I'd like to see an African American or female president in 2008

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
This is lame to me... why everytime someone says race...someone jumps out to say reverse racism.. I also am not comparing us with other countries. Minorities don't fear caucasions because they don't understand them...I'll try to keep my comments towards the threads issue and just say that yes we have advanced in race relations, however; its still a major problem...And many people will not vote for either candidate because they happen to be black or a woman.
People have said we have come so far, yet this will still be " A First" in our history... so until this happens we remain a nation that has not elected any minority into this office.
the reason why Condi Rice and Colin Powell did not run because they are not politicians. Another thing I don't hear is people saying that Bush didn't have experience because governor was his 1st office, Clinton has little experience... Senator was her 1st..... Obama actually has had a longer political background than either of them....(Before Bush's presidency) - this to me shows me something that I already know...people are simply trying to discredit him for reasons that really don't exist or have no significance...and people form these opinions without even knowing why..when they see someone who is different.
And I'm sorry racism is a one way street...
Racism is a one way street? that is an absurd statement.
rac·ism
NOUN:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
You think only white people can be racist? Wake up. The Hispanic gangs were no more intergrated than the black gangs where I grew up. One of my mom's cousins (all from Arkansas by the way) married a black guy. It wasn't the ignorant red necked hicks from the south who disowned their child because of the marriage. As far a I know the guys parents have not seen their grandchildren to this day.
But back on topic somewhat you assume those who question Obama's experience are just covering up the fact they don't like him because he's black. That's a joke. Clinton and Bush were both heavily criticized for lack of national experience only being governors before being elected. They were multi term chief executives charged with running a government, much better practical experience than being a first term member of the Senate who is simply one of a hundred. If you cant see that many people could have legitimate concerns over his lack of experience you are as blind as those who would say no one would oppose him because of his race.
 

deltablack22

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
This is lame to me... why everytime someone says race...someone jumps out to say reverse racism.. I also am not comparing us with other countries. Minorities don't fear caucasions because they don't understand them...I'll try to keep my comments towards the threads issue and just say that yes we have advanced in race relations, however; its still a major problem...And many people will not vote for either candidate because they happen to be black or a woman.
People have said we have come so far, yet this will still be " A First" in our history... so until this happens we remain a nation that has not elected any minority into this office.
the reason why Condi Rice and Colin Powell did not run because they are not politicians. Another thing I don't hear is people saying that Bush didn't have experience because governor was his 1st office, Clinton has little experience... Senator was her 1st..... Obama actually has had a longer political background than either of them....(Before Bush's presidency) - this to me shows me something that I already know...people are simply trying to discredit him for reasons that really don't exist or have no significance...and people form these opinions without even knowing why..when they see someone who is different.
And I'm sorry racism is a one way street...
And its lame to me... That every time a minority is involved someone pulls a race card.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Obama is not qualified and doesn't have the experience required to run this country. Has nothing to do with his color or race. However, I frankly would find it a bit unsettling, given our current situation, to elect a president with an Arab name, knowing his father was Muslim. It just doesn't seem appropriate at this point in our country.
There are a lot of people who will vote for him, just because he is black.
To me, the position is too important to allow these considerations to enter into it. Running the country is not about race.
If Colin Powell was running for president, I would take him very seriously as a candidate. But not because he's black.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
Obama is not qualified and doesn't have the experience required to run this country. Has nothing to do with his color or race. However, I frankly would find it a bit unsettling, given our current situation, to elect a president with an Arab name, knowing his father was Muslim. It just doesn't seem appropriate at this point in our country.
There are a lot of people who will vote for him, just because he is black.
To me, the position is too important to allow these considerations to enter into it. Running the country is not about race.
If Colin Powell was running for president, I would take him very seriously as a candidate. But not because he's black.
What does a persons name have to do with anything or their parents? I believe Arnold Swartznegger's dad was a Nazi.... And there is nothing fundementally wrong with being muslim... they are not the ones we are fighting. Besides he says his father was raised muslim, but was a proclaimed atheist. Obama is a christian and attends church. I think his diverse background and experience living abroad is a major plus for a president.
Here are some facts:
Columbia Graduate
Harvard Law Graduate and 1st black President of Harvard Law Review - graduated magna cum laude
Worked as community organizer...voting rights
worked as lawyer on discrimination and voting rights
Contitutional Law professor at Univ of Chicago Law School
State Senator from 1996-2003
US Senator from 2005 - present
He holds assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs
He has been to Russia, Middle East and Africa to meet with leaders.
His first name is Hebrew and his last name is african..
Now you can put any other canditate up and lets compare education, community service, political experience, and background.
 

rylan1

Active Member
1967-1994: Practicing attorney; also a lobbyist for many years.
1969-1972: Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle Tennessee district.
1973-1974: Minority counsel for the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee.
1980: Special counsel to Tennessee’s Gov. Lamar Alexander.
1985: Played himself in the movie "Marie," about a woman determined to reveal political corruption.
1994: Elected to serve the remainder of Al Gore’s Senate term after Gore became vice president.
1996: Re-elected to U.S. Senate for his first full term. He does not seek re-election in 2002 to resume his acting career.
2002-2007: Joined the cast of TV’s "Law and Order" as prosecutor Arthur Branch
For those who don't know who this is, its Fred Thompson who is currently running 2nd in Republican Polls... I could say he doesn't have much experience either. He was an elected official for only 5 years. Other than that he was an attorney and lobbyist. Yet,I hear nothing about him not being experienced...
What makes him so qualified?
 

rylan1

Active Member
Hillary Clinton has been a Senator since 2000, which gives her technically 7 years of political experience along with her law background and First Lady background...
So I'm curious to know why Obama who has a total of 11 years as either a State Senator or U.S Senator along with his credible educational history is not considered an experienced candidate, while nothing is said about Clinton who has 7 years in and Thompson who has 6 years in? Why do people form this opinion or have this assumption... Do they only listen to the media and what his opponents are saying, or are these assumption have to do with something else.
I heard something about raising taxes.... Have you guys read or heard about his 80B tax plan that actually benefits more middle class and low income families, instead of Bush's plan that is more favorable to the rich?
 

seasalt101

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Hillary Clinton has been a Senator since 2000, which gives her technically 7 years of political experience along with her law background and First Lady background...
So I'm curious to know why Obama who has a total of 11 years as either a State Senator or U.S Senator along with his credible educational history is not considered an experienced candidate, while nothing is said about Clinton who has 7 years in and Thompson who has 6 years in? Why do people form this opinion or have this assumption... Do they only listen to the media and what his opponents are saying, or are these assumption have to do with something else.
I heard something about raising taxes.... Have you guys read or heard about his 80B tax plan that actually benefits more middle class and low income families, instead of Bush's plan that is more favorable to the rich?
i'm not voting for any of the above mentioned either, i said why i would not vote for obama...tobin
 

chilwil84

Active Member
no canidate who only has been in the senate has the experience to be president compared to a governer or a mayor of a large city. a senator hasnt run anything they vote (some just what the polls tell them). there are a few senators and house members that have the experience to do the job but most dont and will just be the same old washington politician.
 

seasalt101

Active Member
Originally Posted by chilwil84
no canidate who only has been in the senate has the experience to be president compared to a governer or a mayor of a large city. a senator hasnt run anything they vote (some just what the polls tell them). there are a few senators and house members that have the experience to do the job but most dont and will just be the same old washington politician.
besides that, how many bills do they not even show up for to vote on anyway, i've seen enough cspan with empty seats, they seem to only show up when it is a partisan issue or something that they can say look at my voting record to get votes to accelerate ther higher political ambition...tobin
 

reefraff

Active Member
Not that is really matters but you might want to double check your math on Thompson's time in the Senate.
Hillary had great experience in the 90's, Travelgate, Filegate, Indonisian campaign contributions, Vanishing and reappearing law office records. Her greatest accomplishment was probably as a charter of the bimbo eruption containment squad.
Thompson has a lot more experience in national politics than either of them if you look at his history. But again what has he, Hilly or Bom Bom been in charge of?
That is why sitting members of congress are seldom elected President. Going back to 1900 I can think of 2.
 

crimzy

Active Member
What is very clear to me is that mainstream America will not elect a black candidate. Rylan is right that people use the inexperience card with Obama only, even though there are several less experienced frontrunner candidates. Other people will not vote for him based on his name or his father's religion. The bottom line is that there will always be a reason found not to elect the black candidate. I think that the same would be true if Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice running for president.
The more I read about Obama, the more impressed I have been. He has been a leader in the Senate, with strong convictions. His stances are consistent and do not change with the times and political pressure. His position on the war is on target and has not waivered since day one. Unfortunately, the American people will continue to disregard this, and potentially many other, very qualified people. I wonder if Americans would elect a president with a black vice president. At least that would start to break down the barrier.
Maybe we'll be open enough to elect a black president in the 2092 election. At this point it appears to be impossible.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Looks like I prooved my point. Being a lobbyist is not the same as having political experience. He probably know a lot about politics, but I can not consider that position as the same as holding an elected office. 2nd a mayor of a large city is not uniquely qualified in my opinion either. Has anyone who's highest position was mayor ever been elected to office? I know that being the mayor of New York is a tough job; however, New York is not like anywhere else in the world. 2nd, how does being a mayor prepare you for International matters? Third, Gulliani's personal relationships in my opinion also paint a negative image of a president.
And about Thompson... He took over a Senate position which was 2 years in, and was re-elected for 4 years... which is a total of 6.

But as I was saying before, everyone is mentioning experience in regards to Obama...but no one questions these other candidates and their length of tenure. So what is really going on?
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by chilwil84
no canidate who only has been in the senate has the experience to be president compared to a governer or a mayor of a large city. a senator hasnt run anything they vote (some just what the polls tell them). there are a few senators and house members that have the experience to do the job but most dont and will just be the same old washington politician.
So I guess McCain, Clinton, Edwards, and Thompson are out.

Did I miss anyone?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Actually, as a Republican leaning guy in New Mexico. Richardson isn't as bad as that. He actually declared a state emergency here and put the national guard down near the border for a while. He has done much to bring New Mexico into what I call the 20th century. My biggest complaint about him is he does spend on some stupid things, but then again I think every president after Reagan has spent on stupid crap.
That dude is the only dem that I've heard that sounds like he paid attention in eco class. To bad his other social policies I don't agree with.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
And about Thompson... He took over a Senate position which was 2 years in, and was re-elected for 4 years... which is a total of 6.

But as I was saying before, everyone is mentioning experience in regards to Obama...but no one questions these other candidates and their length of tenure. So what is really going on?
clinton is the same way.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
clinton is the same way.
Right! So do you see the same thing as Crimzy and I? I am not going to put words in your mouth or trap you into a particular view point... but is it clear for what ever reason that people are using the "inexperience card" based on perception instead of fact. And that many of these candidates have an equal amount of elected office experience?
By the way, Gulliani would be the 1st mayor in history to be president that has never had an elected outside of city hall. Only other "mayors" were Cleveland and Coolidge... and they both were elected as Governors before their presidency. So that running a major city...as history shows is not enough and this would be a first.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
And about Thompson... He took over a Senate position which was 2 years in, and was re-elected for 4 years... which is a total of 6.

?
Wow, how can I possibly debate politics with someone who has such a firm grasp of how our political system works?

Like I said before, take a look at the history of sitting members of Congress (House and Senate) running for president.
Thompson has been involved in a lot more than just lobbying. He's done legal work for the Senate, been involved in the judicial nominee process etc.
 

scgator

Member
The key to deciphering the rhetoric and "promises" is to look back at a candidate's political record. I, personally, like Fred Thompson. I lived in Nashville for about 15 years and am more familiar with his convictions and record.
I'm not saying that a woman or minority would NOT make a good president, but you have to look further than a campaign speech to know what a candidate is about. For me neither Obama or Hillary would be a good choice. Obama due to MY lack of knowledge of his priors (he was only thrust on the national scene when he threw in for the presidency). Hillary due to my knowledge of her priors. My gut tells me she can't be trusted.
A minority candidate may be the answer to the apathy of most voters. I just don't believe we have had a quality minority candidate as yet. Obama may be that candidate in 2012, but for me he 's not there yet.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
The more I read about Obama, the more impressed I have been. He has been a leader in the Senate, with strong convictions. His stances are consistent and do not change with the times and political pressure. His position on the war is on target and has not waivered since day one. Unfortunately, the American people will continue to disregard this, and potentially many other, very qualified people. I wonder if Americans would elect a president with a black vice president. At least that would start to break down the barrier.
Maybe we'll be open enough to elect a black president in the 2092 election. At this point it appears to be impossible.
A leader in the Senate?
From Govt track:
Barack Obama has sponsored 113 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 105 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 454 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).
Average. Bill sponsorship would be the sign of a leader. His record is nothing special. I'll grant you he has been consistant which is the reason I wouldn't want him to be president. He's a liberal. I am not.
It's interesting to note that the overwhelming majority of those who are questioning Obama's experience at this point are his fellow Democrats, the filthy racists
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Wow, how can I possibly debate politics with someone who has such a firm grasp of how our political system works?

Like I said before, take a look at the history of sitting members of Congress (House and Senate) running for president.
Thompson has been involved in a lot more than just lobbying. He's done legal work for the Senate, been involved in the judicial nominee process etc.
I don't understand... Your take on sitting members of Congress... Okay, they have not had the success, the last one elected was John Kennedy.
who would have accomplished many things and brought this country together. So if you want to make that comparison to Obama then I pray he is elected and can accomplish the comparable issues Kennedy faced and was unable to finish.
But to your point Thompson falls in this category doesn't he? Who cares about work he did for Senate and judical nominee- all that tells me is that he is a good researcher and lobbyist. How does this qualify him above any other candidate.
Its not that I have "such a grasp" on politics... its just that I am not going to use a biased opinion to influence my decision. All I hear is that he (Obama) seems to be a good guy, but he LACKS EXPERIENCE. Yet, put his record up to someone elses where you can see this is not true - You bring up "Sitting Senate" history, which basically takes out all of the front runners and we will exclude Gulliani because he doesn't even fit in the conversation because what he's attempting has never been done... People should be saying that he (Gulliani) needs more experience beyond City Hall.
Please either give me a sound arguement or just admit to what's going on here. I've been waiting all day to see what response someone would give me, otherwise you've been
 
Top