Why Obama shouldn't run

The big problem people have with Bush is that he's incompetant. People link that to his lack of experience. Why run someone to supposively be the responsible one to take over the war on terror, who also has no experience?

because sometimes us Dems live in a bubble.

The media yells on and on about how GREAT so-and-so is and we don't consider his/her national appeal.

Obama is great, but he's not going to win a national, general election because, sadly, of the color of his skin. Just like Hillary isn't going to win because she's female.

We've regressed in this country to the point that we're at about 1962 when it comes to race and gender equality.

I have a hard time thinking that any mid-Western state - and most of the Southern states (with the exception of maybe Tennessee and Virginia, who are more purple than red) would give Obama or HRC more than 50 percent of the vote, tallying the Electoral College in either's favor.

is so racist and femaphobic, neither will have a chance. And all the warchest in the world won't help Hillary and all the style and class, of which he has plenty of both, won't help Obama.

So why imagine that state so racist that it would go for him in a primary?

And the Governor of Michigan's name is Jennifer? Hmmmmmm, a midwestern state that one, too, isn't it?

Heck, the Supreme Court barrier was broken long ago, but for some reason, we hold the Executive Branch out differently. That is a barrier that hasn't and won't be broken in the foreseeable future. I think it's possible that we might have a black VP soon, possibly very soon. We will have neither a woman President nor VP in the foreseeable future. Femaphobia is even more rampant than the brown people fear.

Obama DOES have national appeal, much more so then Clark.Using the Bogey man of racism to denigrate a candidate who will EASILY trounce your first choice in the primaries is reprehensible.

Claiming that America isn't ready for a Black whatever is crap. America has never been ready for a Black anything we forced our way in - and America got used to it.

:donut:

Old obscure votes that can be twisted and distorted in 30 second ad-bites.

It's the "good old boy" syndrome. The guy "you can sit down and have a beer with."

I want to scream every time I hear that.

I work in a health care setting in South Bend, IN. One of the women said they didn't think anybody whose name rhymed with Osama could/should be elected. :banghead: :argh:

How can you possibly fight that level of ignorance/stupidity?

Unless he messes up big time somewhere in the next few years, I honestly believe he will be our first Black president. My personal opinion about him now is that he has had too much come at him way too soon to be considered for 2008. He has that look in his eyes of someone who has shot to the top of his field, whatever that might be, much too quickly. I would have preferred that after his great speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, that he would have dug in his heels, worked hard as a junior Senator and came out like gang busters for president a few years down the road.

Then again, maybe he should try and ride the wave he is so obviously on right now. If he loses in the primary it might get his head out of the clouds a bit and allow him to get well seasoned for the "time" that will come for him.

If he did end up our candidate in 2008 would I vote for him? Well, yeah, I'll vote for any Democrat. I would just have just preferred to see him be in the Senate a few years longer.

You're right, he still lacks some experience but that doesn't mean I don't want to see him in the big house. I think he would be an amazing choice for Vice President

among the lame wing of the Democratic party; he's naive, arrogant, gutless and willfully ignorant.

Let's see here- Obama has little experience and spoke out strongly against the most absurd war in American history.

Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and Bayh all have much more experience and yet they voted in favor of the most absurd war in American history.

Experience is overrated. Intelligence, good judgment, and the courage to do the right thing regardless of political concerns about "looking tough" is more important.

ignoring this aspect, particularly as Obama has a lot more experience in domestic issues than some candidates, and actually more experience in foreign policy than some. So, yes, experience matters.

Obama has also his share of votes he should regret in two years in the Senate.

In addition, as you said, he spoke forcefully, but did not have to cast a vote. Others spoke forcefully and voted YES. Nothing in Obama's record these two years can tell us how he would have ended voting had he been in the Senate in 02 (not 04 or 06).

These are Obama's own words- I don't see how anyone thinks he could have voted for the war after saying this:

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/iraq_war.php

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Especially if the GOP candidate is McCain. Ditto for Guilliani or Hagel or pretty much any other GOPer who has at least two terms in Federal office or Governor of a state.

would immunize him from such attacks?

In 2008, Obama will have had more than 10 years experience in legislative office at the state and federal level - a track record comparable to those of Kennedy, Roosevelt, Reagan, Carter and others.

In my view, with experience also comes a record that can be scrutinized and attacked. If Obama waits until he spends a few more years in the Senate, no matter what he accomplishes there (and it's very hard for anyone but the most senior Senators to accomplish much on their own), he'll still be vulnerable to criticism - perhaps more so. I can't imagine what he could do in the Senate in the next five years that would alleviate this. A long Senate career certainly didn't help Kerry or Dole.

As Frank Rich said in yesterday's NY Times:

"Of course he should run, assuming his family is on the same page. He’s 45, not 30, and his slender résumé in public office (which also includes seven years as a state senator) should be no more of an impediment to him than it was to the White House’s current occupant. As his Illinois colleague Dick Durbin told The Chicago Tribune last week, 'I said to him, ‘Do you really think sticking around the Senate for four more years and casting a thousand more votes will make you more qualified for president?’' Instead, such added experience is more likely to transform an unusually eloquent writer, speaker and public servant into another windbag like Joe Biden."

I think he should run if he believes he'd be a good president and not let the old "not enough experience" bugaboo dissuade him. He'll never have enough experience for some people and for others the experience he does have will disqualify him.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I don't want any current Senator as my candidate. The last person to go directly from the Senate to the White House was Kennedy; before that I don't know. There's a paradox here: being a Senator confers automatic visibility, but he/she has a voting record which can easily be used to undermine him/her. That is to say, being a Senator gives both life and death to a candidacy.

And then there is the loss of the Senate seat. Look at us now---we are working so damn hard for every Senate seat that I would hate to give one up. We'd be better off if John Edwards had stayed in the Senate---his seat went Repub. And IMO, Clinton's worst appointment was Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as treasury sec---he was gone in 2 years, but the seat went to Repub Kay Baily Hutchins for as far as the eye can see.

We've got good possible candidates who are not current Senators---Gore, Clark, Edwards---and maybe others to come. (At this point in 1990 Bill Clinton was not a national figure.) So leave our Senators alone!

was that he knew he didn't stand a chance in hell of getting re-elected. Unfortunate, but true. :(

It has been a long time since the person with a better resume won the election.

If people cared about experience, going backwards from '00, Gore would have beat Bush, Bush would have beat Clinton, and so on...

Even if you accept the official vote count as accurate, and/or ignore the Supreme Court's role in deciding the 2000 election, Gore got a half million more votes than Bush. It's not accurate or logical to claim the 2000 election proves more people believed X about Bush, and that's the reason he "won". He didn't "win" because the majority of Americans voted for him. He "won" because of vote fraud, the electoral college and a historically bad SCOTUS decision.

obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama obama

:eyes:

IT IS LATE OCTOBER 2006. FOCUS.

Then we can all join in the "who's the best in '08" game....

Right now we have to make the next two weeks count...

So he'll have 4 years Senate experience by then. Haven't other presidents been elected with equal or less?

Didn't Dumbya only have 1 term as Gov when he was elected? I'm sure there are others, too.

I would like to see him this next term take more of a leadership role in the Senate and not just doing speeches and whatnot.

Heck, I even voted for G.H.W. Bush in '80 and '88 because he had well more relevant experience than anyone else running (though his primary opponent in '80 had a lot more total experience being quite a lot older).

That being said, I have recently changed my mind on Obama. Consider the following....

Youngest Presidents: JFK and Teddy Roosevelt
Oldest President: Ronald Reagan

As to US gov't experience the president with the most such experience going into office was the (dis-)Honorable Richard M. Nixon. Maybe youth and LACK of experience makes for better presidents in an ever changing world.

Also, would another decade or three of experience have really made * any less incompetent? A man who denigrates the opposition for "living in a reality based world" and whose response to every change is to NOT change?

For that matter, look at another pair in this administration: Cheney and Rumsfeld. What have these two done to curb *'s incompetence? Actually, hasn't * been following their advice all along which has led to this glaring incompetence? Yet each of these two DO have those decades of experience.