than 6 years. He has given America more debt and more crooked political deals than any other president in history.

You guys can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. Deal with it.

Clinton had peacetime and falling interest rates. Deal with it.

of course, neither of your points is true

sharkman · January 17, 2007

straightening you guys out is not backpedalling --- but I'm going to call you every time you misrepresent my previous posts or my stated position - rely on it, I don't give slack to backward looking loud mouths - give me a fair argument and you'll get one back
as of yet, you haven't put up a single one

Ah, it was you that brought up the whole U.S. collecting tribute idea. I misrepresented nothing. Perhaps you need to straighten your memory out. Get a clue, I am not attributing every single description I made in my first post to you, since I included Blacky as well. I usually don't bother arguing with those who are too dogmatic to see anything but their own views, but I do point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

straightening you guys out is not backpedalling --- but I'm going to call you every time you misrepresent my previous posts or my stated position - rely on it, I don't give slack to backward looking loud mouths - give me a fair argument and you'll get one back

as of yet, you haven't put up a single one

Ah, it was you that brought up the whole U.S. collecting tribute idea. I misrepresented nothing. Perhaps you need to straighten your memory out. Get a clue, I am not attributing every single description I made in my first post to you, since I included Blacky as well. I usually don't bother arguing with those who are too dogmatic to see anything but their own views, but I do point out hypocrisy when I see it.

You certainly misrepresented my post.

this:

You go on and on and on about how Bush has single handedly decimated America,

--- for example, is a lie.

and this:

He's lied and schemed and taken tribute from the world.

is another lie

and this:

Good will and friendship towards the U.S. has been poisoned beyond all repair.

yet another --

likewise, I never said (as you claimed)

all will be forgiven of the U.S. and the empire will miraculously rise from her death bed if only Obama can be the next American leader

all in all, you lied about everything I said

sharkman · January 17, 2007

Ah, it was you that brought up the whole U.S. collecting tribute idea. I misrepresented nothing. Perhaps you need to straighten your memory out. Get a clue, I am not attributing every single description I made in my first post to you, since I included Blacky as well. I usually don't bother arguing with those who are too dogmatic to see anything but their own views, but I do point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Guthrie, I think you missed this post where I stated even though it was obvious, that I wasn't inferring every point I made came from you. But you certainly can't deny it was you who brought up the tribute to the U.S. thing. If you can't admit that then you fibbed when you said given a fair argument( here it is again, you are the one who brought up the U.S. is collecting tribute nonsense) you'd give one back.

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

Ah, it was you that brought up the whole U.S. collecting tribute idea. I misrepresented nothing. Perhaps you need to straighten your memory out. Get a clue, I am not attributing every single description I made in my first post to you, since I included Blacky as well. I usually don't bother arguing with those who are too dogmatic to see anything but their own views, but I do point out hypocrisy when I see it.

Guthrie, I think you missed this post where I stated even though it was obvious, that I wasn't inferring every point I made came from you. But you certainly can't deny it was you who brought up the tribute to the U.S. thing. If you can't admit that then you fibbed when you said given a fair argument( here it is again, you are the one who brought up the U.S. is collecting tribute nonsense) you'd give one back.

maybe you missed the post where blackascoal's comment was, "I completely agree." --- he was referring to the post I made about what a screw up Bush is and what high qualities I see in Obama -- none of your insulting lies addressed anyone but me, maybe you need to follow the scroll a little better

and further, "tribute to the U.S. thing." - was never proposed by anyone - tribute to the corporate friends of Bush, Yes, to America, NO, is it that you have trouble understanding or that you wallow in cognitive dissonance?

sharkman · January 17, 2007

My first post was not a direct response to your first post or blacky's. My comments were independant and compared what you and blacky have been going on about on this forum in general about the U.S. My comments were simply referencing several points you and blacky have made on this forum(several threads, not this one!!!) Man you are thick.

This thread is where you say:

Tribute? like oil? like the right of way to build pipelines? - or are you suggesting that tribute has to be jewel encrusted statues of birds?

and:

like all tribute, it goes in the pockets of those in power- how much have the buschistas pocketed from this war?

hundreds of billions!

unquote.

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

so, you post an argument in a thread against what you think might have been generally said on some other ethereal plane??? --- hmmmm, seems to me, that is what I called you on --

also it sounds, to me, a lot like prejudice --- why don't you judge the real argument in front of you instead of making one up like that whole, 'bush single handed,' bullroar?

and yes, I know what I said about tribute - and no, I never said, the UNITED STATES or GWB personally, recieves tribute, did I?

but on that subject of tribute - does anyone recall the first approach the Buschistas made to the Taliban, seeking to put in an oil pipeline and promising, 'Afganistan will be showered in money or showered in bombs' --- sounds like a tribute demand to me

there's a good little lad, now run along

blackascoal · January 17, 2007

And so the back pedaling and the name calling ensues! Perhaps I should leave blacky and guthrie to their little circle jerk thread. You're hypocritical but can't see it, no surprise. Long live the New American Empire, hail to Obama.

I haven't called you any names. I simply asked you to post what you claim I said .. which you could not do .. just as you cannot post any names that I supposedly called you.

You continue to go on and on about shit that was never said.

Seems that you're incapable of debating with honesty. I've challenged what you've said several times in this forum .. never once misrepresenting what you actually said. And you've not ONCE posted what you claim I said.

No point in dragging on about this.

Feel free to continue to create your own questions so you can answer them "intelligently".

Guthrie · January 17, 2007

ah, bombs or gold, here it is:

...
It was at the July meeting, according to Naik, that Tom Simons suggested that Afghanistan could face an open-ended military operation from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan if it didn't accede to U.S. demands. "Ambassador Simons stated that if the Taliban wouldn't agree with the plan, and if Pakistan was unable to persuade them, the United States might use an overt action against Afghanistan," Naik says. The words used by Simons were "a military operation," according to Naik. Another participant reportedly said the Taliban's choice was clear: either accept a "carpet of gold" riches from the pipeline or "a carpet of bombs," meaning a military strike.

...

Link

can't think of a more obvious demand for tribute

blackascoal · January 17, 2007

ah, bombs or gold, here it is:
...
It was at the July meeting, according to Naik, that Tom Simons suggested that Afghanistan could face an open-ended military operation from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan if it didn't accede to U.S. demands. "Ambassador Simons stated that if the Taliban wouldn't agree with the plan, and if Pakistan was unable to persuade them, the United States might use an overt action against Afghanistan," Naik says. The words used by Simons were "a military operation," according to Naik. Another participant reportedly said the Taliban's choice was clear: either accept a "carpet of gold" riches from the pipeline or "a carpet of bombs," meaning a military strike.

...

Link

can't think of a more obvious demand for tribute

Good point.

blackascoal · January 17, 2007

Jerry Seinfeld,

Pray tell, can someone please articulate for me this man stands for and what qualifies him for being President, other than being black, hanging with Oprah and having a nice smile?

When has being black ever qualified anyone for being President of the United States?

Consider it this way .. what qualified an isolated governor from Texas of strikingly average intelligence who had little knowledge of experience of the world for president .. that you voted for?

sharkman · January 18, 2007

I haven't called you any names. I simply asked you to post what you claim I said .. which you could not do .. just as you cannot post any names that I supposedly called you.
You continue to go on and on about shit that was never said.

Seems that you're incapable of debating with honesty. I've challenged what you've said several times in this forum .. never once misrepresenting what you actually said. And you've not ONCE posted what you claim I said.

No point in dragging on about this.

Feel free to continue to create your own questions so you can answer them "intelligently".

No duh you haven't called me names. Let me direct your attention to the post immediately previous to the post of mine where I state the name calling ensues. It is a post by Guthrie where he calls me a clown and a few after it where he calls me a backward looking loudmouth, whatever that is.

If you don't have the cajones to admit you think Bush has ruined the U.S., fine by me. The weight of all your rants in all of the threads begs to differ.

It's just hypocritical to assert this, and then talk about how wonderful things would be if Obama becomes president. Since this is lost on you, as well as the name calling(even though the namecalling was in the post IMMEDIATELY preceding mine), I'll leave you to your wild accusations.