Barrack Obama is awesome.

I'd be happy with Obama in the general election, but for now, my initial enthusiasm has waned. In the debates his wonderful speech-giving oratory has faded, giving me the impression that there's less substance behind his position than I'd like to see, and that he's not so fast thinking on his feet.

Minor quibbles, but since I see most of the Democratic candidates as being very close to each other, the little stuff gets magnified.

I'm also uncomfortable with how he plays up his "faith". I'm sick to death of politicians peddling religion and pandering to religion. That's a Republican trait I'm not happy to see a Democrat picking up.

I admire Barrack Obama a lot. He is running a good campaign and he is a very good communicator. But he needs more time and experience. I would support him in 2012 or 2016 if he runs. But he isn't a viable candidate for this country right now. We need experience and more than anything else, integrity.

The next president is going to enter a White House and a Capitol completely clusterfucked. That person will need the experience, integrity and a strong will to stand up against the issues we face and the scum left behind by this administration (and congress/senate). I don't envy anyone entering that but I only see two that might; Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Oh... by the way.

If you think he's so awesome, it would probably be a good idea to spell his first name correctly. Only one "r" -- Barack. Much more awesome that way.

He's my choice. I only worry that it's too soon for him. He should go be governor of Illinois for some number of years. The problem with that is that Illinois is a corrupt hell hole. If Obama can come out of that shit hole clean then he should be president.

Do you pronounce it bay rak? Sounds like a Klingon. (wow Klingon is the in the spell dictionary)

And a con law professor, a community organizer, state legislator, U.S. Senator, etc.

He has no executive experience, which is important. One needs experience running things from that perspective. As for Bush, he didn't have a long public service record. Cheney did. Not much point in challenging your assertion that they've been a disaster, so moving on.

I actually don't think Obama is that bright. He's good a making speeches and saying "Pakistan" in a way that sounds intelligent ("Pokiston") but pressed for specifics, there isn't much there. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind him as a person. He seems like a genuine guy who I happen to disagree with on a number of things...that's all.

I still think Hillary wins the nom.

"Entire life in public service"? I think you better look at Ron Paul's record too. Kucinich also. They have double or three decades more of public service experience.

For example, Bill Clinton was elected and was a young guy with many promises. But when he found the mess Bush II left behind those promises disappeared to the reality of the situation. Hillary's little foray into Healthcare reform, totally inexperienced staff. His first four years were a mess.

This next president has to have experience that comes from decades of how the system works in Washington DC. And also a chance to another term. But that candidate will have appoint a crack staff and an experienced administration to get things done. I think the choices a president makes for the people around him is as important as the president himself. Cheny show his savvy in that since he ass-kissed his way up there himself.

But I'm getting that cynical feeling and I'm tired of typing. Let's end it on a good note...

If Obama gets the democratic nomination, he has my vote. Because Hillary and Edwards are out of the question.

Also:

3) Diligence, self-discipline, and an incredible work ethic.

And being an elitist asshole.

It just a fact that if you run for president from a governorship you have a better chance to win than if you run from a senate seat. Running the harvard law review is not the same as running a state.

So basically presidential material.

So is going to princeton for physics...

sorry, but if the ivory tower glimmers anywhere it's in the grand old halls of academic science.

i should know, i stand glaring down at the plebs from my lab in the sky wondering why they deserve my output.

And Penn.

*cough*

The words "integity" and "WashingtonDC" are mutually exclusive. Paul and Kucinich, the only two who remotely qualify re. "integrity" thus have zero chance of winning either their party's nomination, or the presidency.

The US political system (similarly that of any country you care to mention) is designed, or has evolved, to systematically exclude people with integrity.

Scum rises to the top, and dead fish flow with the current.

I liked the things Barack Obama was saying and how he wouldn't use sound bites and said little intelligent things that appealed to people with some actual understanding of the issues.

But now I realize he is just another politician. At least he can still remember what it is like to have ideals and be sensible, but he is just another politician. Let's look at some of the things he has done.

On Social Security, he is just another staller. His plan is just to tax the rich. That will not get through. The only real plan that Republicans will go for is a combination of some more taxes on the rich, but some sacrifice by others, like raising the retirement age. Just saying you are going to tax the rich is avoiding political risk.

On health care, as Paul Krugman of the New York Times pointed out, he leaves some people uninsured and let's young people avoid signing up since they may take the risk to save money. Then what if they get some disease like MS that is costly to treat and have no insurance? And not signing up passes the costs to others. Hillary's plan is better and surprisingly for Hillary requires more courage.

He has pandered to black people. He has said "I'm tired of Jena, I'm tired of a justice system that doesn't deliver justice.". He has criticized blacks put also played the "we're all victims card"

He went from not fighting Hillary to endlessly squabbling and constant attacks. I agree with the aggression but he isn't doing it in an intelligent or stylish way. They say he is some great communicator but look at how Ronald Reagan could scrap with other people and come off seeming classy and in control with his "There you go again" line and his smile. Obama doesn't have that.

He hasn't said anything about gay marriage, which is wise because it would just lose him votes, but again, where's the courage? And he hasn't said much about unions or the middle class and has left that mostly to Edwards. So I don't see much special about him.

No it doesn't.

I disagree completely. He's a freshman Senator for God's sake. He has no experience running anything that would compare to what he'd need to do as President. Virtually all of our Presidents have had executive experience. Bush, Clinton, Bush 41 as VP (and director of the CIA), Carter and so forth. The last Senator to become President was Kennedy. What does that tell you?

Of course, George W. Bush was slammed for his relative lack of experience because "all he ever did was beat Ann Richards, govern effectively and get reelected by a huge margin." If Bush had Obama's credentials you'd be calling him inexperienced and unprepared.

Oooh...but that voice. That commanding presence. That name! And he's BLACK! Awesome!

who isn't? I certainly am - he is my people. Actually, he seems like much less of an asshole than I am.

I'm fine with Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Thompson, Gore, Ron Paul, and Bill Richardson (provided that the stuff that I don't like gets moderated by congress, applies to all candidates).

I am absolutely not OK with Romney (religious freak), Huckabee (even bigger freak), or Kuchinich (the biggest freak of all). I also really hate Edwards (stupid trial lawyer).

I've certainly had more than enough of the (synthetic of not) good ol' boy, down-to-earth, reg'lar Joe, kinda-guy-you'd-love-to-grab-a-beer-with Presidents.

I don't see why you'd be afraid of Huckabee or Romney, except that they might lose to HRC. What do you think they are really going to do?

Stone me to death, the bible told them to do it.

I don't trust people who think that the universe is 7000 years old.

That's just silly.

Seriously, I want to know. What policy or action would they undertake as a result of their faith that concerns you? If you can't answer you're really just showing bigotry here. You're also being inconsistent. Obama's religious background is of much greater concern. His Pastor and belief system of his church are outrightly racist. He also wants to "do God's work" and what not as President. Perhaps you'd explain why that is OK, but someone who is Mormon isn't?

Huckabee would oppress homosexuals, attack the separation of church and state, etc. George Bush Sr said that atheists don't deserve citizenship, and Huckabee is much more of a "religious candidate" than GB was.

I just plain don't trust any religious person to have power over the country, which I know is hard to arrange since they all seem religious, but some are more religious than others. If Obama's religion is as bad as you say, maybe I better investigate.

And I am allowed to be bigoted, I am a minority. Anyway, religion could have a big impact on me, so it is valid to reject religious people from consideration - I don't give a "free pass" to screwed up thinking just because it comes from an old book. To me, religious people seem insane - and I think that I am perfectly within my rights to avoid giving my votes to people I consider to be insane - the rest of their brain may work fine, but you never know, do you? I basically have the choice between lunatics, and people pretending to be lunatics to get the lunatic vote - I choose the pretenders.

Religious people would not be so bad if they didn't try to put their moral codes into law, but they do - all the time they are constantly poking their legislative noses into other people's personal lives. To Hell with religious politicans!

How?


Etc? No, not etc. How would he do that specifically?


I have NEVER heard that before, but even if true, there is no way in hell it would ever happen.


Then you really don't understand several things, one of which is the power of the Presidency and limits on it.


Yes, you'd better. You won't be pleased.


What impact?


You are within your rights, but then again you also have a right to have a knee jerk reaction to anyone that is "religious." I would still like to know why exactly you think these people--all of them---are insane.


Secularists would not be so bad if they didn't try to put their moral codes (or lack thereof) into the law, public schools et al, but they do - all the time they are constantly poking their legislative noses into other people's personal lives. To Hell with those who wish to destroy faith.

See how easy that was? In all seriousness I would like some specific examples of putting their "moral codes into law." I would also like some specific examples of how Huckabee and Romney would do that.

It remains to be seen if he has what it takes to win. The real attacks on him are just getting started. Certainly his lack of executive experience doesn't tell us that he wont be a good president but it does hurt him in electability. Just like it hurts Hillary and Fred. Romney can and Richardson can pull out the "when I ran my state I blah blah blah and the budget was yadda yadda yadda." What can Obama say, "In my one term in the Senate ...."

The guy Rocks but he's running from a weak position. There is no arguing about it.

1. He would oppress homosexuals by continuting a long standing Republican tradition of making laws that deny homosexuals equal rights, including (but not limited to) the following:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAct...ew&Issue_id=10

"There's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."

-- i.e. he thinks that gay marriage would destroy society

2. The seperation of church and state suffered greatly under Bush, and Huckabee is the candidate most likely to continue or expand those policies:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Am...an_Nation.html

3. http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Note the huge difference between me and Bush - I just won't vote for a guy like him, but I don't want to deny him his citizenship because he is a religious ass, even though he wants to kick people like me out of the country.
\t
4. No matter what the powers of the president are, I have the right to pick people for that post who I don't consider crazy

5. Impact on me of a religious president: Risks of persecution, paying taxes for things like "intelligent design"

But mainly I don't want the president to increase the power of religious organizations by doing crap like "faith based tax deductible gifts"

6. If we have schools paid for by public money, they have to be secular schools. If you want it some other way, support voucher programs like I do, but don't force me to expose my kids to the vapid braying of Christian prayer groups there.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is the case on point for voucher programs. Souter's dissent I think makes a good point: You cant outsource public school education to the Catholic Church. You cant violate the Constitution to solve problems youre having with a school system. it's a tough point to get around.

So that's what we've been lacking in our presidents... mad skillz.

Some of us don't have the luxury to run our experiments in the sky.

Where soulcrusher's experiment is.

It is only a violation of the constitution if the supreme court says it is, and they said it ain't. Even though I hate religion, I send my kids to a religious school BTW - it just happens to be the best match, and I de-indoctrinate them at home. I actually think it is good for the kids to get differing views on religion at an early age, it makes them natural skeptics.

Voucher programs work great in Canada, I don't see why they are so controversial here.

I like this take on Huckabee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuWUdUDUIDQ

Mike Huckabee -Total asshat.

* On Guantanamo: Most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo and less like the state prisons that people are in in the United States.

* On Evolution: (He doesnt believe in it).

* On his recent popularity: He attributes it to Divine Providence

* On Mormonism: Dont Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?

* On his personal relationship with God: Hello? Im sorry. Im right in the middle of an event. Its who? Its God? On the phone for me? How did he get my number? Oh, God has everybodys number. OK? Yes, Ill hold.

* On his Homophobia: By refusing to define character using fixed standards, we lose our reference point, we lose our ability to navigate, and, therefore, we drift. Who is right and who is wrong? Who knows?

* On Walmart: Wal-Mart is a case study in the genius of the American marketplace.

* On Prisons: Indicated support for the following two statements. Increase state funds for construction of state prisons and for hiring additional prison staff. Support contracting with private sector firms to build & manage state prisons.