OBAMA TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008

[peejay 327]

I spent about an hour on the internet reading about Obama on the issues. He won't get my vote.

The sad truth is that I didn't quit the Democratic Party, it quit me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I spent about an hour on the internet reading about Obama on the issues. He won't get my vote.

The sad truth is that I didn't quit the Democratic Party, it quit me.

In your opinion, what Democrat out there fits your bill? Past or present.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[mybackpages 0]

On current performance - it seems its irrelevant whether or not a candidate is "ready" for the presidency

By "ready for the presidency", I mean the ability to win the nomination of one of the two parties. If you can pull that off, you've got a very good shot at winning. You could be Barney and it wouldn't matter.

Candidates run for President for other reasons than to win.

[peejay 327]

I spent about an hour on the internet reading about Obama on the issues. He won't get my vote.

The sad truth is that I didn't quit the Democratic Party, it quit me.

In your opinion, what Democrat out there fits your bill? Past or present.

I've always admired FDR, Truman, and JFK. Their marks in history speak for themselves. They are admired universally across party lines for their contributions to America and for Americans.

One present Democrat that stands out in my mind would not even be considered for Presidential nomination by the current far left liberal wing that controls the party. Byron L. Dorgan. I have found him to be a moderate that votes his conscience for the American People. I especially like his record in regards to trade issues. He was also one of the few Democrats to vote against S.2611.

[I'm Gone 60]

On current performance - it seems its irrelevant whether or not a candidate is "ready" for the presidency

6 years - and GWB still isn't ready. Out-of-his-depth and underqualified spring immediately to mind.

Other than the MAJOR miscalculation on Iraq he hasn't done that bad. Had 9/11 not occurred things would probably be rolling along just fine. I just don't see Gore having done better job or Kerry having done anything different if he had been handed the mess in Iraq.

I'm a little curious what you mean by miscalculation?

If you mean he miscalculated how long it would take for his (administrations) lies about Iraq that got us there in the first place to be revealed as lies, then I agree....

I do wonder if Gore had of won in 2000 if the events that followed would have been different, meaning 9/11... I am almost certain that IF the events of that day did not change, that we would not have this mess in Iraq but possibly still going after the man that authorized it.

I can't believe if they knew going in things would be as they are now they would have tried it, so that's what I mean about miscalculation, but hindsight is 20/20.

Bush has got us into a mess that Jefferson or Lincoln probably couldn't get us out of and if the Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate they have no one to thank but Bush.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I spent about an hour on the internet reading about Obama on the issues. He won't get my vote.

The sad truth is that I didn't quit the Democratic Party, it quit me.

In your opinion, what Democrat out there fits your bill? Past or present.

I've always admired FDR, Truman, and JFK. Their marks in history speak for themselves. They are admired universally across party lines for their contributions to America and for Americans.

One present Democrat that stands out in my mind would not even be considered for Presidential nomination by the current far left liberal wing that controls the party. Byron L. Dorgan. I have found him to be a moderate that votes his conscience for the American People. I especially like his record in regards to trade issues. He was also one of the few Democrats to vote against S.2611.

I don't think FDR, Truman, or JFK would ever have had a chance of being elected by today's Democratic Party

As for the original question, I'm really not all that concerned about the skin color of a candidate. I care about their positions, their values, their political philosophy. I think that's generally where most people are; certainly all the people I know. The question isn't "Is the US ready for a non-white president?" but is the US ready for a specific candidate, whatever his (or her) color. Now, I'd certainly love to see a "minority" candidate elected as president, but I'd rather wait till one is running who shares my views. I was planning to vote for Colin Powell when he ran a few elections back, but he withdrew his candacy before I had the chance (couldn't vote for him in the primary, since I'm not a registered Republican). If Condi Rice chose to run, I'm sure she would have a lot of supporters. On the other hand, there is no way I would vote for someone like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, again not because of the amount of melanin in their skin, but because I can't stand their views. Given two candidates with whom I were in essential agreement, one being white, the other black (or Hispanic, or other non-white), all other things being equal, I would likely choose the non-white one. But regardless of color, I will not vote for someone with whom I fundamentally disagree.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

On current performance - it seems its irrelevant whether or not a candidate is "ready" for the presidency

6 years - and GWB still isn't ready. Out-of-his-depth and underqualified spring immediately to mind.

Other than the MAJOR miscalculation on Iraq he hasn't done that bad.

I'm a little curious what you mean by miscalculation?

If you mean he miscalculated how long it would take for his (administrations) lies about Iraq that got us there in the first place to be revealed as lies, then I agree....

I can't believe if they knew going in things would be as they are now they would have tried it, so that's what I mean about miscalculation, but hindsight is 20/20.

Bush has got us into a mess that Jefferson or Lincoln probably couldn't get us out of and if the Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate they have no one to thank but Bush.

What really happened was that they forgot to send in the very flowers with which the Iraqis were supposed to greet our troops. Short of having flowers handy, they [the Iraqis] seem to have grabbed the one thing that seemed to be plenty available: the ammo and explosives that we conveniently left unattended.

But other than lying us into a war and then fcuking the illegally invaded country and region up beyond recognition, he didn't really do all that well either. The income gap is widening dramatically. The re-distribution of wealth in the US from the bottom to the top is running at speeds that make one's head spin. Meanwhile, we're running on a borrow and spend spree that our kids and their kids will pay the bill for. North Korea and Iran are going nuclear. The US can't really do much of anything about it as it has few, if any, allies left. Let alone any credibility whatsoever on issues such as the environment, human rights, international law ... - well, you get the idea. He is quite possibly the worst President the US has ever seen. History will bear that out.

Edited October 23, 2006 by ET-US2004

[I'm Gone 60]

But other than lying us into a war and then fcuking the illegally invaded country and region up beyond recognition, he didn't really so so well. The income gap is widening dramatically. The re-distribution of wealth in the US from the bottom to the top is running at speeds that make one's head spin. Meanwhile, we're running on a borrow and spend spree that our kids and their kids will pay the bill for. North Korea and Iran are going nuclear. The US can't really do much of anything about it as it has few, if any, allies left. Let alone any credibility whatsoever on issues such as the environment, human rights, international law ... - well, you get the idea. He is quite possibly the worst President the US has ever seen. History will bear that out.

I agree with you on Iraq, but the income gap didn't begin with him. The spending is because of the war and that that he hasn't vetoed a spending bill and I don't see a Democrat having spent less, just spent it differently, but running up the debt just the same. Definitely not going to be put up on Mt. Rushmore, but James Earl Carter was just as bad if not worse. What was inflation and interest rate when he left office and the nut jobs running Iran took over on his watch.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But other than lying us into a war and then fcuking the illegally invaded country and region up beyond recognition, he didn't really so so well. The income gap is widening dramatically. The re-distribution of wealth in the US from the bottom to the top is running at speeds that make one's head spin. Meanwhile, we're running on a borrow and spend spree that our kids and their kids will pay the bill for. North Korea and Iran are going nuclear. The US can't really do much of anything about it as it has few, if any, allies left. Let alone any credibility whatsoever on issues such as the environment, human rights, international law ... - well, you get the idea. He is quite possibly the worst President the US has ever seen. History will bear that out.

I agree with you on Iraq, but the income gap didn't begin with him. The spending is because of the war and that that he hasn't vetoed a spending bill and I don't see a Democrat having spent less, just spent it differently, but running up the debt just the same. Definitely not going to be put up on Mt. Rushmore, but James Earl Carter was just as bad if not worse. What was inflation and interest rate when he left office and the nut jobs running Iran took over on his watch.

I did not say the income gap started with GWB. But it is certainly growing at an accelerated rate. The spending is because of the war and that war is his. The funds could certainly be better spent or just not be borrowed to begin with. The spending is only one side of the mounting debt. I remember him having taken over at a time when we weren't running deficits and the running up the debt had come to a halt. He reversed that trend in no time at all.

Carter? Yeah, he wasn't a great President. The economy was hurting pretty bad while he was in office and that's something that will always stick with him. But the Mullahs taking over in Iran on his watch? Well, the Soviets built the Berlin Wall against allied post-war treaty provisions under Kennedy's watch. Does that make him a bad President, too?

[I'm Gone 60]

Well, the Soviets built the Berlin Wall against allied post-war treaty provisions under Kennedy's watch. Does that make him a bad President, too?

He wasn't around to possibly get done the things he might have wanted to do, but you had the Bay of Pigs and I think our involvment in Vietnam started with him. Other than the man on the moon statement to get the space program rolling I can't really think of anything he did. So I don't think he was good or bad, kind of neutral.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, the Soviets built the Berlin Wall against allied post-war treaty provisions under Kennedy's watch. Does that make him a bad President, too?

He wasn't around to possibly get done the things he might have wanted to do, but you had the Bay of Pigs and I think our involvment in Vietnam started with him. Other than the man on the moon statement to get the space program rolling I can't really think of anything he did. So I don't think he was good or bad, kind of neutral.

I think the civil rights movement got a big push while he was in office. That is kind of the big positive thing that I think of when thinking of his short Presidency. I know that many felt different about it at the time.

[I'm Gone 60]

Well, the Soviets built the Berlin Wall against allied post-war treaty provisions under Kennedy's watch. Does that make him a bad President, too?

He wasn't around to possibly get done the things he might have wanted to do, but you had the Bay of Pigs and I think our involvement in Vietnam started with him. Other than the man on the moon statement to get the space program rolling I can't really think of anything he did. So I don't think he was good or bad, kind of neutral.

I think the civil rights movement got a big push while he was in office. That is kind of the big positive thing that I think of when thinking of his short Presidency. I know that many felt different about it at the time.

Still think he's riding on the Camelot legend and what could of been more than what he actually accomplished.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, the Soviets built the Berlin Wall against allied post-war treaty provisions under Kennedy's watch. Does that make him a bad President, too?

He wasn't around to possibly get done the things he might have wanted to do, but you had the Bay of Pigs and I think our involvement in Vietnam started with him. Other than the man on the moon statement to get the space program rolling I can't really think of anything he did. So I don't think he was good or bad, kind of neutral.

I think the civil rights movement got a big push while he was in office. That is kind of the big positive thing that I think of when thinking of his short Presidency. I know that many felt different about it at the time.

Still think he's riding on the Camelot legend and what could of been more than what he actually accomplished.

I don't necessarily disagree on that.

[I'm Gone 60]

I don't necessarily disagree on that.

Man I'm sure glad I'm picking up my new glasses tomorrow, because these old ones are playing tricks on me, I keep reading that you agree with me and I know that can't be right. LOL

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't necessarily disagree on that.

Man I'm sure glad I'm picking up my new glasses tomorrow, because these old ones are playing tricks on me, I keep reading that you agree with me and I know that can't be right. LOL

Good Luck with the new glasses!