« FL-13: Jennings Could Still Prevail — If Vote Goes To The House Itself | Home | Romney To Announce Presidential Intentions In January »
Obama Says America Is Ready For A Black President
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told CNN Monday he is not sure when he will decide on a White House run but expressed confidence that the American people are ready to elect an African-American as their leader."I think the American people at their core are a decent people," the Senate's lone African-American member told CNN's Don Lemon. "I think we still have prejudice in our midst, but I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to judge people on the basis of, you know, their ideas and their character."
Earlier today Obama called for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in 2007. Obama has suddenly cranked up his visibility big time -- increasing the pressure on other oft-talked-about potential Dem candidates like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to make some kind of move to stir new rounds of speculation about themselves. We'll be hearing 2008-related hints from them of one kind or another any day now.
Advertisement
OK, accepting Obama's statement as fact, yes, I am ready for a black president.
And yet, if I were to vote for a person of color as my president, I wouldn't be voting for Barack Obama for the foreseeable future.
You see, unlike Republicans, I vote for people who have accomplished something of great import in their lives. So far, Obama has beaten Alan Keyes by 50 percentage points (a circus elephant could accomplish this feat) and has pissed off progressives with ill-fitting remarks about how we're not tolerant of people's religious beliefs.
As of this date, these are not big ticket items to tout in a presidential resume. If Obama wants my vote, he has to accomplish something substantial other than being a good public speaker. I can get Tony Robbins to be president if that were the only qualification.
November 20, 2006 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so sanctimonious. Who qualifies by this metric? Maybe Wes Clark, but not Hillary, Edwards, or any other prominent Dem who is likely to run.
Obama won a close Dem primary and was running ahead of a very competitive GOP opponent, Jack Ryan, before he dropped out after information about his divorce became public. I don't see how who you beat really has anything to do with it anyway, though.
Obama has great ideas. He is able to connect with people on a very basic level, and as such, he would win votes that no other Dem candidate could win (my conservative Republican mother-in-law has already said that she would vote for Barack, but she will certainly not vote for Hillary!).
Plus, he would have far greater freedom to enact progressive policies than any other Dem b/c people would be looking more at his character than his specific policy prescriptions (as with Bush in his first term).
November 20, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great ideas?
Such as what? The only thing I have seen from Obama was S.2590, (Public Law No: 109-28). Which was also sponsored by 46 other people including Hillary. Where was Obama on Habeas Corpus (MCA), or Hillary or any other likely to runs? With the DNC speech I had big expectations and Obama was too little too late. He had a great venue to unequivocally state that torture is not my America, detention without trial is not my America, but what he did was address his fellow senators as if the MCA was an acceptable bill.
Then we read in Harpers he's in the corn subsidy/sugar subsidy business. America needs real energy reform and corn and sugar could easily compete with switch grass and other to lower oil consumption if government price supports were removed. All this while keeping transportation money within the domestic economy.
The Bush administration has been all about protecting existing monopoly interest at the expense of the nation. Clinton and Gore unleashed a venture market that raised all boats, and laid the foundations for real change, among them increasing corporate ownership by employees of the companies, competition with entrenched monopoly interests through innovation.
We are long long overdue for telecom and media reform. I could go on and on. Where is Obama on these issues? Anywhere?
1 good speech and a nice smile does not get you the presidency.
The only guy in the Senate I am seeing say the right things is Jim Webb. His Lou Dobbs interview was phenomenal, and if he can do half of the things he said he has my vote whenever he wants to run. I am sick of overly cautious senators. You were elected because you convinced us you could lead. Either lead or get off the pot.
November 20, 2006 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frank Rich of the New York Times puts it succinctly: "On one true test for his party, Iraq, (Obama) was consistent from the start. On the long trail to a hotly competitive senatorial primary in Illinois, he repeatedly questioned the rationale for the war before it began. . . .. He judged Saddam to pose no immediate threat to America and argued for containment over a war . . . . He hasn't changed. In his new book, he gives a specific date (the end of this year) for beginning ''a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. . . ''' [New York Times 10/23/2006].
November 20, 2006 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a great example of how Obama wastes an opportunity.
He goes and meets with automakers and comes away not with a speech encouraging the obvious levels of innovation needed that would make American cars desirable again (read new fuel technology mentioned above, greater reliability, or how about the low hanging fruit represented by better designed engines that would burn oil more efficiently like this)
I won't even mention the really exciting stuff like
this startup based on a now nearly 40-year old battery patent.
Or this idea to more efficiently burn gas itself, which has been floating around for nearly 15 years.
Why aren't the big three running efficiently integrated R&D/manufacturing operations like Intel and AMD? The latest Intel Fab cost much more to make than an auto-factory. Instead we get Ford Jr's lame ass attempts to "green" his company and Obama taking up the corporate gripe that "Health Care costs are hurting the industry". Yeah we need health care reform. But what we really need is healthy executive leadership fostering growth and innovation rather than trying to raise their vig of a the limited pie they preside over. If you have a healthy growing economy where monopolists do not receive government protection and startups are encouraged to challenge and keep the big guys honest, everything else falls into place.
Note to TPM:
BTW the formatting of this comments editing/composing box is terrible when viewed in firefox 2.0. Also the default style does not bring out inline html anchors visibly, You may want to think aboout implementing markdown in your comments engine.
November 20, 2006 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh good grief... get off the Obamarama bandwagon! He's a first term senator-in-training with not much to distinguish himself other than the fact that he's half negro. His presidential ambitions are being inflated by the lapdog media. And he's got his nose firmly up the DLC butt.
November 20, 2006 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having endured the past 5 years of this national embarrassment of a human being in the White House, I am personally ready for a person, no matter their race, gender, or their personal religious creed as long as they can represent the interests of ALL the people of the United States of America in a well mannered and statesman like way on the world stage...
~OGD~
November 20, 2006 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is Obama as big a snake-oil salesman as you portrayed Harold Ford, or is he only a fast talking door-to-door vacuum salesman?
~OGD~
ps: Is it his left side or his right side that is "...half negro..."?
November 20, 2006 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are exactly Obama's qualifications for being president outside of being a good speaker? None thats what.
The man sadly has not distinguished himself in any way since he took office. He's played it safe by being very vague and never taking a stand that could cost him politically. Much like Hillary in many respects.
As far as his stance on Iraq, whoopdee doo. He dove in after other Democrats took shit from the GOP for months and months. The man has the backbone of a sponge.
That said, from a historical perspective senators rarely win the presidency. They just don't have the appeal.
November 20, 2006 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see this visitor take some time away from the ChronWatch site to drop in for a cup o' coffee...
There ya' go ... Barack Obama isn't as tough as ol' Gov. Robo-Pol ... Eh? Yes sirree... No sponge in that backbone... It's all located between his ears.
~OGD~
ps: And as far as your question about Obama's qualifications? Apparently you missed friendly pacc in this very thread. You know where that person said, "...not much to distinguish himself other than the fact that he's half negro..." Maybe you can help ol' pccc and tell us which half is "negro" and which half is anglo white.
November 21, 2006 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I am astonished that some other retard is thinking pretty much the same as I am.
The only requirement to be president is that one be born an American and be old enough to know better than to even run. Obama qualifies.
But my God what a president Webb could be.
The chances of Webb running are about - zip.
Sadly.
Best, Terry
November 21, 2006 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama took a stand against the Iraq War -- BEFORE THE WAR STARTED!!! That took courage and political conviction.
I didn't see that from Hillary, Edwards, Clark, Kerry, Biden, or any other potential 2008 candidate, and it's the most important issue going into 2008.
November 21, 2006 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Jim Webb is such a great politician, he would have beaten Sen George Allen by more than a few thousand votes. There's no way he could win the presidency.
November 21, 2006 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is in a Kennedy-like position, as a first-term back bench Senator. He doesn't have the bad speaking habits and the lengthy voting record of someone in the Senate for years and years.
He's also out front on the war in Iraq, the most important issue. Here's what he said yesterday. I don't hear any other potential Dem presidential candidate saying these things:
Sen. Barack Obama, the popular Illinois Democrat who is considering a run for the White House, said yesterday that the United States should start withdrawing troops from Iraq in the next four to six months, redeploy some forces to Afghanistan and bolster efforts to train Iraqi police.
Obama criticized President Bush for pushing forward with a war that "would require an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
He also noted that a bipartisan congressional effort was needed to "reassert our authority to oversee the management of this war" and retain better oversight of military expenditures.
He suggested that the U.S. would benefit from improved diplomacy with Iran and Syria and that all withdrawal timetables should be tied to the advice of U.S. commanders on the ground.
November 21, 2006 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He took a position against the Iraq War before the war started! WTF are you talking about? You need to check your facts. You obviously have no clue. He was one of very, very few DEMS to take such a strong and principled position.
November 21, 2006 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The automobile industry has a very healthy level of competition, and it's not up to the government how the Big 3 run their companies. You might have noticed an innovative upstart called Toyota selling a lot of cars lately?
All of the innovation is great, but Intel and AMD did that on their own, without help from the government.
November 21, 2006 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you Obama's record against the Iraq War as a plus in a presidential race.
In 1968, I might have given you Eugene McCarthy as the true antiwar candidate, and yet he lost.
Obama takes an early lead being the antiwar candidate MAYBE, but he's basically setting himself up to be a speed bump for someone with deeper pockets, better name recognition and institutional acceptance to usurp his war opinions and steal the nomination out from under him.
Humphrey got a stadium named after him. McCarthy got an historical footnote. I know who the better man was then, and I know who the better person is now. In the end, there's not a damned thing we can do about it.
November 21, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of the innovation is great, but Intel and AMD did that on their own, without help from the government.
No help from the government, huh?
Where did they get all those expensive to educate engineers? I bet they paid for it themselves! Oh, no, wait, they get them from Berkeley and Stanford, where the educations were paid for through state subsidies and federal research grants (and a bit of tuition money through the power of federally backed loans). I guess its not just a coincidendce that Silicon Valley sprung up in the same state as 1/3 of the top nine science/engineering programs in the world (and Gordon Moore, alum of two out of three)
How about those foreign workers, though? Sure was easy to convince them to move to the U.S., what with the excellent infrastructure, safe neighborhoods, clean environment, high quality of life. I'm sure the government had nothing to do with that, either. Must have just spontaneously happened...
Starting up a company and building those chip factories sure takes a lot money. Where'd they borrow that money from? Oh, yeah, a well regulated banking system that knows it can use the disclosure requirements mandated and backed up by law to effectively assess and make loans. Not to mention a cheap money supply and low interest rates courtesy of our Federal Reserve Bank... but none of that's part of the government, of course!
Hey, how'd those banks know Intel was going to get a return on their investment without some other chip maker just ripping off their designs. Oh, wait, the US Patent Office and court system doesn't allow that. Lucky for Intel....
Its probably just luck that all those companies and all that innovation just magically sprung up right where they did.
Or maybe there isn't a company in the world that could exist without help from at least one government, and the best companies are all in places where the government is offering the best and most clever HELP to those companies.
And Intel and AMD, though they have hard workers and a lot of innovation, did nothing on their own and used a lot of government help.
If you don't know that, I suggest you go spend some time living in a third world country or, perhaps, Russia and see how safe and successful you are without government help.
Then maybe you'll be thankful for all the help you apparently don't realize you receive by being lucky enough to live in a free, capitalist, relatively un-corrupt country with a friendly and HELPFUL business environment. Andy Grove certainly knew the opportunities he was opening himself up to when he moved here, and maybe that's why he's apparently a Democrat.
November 21, 2006 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
For general information...
From the Chicago Tribune November 20, 2006:
Also: The following links from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs are to the complete text of the speech, in addition to audio links.
Download text of remarks:
A Way Forward in Iraq (PDF)
Download audio:
Senator Barack Obama's Remarks "A Way Forward in Iraq" (17.9 MB)
Senator Barak Obama Answers Audience Questions (7.09 MB)
~OGD~
November 22, 2006 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apples and oranges.
Save your righteous indignation for someone deserving.
"Then maybe you'll be thankful for all the help you apparently don't realize you receive by being lucky enough to live in a free, capitalist, relatively un-corrupt country with a friendly and HELPFUL business environment."
I am thankful and appreciative of those things. I am not sure how or why you misinterpreted my previous comment to suggest that I wasn't, but I do not think it was open to that interpretation in any good faith, reasonable reading.
Giving direct government handouts to corporations is far different from the numerous general benefits that accrue by virtue of being an American corporation.
November 22, 2006 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said anything about government hand outs?
Government sponsored research can have a very positive effect on industry. Intel and AMD case in point. Technical/Scientific problems come up they farm the problem out to universities via government grants or other research institutes. Dilutes risk and ensures the sharing of knowledge across companies. Japanese and other successful economies do this all the time. Japan didn't get to be the world's machine tooling leader on wishful thinking. Results auto-manufacturing gets a huge advantage from the proper application of good tech. Take a look at the microchip market we see Sony and others partnering with the US because our government supported tech infrastructure in those is superior.
The US auto industry is long overdue for technical makeover, and would benefit the whole national economy for that to be successful. Obama missed the boat by focusing on Medicare reform, and that only from the corporate perspective rather than the consumer payer perspective.
November 28, 2006 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for my "righteous indignation" - they are fun to write and most especially blanket statements against the government seem to do that to me. The "cowboy mentality" that people achieve things by themselves is a definitely a pet peeve of mine. My reading of your original statement was simply what you wrote:
"All of the innovation is great, but Intel and AMD did that on their own, without help from the government. "
You didn't set any criteria such as "direct help"... although even if you had I would have merely tilted toward corporate handouts and tax breaks, of which there are plenty.
Its good to know you are thankful and appreciative of our government, though.
December 5, 2006 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
1 good speech and a nice smile does not get you the presidency.
Hell, Bush didn't even have the good speech and he did it.
The bar's been lowered immensely.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
December 5, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink