The sky is falling! The sky is falling! There's a black man running for President! The sky is falling!

"Republicans need to wake up, drop their defeatist attitude, and start demolishing the Illinois Democrat before it's too late."

For what? Wanting better health care? Thinking the war was a bad idea before it began and going on record to say it?

Be my guest...

How about some specifics? How would YOU slander him? How would you "demolish" him?

"demolishing" ...destruction is always best? ..I will find the youtube interview with Obama from 2002 where he says invasion may be necessary..but he doubts the intelligence and expresses concerns that the Administration has not planned for the aftermath..
Last week over 15,000 went to see and hear him in Austin TX ...no other candidate in either party has that going...
It is way too early for me to commit to any candidate. But both sides who try to play the "experience" card...well three names come to mind
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter
JFK
..all were elected(sure we can debate how effective they were..but they WERE elected)

jp2, would it be too much to ask that a serious candidate for President of the United States have a little more experience running a government than two years in the U. S. Senate?

Do you consider that slander?

Personally, I don't think it hurts to have him built up beyond his own capabilities -- it'll be that much more of a spectacular crash.

Here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

Hey Lee,

Nice of you to add race baiting into the mix here. I'll bite...do you think all of Hollywood would've shown up at his fundraiser if he were a white guy from Illinois who had been a Senator for two years?

Most Republicans, a few years ago, were rooting for a black woman to run for Prez in '08. So we're not afraid of a black man being President, we're afraid of a man who's more liberal than Hillary Clinton becoming President.

If the "white guy" had the message, and yes the background, and his established commitment to issues moonbats believe in..ah yes..
I am not on the Obama train yet..
in a way a positive aspect of destructive attacks during the primary? ...of All candidates I will watch how they are handled..I want a President who can handle the pressure...
Does anyone think George Bush would face greater scrutiny now than in 1998-99?

Why should we step into the buzzsaw of criticizing Senator Obama, when we can sit back and watch the CPDM (Clinton Personal Destruction Machine [tm]) take care of the problem for us?

As the late, sainted Calvin Coolidge said, when you see ten problems rolling down the road at you, nine of them will have rolled into the ditch by the time you need to act.

The best antidote for Obama is more Obama.

There's a reason the only things I know about him and his positions on issues is from information I've sought.

Instead of 'buzz' we need to see more actual Obama.

Obama does have a color problem...he is GREEN. It will do him
in in the end no matter what the drones in the MSM say.

Apparently the booming economy and peace with North Korea constitute collapse?

The booming economy means nothing to voters if they feel they aren't sharing in it. And, I applaud Bush's attempts to deal with North Korea, and hopeful it holds...but I don't believe that's an issue that resonates with voters.

Of course, if Republicans think they're doing just great and the voters love 'em, and that they'll walk to victory, that fine with me. I know you're not saying that directly, but you seem to be implying they're in a very strong position. I don't think either party is in such a strong position----we seem to be divided near 50-50 as a country. In this situation, a very small advantage can make all the difference.

A recent poll found that Americans consider the war in Iraq the most important issue facing the nation today--by far. I don't know if I feel the same way, but that's the way voters feel.

Senator Obama is nothing more than Dick Durbin in black face. Same prep school background, same Chicago Machine politics, same liberal leanings.

I doubt if 150 people would have shown up in Austin to hear Dick Durbin but they will show up to hear Senator Obama give a speech where makes the same proposals and offers the same solutions.

At said, I believe that Illinois does give a picture of the political future of America where minorities, special interest, and government employees will be able to deliver a majority for the Democrats, no matter who is running as the Republican.

wavemaker -

Hate to be picky - but it will actually be 4 years in the senate right? And how many in the legislature? Did you vote for Bush even though he had zero experience foreign policy wise? And that he had less governmental experience than Obama?

But yes, inexperience is a valid criticism. But if that's the best you have to "demolish" with, he'll be quite allright. And I think it's safe to say that he has handled his attackers very well thus far.

jp2, would it be too much to ask that a serious candidate for President of the United States have a little more experience running a government than two years in the U. S. Senate?

I don't know how I feel about Obama, but his "lack of experience" doesn't bother me. The last time we elected a one-termer from Illinois, we got some guy named Lincoln. I'm certainly not saying Obama is Lincoln. But Bush wasn't all that experienced either, and...although I don't like his handling of his job, I don't think his relative inexperience is a problem

For whatever Bush is or isn't, he was governor of Texas (I believe two terms) and was part of the ownership for the Texas Rangers. I think I'd rate a governor over a Senator any day as far as experience.

Let Hillary bash him for a while, and get the bad press for doing it. We have plenty of time to take down this Empty Suit. Remember the election is a Long Long Long time away.

Kevin --

Well, the plus of being a governor is executive experience. The plus of a senator is that includes foreign policy experience and, of course, experience with national issues.

I find ANY of that experience to be valuable...but I don't think it's a core reason for a vote. I would imagine that voters for Bush in 2000 liked his politics and probably his personality as well. They didn't say, "wow, he's a 2-term governor from Texas!" At least, that's my impression.

Basically, people who agree with Obama's positions and like his personality will, I think, vote for him. They're probably not going to care much that he was a senator rather than a governor.

All this talk about some inexperienced, yet articulate, and let's not forget part black (as if that is not a big deal), candidate is just too much right now. It is Feb. 07, the election is 1 year and 8 months away. Why should the Republicans feel like they need to discredit him now? The dem candidates are going to rip into each other, just as the republican ones will, in the short term. Let them have at it first.

Obama is a flash in the pan. He can't keep talking in a generalities like he does and expect to win over voters, let alone take command of the Presidential race.

Well, the plus of being a governor is executive experience. The plus of a senator is that includes foreign policy experience and, of course, experience with national issues.

Yes, that national experience certainly bodes well. That must be why so many Senators have been elected President in the past 40 years.

Personally, I think members of Congress look out only for themselves. Once elected they just try to stay in office. None of them are worth my vote for President.

Obama is a flash in the pan. He can't keep talking in a generalities like he does and expect to win over voters, let alone take command of the Presidential race.

He may be a flash in the pan, but it's too early to tell. People tend to talk in generalities early in a presidential race, and get more specific as time goes by. Over time, we'll hear more from Obama a be better able to judge.

Yes, that national experience certainly bodes well. That must be why so many Senators have been elected President in the past 40 years.

Do you think that senators haven't been elected president in recent years BECAUSE American's prefer governors?

"do you think all of Hollywood would've shown up at his fundraiser if he were a white guy from Illinois who had been a Senator for two years?"

No doubt there are Hollywoodies who really like the idea of helping to elect the first black President of the United States, but if the white guy from Illinois had the same positions, popularity, charisma, experience, talent, intelligence, and electability -- the same ability to ignite a passion in America and the potential to pull this nation back together again -- would the liberals in Hollywood support him to the same extent... yes, absolutely.

Do I think there are Republicans and conservatives who would vote against Obama solely because he's black? Yes, absolutely, lots of them. I think any time you see people using language like "demolish" with respect to a fellow human being you've uncovered a hatred that runs deep. Just my opinion.

Hollywood's current love affair with Obama is, in part, a turn away from Hillary, which is part of a national Democratic movement that I've been predicting for the last several months.

Obama is today's angel, but a significant part of that is an effort by some to push Hillary away. Edwards, as I've also predicted for months now, is too old school, and doesn't have a prayer imho - and what we're seeing is Obama filling the vacuum. There's still lots of time for another viable Democrat to emerge, and I think we will see that, in addition to Gore who is lurking in the wings, of course.

At this point I think Obama has a real good shot at the Demo VP slot. Maybe he'll go all the way, but I haven't seen where he has what it takes yet. It could be Clinton/Obama, Gore/Obama or ???/Obama. That's my guess at this point.

"All this talk about some inexperienced, yet articulate, and let's not forget part black (as if that is not a big deal), candidate is just too much right now."

Another illustration of my point. The fact that he's black has some conservatives and Republicans scared sh*tless.

Lee is right about the possibility of Obama getting the VP nomination. It can be a good strategy for unknowns to run for president when they're early in their careers to GET KNOWN, and make a bigger run for the top job later.

I disagree with Lee that Republicans are scared of Obama BECAUSE he's black. The Republicans want to win the presidency; they're going to want the candidate that they feel most confident they can beat. They don't know who that is yet. Nobody does.

Senators/representatives jobs (they are to represent) are much different than what the President (who is to lead) has to do. Some executive experience is very important to me in a presidential candidate, because....

1) The President is the only "president". Not just a part of a group of 100 or 435. So anything he/she does is so obvious. I.E., if Bush had been just a Senator/Rep..his poor speech would not have been an issue. I don't want my president to get 1st management experience while serving in office!

2) President has to appoint a cabinet & executive team--in other words needs to know how to put together a "company"--not just pick a couple of aides & a secretary or 2. Intelligence is helpful, but managerial experience really pays off (A lot of CEOs were not tops in academics, but great leaders)

3) Governors, execs of top American countries work with foreign leaders/companies/gov'ts probably more than most US Senators, unless the senators are on the Foreign Relations committee.

It is a shame Americans "feel" who they believe will be the best President, etc. and vote accordingly, instead of "thinking" who will be the best candidate.

Lee, why don't you talk to Joe Biden about race relations. He seems to have the pulse of your party it seems.

Do you think that senators haven't been elected president in recent years BECAUSE American's prefer governors?

No, I think Americans are not impressed and do not like members of the Senate in general. And they would rather elect someone outside of the beltway.

just my opinion though.

Another illustration of my point

yeah, like you make valid points here, Lee.

The fact that he's black has some conservatives and Republicans scared sh*tless.

I didn't know Republicans were running against him yet. I think you meant to attack HRC, she's the only who's scared now.

I can tell you why the republicans are so flummoxed about Obama's popularity.

They can't understand why anyone who speaks in full English sentences and has great deal of confidence in who he is yet humble about his station in life and a progressive ideology about bringing all Americans to the table could possibly be attracting so much attention and that the thought of putting him up against McCain or Guiliani or Romney has them quaking in their boots.

Once President Obama has 8 years in the White House the notion of republican control of anything will be a far distant memory. By then the business of government by honesty will be such a radical departure from the beginning of this millenium that citizens will never again allow themselves to be so duped.

Thus the last desperate gasps are being heard now. Guaranteed there will even be some 30% dead enders who will be mesmerized by his qualities of honesty and forthrightness. A new air or respectability and dignity will be refreshing our land. America might even be able to hold her head high again.

OBAMA 08

"Civil" behavior...

1)Bill Clinton spoke in full sentences and we understood him quite well.

2)"Progressive" idealogy is in the eye of the beholder.

3)George W Bush wanted to bring people to the table and not have a divided nation...he ran on that back in 1999---what President wouldn't want everyone on his/her side?

4)If Obama wins the presidency for 8 years & is awesome...then I don't care if the Republicans are in power---it's about the Nation not the party or the individual (that's why I still support us being in Iraq)

5)Those who are "duped" are those who believe Bush is a liar and not a man of integrity.

6)Many of us Americans hold our head high NOW...because we believe though our country makes mistakes, it is still the best place to live in the world---and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being the best!

Oh, and from what I can tell I believe Obama is a very fine man...I just don't agree with his liberal ("progressive") agenda.

America might even be able to hold her head high again.

OBAMA 08
Posted by: civil behavior at February 24, 2007 10:09 PM

Obviously, you have some self-esteem issue going on, cuz I'm holding my head high just fine.

It's a shame you libs only seem to feel that way when you're in charge and not when there's someone else in the White House. This economy is booming and it's not backed up by a smoke and mirrors internet economy...but because the President is a Republican, you and your media ilk have fought tooth and nail to persuade EVERYONE that this country sucks, their income sucks and everything that goes on in it sucks.

I for one am more optimistic than ever...why aren't you guys? You don't laugh, outside of your little petty jokes that you share amongst each other.

Why all the hate lefties? Why do you hate living in this country so much? I'm not governed or cajoled or coerced to think or feel a certain way because of what Bush says or does...why are you guys feeling that way?

I don't feel like my rights are being violated on a daily basis and that I need more rights to protect me from everything. You guys do...why is that? What specific rights has Bush taken from you?

You get frothing at the mouth mad over the guy. Crissakes, lighten up why don't cha.

Who knows what's going to happen.

Here's my guess: HRC and Obama duke it out for a while, but then Obama folds. He then later resurfaces as Hillary's running mate. That's my guess right now, but dont quote me on it.

Reagan made people hold their heads up high again, and the lefties hated him. So nice try civil. But wrong-o, as usual-o.

Regarding preferring governors over senators...

Do you guys prefer Guiliani over McCain? Pataki over Brownback? Do any of you prefer a Republican senator over a governor?

For that matter, do you think that the governors on the Democratic side are that party's most qualified candidates? For example, Bill Richardson.

If so, why?

I'm curious about different opinions. (Hearing the same opinions is boring!)

I think that governors (and probably former Mayors) are prefered over Senators. I've heard it suggested that this is because being a Senator involves too much compromise. If so, perhaps Obama hasn't been one long enough to get disqualified because of it.

I've heard that it's because governors are in an executive role and Senators are not. I suppose this is a reason but not an overly large one.

My opinion is that as soon as someone goes to Washington people begin to see them as detatched from the rest of us. We vote for them again and again because we want our guy or gal to maintain our state's seniority, but in a sense they've changed residencies. We don't *trust* Washington D.C. We'd rather elect a minor governor from Arkansas or New Mexico. Locals might know better (Bill Richardson is my governor) but to everyone else they seem qualified enough and untainted.