[BRussell]

Vote in the poll, but please also state your preference in a posting. Hopefully I got all of the major candidates that are being talked about now. If not, post your candidate.

I voted for Obama, but I like him probably just because I don't really know much about him yet.

[Dakar²]

...waits for poll to appear...

*tapping foot*

[Gossamer]

This better be worth the wait.

[BRussell]

Haha, I didn't realize it put the post up before the poll. I took a little nap in between, had some lunch, took a round-trip flight from DC to San Francisco, got married and divorced twice, went to graduate school, and wrote my memoirs. Sorry for the wait.

[Dakar²]

I voted for Obama, but it should be noted I'm in a polygamous marriage with Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Haha, I didn't realize it put the post up before the poll.

I learned that at some point a few months ago, else you would have gotten "OH NOES, NO POLE FULL!!1" from me.

[subego]

Obama, as he has yet to wreck things. Though he's seemed to be a straight shooter the few times I've heard him talk about policy.

It should have been Clinton, but I'm still really pissed about her supporting a flag-burning amendment.

That probably puts Edwards in 2nd place, but frankly, he seems too gentle.

The only people I find truly offensive on the list are Romney and Gingrich, though I bet Rudy will turn out out to be a dud.

[Sky Captain]

Just who is Obama, really?

[subego]

The second coming, apparently.

[strictlyplaid]

I kind of want Vilsack to win, just because "President Vilsack" would sound funny.

In terms of actual ability to govern, I'm hopeful about Obama but I wonder whether he'll be too wishy-washy to actually get anything done. It's cliche, but no leader can be universally liked and effective.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Just who is Obama, really?

When we find out, we'll know whether he's going to make it or not.

[Rumor]

Really want to piss off the Muslim extremist even more? Pick Obama.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Really want to piss off the Muslim extremist even more? Pick Obama.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by strictlyplaid 

OK, I'll bite. Why?

He sides with the infidels.

[awcopus]

The poll options should include Ron Paul.

Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ron Paul: Next President Of The USA?
Save America! Ron Paul For President! - Wonkette

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by awcopus 

The poll options should include Ron Jeremy.

Ron Jeremy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't know he was running for president.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by awcopus 

The poll options should include Ron Paul.

Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ron Paul: Next President Of The USA?
Save America! Ron Paul For President! - Wonkette

What is he doing as a Republican? The guy seems solidly libertarian. Wrong party, bub. No complaints from me, though.

Good luck in getting a Texan back in the White House in '08 though.

AIN'T...GUNNA...HAPPEN.

[Timo]

I didn't vote, but I do remember somewhere in the back of my head Biden and plagarism. Some late night talk show thereafter began with the quip:

Say, have you heard Joe Biden's "I have a dream" speech?

Egro, no Biden.

[SpaceMonkey]

Bill Richardson.

If you have Clark on there as an option, I don't know why you wouldn't have Richardson.

[besson3c]

Lots of Obama interviews on YouTube. While it's too early to tell how he'll fare, I think much of the hoopla relates to his enormous charisma, his ability to think quickly on his feet, and his quick intellect.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Timo 

I didn't vote, but I do remember somewhere in the back of my head Biden and plagarism. Some late night talk show thereafter began with the quip:



Egro, no Biden.

This is productive and fruitful presidential candidacy criteria?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is productive and fruitful presidential candidacy criteria?

In the sense that there's no point in supporting someone who is unelectable.

[edit: at least at this stage, a protest vote makes a whole lot more sense later in the game.]

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Bill Richardson.

If you have Clark on there as an option, I don't know why you wouldn't have Richardson.

Yep, forgot him, sorry. In a lot of ways, he's probably more qualified than anyone else up there.

[besson3c]

Here is a good recent Obama interview:

YouTube - Barack Obama: Response to Bush Speech 1/10/2007

[OldManMac]

As of right now, it's Edwards for me. I think it's an absolute shame and disgrace that the world's richest country can't provide decent health care for all its citizens.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Just who is Obama, really?

He's a lot of hype with no clue what he is getting himself in to.
And anyone who thinks Obama is getting the Dem Presidential nomination is an idiot.

He's only run one campaign where there was a challenge for the position and he lost to Bobby Rush.
Any other office he's held has been handed to him. If Blair Hull hadn't self destructed he wouldn't even have been the Democratic Senate candidate in Illinois. And if Jeri Ryan wasn't a bitter divorcee Jack Ryan would have run away with that election. Obama was lucky at best because he won his Senate seat by mere lack of viable choices on that year's ballot. The GOP in IL gave up because things happened so late in the year and that couldn't have been clearer then when they put up Keyes. In a straight up competition against the other people who want the nomination he will come in 3rd or 4th by summer.

If he is ever to get the chance to run for president it will be by someone giving him the Vice Presidency and then running on the laurels of that office. But who knows maybe Oprah will decide she wants that to happen and she'll wave her hand and make the electorate do it.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

If he is ever to get the chance to run for president it will be by someone giving him the Vice Presidency and then running on the laurels of that office.

I can see that happening. That's basically how George H.W. Bush was elected.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

And anyone who thinks Obama is getting the Dem Presidential nomination is an idiot.

Oh really. Anyone who thinks he knows right now who's going to get the nomination is the true idiot.

He's only run one campaign where there was a challenge for the position and he lost to Bobby Rush.
Any other office he's held has been handed to him. If Blair Hull hadn't self destructed he wouldn't even have been the Democratic Senate candidate in Illinois. And if Jeri Ryan wasn't a bitter divorcee Jack Ryan would have run away with that election. Obama was lucky at best because he won his Senate seat by mere lack of viable choices on that year's ballot. The GOP in IL gave up because things happened so late in the year and that couldn't have been clearer then when they put up Keyes. In a straight up competition against the other people who want the nomination he will come in 3rd or 4th by summer.

He also won the Democratic primary for the Illinois senate seat, where the odds were strongly against him. The general election was a joke, but the Dem primary was not.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Oh really. Anyone who thinks he knows right now who's going to get the nomination is the true idiot.

He also won the Democratic primary for the Illinois senate seat, where the odds were strongly against him. The general election was a joke, but the Dem primary was not.

What an absolutely incorrect and misinformed statement.
You either have no long term memory or you just don't know what you are talking about.

The story over the allegations of domestic abuse by Hull broke in February. The primary was in March. Prior to that Hull's lead was wide enough that he would have taken the primary by a large margin. Obama was not going to win, had no chance of winning, and didn't have the support to win before that story broke.

Dan Hynes never had the money or support to run the type of campaign he needed to. His strength was always within the City political machine that aligns itself with Daley. Outside of Cook Co (minus the blacks) and the State capitol Hynes didn't have much.

There were no "odds" against Obama in the primary. You are confused. It was the Republican Primary that was tight. Obama won the 04 Democratic Primary because he was the only one with the money to sweep up Hull's defectors at the last minute. If Hynes would have had more time he'd have been senator. All of Obama's success that year was by virtue of other people's scandals and a bigger war chest than Hynes at the end of Feb.

And he won't get the nod for 08 either. I didn't say I knew who would. I just know he won't be the Presidential nominee. Just watch and see.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

And he won't get the nod for 08 either. I didn't say I knew who would. I just know he won't be the Presidential nominee. Just watch and see.

We'll hold ya to it. Of course, your bet's a pretty safe one as bets go, as he could end up not making it for a wide variety of reasons that you couldn't anticipate today. As you mentioned in your argument, a lot of elections are decided by quasi-random things that happen toward the end of the campaign. Who knew at this time back in '92 that a guy from Arkansas was going to make it all the way to the nomination, let alone the big chair?

[awcopus]

The best thing about Ron Paul running (if he really goes for it) is that he's an extremely intelligent guy with extenisve political experience, a consistent political philosophy (and consistent voting record too!) informed by a passionate belief in individual liberty and the virtues of small government. If any of that rubs off on the other guys, so much the better.

Of course, if he did get the nod, which I acknowledge is highly unlikely, he would be amazing in debates with the Democrats because he, as a libertarian Republican, actually voted consistently against the Iraq war. He only breaks ranks with Republicans when they push through subsidies to big businesses (corporate welfare like the prescription drug plan), any tax increases, economic regulations, pork barrel nonsense, anti-immigration policies, anti-free trade policies, pro drug war policies, and authorize war actions.

We all win if candidates like him are part of the national discussion about the direction America should move in. The Democrats are, for the most part, socialists. And the Republicans, with the exception of their rhetoric, seem less committed than ever in practice to the principles of small government and the free market. Paul is definitely an alternative for Democrats who aren't illiterate about economics and Republicans who aren't illiterate about economics AND don't think the govt. should mess with civil liberties.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Vote in the poll, but please also state your preference in a posting. Hopefully I got all of the major candidates that are being talked about now. If not, post your candidate.

I voted for Obama, but I like him probably just because I don't really know much about him yet.

I voted for Giuliani for the opposite reason. From PowerLine:

"There's an astonishing gap between the stature of the three leading Republican presidential candidates and their three Democratic counterparts. Two of the three Republican candidates are national heroes. John McCain is a war hero. In addition, as a U.S. Senator he's been at the forefront of nearly every major legislative battle for well over a decade. For better or worse, his footprints are all over our election laws, the judicial confirmation wars, and the war against terrorism, to cite three leading examples.

Rudy Giuliani is the man who turned New York City around. He then became a national hero on 9/11.

Mitt Romney is far from a national hero. But he ran the government of a substantial state for four years. His accomplishments during that time include, for better or worse, the instituting of an innovative plan to ensure all citizens of his state have health care. Before becoming governor, Romney was the key man at one of the foremost business consulting firms in the world. In addition, he dug the 2002 Winter Olympics out of a huge hole and, despite an initial cash shortfall, turned a profit.

What about the Dems? They feature John Edwards, a rich trial lawyer who served one term in the U.S. Senate. His accomplishments as a Senator were practically nil, though he did manage to cast a vote in favor of a war he now says he abhors. The Democratic field also includes the even less experienced Barack Obama, who has two years in the U.S. Senate, and whose great life story contains nothing else that ordinarily might be considered a credential for high office. Finally, though Hillary Clinton is not without stature, much of it comes by virtue of being the wife of Bill Clinton. Since the end of her husband's term she's been a diligent Senator. But unlike McCain who is courageous and tries to lead, Hillary is timid and tries to jockey.

Does the stature gap matter? Absolutely. It's the main reason why, in a terrible environment for Republicans, Giuliani and McCain are running even or better against the Democratic contenders in the polls. The stature gap may not be enough to elect a Republican in 2008, but it's the biggest plus the party has right now."

[Sub]

I heard Obama's speech, he's a great speaker, he got through to me.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Sub 

I heard Obama's speech, he's a great speaker, he got through to me.

What did he say that impressed you? A broadband box in every home? The ethanol illusion?
Socialized medicine?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

What an absolutely incorrect and misinformed statement.
You either have no long term memory or you just don't know what you are talking about.

I see, you make inaccurate claims, the fact of their inaccuracy gets pointed out, and so you throw a temper tantrum.

You: "And anyone who thinks Obama is getting the Dem Presidential nomination is an idiot."
Truth: No one knows who's going to win right now, and it would be idiocy to rule out a top candidate like Obama.

You: "He's only run one campaign where there was a challenge for the position"
Truth: He won a hotly contested battle for the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2004.

You: "And if Jeri Ryan wasn't a bitter divorcee Jack Ryan would have run away with that election"
Truth: Jeri Ryan supported her ex-husband's candidacy.
Truth: Obama had been leading Ryan in the polls ever since he won the Democratic primary, long before Ryan dropped out.

You: "There were no "odds" against Obama in the primary. You are confused. It was the Republican Primary that was tight."
Truth: Ryan was always far ahead in the R primary polls, and ended up winning. Obama was behind in the D primary polls, but ended up winning.

If there are any other facts I can help you with, just throw a tantrum again, and I'll know.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I see, you make inaccurate claims, the fact of their inaccuracy gets pointed out, and so you throw a temper tantrum.

You: "And anyone who thinks Obama is getting the Dem Presidential nomination is an idiot."
Truth: No one knows who's going to win right now, and it would be idiocy to rule out a top candidate like Obama.

You: "He's only run one campaign where there was a challenge for the position"
Truth: He won a hotly contested battle for the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2004.

You: "And if Jeri Ryan wasn't a bitter divorcee Jack Ryan would have run away with that election"
Truth: Jeri Ryan supported her ex-husband's candidacy.
Truth: Obama had been leading Ryan in the polls ever since he won the Democratic primary, long before Ryan dropped out.

You: "There were no "odds" against Obama in the primary. You are confused. It was the Republican Primary that was tight."
Truth: Ryan was always far ahead in the R primary polls, and ended up winning. Obama was behind in the D primary polls, but ended up winning.

If there are any other facts I can help you with, just throw a tantrum again, and I'll know.

Impressive.
Not that anything you said is correct but its impressive you have convinced yourself you have any inkling of an idea of the things you speak of. Maybe you should go for a check up. There's a good possibility that dementia has set in.

Now, let's review what you said that is wrong with things that can actually be supported with numbers and evidence.

1) If by "hotly contested" you mean the front-runner collapsed and his supporters had to settle for second best then yes, that is exactly what happened.
With one month to go before the Democratic Primary Hull had an 8-point lead. Since there really aren't swing voters in a primary and it was JUST before the election the Dems who were going to vote were already entrenched behind their candidates. That 8 point lead meant a decisive win.

Since you can't seem to grasp the truth of what happened lets look at the returns:

Barack Obama 640,707 53%
Dan Hynes 288,176 24%
Blair Hull 130,944 11%
Maria Pappas 73,485 6%

That looks pretty "hotly contested" (For someone who can't do math)
Something must have happened then in that month between Hull's 8 point lead and the primary. Hmm... must be EXACTLY what I said above.
Obama won not on merit but on other's mistakes.

But maybe you think those numbers mean all primaries are that close.
So lets look at that years IL GOP Primary for comparison:

Jack Ryan 226,679 36%
Jim Oberweis 149,198 24%
S. Rauschenberger 124,433 20%
Andy McKenna 93,790 15%

Yeah, Obama won a real nail biter. What an upset.


2) Jeri Ryan. I will just quote Jack Ryan on the subject:

"I should not have to respond to the ridiculous allegations Jeri Lynn makes in these two paragraphs. I was faithful and loyal to my wife throughout our marriage. I did arrange romantic getaways for us, but that did not include the type of activities she describes. We did go to one avant garde nightclub in Paris which was more than either one of us felt comfortable with. We left and vowed never to return.

"I feel very badly for Alex that his mother would mischaracterize our activities and try to libel me and our relationship in this manner. Jeri Lynn knows I have political aspirations, because I had them throughout our marriage. She attended many political functions with me and testified about them at her deposition.

"In addition, Jeri Lynn is a celebrity and it is extremely likely that the press will go to our public divorce file. Apparently, Jeri Lynn did not consider how Alex will feel about his parents or himself when he learns of this type of smut."

She's a sweetheart isn't she? Sounds like she had no ill will or idea things she said in court would affect her ex husband. If I were running for Congress I'd ask her to be my press agent.

3) Polls with Obama leading

Here is Illinois by county and political makeup
http://tinyurl.com/39zucw

Obama had a 10 point lead just before the story broke about Ryan that summer. In a general election that is not that big especially in June. For a white guy Ryan had surprisingly strong support in inner city neighborhoods because of his work as a teacher. He had the business community's support and all the northern suburbs. That would have split Cook County votes which is tough to do in a traditionally Dem stronghold. And Obama was an unknown prior to the Dem Leadership gifting him with the slot for a speech at the convention that fall. There was no decisive lead for Obama and like it or not with that kind of name no way downstate votes would have gone his way.


4) For a black man to get any party's nomination for President they are going to have to succeed in getting the public past the color of their skin. Without that they won't carry the necessary Southern and middle America states to win. That means not just having name recognition it means having a well known and documented history of service and earning the public's respect as a national figure. This is why people wanted Powell to run and Jackson and Sharpton didn't get as warm a reception.
Obama is all hype with no history. He is this election’s Howard Dean. All he can hope for is that he will be gifted (story of his political life) the nomination for Vice President. And he will only get that if he can carry niche demographics that would put the 50/50 electorate split we've seen the past two years in favor of the democrats. As the lead name in the ticket though, he has no chance in hell in 08.
Your political astuteness must have been the first thing the dementia claimed.


There's only one thing you've said in this thread that is intelligent or correct

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I voted for Obama, but I like him probably just because I don't really know much about him yet.

Obama won his seat on Ryan's scandal and because Hull slapped his b!tch down. Sort of like I just did to you.

[BRussell]

Haha, well you sure do put a lot of time into it, I'll give you that. You must have been one of those students who got As for effort (but Cs for actual grades).

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Barack Obama 640,707 53%
Dan Hynes 288,176 24%
Blair Hull 130,944 11%
Maria Pappas 73,485 6%

That looks pretty "hotly contested" (For someone who can't do math)
Something must have happened then in that month between Hull's 8 point lead and the primary. Hmm... must be EXACTLY what I said above.
Obama won not on merit but on other's mistakes.

But maybe you think those numbers mean all primaries are that close.
So lets look at that years IL GOP Primary for comparison:

Jack Ryan 226,679 36%
Jim Oberweis 149,198 24%
S. Rauschenberger 124,433 20%
Andy McKenna 93,790 15%

Yeah, Obama won a real nail biter. What an upset.

Those election numbers prove the exact opposite of what you're claiming. The Obama race, unlike the Ryan race, was an upset. Ryan beat his next closest rival by 12 pts, and the 3rd-place finisher by 16 pts. A month earlier, Ryan was ahead of his next closest rival by 14 pts and the 3rd-place finisher by 21 pts. A month before that, it was by 12 and 15. In other words, no movement at all in the Republican race.

Contrast that with the Democratic race, where, the month earlier, Obama was down by 10 points and the month before that where there was no clear favorite. He was outspent by at least 5-to-1, but won by a 30-pt margin anyway. You don't get those kinds of numbers handed to you. (Poll numbers from here.)

Obama had a 10 point lead just before the story broke about Ryan that summer.

Again, you get the plaque for "most improved," but you still come in last in the actual race. You claimed that Ryan would have run away with it, but the only evidence out there shows exactly the opposite of your claim.

Clearly you don't follow the news much, but it's OK, most of the American public isn't interested in such things either. Maybe you watch E! and read People magazine instead. I believe there's an Anna Nicole Smith thread that might better suit your interests.

[Sub]

Yay! Obama is still winning, with Giuliani in second, what more could a New York native want?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Those election numbers prove the exact opposite of what you're claiming. The Obama race, unlike the Ryan race, was an upset.

Contrast that with the Democratic race, where, the month earlier, Obama was down by 10 points and the month before that where there was no clear favorite. He was outspent by at least 5-to-1, but won by a 30-pt margin anyway.

You don't get those kinds of numbers handed to you.

I see the dementia has set in quite nicely.

Your interpretation of what happened is not only wrong but its comical how staunchly you defend the validity of it. I hope for the sake of your family your insurance covers the cost of a mental health specialist.

Obama did not win on an upset. He won because Hull was forced to disclose the details of his divorce less than a month before the primary. Whomever was in second place in that race automatically became the front-runner after that disclosure. A tree stump could have won the democratic primary if it had been in second place in February of 2004.

Obama was handed the win by default. How you pulled your reading of the final election results from your ass is hilarious. The registered democrats who were supporting Hull for the better part of a year didn't suddenly think Obama was a better candidate they realized that Hull had just sabotaged himself and they scrambled in the final days of the election to cling to whatever passed by that wasn't a wifebeater. That happened to be Obama since Hynes was already broke. Obama didn't overcome anything on his own talents he just had the most commercials on TV. No matter what you say the truth is he did get handed those numbers.

Your entire argument conveniently ignores what Hull did altogether as if it was inconsequential when it was the ONLY factor that changed between February and March. Just as you ignore the fact rural downstate voters would not have replaced Fitzgerald, a Republican, with the unknown Obama if they had been given any other choice but Alan Keyes.

See this is why I support the school voucher system. Clearly whatever third rate public school you are the product of should have been closed down long ago for letting people like you fall through the cracks of the education system. The ability to read USA Today is not impressive when you consider its written at a 6th grade reading level. I'm sure whatever little intellect you were born with could have been nurtured enough to move you up to a 9th grade level so you could have gotten a chance to read things without pictures like the rest of us big kids.

[Dakar²]

Wow, Captain Obvious is a real charmer.