Sen. Barak Obama considering a run for President ..

[blackascoal]

I don't believe that ANY prowar candidate can win the presidency in 2008 regardless of political party.

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are tanking in support for their run. Hillary is trying to run from her record. McCain is standing with his, but the more he does, the faster he tanks.

excerpt ...

McCain no longer rocks in Granite State

By Brett Arends

Boston Herald Business Columnist

http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/vie...rticleid=177706

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - Updated: 04:20 PM EST

As Mitt, Hillary, Barack and a dozen others jump into the presidential stampede, something interesting is happening in New Hampshire.

For seven years, conventional wisdom has said that the state’s pivotal independent voters would line up behind maverick Sen. John McCain, as they did so famously in the 2000 GOP primary. But new polling data, to be released later this week, will suggest that might no longer be the case.

Manchester, N.H.-based American Research Group finds that McCain’s popularity among New Hampshire’s independent voters has collapsed.

“John McCain is tanking,” says ARG president Dick Bennett. “That’s the big thing [we’re finding]. In New Hampshire a year ago he got 49 percent among independent voters. That number’s way down, to 29 percent now.”

American Research Group, which is New Hampshire’s leading polling company and has been operating in the state since 1976, polled 1,200 likely Granite State voters in the survey.

Bennett says ARG is finding a similar trend in other states polled, including early primary battlegrounds like Iowa and Nevada. “We’re finding this everywhere,” he says.

The main reason isn’t hard to find: His hawkish stance on the Iraq war, which is tying him ever more closely to an unpopular president. “Independent support for McCain is evaporating because they view him as tied to Bush,” says Bennett.

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

The rising stars in both parties (Obama and Ron Paul) are both against the Iraq war.

[Canadian Blue]

Isn't John Edward's in fact a strong candidate, I believe that he was running first according to a poll in Iowa.

I think with the Democrat's it'll come down to either Edward's, Obama, or Clinton, while with the Republican's it will be Romney, Guiliani, or McCain.[not sure about the splelling]

This race will be a historic one, since we may see the first mormon president, or the first female or black president, depending on who win's for both parties.

Iraq was a major blunder, not only for the Republican's but for the Democrat's as well. Obama might be in a better position as he was originally against the war, however I'm not sure how much that issue will come into play as most candidates would realize that Iraq was a major mistake.

I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to win it for the Republican's. He's too much of a libertarian for the moderates, and for the social conservatives. I doubt he will be able to rally enough libertarian's to support him, but stranger things have happened.

[Guthrie]

...

Iraq was a major blunder, ... for the Democrat's as well.

...

how so?

[blackascoal]

...

Iraq was a major blunder, ... for the Democrat's as well.

...

how so?

I agree with him.

The democrats won the 2006 election by default, not by example of their leadership. Nearly all the prowar democrats are on the run, with the exception of Edwards who was smart enough to face reality and apologize for his vote.

Clinton's star has fallen quite a bit and there are a lot of democratic voters who can't stand the idea of her as president, I being one of them. Confidence in the democrats is only slightly higher than that for the republicans and many have a wait and see attitude about the democratic Congress. They've flip-flopped on the impeachment of Bush, even John Conyers, for christs sake, who spent 2 years building a case.

Many don't trust Pelosi as far as they can throw her.

The number of people who identify themselves as democrats hasn't fallen as fast as it has for the republicans, but it has fallen. This loss of confidence and respect for democrats comes not only because of their cowardice on the Iraq war, but their cowardice throughout all of the Bush years.

[blackascoal]

Canadian Blue,

I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to win it for the Republican's. He's too much of a libertarian for the moderates, and for the social conservatives.

Paul may not get enough support for the presidency. but the fact that he is even a player in the Republican Party after the last 6 years of republican prowar domination is amazing in itself. .. and he's from Texas.

[frogs]

Personally, I don't think the US needs a black president. Or a woman president. Or a handicapped president. Or a president at all. Think about it! What society needs a man, woman, handicapped or anything else kinda person, that is willing to make $250,000 a year, that is paid partly from folks making $10,000 a year. That "president" person is necessarily a crook, by definition. Now, why anyone would hire a crook to run a society is beyond my imagination. The MAJORITY of people in the US would rather not have a president, or congress, or taxation, but for some odd reason that option is not on the ballot, and they would prefer to defend their own property and selves without the aid of cops, who live off stealing their money and protecting the people that steal their money. I guess if we must have a president, a paraplegic would be the best, or someone in a total coma, but let he/she pay for his/her own health insurance, and work for free.

[blackascoal]

Personally, I don't think the US needs a black president. Or a woman president. Or a handicapped president. Or a president at all. Think about it! What society needs a man, woman, handicapped or anything else kinda person, that is willing to make $250,000 a year, that is paid partly from folks making $10,000 a year. That "president" person is necessarily a crook, by definition. Now, why anyone would hire a crook to run a society is beyond my imagination. The MAJORITY of people in the US would rather not have a president, or congress, or taxation, but for some odd reason that option is not on the ballot, and they would prefer to defend their own property and selves without the aid of cops, who live off stealing their money and protecting the people that steal their money. I guess if we must have a president, a paraplegic would be the best, or someone in a total coma, but let he/she pay for his/her own health insurance, and work for free.

Not sure what part of the country you live in, but I can't think of a single person that doesn't want a government. Without question, the vast majority of Americans want government, need police, and understand the need for taxes.

We just want better government, better leaders, and intelligence.

Best to open the job to everybody, knowing that intelligence is resident in more than just white protestant males.

It would only be intelligent to do so.

[M.Dancer]

Obama is the perfect choice for the Republican Party......young and inexperianced.....

[frogs]

"Best to open the job to everybody, knowing that intelligence is resident in more than just white protestant males.?

Where did you get the idea that a white protestant male president could possibly be intelligent? Never happened, never will.

[Guthrie]

...

Iraq was a major blunder, ... for the Democrat's as well.

...

how so?

I agree with him.

The democrats won the 2006 election by default, not by example of their leadership. Nearly all the prowar democrats are on the run, with the exception of Edwards who was smart enough to face reality and apologize for his vote.

Clinton's star has fallen quite a bit and there are a lot of democratic voters who can't stand the idea of her as president, I being one of them. Confidence in the democrats is only slightly higher than that for the republicans and many have a wait and see attitude about the democratic Congress. They've flip-flopped on the impeachment of Bush, even John Conyers, for christs sake, who spent 2 years building a case.

Many don't trust Pelosi as far as they can throw her.

The number of people who identify themselves as democrats hasn't fallen as fast as it has for the republicans, but it has fallen. This loss of confidence and respect for democrats comes not only because of their cowardice on the Iraq war, but their cowardice throughout all of the Bush years.

good observations - and it is, IMO, good that the former pro-war politicians are running for cover - but the Iraq war paints ALL Republicans with the association to Bush -- Democrats are not, as a group, tagged for the Iraq quagmire --

I mean, I believe there is a discernable difference and were there not, Republicans would likely rally round their man - and point at Dems as hypocrites --- and get away with it

[Black Dog]

Iraq was a major blunder, not only for the Republican's but for the Democrat's as well.

I think it's worth pointing out that, though many Democrats gave their political support to the war (and, given the political conditions at the time, they had little choice), that was pretty much the sum total of their involvement.

For their support, the liberal hawks received nothing from the Bush administration.

Democrats who voted for the war were not insulated from attacks on their patriotism. President Bush made no effort to bring pro-war Democrats into the decision-making process, much less to form some sort of unity “war cabinet” for prosecuting the Iraq conflict. The policy recommendations of Democratic foreign policy academics and professionals weren't so much rejected as simply ignored. Kenneth Pollack, for example, bought himself no influence with his pro-invasion book The Threatening Storm, as both his specific policy recommendations on Iraq and his later warnings about Iran found no apparent audience in the Pentagon or the White House. Having acquiesced in the war in the hopes of electoral protection or policy influence, the hawks received neither. Iraq was to be a Republican operation, and credit would be too scarce to include Democrats.

[blackascoal]

Black Dog,

I think it's worth pointing out that, though many Democrats gave their political support to the war (and, given the political conditions at the time, they had little choice), that was pretty much the sum total of their involvement.

I disagree my brother.

Their political support was all Bush needed. He didn't want their advice, just their votes. They could have said no and faced the challenge of being called "unpatriotic" rather than signing onto the needless waste on hundreds of thousands of lives .. many of the women and children, and thousands of them being American.

They could have shown courage.

They could have stood with those who did not support Bush.

They could have legislated as if they were a real opposition party.

But they didn't do any of that. They dropped their pants and bent over for right-wing talk radio.

The Democratic Party villified and marginalized the left on Iraq. They put Kuchinch in a box, shut Howard Dean up, and worked to get rid of Cynthia Mckinney.

There was a massive antiwar protest in D.C. last year where 300,000 people showed up to protest the war. You know how many democrats showed up to speak after many were scheduled? .. Cynthia McKinney. That's it. The Congressional Black Caucus was holding its annual conference right down the street at the same time. You know how many of them showed up? .. Cynthia McKinney. That's it, even though they've been against the war, and African-Americans, who sent these people to office, are the most antiwar demographic in America .. only one of them had the courage to show up. ..Why? .. Because Barney Frank, a democrat, representing AIPAC, told them not to go.

The Democratic Party could have done a hell of a lot more against this war than they did, but fear of being called names and losing campaign contributions kept them from it.

Now they're all running back this way .. claiming that they've been here all along.

[PolyNewbie]

Sharkman:BTW, I've never mentioned it, but sometimes I've given you a hard time over your conspiracy theory stuff. It speaks to your character that you don't tell me to #@* off or something.

Some people make it obvious that they are working for the establishment when debunking my "theories", then I get mean. If you sink so low as to call me an anti semite I will ignore you, but I don't mind contradictory theories that are thoughtful.

-Thanks.

[Black Dog]

Their political support was all Bush needed. I didn't want their advice, just their votes. They could have said no and faced the challenge of being called "unpatriotic" rather than signing onto the needless waste on hundreds of thousands of lives .. many of the women and children, and thousands of them being American.

...

The Democratic Party could have done a hell of a lot more against this war than they did, but fear of being called names and losing campaign contributions kept them from it.

And in the end, woukld it have mattered? Not a whit. We'd still be in the same boat, albeit with the strong possibility of the G.O.P holding both Houses. I agree that the Democrats folded like a cheap pup tent. But there's a time to stand up and here's a time to be prudent. The Dems in 2003 were facing a president riding a wave of post 9-11 nationalist fervour and hostile majorities in two Houses and a hostile press: standing up againsty the war would have most certainly been an empty gesture that would have had long-term negative political implications for the Dems.

[bush_cheney2004]

And in the end, woukld it have mattered? Not a whit. We'd still be in the same boat, albeit with the strong possibility of the G.O.P holding both Houses. I agree that the Democrats folded like a cheap pup tent. But there's a time to stand up and here's a time to be prudent. The Dems in 2003 were facing a president riding a wave of post 9-11 nationalist fervour and hostile majorities in two Houses and a hostile press: standing up againsty the war would have most certainly been an empty gesture that would have had long-term negative political implications for the Dems.

Nope...it wouldn't have mattered in the least. House and Senate Republicans voiced concerns about NATO's Allied Force (Kosovo) against Clinton in 1999 but it didn't matter either. The continuation of US foreign policy for Iraq was a done deal before Bush ever arrived. War is always an option...it just isn't the only option.

[Guthrie]

Black Dog,

I think it's worth pointing out that, though many Democrats gave their political support to the war (and, given the political conditions at the time, they had little choice), that was pretty much the sum total of their involvement.

I disagree my brother.

Their political support was all Bush needed. He didn't want their advice, just their votes. They could have said no and faced the challenge of being called "unpatriotic" rather than signing onto the needless waste on hundreds of thousands of lives .. many of the women and children, and thousands of them being American.

They could have shown courage.

They could have stood with those who did not support Bush.

They could have legislated as if they were a real opposition party.

But they didn't do any of that. They dropped their pants and bent over for right-wing talk radio.

The Democratic Party villified and marginalized the left on Iraq. They put Kuchinch in a box, shut Howard Dean up, and worked to get rid of Cynthia Mckinney.

There was a massive antiwar protest in D.C. last year where 300,000 people showed up to protest the war. You know how many democrats showed up to speak after many were scheduled? .. Cynthia McKinney. That's it. The Congressional Black Caucus was holding its annual conference right down the street at the same time. You know how many of them showed up? .. Cynthia McKinney. That's it, even though they've been against the war, and African-Americans, who sent these people to office, are the most antiwar demographic in America .. only one of them had the courage to show up. ..Why? .. Because Barney Frank, a democrat, representing AIPAC, told them not to go.

The Democratic Party could have done a hell of a lot more against this war than they did, but fear of being called names and losing campaign contributions kept them from it.

Now they're all running back this way .. claiming that they've been here all along.

I'd like to interject here, when that Iraq adventure was being first peddled, it was still very close to 9/11 - America had taken and held a circled wagons attitude. Politicians, especially members of the House, have one universal motivation, 'Vote YOUR District.' To stand up for what was right would have been political suicide for a large number of them... and then there was the soothing reassurences of the POTUS that every diplomatic avenue would be pursued before choosing the military option. It was a lie and a lot of people saw through it but for those waffling politicians it looked like a life saver - they were, finally, wrong about that last part.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd like to interject here, when that Iraq adventure was being first peddled, it was still very close to 9/11 - America had taken and held a circled wagons attitude. Politicians, especially members of the House, have one universal motivation, 'Vote YOUR District.' To stand up for what was right would have been political suicide for a large number of them... and then there was the soothing reassurences of the POTUS that every diplomatic avenue would be pursued before choosing the military option. It was a lie and a lot of people saw through it but for those waffling politicians it looked like a life saver - they were, finally, wrong about that last part.

Nevertheless, there were plenty of "NO" votes in the House and Senate. They all knew it was a vote for war:

"Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.

Source: Wiki

[Guthrie]

That's right, it was the wrong thing to do. I don't think those Dems realized, however, what a horrendous mess it was going to be.

and like I said politicians are ruled and spun and manipulated around that central tenet - vote your district - were they not, protest movements would have much less power than they do - to get public attention focussed on an issue, to win popular support, is to make the puppets dance

[bush_cheney2004]

That's right, it was the wrong thing to do. I don't think those Dems realized, however, what a horrendous mess it was going to be.

and like I said politicians are ruled and spun and manipulated around that central tenet - vote your district - were they not, protest movements would have much less power than they do - to get public attention focussed on an issue, to win popular support, is to make the puppets dance

No, it's not that clear cut. We can point to lack of votes for Canada/USA involving military action as well. I can also say with confidence that had the Iraq War not deteriorated into sectarian strife the same Democrats would have pat themselves on the back for voting "Yes". That's why it is called politics....riding/district be damned.

There were plenty of pre-war protests, but the popular post 9/11 attitude was to shoot first and ask questions later, and we had already been turning the screws on Saddam for years.

[Guthrie]

... deteriorated into sectarian strife ...

I disagree with this position. Iraq did not deteriorate into anything. That strife was there and the second largest motivating factor in all the violence that occurred in Iraq from the night of, 'shock and awe,' forward.

no, in the long run, there was never any possibility for a, 'pat on the back for voting "Yes".'

[JerrySeinfeld]

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?

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, was the president of Harvard Law Review, received a Ph.D. from Harvard, and was a law professor before he was elected to the Senate.

In other words, he's more than qualified and quite intelligent, and I think the American people, more than anything, want an intelligent president this time around.

And I'm surprised you are so contemptuous of the American voting public to imply that they are so stupid that they wouldn't vote for someone just because of the similarity of a candidate's name to bin Laden. I think they are aware of the issues and aren't stupid at all. Bush's current approval rating is testament to that.

Um - I see you used the word "Harvard" three times in one sentence which I'm sure is supposed to impress us all, which it doesn't.

The last thing we need is more LAWYERS running things in the world.

But you've revealed a basic truism about lefties - you think the number of years someone spends with their nose in a book is correlated to the level of their qualification to run the country.

Part of this tendency comes form the basic need of all lefties to ...well...literally, control the country. Lefties want small groups of smart people to legislate the rest of us - because they naturally think they're smarter than everyone else. I mean, what would YOU know about whats good for you.

Unfortunately, this philosophy completely ignores that leadership requires much more than the number of letters behind your name. Perhaps that's why so FEW people with letters behind their name actually run anything other than a classroom in the real world.

Besides, President Bush has an MBA from Yale.

[Guthrie]

The name, "Harvard," ought to impress you. Had you ever attended it, even for a short while, it definitely would impress you.

but no, you shouldn't be impressed by spoiled rich frat boys who are given a complimentary MBA after their name in appreciation of daddy's money and access to power

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree with this position. Iraq did not deteriorate into anything. That strife was there and the second largest motivating factor in all the violence that occurred in Iraq from the night of, 'shock and awe,' forward.

no, in the long run, there was never any possibility for a, 'pat on the back for voting "Yes".'

US elections don't give a damn about the long run. In 2004, yes and no votes played a role in campaigns and outcomes. BTW, our "hero" and vociferous "NO" voter Cynthia McKinney is no longer in Congress, soundly defeated in 2006 during the Democratic primary. It was her second congressional defeat.

Seems her district had no difficulty voting "NO".

[Guthrie]

I disagree with this position. Iraq did not deteriorate into anything. That strife was there and the second largest motivating factor in all the violence that occurred in Iraq from the night of, 'shock and awe,' forward.

no, in the long run, there was never any possibility for a, 'pat on the back for voting "Yes".'

US elections don't give a damn about the long run. In 2004, yes and no votes played a role in campaigns and outcomes. BTW, our "hero" and vociferous "NO" voter Cynthia McKinney is no longer in Congress, soundly defeated in 2006 during the Democratic primary. It was her second congressional defeat.

Seems her district had no difficulty voting "NO".

Cynthia McKinney was the target of KKKarl Rove's gang of dirt merchants. Nor did her defeat represent, 'the long run.'

as for US elections, you'll have to defend that post, because there are, IMO, very definite, 'long term' trends affecting American politics, so said Abe Lincoln - and I submit, his wisdom in the matter still stands up, even in the world of blipverts and blackberries

[BubberMiley]

Um - I see you used the word "Harvard" three times in one sentence which I'm sure is supposed to impress us all, which it doesn't.

It showed up three different times for three different accomplishments.

The last thing we need is more LAWYERS running things in the world.

But it helps to have LAWyers making laws.

But you've revealed a basic truism about lefties - you think the number of years someone spends with their nose in a book is correlated to the level of their qualification to run the country.

I wouldn't paint all right-wingers as being anti-intellectual. There are many intelligent right-wingers, just not the one who's president.

Besides, President Bush has an MBA from Yale.

He won't cop to how he got in or the marks he received though.