Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton versus Obama: Is there any difference?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 07:54 AM
Original message
Clinton versus Obama: Is there any difference?
WASHINGTON - Right now the two most prominent names in speculation about the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination are Illinois senator and best-selling author Barack Obama, and New York senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton.

The chatter about Obama grew more excited this week as he announced that he'll make his first visit to New Hampshire on Dec. 10 to appear at state party event. And a Draft Obama web site was launched on Wednesday.

Are there differences between Obama and Clinton on significant issues?

And if they arent, would an Obama-Clinton contest largely be determined by intangibles: image, charisma, and personality?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15920730/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes.
One is female, one is male.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
38. A woman or a black man
Is our country ready to vote for either? Frankly, I have my doubts. Not with so many voters take their bible literally, where women have only one purpose and black men... well..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. So we should just keep them in their place and out of the way until the country is ready for them?
When will that be?

And how will we know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. I don't know.
Perhaps the first woman or the first black (or hispanic) will have to be a Republican, or from the South, or someone with a good standing with the bible crowd - the analogy of Nixon and China.

There have been many reports that while voters, when asked, say that, of course, race or gender does not matter, or should not matter, once they are alone with their ballots, their old "instincts" kick in. This is what happened with Harold Ford in TN - not that he was a good candidate for my taste - who lost by a higher margin than the earlier polls suggested.

Hopefully, before the primaries are well advanced, we will have some idea about detectability of either.

To be more specific, I think that we need to have at least one administration without a Clinton or a Bush, and I think that our candidate should run on more than charisma and Obama has no track record of being in an executive position. Of assembling competent staff, originating ideas and implementing them while showing efficient use of personnel and monetary resources.

This is why the last senator in the White House was JFK, this is why we elect governors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nodular Donating Member (267 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
58. OK, interesting analysis
that leads to an implication: which current or former Democratic governor appeals to you as a candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
56. I think both are electable, but we can do better than both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
73. Hillary will have the Vince Foster Homocide thing waiting for the "swiftboatee's"
to bring back all the conspiracy talk, would it mean anything??

(psst, Harold! call me...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
queenbdem87 Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. One is electable (Obama) and one isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I'd dispute that assessment.
I don't think either are electable. People will hate each of them for intangible reasons (Obama because he's black, Clinton because she's a woman and her last name is "Clinton").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I agree, they are good people but unelectable
unfortunately
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randy5235 Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. two words!
Gore/Edwards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Two more words: Hell no!
Edwards bombed once already as a VP candidate, adding absolutely nothing to the ticket. Plus, I don't see it as a good idea in any way, shape, or form to have TWO southern candidates on the ticket. Much as I don't like him, I'd rather put Richardson on the VP side than Edwards. At least we'd get SOMETHING out of the mountain west with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Two southern candidates worked out pretty good for us
for two terms.

I like the idea of a Gore/Edwards ticket
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. So did Ross Perot being on the ticket. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Third part is a completely different ballgame
You can't deny the fact that the last winning ticket we had was two southerners.

Mondale wasn't a southerner but Carter was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I think it's abundantly clear that the South is not going to budge.
The South has since become an absolute Republican stronghold nationally, and it's still doubtful that we could sway ANY southern state in a presidential election.

The west and midwest, on the other hand, are ripe for the picking. Why continue to pander to a region that is unlikely to accept us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #21
32. I agree, the south will go republican as long as they
pick a strong candidate. If they upset the religious right I see them staying at home and not voting at all rather than voting for a democrat. If someone like Hillary and Gulianni are nominated look for the rise of the Constitution party as a strong third party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Welcome to DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
44. Harping about "electability" worked great in 2004
Wait...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I will have to respectfully disagree with you......
just on one assessment. My mother, a staunch republican southern woman of immeasurable christian faith has said that she likes Obama and would vote for him but would never vote for Clinton. I realize that isnt a mandate, but it says a lot to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. All that tells me is that she's probably not a racist.
I don't think it has anything to do with values or faith or anything like that. I just think we're still far too racist to elect a black man. That's all.

Toss in the fact that he's still probably too young and doesn't have enough experience, and I don't think it'll happen. Call it a hunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. The only reason "we're still far too racist to elect a black man"
is because people like you think that's the case. You worry too much.

There are plenty of people who said John F Kennedy would never get elected because he was a Catholic. There are just as many people who think Rudy Giuliani could never get elected President because he's Italian American.

What a shame to think that Obama couldn't overcome the color issue. If he turns out to be the best Democrat we have to offer, he should be the person we run, period, and he'd do just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I'll point to two recent examples for proof.
1) Allen nearly winning in Virginia despite HEAVY evidence that he's a severe racist.
2) Ford losing pretty handily in Tennessee after a heavily racist campaign against him.

Kennedy being Catholic isn't anywhere NEAR as bad as being black to bigots. I think only a lesbian Muslim that's had 5 abortions would be worse (okay, that's a bit far, but you get my point). And Giuliani wouldn't win because he's a pro-gay rights, pro-choice Northeastern adulterer, not because he's Italian (although that doesn't help).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. I'll agree with that
I live in the south and let me tell you there is still some major racism going on down here. It's not as overt as it once was but it's still there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. Actually, the Allen and Ford results make the opposite case.
Noone predicted Allen's crash and burn, which was triggered largely by his "macaca" revelation. Remember, he was being heralded as a potential front runner for the Repuke nomination in '08 and this election was only to be a "trial run" along the way.

Ford received over 48% of the vote...hardly "losing handily." Sure we all wish he could've pulled it out and Coker's race-baiting campaign was deplorable. That being said, i'm encouraged by Ford's showing. Think about it --- an African-American Democrat receives a near majority of the statewide vote in deep red Tennessee.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #20
33. I big part of the reason he lost was that his last name
is Ford. Unless you live in TN you probably don't understand the problems with the Ford political family in TN. Jr. was probably the only honest one of the bunch, one of the other ones, John Ford, is facing federal charges for bribery as a state senator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rep the dems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
57. I agree. Especially considering that it was not until the macaca
comment was made that Webb started to gain ground in that race. I recall Allen leading by somewhere around 15 points prior to that, and even some here at DU said that Webb was finished. As for Tennessee, there seemed to be lead changes practically every week, and Ford was initially thought to not have a chance. Long story short, I agree; if anything I think this election showed that the racist votes are becoming less prevalent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
80. I know a big difference..
Barack came out against the War On Iraq and hillarrry is still(as far as I know)still calling for more troops and not admitting her vote for the IWR was wrong..i.e. when she's not worried about violence in the video games. The VIOLENCE IN IRAQ doesn't seem to pay her no never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. I am so sick of supposedly liberal Democrats insist that "we're too racist . . ."
You're absolutely right. This "I'm not a racist but other people are, so Obama shouldn't run because he's Black" is bull.

And I agree that if Obama were selected to run, he'd do fine - that is, if our own would get the hell out of the way and stop telling us that the Black guy should sit on the sidelines because of his race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nodular Donating Member (267 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
59. I tend to agree
Keep in mind, the country and the world are liable to be in pretty bad shape by 2008. When people are in trouble, they are more likely to overlook something like race if they believe a person can really help them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KKKarl is an idiot Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. ..
I think it would be hard to elect him because of him being black. Very few southerners will like to see a black president. If he did get elected He will have to be heavily protected because some of the KKK groups will try to kill him. My wish is for him to get elected as president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. It wouldn't be any harder to elect him because he's Black than it would to elect him
because he's a Democrat. Or he's from Illinois. Or he's a Senator. Or for any reason that would also pose a problem for any other White candidate. White candidates lose elections all the time - no one suggests that they shouldn't run because they might not win. Why should Obama be disqualified from trying what any other White candidate seems to take as his/her absolute prerogative solely because he's Black?

As for your concern about people wanting to kill him - I have news for you: EVERY president has plenty of people trying to kill him and that's why they are all heavily protected. Obama would be no different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brazenly Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
69. Your mother's not the only one.
Illinois is a blue state, but my county is redder than red. And stuck in 1952, to boot. But they love Obama here. I've never seen anything like it. Hell, I've never even seen them that excited over a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. What "people" will hate them?
I'm a people and I don't hate them. And there are plenty of Blacks among the "people" and plenty of women among the "people," as well.

Who are these "people?" And why do you think that their view will overcome the views of the rest of us "people" who feel no such thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Klan members.
There is a contigent among DU who seem to believe that it is important for us to cater to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. Are racists part of the Democratic Party's core constituency?
The sorts of assholes who won't vote for somebody due to reasons of skin pigmentation are folks who won't support anyone to the left of Bill Frist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. No, but Democrats alone won't win the election.
Nor would Republicans alone. You need independents to swing our way, and yes, a lot of independents (and I'm sure a large number of Democrats and an enormous number of Republicans) are racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. So we should never run a Black person or support civil rights in order to attract
a sliver of racist independents?

A call bullshit on that argument.

Instead of catering to the worst elements in our society, what we should do instead is reach out to the large numbers of decent people in both parties who will do the right thing if given the opportunity. We should also stop kicking Black voters to the curb and do everything we can to get more Blacks to vote. I have no doubt there are more than enough Black folks who are eligible to vote but don't - probably largely because of attitudes evidenced in your post - to overcome the bigots who won't vote for a Black person. If Obama ran, Black folks would come out of the woodwork to vote for him - we might even win in a landslide! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Total bullshit.
Edited on Thu Nov-30-06 12:58 PM by Vash the Stampede
First of all, you're putting words into my mouth that I do not appreciate. I NEVER said we should never run a black candidate. All I said is that now is certainly still not the time, and it's not. Not when overtly racist campaigns in 2006 were fairly successful.

Second of all, how the hell is this "kicking black voters to the curb"? Stating electability is not kicking anyone to the curb - it's merely a realization of fact. This country is decades away from a black President. We are racist. Not as bad as some people would suggest, but certainly racist to the point where we're going to make a black man our leader, and most certainly not by a landslide. Not running a candidate for realization of that fact is not pandering to them in any sense of the word. If you don't believe me, perhaps you need to travel around the country a little more.

Third of all, based on the Census bureau estimates that 54% of black people vote, even if every last eligible black voter came to the polls, that would have only just BARELY put John Kerry over Bush (by about 3% overall). Of course, such a voter turnout is completely unprecedented.

(Sources: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03ff01.h... , http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/presiden... /)

But, by your own argument, if Barack Obama runs in the primary, you're suggesting that black people will "come out of the woodwork to vote for him". So, essentially, by your theory, no one else should bother running in our primary, because it won't even be a competition. How much are you willing to bet that doesn't happen? If Obama does win the nomination, it certainly won't be a landslide. I think only Al Gore would be capable of pulling that off, quite honestly. Also, I could ask why they didn't come out in droves to support Jesse Jackson, Carol Mosely Braun, or Al Sharpton in their primary bids? They had the opportunity to turn out and pick their nominee, pretty much without much resistance according to your theory, but they didn't. Could you explain why that is? Perhaps Sharpton and Braun weren't legitimate nominees, but Jesse Jackson sure was. In other words, let's back away from the hyperbole and regain some reality, shall we?

Finally, you make some kind of weird statement by using the word "we". "We" don't determine anything - the overall voting populace does. No one sits in a room at DNC headquarters and says "Okay, we're going to have Al Gore as our nominee this year." They don't even back any primary candidates. Voters and donators decide those things. And certainly, no one even really asks DU what "we" want. So if this royal "we" you keep using would like to see us run a black candidate, by all means, vote for Barack Obama. He's certainly not my top choice (of which I have none at the current time) based on a short and mediocre Senate record, but he's far from my last choice, and I'll fully and totally support any Democratic nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. So, if now is not the right time to run a Black - and they shouldn't run because of his race
when WILL be the right time?

And how will we know?

And who will decide that it's ok for the Black guy to run?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. I didn't say he shouldn't run.
I'm saying we shouldn't nominate him. I apologize if I was unclear.

We'll know when black candidates run for statewide office and don't lose due in large part to racist campaigns.

And I'm pretty sure I gave you the answer as to when - I think it'll take at least a decade, maybe two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. You mean like Deval Patrick?
Massachusetts is one of the most racist states around, but Deval Patrick kicked ass up there.

So, maybe we're farther along than you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. As a native of Massachusetts, you're WAY off on that one.
Massachusetts isn't even fucking close to being one of the most racist. Not by a long shot. Come down South and see what real racism is like if you don't believe me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. I've lived in Massachusetts and I've lived in the South
Massachusetts was far more racist than anywhere I've been in the South.

Maybe I saw things differently as a Black person - but I actually stopped going to Boston because I got tired of having "nig-er!" yelled at me from passing cars, something that never happened to me in the South. But, even worse was that, in Massachusetts, people seemed to think they were really liberal and would NEVER look down on Blacks, while in truth, discrimination was rampant, the neighborhoods were extremely segregated and the divide between races was stark and difficult to cross. On the other hand, despite some pockets of backwardness, I have found the South to be much more tolerant, inclusive and open-minded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. That's completely at odds with my experiences there.
Edited on Thu Nov-30-06 03:02 PM by Vash the Stampede
I lived in Worcester, across the street from a few black families, among whom I counted one as my best friend at the time. I went to a school with a lot of black students, though they weren't nearly the majority. Not even once did I ever see or hear of any black student or family being treated any differently from anyone else. Heck, a lot of those families were far better off financially than the majority of white families in the town too.

I'm truly sorry for what you did endure, but I don't see your experiences being anywhere near the norm for the state.

I will say this, however - Massachusetts is not known for being very politically correct. Racial slurs for ALL races and ethnicities are hurled, as are disparaging remarks against people with disabilities. I'm Italian, and I can't count how many times I've been called a wop or worse. Hell, the Irish are practically the majority in Massachusetts, and the word "mick" is probably the most popular in the state.

One of my favorite stories - one time I was going to a Bruins game at the old Boston Garden. A guy from a legit charity was raising money for kids with Down's Syndrome, ringing a bell saying "Money for the retards here!" Here we have a guy volunteering his time and probably money for a good cause using a term that would offend the very people he's trying to help! I'm not going to justify the behavior - it's crude and it's wrong. But what outsiders don't understand is that everyone's treated that way up there - no one is exempt from it. However, as far as actual equality in real terms is concerned (quality of life, opportunities, social services, education, etc.) it is FAR better in Massachusetts than it is in most other places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I understand what you're saying and we obviously have had very different experiences
Many Blacks that I know who are familiar with Massachusetts have similarly negative feelings about the state. That's one reason that I'm very excited about Deval Patrick's election as governor - it shows that real progress is being made. But a couple of years ago, I was told by many people that there was "no way" that a Black man would be elected governor of Massachusetts, yet Deval went for it and pulled it off.

I feel the same way about Obama - and any other Black politician. No one ever thinks that the country or a state or a city is ready to be led by a Black person - until that Black person runs, shows what they're about, and convinces the voters to support them. I think it's a mistake to sit back and wait until the country's "ready" because it will never be ready until someone tries.

As I've said before, the country wasn't ready for Blacks to have the vote, until the 15th Amendment and Voting Rights Act forced the issue. America wasn't ready to desegregate the schools - until the Supreme Court said it must. The country wasn't ready for a Black Supreme Court justice - until Lyndon Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall. The country wasn't ready for a Black cabinet member, until Johnson appointed Robert Weaver to head up HUD. The country wasn't ready for a Black U.N. ambassador, until Andy Young was appointed. The country wasn't ready for a Black big city mayor, until Carl Stokes ran and won the mayoral race in Cleveland. The country wasn't ready for a Black Southern mayor, until Maynard Jackson became Mayor of Atlanta. The country wasn't ready for a Black southern governor, until Doug Wilder was elected Governor of Virginia, and so on.

The country is NEVER ready for anything until we put it to them. So I feel very strongly that, if Obama wants to run for president, he should do it. And he should ignore calls for him to sit on the sidelines, watching every White Tom, Dick and Harry, regardless how unqualified or untalented they are, runs to their hearts content, and wait until it is determined from on high that America is ready for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't run.
Edited on Thu Nov-30-06 03:34 PM by Vash the Stampede
Quite the contrary, I hope he has an important contribution to make to the debate. And I also wouldn't frown upon him being a VP candidate. If he were white, he'd still be too young and inexperienced for the job - the very same comment I used for John Edwards. I can only hope Obama would add more to the ticket as a VP candidate than Edwards did (which isn't a difficult expectation, given Edwards did nothing). In actuality, I think he might be a very strong VP candidate - I think we need someone from the midwest or west to tap into that area of the country. I also think it would be a fantastic stepping stone - this country does like to take steps with such large changes. Having a black VP first would truly open the doors without asking all that much from voters, and it would provide some much needed experience from Barack himself. However, I would not put him on the same ticket as Hillary Clinton under any circumstances - that is far too much change to expect voters to accept (note: I will NOT back Hillary Clinton in the primaries no matter who runs against her).

Still, Obama is black and that is, currently, something negative on a national scale. I'm not going to currently pledge or deny my support for him in the primaries - it will depend on whom else enters the race. But I don't think he'll be viable in the general election. I'm sorry we disagree on that, but I don't think the country is ready, and the stakes are far too high in this instance to throw caution to the wind. I still say we need another decade or two.

One last note - I haven't seen a single person suggest that he absolutely should not run for office. While many may not choose to support him, I haven't seen anyone indicating it would be horrific if he threw his hat into the ring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. I agree with most of what you're saying
And while I think he would be viable in the general election, I don't know that for sure - no one will unless and until he actually runs in the general. But if it gets to that point and he's made it past all of the other Democratic candidates, he will have been so vetted, analyzed and tested that we'd have an excellent chance. And even if he didn't win, it wouldn't necessarily be because he's Black. At least one White man - and sometimes more - has lost every single presidential election we've had in this country. :-)

Unfortunately, however, I have seen several people on DU insist that he shouldn't even run - that if he runs and loses, he'll somehow set back our cause and hurt the future prospects of Black politicians. That's bull, of course, but some have actually said that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #53
66. Well I don't agree with that last assertion you've heard.
I don't think it sets anything back to run. I don't think Jackson, Braun, or Sharpton running in the primaries has done anything remotely negative for black politicians. I think it's been very good and healthy. In all actuality, I think Obama running, even without really being qualified, will be a good experience for him and will set up future runs. I do think he needs to be paying more attention to his current duties in the meantime, however.

I hadn't seen that seen that said around here, but I certainly don't doubt it's happened. Just remember that a few people saying such things on DU aren't representative of the whole community - they don't even make up a whole percentage point of our 90,000+ membership. Also, not all DUers are exactly Democrats for that matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
12. Clinton has the experience, the money, and the team to put America back on top.
Obama has the ability to generate excitement but it takes much more than excitement to feed the political bulldog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Actually, a lot of rethugs that went down in the primaries
outspent their dem opponents considerably. Money is certainly important, but I think if we take a lesson from the primaries, we'll realize that people are ready for a new and hopeful vision for the future, rather than the tired old rhetoric that breds fear and hatred. Money can't buy that, nor can it erase the animosity and hatred so many people (granted, irrationally) feel for Hillary Clinton. Obama offers a new face, with a new vision for the country that he articulates in a manner that resonates with people. This is his time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. The "visionary" vs. the accomplished "administrator". Interesting choices for 2008.
Keep in mind that Americans will be looking for a "fix-it" Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bullet1987 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Clinton...
...is the prime example of why the "experience" argument is overrated. Look at how much experience she has with national and foreign politics. Then look at how much baggage she has!! It seems more "experience" only brings more and more scrutiny. Maybe that's why people want him to wait...because they don't have anything to talk about him with. There's little to nothing to slander his name with. And what is there is relatively meaningless (like that yard extension thingy).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Hillary's "baggage"? Those who mention it never give specifics. Why?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
85. Hart vs. Mondale. I know which way I'd go. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
29. I know the Obama political team in Chicago.
And they are damn good. At least they've done a better job of generating excitement and support outside New York and DC than the Hillary team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. The NY Yankees can generate excitement too, but they are only as good as
the front office. Hillary's a George Steinbrenner, Obama's a Derek Jeter.

American are demanding a return to effective, competent government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
26. I think Obama has a better overall record
Edited on Wed Nov-29-06 07:57 PM by fujiyama
and opposed the war well before the invasion.

Hillary seemingly has no political convictions whatsoever. She'll pander to whichever group is necessary. She'd get my vote against McCain or whomever else the GOP puts up, but God I'd have to hold my nose for her.

I also think people would be more likely to vote for a black guy than a former first lady that has been tarred as a "far left liberal". The idea of a black president probably doesn't bother as many people today. I mean, at least outside of the deep south. Then again, let's look at popular culture. We've seen a few movies and TV shows with black presidents - more than female president. The best case I can think of is "24", where the president was a very well liked character...

Either way, I don't think we should pander to either sexism or racism. I think a capable woman could win the presidency, but I really don't think that person is Hillary. And I have a weird feeling, like in many other countries, a RW woman (like Thatcher) would be likelier to get elected than a liberal one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
81. I record Senator votes to gague "progressiveness"...
and Obama is 10% more of a progressive Democrat (as I define it) than Hillary is. He votes with the Republicans about 40% of the time, and she does about 50% of the time (on the issues I track...29 from the 109th Congress).

So there is a difference between the two on voting record...at least from my perspective.

Then there are the issues that did not come up in the 109th, like the war (other than appropriations). That is another difference.

Lastly, another big difference is that Hillary has embraced the DLC and all of the puppet strings that come along with it, while Obama was courted by the DLC and rejected them.

Still, I would vote for either if they got the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
27. Obama was an early and consistent opponent of the Iraq war.
Clinton is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #27
83. This will help him greatly in 08! No more "would you still vote for it" BS
that' hillary will have to tap dance around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-29-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
28. there's plenty of difference
so I can only assume this is a rhetorical question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
35. Obama is more progressive and less polarizing than Clinton
Another diffeence is that he has the potential to win in the general and Hillary doesn't, in my view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
52. This country isnt going to elect
a woman in a time of war. As pathetic as it is. Its not going to happen. And we aren't far along enough that a Black man will be elected. We still have morons in this country that vote for people like Bush, simply because of his stance on abortion. Its sad but true.

I think Repukes would love to see Obama or Hilary run. They would love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. How do you know "we aren't far along enough" to elect a Black man?
Have you done a scientific study or a poll?

How will you know when we are ready?

And in the meantime, should Black politicians just sit it out until America proclaims itself ready?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. The truth hurts
Edited on Thu Nov-30-06 08:41 PM by BrentTaylor
Let him run and you will see.

I don't know when we will be ready. Or if we will ever be. Its just too much hate out there.

I know I want to win now. And one wouldn't win right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. "LET" him run? He doesn't need anyone to "LET" him run any more than a White candidate does.
Edited on Thu Nov-30-06 08:48 PM by beaconess
If he runs and loses, he runs and loses - Just like scores of White men have done over the course of our history.

But you still haven't explained how you know that America's not ready to elect a Black man, how you're going to know when America IS ready, and how you plan let us Black folks know that America is ready for us.

It's not the truth that hurts - it's the backward and narrow-minded, yet grossly paternalistic attitudes of some of my fellow Democrats who think it perfectly acceptable to treat Black politicians as second-class citizens ("oh but I'm not a racist - I'm just telling you America's not ready for you yet, so please stay out of the way because you'll damage the party") that really rankle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. No......Here we go with the typical
Edited on Thu Nov-30-06 11:38 PM by BrentTaylor
response that I'm racist. Which is ridiculous. When you consider that I'm mixed myself(black/white).
Like I said. The US is not ready to elect a woman or a minority as President. It just simply isn't. The majority of the country whether it be black/white or Repuke/Democrat is narrow minded. And there is a ton of hate. You can see that in one of the most liberal states a bill to ban AA was passed. Bottom line, there is simply too much hate and division in this country. This is a country where you see people who struggle to pay their bills vote for a terrible president like Bush, simply because of his stance on Abortion. Nevermind that his policies have put them in their strugggles.

And I really take exception to you taking my comments out of context. When I said 'let' him run. No one is saying someone has to let him run and you know it. Anyone can run for president. My point is if he runs you will see, just how true my comments are. Did you not see what happened to Harold Ford? Well you haven't seen anything yet. I think your comments are really simple-minded by you making the assumption that I'm some racist that wants a black man to stay out of the way and not damage the party. And you talk about people being narrow-minded????? Did you happen to miss that my avatar is Barak Obama? Yeah I want him to stay out of the way and not damage the party??? Please give me a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. Re-read my post
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 07:56 AM by beaconess
And then reread some of the posts here on DU and you will see that I'm right about the attitude of some Democrats. Unfortunately, you seem to have bought into some of these attitudes - for instance, using Harold Ford as an example of what would happen to Obama, as if they're the same person or their electoral circumstances would be identical. As I've repeatedly noted to others who make this argument, Barack Obama is not Harold Ford and Tennessee is not the United States - it is, in my view, foolish to insist that because Harold Ford lost a Tennessee Senate race that Barack Obama doesn't stand a chance in a presidential contest. That's like saying because Rick Santorum lost his Senate seat in Pennslvania, John Edwards shouldn't run for president. Lumping all Black politicians together and dooming them to dire predictions merely because they are of the same race is ridiculous - regardless who does it.

You and others who insist he'll get whupped in a presidential race seem to miss an important point: if Barack Obama decides to run, he won't just leap forward in time to the general election where he will run against the Republican nominee. There will be months of primaries where he will have to fight it out with several Democratic contenders and undergo unprecedented scrutiny from the media. He will engage in debate after debate, trudge through Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and elsewhere. He'll be tested to the nth degree. If he doesn't have what it takes or if racism is so rampant that he can't prevail, he won't make it through the primaries. If he survives that gauntlet and emerges on top, I have no doubt that he will have an excellent chance of beating whomever the Republicans put forward - just like any other Democratic nominee would have. Plain and simple.

So I don't understand all of the handwringing and dire predictions and warnings that he shouldn't run because he'll get his butt kicked. No other potential candidate is being treated that way on DU - he certainly is the only one whose race is being used as an excuse for him not to run, something that deeply disturbs and disappoints me coming from my fellow Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Look I understand what you're saying
I'll leave at this. If you think Obama could win a presidential race in this country. You're naive.

"No other potential candidate is being treated that way on DU - he certainly is the only one whose race is being used as an excuse for him not to run, something that deeply disturbs and disappoints me coming from my fellow Democrats. "

Because its reality. Its the sad truth. The country is full of hate. Hidden Hate. And I say this as a person of mixed race. I truly believe there would be a ton of Democrats who would just not vote at all than vote for a Black candidate for president. And I truly believe that if Colin Powell would run as a Republican there would be a ton of Republicans that would rather vote for the Democratic candidate or stay at home than vote for him.

I don't like it anymore than you do. But I've learned to look at things in harsh reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. You may be right that the country is full of Hidden Hate
Edited on Fri Dec-01-06 05:04 PM by beaconess
I don't fully agree, but even if that's true, the only way to root it out is to confront it, not pull back in anticipation of the possibility of failure. If Blacks had refrained from trying out of fear of failure, we'd have no Black senators, no Black representatives, no Black state officials, no Black mayors, no Black federal judges, no Black doctors, lawyers, astronauts, military officers, corporate CEOs, etc.; in fact, we'd probably still be slaves.

If Obama gets into the race and a ton of Democrats don't vote for him, then he'll wash out in the primaries.

And then either he or another Black candidate will try again. And if they don't win, we'll try again. Eventually the country will come around, just as it has on many other issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #52
72. Like Bush?! - why just today I read 0nly 28% favor Bush's action in Iraq
yes in deed, this war president has gotten himself to almost hated to the tune of 71% believe Bush isn't handling the Iraq-war properly -- actions, Bushs's acions, his grins,smirks & smiles when they announce 11 more US. troops were killed today are getting weird & chilling to see this leader find some humor from somewhere to make it through his content-less speeches!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rapallos Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
54. I Think They Are The Same Person
Seriously, has anyone ever seen them in the same room at the same time.

We officially have run out of issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-30-06 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
62. Hillary is as polarizing as Joe Lieberman
Go ahead, nominate the ambitious bottle blonde, and watch our fortunes turn to despair in 2008!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #62
77. Lieberman is not polarizing
Lieberman got the independent vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-10-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Lieberman was elected by Republicans
VOTE BY PARTY ID
TOTAL Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger

Republican 70% 8% 21%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-01-06 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
64. Absolutely!
With regard to the biggest issue of our time, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the difference in judgement couldn't be greater. Despite having far less information available to him, Obama knew from the beginning that invading Iraq was a mistake. Clinton had access to classified information above and beyond what the general public knew and STILL made the wrong decision which she is STILL trying to defend today. Based solely on this, I think I would have a hard time trusting her judgement in a crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thatsrightimirish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
70. yes
One already has 47% of the country voting against her
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
71. Obama hasn't been corrupted yet
He's much cleaner than Hillary. Not my first choice, but I'd definitely support Obama in a General Election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #71
78. The media will be on his Di#*
Every time Obama says something controversial, the media will jump and say he said it due to his "inexperience".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #78
84. Won't they find a way to trash whoever the nominee is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rapallos Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
74. If You Don't Know
Then no one should bother reading you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
75. Hillary probably looks better in a skirt, but Obama is pretty.
Edited on Sat Dec-09-06 03:49 PM by Vidar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-09-06 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
76. Vote your conscience. Not based on "unelectability"
Haven't you noticed that the better the Democratic candidate, the more "unelectable" he/she is said to be?

Do this exercise at home: Write down the 5 top Democratic candidates that in your honest opinion you would love to see become president so that this nation get what it deserves.
Make #1 the best candidate, and so on.
Now I bet that the top candidates in your list are those said to be "unelectable", and perhaps "extremely unelectable".

Look and act Republican and all of a sudden you become this sure winner.

Let's not be lazy and fight to bring the best candidate to power, regarding to what the media and right-wingers say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
82. OBAMA can win! That's the difference
and would be a breathe of fresh air to the Whitehouse.

I know there is a new obama cannot win "meme" I bought into it too but it's just not true.

#1- Obama's inexperience is a plus. Look at Kerry. Wonderful man, great record. loooong record and it was a laundry list
of issues that rethugs could snipe at him. Same with Hillary and Bill's previous baggage they gained as first lady and president.

#2- He's black. There will be Americans who won't vote for Obama because he's black, perhaps the same amount who wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Regardless like Obama says, these creeps wouldn't vote Democrat anyway.

Run OBAMA RUN!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC