He was a lenient grader. That's a sign, isn't it?
"Lenient grader" is an anagram of "trendier angel".
[raises eyebrows ominously]
the Beast who makes everyone else worship that other funky creature.
George Clinton?
trendier angel
Because the antichrist can be identified by his snazzy shoes. To judge the holiness of the man, simply examine his sole.
i wouldnt be suprised if he wins in 2008 and i wouldnt be suprised if he gets killed and comes back to life
i wouldnt be suprised if this commenter got his own show on Fox
He's too good to believe. Where did he come from?
This seems like standard racism, just viewed through the lens of a religious fanatic. i.e. "he must be evil because no black man could be that smart and capable unless the devil himself was behind it." Ick.
This seems like standard racism, just viewed through the lens of a religious fanatic.
I was going to say standard homoeroticism.
I'm thinking popularity+attractiveness+christianityandliberalism (two obviously incompatible belief systems)+blackness (of course).
These people are crazy. Everybody knows the antichrist is a gay Jew.
christianityandliberalism (two obviously incompatible belief systems)
Yep, same sort of thing with the Jimmy Carter hatred.
Does this have something, something that I can't understand, to do with the time Falwell told us that his followers would be more motivated to vote against Hillary than they would be to vote against Satan?
The Antichrist will inevitably be Eastern Orthodox, so the two branches of the Pauline tree can remember to have a complete and total mutual grand mal shitfit like the siblings they are.
They're right, you know. Obama creeps me out too, with that appeal-to-everyone goody-goody stuff. It seems to me he should gain some weight too.
I agree with Sommer that it's racism, but of the "Oh my God, this is what happens when we allow miscegenation" kind. If you don't see African people as human, and then they have kids with your blonde midwestern beauty queens, it must -- MUST! -- be a sign of the beast.
Obama is biracial. This made his skin tone lighter than some but darker than mine. And mid-range skin tones make you middle-eastern. And that makes you.... Muslim!
I think I'm going to straighten my hair today and become Swedish.
"Stuff" s/b "shit". I stepped out of character for a moment.
11: If they were all really convinced he was the antichrist, we'd probably pick up ten percent of the Christian Right right there.
Exactly. Vote for Obama, hasten the end days. Hard to match that appeal.
Someone should point out that they're lacking faith if they don't vote for Obama.
"Does he bear some resemblance to a Left Behind character?"
Actually, he does bear some resemblance to the Left Behind AntiChrist character. Which doesn't mean that's not nuts.
God's final punishment on humanity is to give us an anti-Christ who will bore us to death.
who will bore us to death.
And beyond.
He doesn't bear any resemblance to the Left Behind Anti-Christ. The Left Behind Anti-Christ is from fucking Romania, named Nicolae Carpathia. I don't know why they didn't just dispense with the lack tattered nanomolecule of subtlety and call him "Vlad Dracula" or something. The only resemblance is a politician rising quickly to national and global prominence, which isn't exactly unique to Obama.
What I wonder about is why some of the millennialist Christians aren't seriously evaluating W's candidacy for antichristhood. Remember, the whole deal with Mr. Antichrist is that he's supposed to hoodwink a lot of the faithful, not just those of us who are already dedicated heathens.
Anyone who's that uppity must be the anti-christ.
He doesn't bear any resemblance to the Left Behind Anti-Christ. The Left Behind Anti-Christ is from fucking Romania, named Nicolae Carpathia.
Dude, we don't need to know about your RedPorn habit.
Tim, Fred Clark reads that shit so that you don't have to.
I believe he will win in 08 and we will be finished by 012.
In faith-based mathematics, it would seem that 2008 + 4 = 20012. I love these people, I really really do.
George Clinton?
He's funky and a Clinton!
That's funny, I was just reading about some latter day Timothy Leary who was told in an ayahuasca vision that the world would end in 2012, which is apparently when the Mayan calendar ends. So who's right if that happens? The devout believer or the decadent druggie? And if the two paths seemingly converge...
The "World ends in 2012 because the Mayans say so" thing has been floating around for 20 years. A guy named Jose Arguelles helped popularise it with his 1987 book The Mayan Factor. He was also one of the folks behind the whole Harmonic Convergence bit back in '87.
He's all of us! He's not black! He's not white! He's not ..." The speaker then faltered and realized that she was about to say that He's not male or female.
He's Prince?
OMG. Arguelles is the brother-in-law of a second-rank Straussian neocon.
So, I missed the Obama convention speech and haven't read any of the Obama hagiographies, which leaves me in the position of wondering what exactly is so great about this not even two-year Senator. Besides the fact that he's a politician who's admitted to smoking cigarettes, I mean. Anyone want to let me in on the secret?
I can't help you. He's my senator, I've met him, I heard the speech, and I don't get it either.
And he's black, but not too black, or black in a scary "urban" way.
I'm probably being uncharitable. I don't know what speech idp is talking about, but when he was running, anyway, people seemed to think he really was an uncommonly good speaker (for this degenerate age, anyway).
I think that the whole Obama+ Antichrist thing is a Hillary whispering campaign. Can't let an attractive moderate steal any limelight. But seriously, what has this guy done other than get elected two years ago? Has he spearheaded any policy that I can get behind? Or is it that he doesn't have any ugly baggage? It is a sad state of affairs that when we find someone who can string two sentances together without offending half the country (s)he is a Presidential frontrunner.
I'd be okay with him being Feingold's VP, though.
Wouldn't Edwards need an older VP to lend his campaign the needed gravitas?
Yeah, I've spoken to some actual Mayans about the calendar thing, and they all say that this does not mean the world will end, just that the calendar ends, which may signify a the beginning of a new modern era. Mayans don't believe the world will end in 2012.
Obama can't become president, if only because I'll have to cringe inwardly and think of the linked incident every time he's on TV.
people seemed to think he really was an uncommonly good speaker (for this degenerate age, anyway).
He is an uncommonly good speaker. For a white guy. A young Jackson could eat him alive, and I'm not sure how high Jackson should actually be on the Black Orator rankings.
The people who believe the world is going to end periodically change up who is going to cause the end of the world, just so they can pretend they haven't been wailing about the END TIMES for thousands of years.
I can't believe none of you people pointed out the godawful typo that I just fixed in the post.
Wouldn't Edwards need an older VP to lend his campaign the needed gravitas?
Maybe they could pitch Edwards/Obama as a "New Camelot" type of thing, the younger generation with fresh new ideas to take us away from the old partisan divisions and rancor . . . .
Oh and apo, that was a godawful typo. I was just being polite. We all know what a delicate Southern flower you are.
Edwards isn't all that young, is he? I think he just looks young. I remember thinking during the VP debates in 2004 that there was only about a decade between Edwards and Cheney, which was kind of funny considering how they look.
Edwards/Obama would be the worst of all possible tickets, as measured by electability. Someone arguing that we must address poverty and the other guy is black? Does the Dartmouth Review still exist, or would it have to be revived?
He's not the Antichrist, he's just Phase 1 in the sneaky Hawaii plot to take over the Illinois Congressional delegation. Tammy Duckworth is Phase 2. Illinois can keep Hastert (but they really ought to send him back to coaching wrestling).
Edwards/Obama would be the worst of all possible tickets, as measured by electability.
I think you overestimate the Kucinich/McKinney ticket.
There's always the Bloom County Jesse & Jesse ticket (Jackson and Helms), running under the slogan "Let's Alienate Everybody!"
54: The probable winner. I'm not sure I can do better than that. I particularly like putting Sharpton at the top of the ticket.
Seriously though, people, let's not nominate Obama.
I particularly like putting Sharpton at the top of the ticket.
There's a "bottom" joke in there, but I think I might just leave it alone.
Obama, unlike 99% of liberal politicians and 95% of Republican politicians, doesn't evoke the "get the fuck out of my face" response from most people. That's the most important thing. On top of that, he's black, he a good speaker, he's smart, he understands policy, he's an egghead (taught constitutional law at the U of C, wrote a memoir that's actually supposed to be good) but doesn't come off like one. In terms of personal presentation skills, he's like Clinton in the sense that he instinctively pitches his voice, accent and demeanor to his audience. He's really very good, but the lack of experience is (and should be) a problem for him.
Obama doesn't evoke the "get the fuck out of my face" response from most people.
Just from me.
61: I think that Harold Ford's retail political skills are better, and that he's a better analogue to Clinton. There's a little Black Jesus-ing going on with Obama; I don't get that sense with Ford.
I'm never going to figure out American politics, because I don't see whatever it is about people that inspires that reaction. I literally think Kerry is pleasantly personable.
Here's what sucks about Obama: his instinct seems to be to hedge and compromise and talk about how both sides have it a little bit right and to make mini-Sister Soujah moments at every possible occasion to show everybody what a sensible little centrist he is. But this isn't the nineties anymore, and the next president doesn't just have to fix health care and the deficit. The next president will be inheriting a country where torture is legal and where rule of law is dead, and Third Way bipartisanship isn't going to get us anywhere when at least half the Congress is controlled by proto-fascist monsters.
That and the fact that, y'know, he's done absolutely nothing and nobody heard of him until two years ago and only a country full of gibbering lunatics would even consider elevating someone with no relevant leadership or foreign policy experience to the presidency.
Also, Santa Claus is dead.
That and the fact that, y'know, he's done absolutely nothing and nobody heard of him until two years ago and only a country full of gibbering lunatics would even consider elevating someone with no relevant leadership or foreign policy experience to the presidency.
I more than half buy that, but I'm half-reading a biography of Lincoln, and he didn't appear to have any such qualifications. Historical analogies suck, especially those using Lincoln, but still.
I've heard the criticism in 66, but I'm not sure yet whether he actually is a centrist, or just does a very good job of "I hear where you're coming from, now let's do it my way." He was pretty progressive in the Illinois State Senate, from what I understand.
hedge and compromise and talk about how both sides have it a little bit right and to make mini-Sister Soujah moments at every possible occasion to show everybody what a sensible little centrist he is.
Yes, indeed. And that's the exact problem I have with HRC as well. It's flat-out the wrong candidate style for the situation we face currently.
I literally think Kerry is pleasantly personable.
Yeah, me too.
That said, Feingold for President!
66., 70. Yes but it is the only way to get elected. That is the problem that I have with both progressives and Xtians- they are both so fucking sure they are right that if you disagree with them, ipso facto you are not only stupid, you are evil.
ipso facto you are not only stupid, you are evil.
Well, but you actually are evil, so there's a certain bias built into your quotidian survey.
74, To be fair, Tim, I'm stupid, too.
Yes but it is the only way to get elected.
Really? Because I've watched two decades where Democrats moved steadily rightward and threw more and more of their allies under the bus while losing both houses of Congress. In the meantime, Gingrich, DeLay and Rove didn't build their majorities by reaching out and compromising. Whether the right wing is evil or stupid is another day's discussion, but making nice very plainly hasn't worked for quite some time now, TLL.
69, 73: Well, if it's all a brilliant ruse to camoflage his fiery leftist heart while he poses as the new American Blair, then great, make him Veep or Governor or whatever and save the presidential run until he's actually ready. But I'm not willing to buy that this is the case unless someone makes a rather compelling argument for it. And I'm certainly not willing to write off his inexperience on the basis of weird edge cases like Lincoln; there are plenty of high-profile Dems more obviously qualified for the job who I'd rather nominate for the presidency.
76. I am not a political scientist, but the feeling I get about the rightward lurch you observed I think was caused by some amount of overreach by the "left". Attempts by the Democrats to appear centerist were too little, to late and well short of the mark. We are now seeing the pendulum swinging the other way, and the key to electoral success will be in being just ahead of the swing, not at the far end of the arc pulling as hard as you can.
Why would I listen to any sort of political commentary from someone who is not a political scientist? Comment 79 should be deleted as a matter of principle.
80. I am not a political scientist, but I played one on TV.
Here's what sucks about Obama: his instinct seems to be to hedge and compromise and talk about how both sides have it a little bit right and to make mini-Sister Soujah moments at every possible occasion to show everybody what a sensible little centrist he is.
I agree that now is not the time for making nice with Republicans and that attempts at compromise in the current environment are self-defeating. OTOH, a guy who was in the right place at the right time with a nice gauzy inclusive message and not too much shit already stuck to him could be in a hell of a position to pick up votes from people who have been supporting Republicans and are maybe finally ready to realize how wrong that was but don't want to have their noses rubbed in it. And a person who could pull that off could come out of it in a strong position to do some good stuff. "A plague on both their houses" isn't a fair response to what's happened the last 6 years (or 12, depending on how you want to count), but there's going to be a lot of that out there.
a guy who was in the right place at the right time with a nice gauzy inclusive message and not too much shit already stuck to him could be in a hell of a position to pick up votes from people who have been supporting Republicans and are maybe finally ready to realize how wrong that was but don't want to have their noses rubbed in it.
An electability argument really isn't going to cut it here. Any Democrat who stands a chance at becoming president in '08 has to have national security credibility, and Guy Who Only Spent Two Years In The Big Leagues Before Running Off To Form An Exploratory Committee is going to get beaten like a red-headed stepchild, no matter how many pretty speeches he gives.
Any Democrat who stands a chance at becoming president in '08 has to have national security credibility
Like who (that's running)?
83: I think that's probably right. It's just that somewhere deep down inside there's this little hopeful bit that would like to believe that my fellow Americans, bless their tiny little hearts, are finally waking up to how badly the Republicans have screwed the pooch and might be ready for major change if it's led by someone they haven't already spent years rooting against. I'm not thinking so much of electability as what comes after.
Don't worry, though, the hopeful moments usually pass quickly.
Agree with Apo: name names, stras.
I might be willing to accept a Clark/Feingold ticket.
84, 86: Wait. Is this a challenge to "name names" of the Democrats who have national security credibility, or the ones who don't? Because people like Gore, Clark, Clinton, Kerry, Feingold and Bayh have no real problems here; they either have obvious national security experience or they've just been in national politics long enough to have acquired a general haze of respectability that should let them pass. Obama and Edwards are the ones that have to worry, because they haven't really done anything and they're pretty young (or in Edwards's case, look really young). This should be pretty obvious, I think.
I buy Gore, Clark, and Kerry. But Gore (to date) isn't running, Clark has no elective office experience, and Kerry is broadly hated by the people who have to nominate him. Clark's probably the best shot, but I don't know if you can run for President as your first election and be successful.
89. I don't think Clark will get any points for "I told you so". Generals who get into politics have to have won a real war, which currently means Powell or Schwartzkopf, and both have declined.
89: Obama isn't running (to date) either, but that hasn't stopped the speculation. Clark has no elective experience, but if the climate in '08 is anything like it is now, the kind of foreign policy cred he's got is worth a lot more than a stint in the Senate. Kerry may be "broadly hated" by Democrats now, but that's because Democrats, frankly, are idiots; the man is certainly one of the better options in the field, but no one will figure this out until either it's too late or until Yglesias-types start writing contrarian pieces in favor of his candidacy.
I'm not sure why you're writing off the others (beyond the fact that you might simply not like Clinton and Bayh, which is fine - I can't stand them either). Clinton has picked up national security credibility from her association with Bill, Feingold is a three-term senator who's becoming increasingly prominent in war and terrorism debates, and Bayh is a senator with gubernatorial experience. Congress is more closely associated with security and foreign policy decisions than, say, the Illinois state senate. Their time in Washington has conferred a kind of legitimacy on them that you don't really get from local politics.
90: Why was Gulf War I more "real" than Kosovo?
92. Tanks. Seriously, we're still in Kosovo, and there seems to be no end in sight. Because it is a relatively small commitment, and there is no shooting the operation is way off the radar of most folks. But the skills Clark demonstrated to make the American portion a "success" should translate well. Also, there hs been no parade down Broadway, so that we know the war is over.
I can arrange to parade down Broadway tomorrow afternoon.
Don't forget to get your permit, or you'll end up in jail like the protesters at the Republican convention.
Seriously, we're still in Kosovo, and there seems to be no end in sight.
This doesn't argue for the Gulf War to be more of a success than Kosovo. In fact, given that we maintained a presence in and around Iraq (no-fly zones, troops in Saudi Arabia, etc.) from the '91 war through the 2003 invasion and right up to the present day, it argues precisely the opposite.
TLL is basically the market you're looking for: people who aren't comfortable voting for a Democrat for national security reasons. If Clark isn't convincing to him, Clark isn't convincing to him.
What would you say to Gore, TLL?
TLL is basically the market you're looking for: people who aren't comfortable voting for a Democrat for national security reasons. If Clark isn't convincing to him, Clark isn't convincing to him.
Your second sentence is more convincing than your first. TLL is a sample of one, not the "market" I'm looking for. See also those awful threads with the token libertarians who showed up and said "you need to win us over if you want to win." Well, no, we don't. The whole of the Unfogged commentariat amounts to several dozen random people on the internet, not a representative sample of anything.
I really think that no one you meet on the internet is persuadeable. TLL will decide what he decides on his own sweet time. I've met dozens of people who claimed to represent the center, and I nver believed anyone. (As far as I can tell, TLL is a McCain hawk of the National Greatness variety, and this is one of the hardest constituencies to reach.)
TLL, I was one of protesters at the RNC. There were a lot of us who didn't get arrested, after all.
The whole of the Unfogged commentariat amounts to several dozen random people on the internet, not a representative sample of anything.
Fair point. How much weight was I supposed to give your claim that national security credentials would be determinative, again?
That and the fact that, y'know, he's done absolutely nothing and nobody heard of him until two years ago and only a country full of gibbering lunatics would even consider elevating someone with no relevant leadership or foreign policy experience to the presidency.
I think we may have a country full of gibbering lunatics. In any case, you meant this tongue-in-cheek, right?
Also worth noting that only a country full of gibbering lunatics would even consider giving any human being the powers of a U.S. President. And, not to talk myself into Obama or anything, but Clinton's resume was fairly thin when he became President, too.
@ strasmangelo
I believe quite the opposite. Kerry lost precisely because of his Senatorial background. No senator has been elected president since Kennedy, and the ones who have run since possess a sizable amount of rotten (or otherwise damning) political baggage from their senatorial tenure (the voting record is always whipped out, and Kerry was in the whip's direct target, multiple times). Obama, being in the senate for only two years, doesn't have that much baggage to weigh him down (in fact, relatively little, compared to Feingold and others); same goes for Hillary as well. Bush also had that benefit in '04, since he was a governor (Texas) and not a legislator; same goes for Clinton (Arkansas) and Reagan (California). So Obama has a shot at the White House that hasn't been obscured by a voting record; if he's serious about it, he should make use of this time, and use it wisely before he gets lax with his posture.
People complaining about how Obama is too broadly likeable to be a good Presidential candidate make me want to slam my head against a wall. I guess no one remembers "compassionate conservatism," "Clear Skies Act," "No Child Left Behind." The Republican Party is full of firebreathers, but President Bush isn't one of them. Which of course makes him a compromising moderate that any liberal could get behind.
That said, Obama seems rather inexperienced to become President.
I think we may have a country full of gibbering lunatics. In any case, you meant this tongue-in-cheek, right?
No, I was being serious, and I think we do have a country full of gibbering lunatics.
How much weight was I supposed to give your claim that national security credentials would be determinative, again?
I don't know. Do you think that health care and poverty are going to be bigger issues in 2008 than war and terrorism? Do you think Iraq and Afghanistan are going away within the next two years? Do you think the next president will get elected while failing to convince voters he's capable of dealing with that stuff?
Clinton's resume was fairly thin when he became President, too.
Twelve years as governor of Arkansas isn't too shabby a resume for a peacetime president.
I dunno, the differences between a smallish state and the whole country are pretty profound. No foreign policy at all, and the domestic stuff is on a vastly smaller scale. It's not that there are a whole lot of things one can do that would look like great preparation for the presidency, but Clinton's pre-Presidential experience and Obama's current resume seem a lot more similar to each other than either is to the Presidency.
Being the chief executive of a state means you're in charge of a huge staff covering multiple agencies, divisions, etc. It's a much more complex management job than being a Senator.
It's true that executive experience is different from legislative experience, but it's also true that the govermments of small states can limp along without a whole lot of complex management happening. Or at least the government of this state does.
the govermments of small states can limp along without a whole lot of complex management
But isn't that what the US government is currently doing?
Feingold/Bloomberg on the Unity ticket!
OMFG, as the kids say. I am so ready for the election cycle to end at some point, just briefly - some sweet, blessed respite from the eternal horse race - so that I can breathe for two seconds.
All that aside, I think the Obama-hate isn't really about Obama. Well, OK, I think there are probably people who see him and think 'wow, that's one hot black dude' and then five minutes of self-imposed guilt later they decide that stirring in their hearts & pants is a sign of the end times, yes. I don't know that those people are a significant source of the Antichrist frenzy, however. Largely I think it's just that a certain tiny subset of fundamentalists (of all active religions) are just in it for the crazy, and they look around and see a Prez who was supposed to be able to walk on water and hand down money unto the faithful and make the gay go away and all that good stuff and it hasn't happened and he's kind of a failure and the world in general is a terribly scary place and when reality intrudes upon their happy-fun-time place via one of the fissures in those hopes then they just sort of cast around for people who look scarily enticing, and for some people that's Obama because he's a Democrat who arguably mentioned their God in an enthusiastic fashion and surely that makes him suspect, right?
Me, I think run-on sentences are the Antichrist.
The real problem with Obama is that the American People will never elect a Persian to the White House.
112: Well, yes, but the idea is that that's not exactly a good thing.
Obama's not Persian, you racist, he's Parsi!!!1!!
It's not that there are a whole lot of things one can do that would look like great preparation for the presidency, but Clinton's pre-Presidential experience and Obama's current resume seem a lot more similar to each other than either is to the Presidency
1. There really is a significant difference between the role of a governor and the role of a state senator in terms of executive experience. You can't reasonably argue that Obama's eight years in the Illinois state senate have given him as much preparation for the Oval Office as Clinton's twelve years running Arkansas did.
2. Clinton ran for president at a time when the Cold War had been effectively over for years and the economy commanded the biggest domestic concern. His lack of foreign policy experience didn't really matter. In 2008, there will still be a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, nuclear paranoia over Iran and North Korea and an ongoing, undefined Global War on Terror. The Democratic nominee is going to be able to convince people he's able to deal with all of that, and Obama's not going to cut it by telling charming stories about how he worked with Republicans back in Springfield.
118: Are you talking electability or ability to do the job? I've given up completely on trying to figure out what makes a candidate attractive to My Fellow Americans, so I'm just talking about actual preparation to do the job. And I tend to believe that the function of pre-Presidential jobs is at least as much screening as training, so I'm inclined to put more weight on the size of the electorate than the nature of the job in looking at prior elected office.
But all I really meant to say about Clinton is that if we were looking for the 100 (1,000? 10,000?) jobs in the country whose incumbents would be best-trained to assume the Presidency, I don't think Governor of Arkansas would make the list. The conclusion I'm drawing isn't that Clinton was ill-prepared, but that the resume isn't especially important.
It might not be helpful to use Bill Clinton as much of a template for anything, given that arguably the greatest political talent of his generation still needed an atypically strong 3rd-party showing by Perot in order to unseat an unpopular incumbent.
But that just brings us back to "we're fucked," which may be true, but we have to pretend it isn't to preserve whatever shreds of sanity we're still clinging too.
I don't know that means "we're fucked", necessarily. Bush needed Nader in 2000 every bit as much as Clinton needed Perot in 92.
But without Clinton, Gore was just another Senator. And in 2004, we re-elected one of the worst Presidents in American history over a perfectly credible Democratic Senator.
Obama the Anti-Christ? That's a laugh --- better look to Dick Cheney for that one. He is evil incarnate
Wow. I can't believe people are seriously discussing that. Forums really are a good example of how retarded people can be.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ***Breathe*** AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh, that was classic! Awesome. Thanks guys!
"i have to admit i have been getting a little spooked about this rising star from the middle east."
He was born in the US, and his father was from Kenya. Foo'.
Are you talking electability or ability to do the job?
Both. Look, historical analogies are usually stupid and useless as it is, but your "Obama as Clinton" thing is particularly ludicrous. Obama isn't Clinton, 2008 isn't 1992, we're talking very different men with very different levels of experience in very different political and historical moments. And it's rather absurd to make the argument that because someone can get elected and go on to become a decent president without all the experience one would want in a president, that someone else can do the same without any of the experience one would want in a president. The very fact that Obama is being discussed as a serious contender solely on the basis of his public speaking abilities is frankly insane, and only demonstrates that Americans have internalized the absurdity of their political system.
As opposed to whom, Clark, who has exactly zero political experience? It would be nice if all American policy devolved to national security policy (I guess?), but that's not actually the world we live in. We continue to live in a world in which we just don't have a serious foreign threat. It's not too hard to imagine economic problems coming, though.
Look, historical analogies are usually stupid and useless as it is, but your "Obama as Clinton" thing is particularly ludicrous.
It wasn't a grand historical analogy, just a passing note that Clinton's pre-Presidential resume wasn't dramatically better than Obama's. You differ on that. Fine. But it's silly to say that Obama doesn't have any of the experience that we'd want in a President, and in any case I don't think you'll get very far coming up with a resume screen that will tell you who's going to be a good President and who's going to be a bad one.
None of which is to say that we ought to elect Obama President in 2008. We're just bullshitting here.
129: You're wildly mischaracterizing my argument. I'm saying that Democrats will not be able to escape the fact that foreign policy and national security issues will matter a lot in 2008 - more than domestic concerns, just as they have in this election, and just as they did in the last two elections. In order to be electable in 2008, we need a candidate who can convince voters that he's capable of taking care of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of general anxieties about terror. That election won't be nothing but terror, and the Dem nominee will need to convey competence on more than just that. But to run a total novice in an election where security concerns will almost certainly be dominant is political suicide. How is this anything other than utterly obvious?
But it's silly to say that Obama doesn't have any of the experience that we'd want in a President
He's had eight years as a state senator and two years in the Senate. In his two years as a senator, he has not made himself visible on a number of critical issues where other Congressional Dems have gone out of their way to take a stand and attempt to spark debate (Feingold on illegal wiretapping and civil rights, Murtha on war and troop withdrawal, etc.). So what has he done? What experience does he have that various other Democrats - Democrats who aren't being talked-up as the next rising star of the party, as potential presidents no less - don't have in spades?
The latest comment on the Obama thread at my site:
He's muslim and lying... similar to the republicans being gay and in the closet. Barack means " blessed" . Grandfather was wealthy. People have asked that his book be pulled from the shelves because it is nothing but lies. He is from wealth, came here "to study" and never went home. Family connected into things we need not snoop into. Check it out..... he is probably closer to anything the world has seen as far as smoozie evil to date..... trust Obama.... notta chance.
None of which is to say that we ought to elect Obama President in 2008. We're just bullshitting here.
I realize that there probably aren't too many serious Obama-pushers posting here, but I'm harping on this because the presidential nomination process has proven itself dangerously susceptible to bandwagoning, and given increasingly compressed primary schedules and extended campaign seasons, there's less and less time to stop bad-yet-popular options before they become unstoppable. And I'm paranoid about this one because it ought to be a joke, but it's not getting that treatment at all.
So what has he done? What experience does he have that various other Democrats - Democrats who aren't being talked-up as the next rising star of the party, as potential presidents no less - don't have in spades?
I don't think those are the right questions. The idea of a rising star is that he can get experience easier than others can get his political talent. It's possible that he'll turn out to be a flash in the pan when he actually gets tested. But it's not necessarily crazy for a freshman Senator who's being talked up as a rising star to keep a relatively low profile. It's too early to say that Obama is Presidential material. But it's too early to right him off, too. He's a smart guy, he's on the right side, and he seems to have some talent. Let's see where he can go with it.
132: Arabic, Swahili, what's the difference?
I can't tell, stras, whether you're making an electability argument or objecting on the merits.
133: The other side of that is that if the guy does have Presidential potential down the road, getting him out there in 2008 may be good for him, and there might even be something to be said for him as a VP candidate. But you're right, the nomination process is crazy and scary.
Arabic, Swahili, what's the difference?
In this particular case, not much, seeing as how the word in question is an Arabic loanword in Swahili.
Except that the fact that Obama got it from Swahili rather than Arabic tends to suggest that he may not be one of them sneaky Muslims after all. George Bush might claim to have been an entrepreneur, but it doesn't make him French.
Of course, and in general this is terrible methodology. The Arabic word is actually Mubarak, anyway.
He's different from me.
I hate him.
- Father from Kenya
- Mother from Kansas
- Born in Hawai'i
Yep. Real middle-eastern blood right there, I tells ya. They seak it in, you know, like a suicide bomber in an Israeli cafe. It's sorta like math: if you add up the latitudes and longitudes of all those places, you get somewhere in the middle-east. An antichrist in the making, alright. Proof enough for me.
I would take obama if I thought he was the most electable democratic candidate. I like him way more than H. Clinton who isn't liberal enough and is very unlikely to try to tackle health care issues.
I like edwards best. He is likable and good on poverty.
136: I'm attempting to do both, because both electability-based arguments and merit-based arguments are being offered for an Obama candidacy, and I think both arguments are pretty empty right now.
It's too early to say that Obama is Presidential material. But it's too early to right him off, too. He's a smart guy, he's on the right side, and he seems to have some talent. Let's see where he can go with it.
What I'm saying is (and this is the "objecting on the merits" part, ogged), that if he were ready to start running for the presidency now, wouldn't we have already seen something of that talent in action in the Senate, since there have been more than enough opportunities for him to use that talent, as other Democratic senators have displayed theirs? And if, as you point out, "it's not necessarily crazy for a freshman Senator who's being talked up as a rising star to keep a relatively low profile," perhaps this is one reason why we don't usually nominate freshman senators to become the next president?
as other Democratic senators have displayed theirs
Other than Feingold, who?
Other than Feingold, who?
"Senators" should really be "Congressional Democrats." Beyond Feingold you have Murtha on the war, and even Kerry with the Alito filibuster. Even Edwards, who isn't even in office, has tried to do more to draw attention to poverty in America than Obama has. We're talking about a guy who's had one of the biggest profiles on the Democratic side of the aisle since he got sworn in, and he's used it for little to nothing. Where was Obama on torture? Where was he on illegal wiretapping? (Well, alright, he was right here, covering his ass.)
Look, it's not enough to say "there's no reason he can't be president." There needs to be a compelling reason why he should be president. I can imagine arguments for Gore, Feingold, Clark, even the apparently-hated Kerry. "Why not me?" isn't enough. There needs to be a higher standard for becoming the president than "looks good on a magazine cover."
There's also the white-Playboy-bunnies issue.