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

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
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

I'm not going to say that people are racists, but people do have underlying or even it could be an unconscious bias. In regards to his record, I would like to know how it compares to other candidates. Considering his campaigning, average in comparission to others could actually mean more. But as far as consistant...why wouldn't you want that in a president. Consistancy is a highly desirable attribute that I would want in a leader. But who cares (obviuosly you do

) about this liberal and conservative stuff. I think this thinking and party lines get in the way of political progress. I simply would like to vote for the person who I feel will do the best job.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by scgator
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.
I think both candidates are quality candidates... they deserve to be in the running. But take Fred Thompson, all I knew about him was that he was on tv. I had to research him.... do the same for all candidates because this will be probably our most important election.
(he was only thrust on the national scene when he threw in for the presidency) - can also be said about Thompson or Rommney, or Hucklebee... basically all those candidates that I've never heard of.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1

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

Do you seriously think Obama is the first candidate to have his experience questioned? I am going to assume that the fact you don't know the length of a term for a US senator you don't follow politics much. Here's a recent history lesson. Bush and Clinton both had their experience questioned despite the fact they were both multiple term governors and Clinton had also been Attorney general of Arkansas as well. Neither had foriegn policy experience and thats what the other side used to beat them up with. Clinton was also beat on for lack of military experience. Since now he nor W had any real military experience that club is removed from the arsenal. Ronald Reagan was repeadedly labeld as a B movie actor despite the fact he left acting for politics and was a two term governor of Caifornia. Jimmy Carter, well they were right about him

What's the easist thing to hit Obama with? Hint: He's less than half way through his first term in the Senate. Before that he was a State Senator for a couple terms. Kennedy had been in Congress 6 years (as long as Obama was a state Senator) and the Senate for 8, you can't compare the Hillarbeast, Obama or Edwards to that. Biden is the only Kennedy like candidate in the field in that he has served a long time and has a somehwat moderate voting record compared to Dodd. Being a long time member of Congress is a determent because your votes are your record. Kennedy was a special case because his voting record cut accross party lines and in the short time he was president he governed in a way that showed he didn't follow a party idealogy.
I personally don't get worked up about a person's level of political experience. I look at their background too. I DON'T TRUST LAWYERS. That is a strike against most politicians including Thompson, Obama, Clinton etc. I made the statement in another thread and I will repeat it here. If the election comes down between Obama vs. Rudy I will likely support the Unity 08 candidate because I don't see much difference between the two. There is going to be a whole lot of other people who feel the same way. With any of the Candidates it will be very telling to see who the people involved in their campaigns will be once they are the party's nominee because they usually end up in the presidential cabinet.
What this whole damn thing boils down too is don't assume that all the Democrats who are questioning Obama's experience do so because they don't want a black president. Some do feel that wat but you have others that are simply backing another candidate and are just hitting Obama with the most obvious club.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I'm not going to say that people are racists, but people do have underlying or even it could be an unconscious bias. In regards to his record, I would like to know how it compares to other candidates. Considering his campaigning, average in comparission to others could actually mean more. But as far as consistant...why wouldn't you want that in a president. Consistancy is a highly desirable attribute that I would want in a leader. But who cares (obviuosly you do

) about this liberal and conservative stuff. I think this thinking and party lines get in the way of political progress. I simply would like to vote for the person who I feel will do the best job.
Being overly consistant to the point of stubborness is one of Bushes major flaws. Obama hasn't really been in national politics long enough to see if he is willing to rethink his position on issues if the facts warrant it

I actually like the consistancy

Can you point to anything in Obama's record (prior to announcing a presidential bid)that would warrant national attention if his name were Barry O'baine and he was white?

 

[chilwil84]

clinton isnt out she ran the presidency for 8 years ,but she is still trying to bring up her fail universal healthcare ideas that even many dems say doesnt have a chance of working. if she followed some of her own convictions and stopped following polls she might not be a bad president though i wouldnt agree with most of her plans but if they were her own she would at least gain respect among everyone (including me)

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Do you seriously think Obama is the first candidate to have his experience questioned? I am going to assume that the fact you don't know the length of a term for a US senator you don't follow politics much. Here's a recent history lesson. Bush and Clinton both had their experience questioned despite the fact they were both multiple term governors and Clinton had also been Attorney general of Arkansas as well. Neither had foriegn policy experience and thats what the other side used to beat them up with. Clinton was also beat on for lack of military experience. Since now he nor W had any real military experience that club is removed from the arsenal. Ronald Reagan was repeadedly labeld as a B movie actor despite the fact he left acting for politics and was a two term governor of Caifornia. Jimmy Carter, well they were right about him

What's the easist thing to hit Obama with? Hint: He's less than half way through his first term in the Senate. Before that he was a State Senator for a couple terms. Kennedy had been in Congress 6 years (as long as Obama was a state Senator) and the Senate for 8, you can't compare the Hillarbeast, Obama or Edwards to that. Biden is the only Kennedy like candidate in the field in that he has served a long time and has a somehwat moderate voting record compared to Dodd. Being a long time member of Congress is a determent because your votes are your record. Kennedy was a special case because his voting record cut accross party lines and in the short time he was president he governed in a way that showed he didn't follow a party idealogy.
I personally don't get worked up about a person's level of political experience. I look at their background too. I DON'T TRUST LAWYERS. That is a strike against most politicians including Thompson, Obama, Clinton etc. I made the statement in another thread and I will repeat it here. If the election comes down between Obama vs. Rudy I will likely support the Unity 08 candidate because I don't see much difference between the two. There is going to be a whole lot of other people who feel the same way. With any of the Candidates it will be very telling to see who the people involved in their campaigns will be once they are the party's nominee because they usually end up in the presidential cabinet.
What this whole damn thing boils down too is don't assume that all the Democrats who are questioning Obama's experience do so because they don't want a black president. Some do feel that wat but you have others that are simply backing another candidate and are just hitting Obama with the most obvious club.
They are all lawyers. And in regards to experience... my main point is that his experience is similar to most of the other candidates (front runners). And that Gulliani by historical guidelines would have the least.

 

[scgator]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think both candidates are quality candidates... they deserve to be in the running. But take Fred Thompson, all I knew about him was that he was on tv. I had to research him.... do the same for all candidates because this will be probably our most important election.
(he was only thrust on the national scene when he threw in for the presidency) - can also be said about Thompson or Rommney, or Hucklebee... basically all those candidates that I've never heard of.
That is true Rylan. I really have not started any in depth research YET. My statements are my opinions at this early point in the race. One reason that I love to read these threads is that I get to see different viewpoints.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
They are all lawyers. And in regards to experience... my main point is that his experience is similar to most of the other candidates (front runners). And that Gulliani by historical guidelines would have the least.
I sorta agree on the Rudy thing and he will get hit about lack of experience in the general but he does have a valid point that running the city of New York has challenges and difficulties that go beyond even what many governors have to deal with.