1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obama may run for president

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by sportschick, Oct 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    If he doesn't run in 2008 and the Democrat wins, then Obama is out until at least 2016. Then he has to count on whoever won not having fucked it up so the country wants another change.
     
  2. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    If Americans aren't ready for a switch from the norm in the West Wing now, they might never be. If anything, it's an asset because he can relate to a variety of groups, not just one, based on race and their experiences with race.

    Besides, he could start by hitting up Tiger Woods and Mariah Carey for campaign donations.
     
  3. Boomer7

    Boomer7 Active Member

    Fantastic point. I felt the same way about Wes Clark after seeing him on "Meet the Press" during 2003. His domestic policy was beside the point; here was a military man speaking sensibly and realistically about foreign policy/the war in Iraq, who also was aligning himself with the Democrats. It seemed too good to be true. Which, of course, it was. He was a one-trick pony.
     
  4. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    Bill Richardson is how this country will to sneak a minority into office.
     
  5. Killick

    Killick Well-Known Member

    That was another beautiful part of the MTP appearance Sunday -- he basically said the issues that have decided the last few presidential races were stuff that was pretty much decided in the 1960's. Aw, shit. Now I gotta look up the transcript to get it right.
    ...
    ...
    ...
    "MR. RUSSERT: You do write this, and it’s a very interesting observation, “When you watch Clinton vs. Gingrich or Gore vs. Bush or Kerry vs. Bush”—so that’s ‘98, 2000, 2004--“you feel like these are fights that were taking place back in dorm rooms in the sixties. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution, the role of government - all that stuff has just been playing itself out, and I think people sort of feel like, Okay, let’s not re-litigate the sixties 40 years later.” Are you suggesting that those political players are, are the past and you represent a new generation that won’t get caught or bogged down in those kinds of debates?

    SEN. OBAMA: I think, I think the categories we’ve been using were forged in the ‘60s. You know, I think the arguments about big government vs. small government, the arguments about, you know, the sexual revolution, military vs. nonmilitary solutions to problems. I think, in each and every instance, a lot of what we think about is shaped by the ‘60s, and partly, you know, the baby boomers is—are a big demographic. I write about the fact that, whether it’s the market for Viagra or how many cup holders are going to be in, in a car, a lot of it’s determined by what the baby boomers want. Our politics isn’t that different, and my suggestion is that—take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now."
     
  6. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Killick, that all sounds wonderful, especially the part that I bolded. But in concrete policy terms, can you tell me what that means? You can't because Obama can't even tell me what that means in concrete policy terms. Obama's opponents and the national press aren't going to let him get away with that in a national campaign.
     
  7. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Look at it the other way, though, PDB. He doesn't have a career full of votes and statements with which the national media can hang him. He's young enough in his career that he isn't beholden to God knows how many special interest groups. His statements don't sound like they've been vetted through a press office to sound as unoffending as humanly possible.

    He's an idealist, and I don't think that's so bad given the direction this country has taken politically in the past 20-plus years. If he can prove he has some substance on a national stage, I think he's very electable.
     
  8. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    You're right that all of those things are pluses. But in the end, ideals and platitudes alone don't work in a presidential campaign. The same quality that makes Obama a contender and that he desperately wants to keep is the notion that we can all see what we want in him. But he is going to have to come out with concrete ideas and policies or else be seen as a dilettante candidate.
     
  9. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    I'm not so sure about that, Pope. We let Dubya get away with not having a plan for Iraq, other than "stay the course." No one ever pinned him down about what that means and he got re-elected to office.

    If Obama is serious about it, I'm sure he's pinning down positions right now to prep for it. No need to show all your cards right now when both sides are still anxious to see what happens on Nov. 7.
     
  10. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Ideals worked for Bush in '00, though. He ran on essentially a campaign of "Uniter Not Divider," on "Compassionate Conservative," and a lot of smirking at Gore's uber-intelligence. He would poke holes at Gore's ideas, but rarely offered solutions on his own.

    And it seems to me (just my opinion) that most "good" candidates don't, not until they're in office.
     
  11. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Yes, Bush used platitudes to his advantage. But he also had a specific education plan, wanted to implement tort reform and had a specific tax cut -- and talked about all three incessantly and in detail. You can talk in vague generalities all you want, but when a reporter shoves a microphone in your face or you are asked in a debate, "Do you support X," you need to have an answer. You can duck a few of them that you don't want to deal with, but you can't do that for every question. And once Obama is forced to do that, he comes closer and closer to being a typical politician.
     
  12. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    There is very little of the shoving of a microphone in someone's face and asking the tough question, though. The last two elections have demonstrated this painfully.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page