Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
According to Barack Obama's website, he has started an exploratory committee which will allow him to raise money and begin to hire campaign workers. The first major step in the bid for election.
We have had discussions about Obama's policies, But I am much more interested in the broader social implications of his run for presidency.
Beyond the fact that neither of the 2 major dem. candidates are white males, what are the implications of this next presidential election? Do the dems have a chance? Can Obama be elected? Can Clinton be elected? Is Obama's race actually an issue? Is Clintons gender actually an issue?
question comes down to..
would Bill Clinton have sexual relationship with Hilary Clinton's secretary?
If McCain continues urging more troops to Iraq, anything can happen...
Who are these people?
ah. yeah. If McCain continues -> Bill will get intimate with Hillarys secretary.... logical.
the dems in power in illinoize ie madigan et al are planning on moving the illinoize primary to an earlier date. this would give barack and hilary too more juice and nullify those meaningless caucuses in iowa and new hampshire that currently carry much too much weight in determining the candidates.
I think Obama has what it takes to win personally. We've seen what it takes to get the presidency and it isn't much. In the past, the only Senator elected for an executive position like the Presidency was a young passionate Senator, John F Kennedy. I think Americans are looking for another passionate leader. Someone who can join a divided nation. Regardless the fact that Obama is a democrat, I think he can gain the votes of middle America and the conservative vote. He is a member of the church, and I think many people might look past some of the more "liberal" stances, and make choices based on what it better for America. At the point, I think that is a good leader. I am from a conservative state; however, I think he can get a lot of the vote. I say this because I believe Americans want someone they can trust, who is passionate, well spoken and obvioulsy educated-someone who presents himself well. I say himself because I do not think Hillary can win. I am not saying I don't think a woman can do a great job as president, I just don't think Hillary is that woman.
Typically, Senators have not been elected because they don't have executive experience. I think our president has shown us that shouldn't necessarily be requisite for the job. I believe Obama can surround himself with smart individuals that can guide him on issues he might not have as much experience with(i.e. foreign policy, etc...)
Also, I am not so sure that McCain being interested in sending in more troops is necessarily a huge downside for his ticket as democrats even agree that we need more. Hell, a guy in my studio served for 5 years in active combat and he think its an awful idea to get out. He's pretty liberal too. I think one needs to consider the implicatons overall of what it would mean to pull out now. It's not going to get any better soon, and it sure won't be any better to get out.
I think it would be a mistake for Obama to run next year. I am a huge fan of Obama, but think it would be too soon for him. He should stay in the Senate and run in 2012 or 2016. As much as I'd like to see Hilary win, I don't think she will. Plus she's a litlle too divicive, and has the the stench of Bill's immorality all over her. I think Evan Bayh and Jim Webb are who the Dems should be pushing. They are from good areas of the country for Dems to run from (the Midwest and The South), they are strong on foreign policy yet balanced as far as domestic issues go.
The key is to win. They won the Congress, but that's just the first step. The country is moving back to center or even left of center, the voters just need a little nudge and the Dems should take the White House, but if they get greedy and try to push Hilary, Edwards, Obama or someone seen as farther to the left, there might be a backlash and McCain or (god forbid) Rudy could sneak in and win. That is part of the reason that Kerry was a bad choice. One of the main talking points the right had against Kerry was that he had the most Liberal voting record in the Senate. I think that scared a lot of the swing voters. If the Dems had pushed a more centrist candidate they could have won. The problem was there weren't really any good ones at the time. I believe this time there are.
Let the games begin.
"I say this because I believe Americans want someone they can trust, who is passionate, well spoken and obvioulsy educated-someone who presents himself well."
i completely agree. I saw an interview with obama the other day, not enough of the interview to understand or have a clear view on all or many of his stances, but enough for him to catch my eye. its funny, i just read this article on cnn but the other day i was discussing with a friend that he needed to be ready for obama as pres. he disagreed. i suppose we'll see.
hillary=no. cant see it. too liberal, and a woman. obama would have a better chance of gaining the conservative vote. i liked her husband tho.
i liked her husband, too
just that i didn't want to see her husband being whipped by her
God, the last thing we want is white males in office. Obama is too white for my tastes
if you support Obama, let them know:http://www.barackobama.com/
Obama can win if the rest of the dems get on the boat... Together we stand, divided we fall, ya know? That has been a big problem for Dems until now... thanks to G.W. for giving everybody something to unite against.
Hillary?... no.. like said above, too liberal, too controversial
Giullianni?... heck no.. he did an excellent job post 9/11, but that does not mean he will make a good president (or even has a chance)
Personally, I think Obama will run as John Edwards' VP.... That combo has serious potential.
Either way, this next election will (hopefully) have a huge impact on education and improving multiculturalism and foreign relations... which could be positive for people in our field...
If George W. Bush can be president, ANYONE can be president.
My money is on Hillary in '08.
Let's all stick together on this one. No divided Democrats, please.
good luck democrats ~ i'm voting for tom tancredo !!
there was a senator name Lincoln from Illinois that spent two years in the House before he became president...
sigh...i think i will be sitting out the '08 election.
obama's too religious and not strong enough on environmental issues for me. would never vote for hillary, she's too wishy washy on ending the war. would never, ever vote for a repug.
I've always been for Walken in '08
i usually vote for whoever i'm sleeping with tells me to. looks like i may be sitting out 2008 as well...
we really do need a "uniter" (sorry george w) and hillary's not it. she could win, but we'd just be in for four more years of one side being really pissed off at the president. obama could be, and i think that giuliani could be...maybe mc cain, but man, he's pretty old, older than you think.
so far as i can tell, we've been in this situation since at least 1992.
first the reps f--king hated clinton for eight years...then the dems f--king hated bush for what will be eight years. the result has been that politics has become so virulently partisan that millions of people voted for republicans in blue suits just so that the democrats could take back congress.
I really think the Joe Liberman/Ralph Nader Ticket is the best go in 08. Besides I think it would be the first time ever where both candiates are from the same state. Connecticut might just lead the nation on the path to Higher Electricity, Higher Insuance, Higher Fuel Cost and Higher Taxes!
I'm all for Feingold, the ONLY one to vote against the Patriot Act. Unfortuantly this county will never vote for a single, twice divorced, Jew. Some day Russ, you'll have your chance!!!
Ha ha ha ha vado, the night is young.
ochona - don't kid yourself, the other side has been hating the president since long before Clinton. I think the hatred at it's current virility dates back to Nixon. For every Nixon hater there's a Jimmy Carter hater on the otherside so all is equal is politics. Hell, I've heard seniors bitching about Hoover and FDR.
Even the founders didn't agree. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had greatly different ideas about where to take this country. Vastly more different than the current bickering over quite minute differences. Because, at the end of the day the Dem's aren't nearly as far left as people believe, while the Repub's aren't nearly as far right as is perceived.
That's why I'm decidedly 3rd party. Coming from a state that voted a 3rd party govenor, it was the one time in my lifetime the Repub's and Dem's actually joined their forces of hatred and directed it all towards one guy. Nothing really got done, but hey, I'll take that over the progress the politicians usually get done.
I think the reason why people are so lovey and gushy about Obama is because he is not George W. Bush. I think people need wise up a little more and seriously think whether a guy nobody knew of only 2 years ago can or should become president. Alot of people fell hook, line, and sinker to "Bush could be my buddy" persona in and his compassionate conservative BS in 2000...so I wonder how many people really think why someone as green as Obama can instantly handle the job of president. I, for one, want my president to have some solid games under his belt, before I pencil him is as the starting quarterback.
To me, George W. Bush is the anti-Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was the anti-George H. Bush. George H. Bush won because of Willie Horton and was a carry over of Ronald Reagan, but Reagan was the anti-Jimmy Carter. Carter was the anti-Ford and anything having to do with Watergate and Nixon. I can't go beyond that as I wasn't around then, but I really hope we chose our leaders based on experience and ability instead of simply because he/she is simply an alternative to what we were sold on four years previous.
I like Hillary, because first and foremost, she is one smart person...which is a lesson I hope all Americans can now appreciate the critical importance of as president. Second, it is time that this country elects a woman and brings a balance to the male-centric ego that seems to define the idea of leadership. Hillary is quite capable, despite the hang-ups people have with her being the first-lady to Bill, or Bill himself. She's converted alot of Republicans in New York since she came in as Senator and I think her performance (beyond just voting for or against Iraq) has been quite good as she knows the issues and can hold her own in the political knife-fights that are the norm in Washington. Is she the best candidate? I think she is.
At this stage, which is very early granted, but I think the anticipated (but cancelled) 2000 NY Senate rumble between the Democratic hero (Hillary (and Bill)) and the Republican hero (Guiliani) will come into reality in 2008. I think it will be a contest between the people that are viewed as the defining essence of each party's political philosophy. There are so many critical and defining issues in play between those two (global and national security, the economy, national healthcare, the enviroment, our weakened infrastructure, etc.) that I think it will (and it should) be a true referendum on where Americans think the country should go after Bush and his post-9/11 legacy.
I think McCain is a contender but he will be lasso-ed by having his name attached to the "McCain Doctrine" in Iraq, especially if it fails worse than what most people believe it will. Guiliani will ultimately be outed as wife-cheating fascist, and I honestly think that the only thing holding Hillary back will be voters who have yet to come to terms with the Clinton presidency...which I think people have to admit was so much better on so many level compared to what we have had to endure for the last 6+ years...BJ or no BJ.
The momentum is shifting in the country and I can't wait until January 2009 for us to complete free ourselves from the damage that George W. Bush's politic and performance has brought to so many. I just hope that our country has learned a good lesson that it IS important who becomes president... a pretty face, an engaging personality, and rhetorical speeches with no performace record to back it up just isn't good enough anymore.
i really dont understand where this obsession with Obama's lack of political experience comes from. I for one fail to see what extra years in the senate will do to prepare him for presidential duties.
it would more strictly define his views and force him into greater politicing if he ever decided to run.
it would give him the ability to argue policy but never set it.
it will not give him any more experience with foreign affairs.
just a thought
perhaps his lack of political experience will translate into a more open and maleable presidency
The most important thing is that Obama electrifies people. Doesnt matter why. He does and it will make one of the most effective presidents just because of that "charisma". Its a forgotten art in the last 30 years - the old fashioned "people just like him factor". Not too much thinking, or overanylitical speek, nor dripy clintonesque oprah statements(those are in the book). And - at 44- doesnt that arguably could make him eligible to make him the first gen-x'r president - if 1943-1960 are concidered the "boomers"? Hmmmmm- maybe the shift is quietly more generational than anyone's commented on.
why do people like giuliani so much? he's a tool...we'll end up living in a police state by the time he's done....wait we may already be...is this thing tapped...hello?....hello?
Yeah giuliani is. He was about to get run out of town on a rail and then 9/11 happened and turned him into a hero for some reason.
I like Obama but I'm concerned with his lack of experience because of the way the old-boy network works on capital hill.
They ordained the trumps and then he got the mumps
And died being treated at mt. sinal
And my best friend bill died from a poison pill
Some wired doctor prescribed for stress
My arms and legs are shrunk the food all has lumps
They discovered some animal no ones ever seen
It was an inside trader eating a rubber tire
After running over rudy giuliani
They say the presidents dead but no one can find his head
Its been missing now for weeks
But no one noticed it he had seemed so fit
And Im sick of it
Im sick of you
Im so sick of you, bye, bye, bye
Bye, bye, bye
vado, will you please start up an exploratory committee...
vado for czar!
I like Obama but I'm concerned with his lack of experience because of the way the old-boy network works on capital hill.
this is a positive, no?
Well, I hope so...
But I can just imagine the crusty old legislature exploiting the 'kid-card'.
I think an Edwards/Obama combo would make for the greatest leaders.
Let me say that I am a huge Obama supporter. However, I'ts too soon for him to run on his own. sandmansd has a good point; get all the dems on the boat... Obama and John Edwards = potential.
And as Garpike said, we can't afford a division between democrats. The only way we are going to win this is if the democrats are united.
obama hype ~ flashback to 'dean for america'
Wow, Vado. Too weird. Woke up with that song in my head this morning. Probably haven't heard it in a few years. But I guess it's like my painter-friend Donald told me............
Did anybody else check out that Walken site? From what I could tell, it doesn't seem to be a joke. I'm thinkin' DeNiro for his running mate.
can we just skip the democratic primaries? The thing that democrats do that is not as good as republicans is running against each other. They campaign so hard against each other that by the time they are going against the republicans, their oponents don't even have to say anything, because you know all their faults already! So decide the endorsement in a back room somewhere so that the rest of the country doesn't have to hear the squabbling, and Obama's in.
who the f*ck is this obama guy? and what has he done besides look good on TV?
Yea, thats really it. Oh that and having been right on practically every issue hes commented on.
The whole "what has he done" argument is really disingenuous. Hes done a hell lot more than hillary per time in office, and I frankly defy most people to name 3 tangible things shes done. Hes done a ton of work for illinois neigborhoods, aids awareness and research, college tuition support, funding transperency, weapons control and diplomacy, but somehow none of that gets mentioned in cable circuit talking points...
Sad that just being honest and intelligent can put a guy head and shoulders above the rest, but personally I'll take it.
Obama might not have "done" much, What experience did Bush have pre-2000? Unless you count being a raging alcholic, joining Skull and Bones, dodging the draft, pretending like he's NOT from connecticut, and overseeing the execution of every poor or minority in Texas. Tom Ashbrook (of On Point) reminded us all of an illinois senator who showed massive potential but was largely unknown until he ran for office: Abe Lincoln.
I think Bryden is right. why do people like Obama? He has "charisma"? That's what people said about Bush. Why wouldn't you want your President, the most powerful man in the world, to have some experience? Remember the last guy who had 8 years of service in state legislature then went to the Oval Office? No...try a guy who only served as govenor of Texas (one of the easiest govenorships in the Union) and botched that one too. I also think Al Gore would have been a great President, probably better than Bill. Too bad he got terrible advice...
All I'm saying is that being a good orator does not a good president make. Want proof? Warren G Harding. I understand that is harsh criticism, and I'm not saying Obama is the next Harding, but I'd rather see him prove that he IS capable rather than just sounding capable.
Barack Obama has the potential to be great, but so did Doc Gooden and Maurice Clarett. Let him establish himself on the national level before pushing him into the Oval Office. The Presidency isn't going anywhere. McCain won't win, and niether can Rudy. If the Democrats can find good centrists candidates (Chris Dodd and Jim Webb), they should win. The country has already starting moving back towards the center or even left of center. But anyone even remotely polarizing will scare away swing voters.
3 tangible things Hilary has done:
Initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
With Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped to create the Department of Justice's Violence Against Women office.
Senator Clinton and Senator Charles Schumer secured $21.4 billion in funding to assist clean up and recovery, to provide health tracking for first responders and volunteers at Ground Zero
Since when is "Well, Bush had no experience and he got voted in, so that means we should vote for the guy I like with no experience" a good argument? We as educated people should see beyond the fireowrks of speaches at the DNC and look at his personal politics. It just seems that we (at least I) haven't seen enough of him to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not saying that won't change...
I know I compared him to Harding. He probably won't be the the next Harding, but he also probably won't be the next Lincoln.
That said, I'm sticking with Obama.
can't wait for debate !!
especially with tom tancredo mixing things up on the republican side
first off, I don't know where people seem to get the idea that McCain isn't that conservative, or at least that he's less conservative than Guilliani. I wouldn't wish either on this country, but McCain is so conservative he might eat, breath and shit Reaganomics. Next, unless Hillary makes some serious ideological shifts, I don't see how I could bring myself to vote for someone more centrist than her husband, but without any of the eloquence, charm or optimism, her formidable intelligence aside. Personally, I'd love to see John Kerry, who has a wealth of intelligence, eloquence and ideological formidabilty behind him if not charm, move a bit to the left on a few certain social issues, and I think he'd make the best intelligent, liberal candidate. Obviously, this won't happen, however. Lastly, I'm from New Hampshire and have an obvious bias, but I also can't get over why people take such issue with New Hampshire's primary position. I don't think New Hampshire has any sort of entitlement, though without its primaries over a century ago the candidate would still be chosen by the party establishment. The biggest thing I don't get about this though is that more diverse and populated states like South Carolina follow up New Hampshire. The point of small states like New Hampshire going first is that any candidate, not just the four already chosen by the mass media today, are given the opportunity to meet with and impressive real people. Without such an opportunity, we would have had no Bill Clinton in 1992, and so on.
well if you want to use a state that all the candidates can do a meet and greet with most of the population, why not have it in new mexico which has much more diversity in demographics ie race/ethnic makeup, progressive/conservative, etc than new hampshire.
I'm officially not running for President.
Holding out for placement on the Supreme Court. That would be the first Architect ever appointed to the Supreme Court.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?