(D-IL) Senator Bill Obama, 45 year old white liberal

[Smash255]

Was Edwards ever the keynote speaker at the convention? That speech gave a lot of people a heads up that he was a rising star in the party. Also, "Bill Obama" doesn't have a background as a trial lawyer, which may be a turnoff to some voters.

Being the keynote speaker is really that much of a big deal? How many Americans watched? How many Americans even remember?

That is what got everyone interested in Obama, and what gave him the start as a major player.  He had an opportunity to be on the national stage and shined.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is pretty much what it comes down to. There's nothing to really debate over, it's just a disagreement: you think he gets attention just because he's black while I don't. There's nothing really more to it than that.
[/quote]

Then why didn't John Edwards, a man with a similar life story (except...he's not half black), similar view points, similar charisma and similar speaking skills, get this attention in 2004? I can accept that we'll simply disagree, Andrew. That's fine with me. You know how much I respect you. But because I respect you, I expect you to answer my question and not just go right into mocking Naso when many people feel that this is a legitimate point.
[/quote]

Edwards has strong speaking skills, but would say Obama has stronger speaking skills.  Also Obama has had several years to build on what he had starting from the convention, Edwards wasbasically thrused into the spotlight right away and then was out of the spotlight after Election Day for awhile since he was no longer in the Senate.  Also what has really driven Obama's surge is his ability to appeal to younger voters under 35 in a way Edwards nor anyone else is able to.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Being the keynote speaker is really that much of a big deal? How many Americans watched? How many Americans even remember?

Usually it is ignored. However Obama's speech stole the convention, and is what propelled him to stardom.

[Reaganfan]

He did end up getting a good amount of attention in 2004...but that may be more because he was the "anti-Kerry/Dean". Maybe that's also a bit where Obama's popularity comes from: he's not Hillary.

Neither is Senator Joe Biden or Governor Bill Richardson. Two democrats I could actually stand as President and two who can appear more moderate and win. They are not Hillary and have tons of experience in foreign policy which dems need to win in 2008. Why not them? Why a guy who has been Senator for less time than I've hosted "The Tropical Roundtable"?

[Keystone Phil]

Your explanation is amusing, given that Thompson has the least experience of the three (one and a half terms as Senator a decade ago, plus an acting career). Bush held the least-powerful gubernatorial position in the country (in Texas, the Lieutenant Governor holds all the power), so he was also woefully inexperienced.

Eight years as a U.S. Senator is less experienced than a man who was a Mayor for eight years and a man who was Governor for four years?

While the Texas Governor is not very powerful, I think his time there gave him more power than what Obama has had thus far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why wouldn't I sing Johnson's praises when it comes to experience? Suddenly, I'm not supposed to acknowledge great experience because of one's political party? Get a clue.

He did end up getting a good amount of attention in 2004...but that may be more because he was the "anti-Kerry/Dean". Maybe that's also a bit where Obama's popularity comes from: he's not Hillary. Anyway, I don't believe that Edwards is half of the speaker that Obama is but that's just me personally.

Did he get as much attention as Obama is right now? No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His point was clear - If Obama was white, he wouldn't get the attention that he is getting now. Regardless of who told him that, it's a point that he made and it's respectable. I make fun of Naso when he says something insane or when he doesn't stand by a point that he makes but this was a legitimate point.

That is what got everyone interested in Obama, and what gave him the start as a major player.  He had an opportunity to be on the national stage and shined.

No, that's why the party became interested in Obama and put him every afterwards. That speech was a good speech but it wasn't something witnessed and praised by the vast amount of Americans that you'd like us to believe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of that addresses why Obama has been given more attention than Edwards except your point that Obama is a better speaker. I understand that you think Obama has had more time to build on what he had but how did he build on it? Why was he given that attention? Why is he treated like a rock star by the media? Why does his story get so much attention? Dennis Kucinich grew up in a car while Obama lived a rather priviledged life, correct? But we need to hear from Obama about hope...

[King]

Naso is right for once.  Obama wouldn't be running if he were white.  White upper class males aren't allowed to be president anymore.  Don't you guys watch the news?

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why wouldn't I sing Johnson's praises when it comes to experience? Suddenly, I'm not supposed to acknowledge great experience because of one's political party? Get a clue.

You've been saying two things in this thread.

1) People without experience make worse Presidents than people with experience.
and
2) People without experience don't win elections.

Yet surely you would say that Eisenhower would have defeated Johnson in an election and also that Eisenhower was a better President than Johnson.

[Eleden]

Guys you're not getting the message of this thread - which is a discussion on which is better Camberbert or Brie? Or are you a "Dutch Cheese" man or even worse, a "Blue Cheese" man - that's not cheese it's just yellowly-bluey goo.

Now that's cheese.

Mmmm cheesegasmic.

[Keystone Phil]

You've been saying two things in this thread.

1) People without experience make worse Presidents than people with experience

Uh, no I'm not. I'm simply saying that experience is a huge benefit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, again, you are wrong except I don't even know where you got that one from.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not so sure that Ike would have beaten Johnson but that's not the point since I never said/don't believe that less experienced candidates can't beat more experiences candidates.

And yes, I would have said Ike was a better President because, again, experience before taking office isn't the be all and end all (another point you made up).

[Smash255]

He did end up getting a good amount of attention in 2004...but that may be more because he was the "anti-Kerry/Dean". Maybe that's also a bit where Obama's popularity comes from: he's not Hillary.

Neither is Senator Joe Biden or Governor Bill Richardson. Two democrats I could actually stand as President and two who can appear more moderate and win. They are not Hillary and have tons of experience in foreign policy which dems need to win in 2008. Why not them? Why a guy who has been Senator for less time than I've hosted "The Tropical Roundtable"?

So who Democrats support should be based off who a conservative Republican could support??

As far as Biden and Richardson, many good things can be said about Richardson charisma isn't one of them.  I personally like the guy, but he is a complete and utter bore, he makes John Kerry look like he is full of charisma.  As far as Biden goes, while I can't speak for all Democrats I would say that he is someone who most Dems like, but believe he should be in the Senate.

[Smash255]

[

That is what got everyone interested in Obama, and what gave him the start as a major player.  He had an opportunity to be on the national stage and shined.

No, that's why the party became interested in Obama and put him every afterwards. That speech was a good speech but it wasn't something witnessed and praised by the vast amount of Americans that you'd like us to believe.

Point is, that speech is what introduced him to the public.  Granted it was mostly Democrats who really took the liking to him at first.  But it was the speech that launched him from an up and comer to a star in the party and that is what gave him the opportunity to really out to those beyond the base of the party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of that addresses why Obama has been given more attention than Edwards except your point that Obama is a better speaker. I understand that you think Obama has had more time to build on what he had but how did he build on it? Why was he given that attention? Why is he treated like a rock star by the media? Why does his story get so much attention? Dennis Kucinich grew up in a car while Obama lived a rather priviledged life, correct? But we need to hear from Obama about hope...

[/quote]

His charisma is a big part of that.  He was able to reach out beyond just the base of his party, which is something many others can't do.  I think Edwards did that somewhat, but the fact he was a trial lawyer I think diminished how high he could go, simply because some people just dismissed him off the bat as a trial lawyer.  I think one of the main things that has helped Obama become as big as he has is his ability to also appeal to those who don't follow politics that closely.  Being a fresh face has helped as well at a time more of the country is getting tired of the same old same old.  As far as Kucinich goes, where he has gotten based off what he has come from is an amazing story, however he doesn't have the ability to reach out to those outside of his ideological base or the ability to reach out to those who are traditionally more apolitical the way Obama has.

[poughies]

no Bill wouldn't be in the same place.... that doesn't mean barack should be punished though for it... he is who he is....

That said, I don't want him to be the nominee..... he's just too hip for me.....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Edwards is my top choice, but let me defend Obama on the issue of political experience.

Number of years in elected politics as of the 2008 election:


Senator Obama: 12
Thompson 8
Senator Clinton 8
Edwards 6
Romney 4

Of course to be fair, some of the lower tier candidates like McCain, Richardson, Paul, and so on beat him.

[Keystone Phil]

Edwards is my top choice, but let me defend Obama on the issue of political experience.

Number of years in elected politics as of the 2008 election:


Senator Obama: 12
Thompson 8
Senator Clinton 8
Edwards 6
Romney 4

Of course to be fair, some of the lower tier candidates like McCain, Richardson, Paul, and so on beat him.

Yeah, but I think Fred Thompson's eight years as a U.S. Senator outweighs Obama's nine years as a State Senator (and only three years as a U.S. Senator).

[Eleden]

Edwards is my top choice, but let me defend Obama on the issue of political experience.

Number of years in elected politics as of the 2008 election:


Senator Obama: 12
Thompson 8
Senator Clinton 8
Edwards 6
Romney 4

Of course to be fair, some of the lower tier candidates like McCain, Richardson, Paul, and so on beat him.

Yeah, but I think Fred Thompson's eight years as a U.S. Senator outweighs Obama's nine years as a State Senator (and only three years as a U.S. Senator).

Yes because being a State Senator doesn't count as political experience, in fact it's not even a political office at all.  I mean they don't even have any responsibilities or legislating powers, unlike a US Senator. 

[SPC]

He did end up getting a good amount of attention in 2004...but that may be more because he was the "anti-Kerry/Dean". Maybe that's also a bit where Obama's popularity comes from: he's not Hillary.

Neither is Senator Joe Biden or Governor Bill Richardson. Two democrats I could actually stand as President and two who can appear more moderate and win. They are not Hillary and have tons of experience in foreign policy which dems need to win in 2008. Why not them? Why a guy who has been Senator for less time than I've hosted "The Tropical Roundtable"?

Well, don't you realize? It is impossible for the Democrats to lose this election, so they really should give a damn about electability. Clearly hey need to nominate someone that has nothing going for them besides good looks and charisma, no matter how left wing they are. Biden and Richardson are too conservative to win a general election, so they shouldn't nominate them. And besides, Obama's been through hundreds of years of slavery. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, though. I hink Obama's race is a major factor to his sucess in the Democratic primaries. I belive that rich white liberals have an inferiority complex because of slavery and need to balance that out by nominating a half-black guy for president. His race won't hurt him in the general election, but his liberalism will. Biden and Richardson, on the other hand, and moderate Democrats, who could win a general election---except for Biden's gaffe-proneness and Richardson's dullness. They will not get the money they need to win the nomination, despite their electability, because the Democrats think they are in such good shape for next year.

[Keystone Phil]

Edwards is my top choice, but let me defend Obama on the issue of political experience.

Number of years in elected politics as of the 2008 election:


Senator Obama: 12
Thompson 8
Senator Clinton 8
Edwards 6
Romney 4

Of course to be fair, some of the lower tier candidates like McCain, Richardson, Paul, and so on beat him.

Yeah, but I think Fred Thompson's eight years as a U.S. Senator outweighs Obama's nine years as a State Senator (and only three years as a U.S. Senator).

Yes because being a State Senator doesn't count as political experience, in fact it's not even a political office at all.  I mean they don't even have any responsibilities or legislating powers, unlike a US Senator. 

Because you are stupid, you didn't pick up on the fact that I said being a U.S. Senator outweighs being a State Senator. No where did I state or insinuate that being a State Senator doesn't count as political experience. I challenge you to find where I said that that was the case.

I hope you enjoyed making yourself look foolish.

[Eleden]

Edwards is my top choice, but let me defend Obama on the issue of political experience.

Number of years in elected politics as of the 2008 election:


Senator Obama: 12
Thompson 8
Senator Clinton 8
Edwards 6
Romney 4

Of course to be fair, some of the lower tier candidates like McCain, Richardson, Paul, and so on beat him.

Yeah, but I think Fred Thompson's eight years as a U.S. Senator outweighs Obama's nine years as a State Senator (and only three years as a U.S. Senator).

Yes because being a State Senator doesn't count as political experience, in fact it's not even a political office at all.  I mean they don't even have any responsibilities or legislating powers, unlike a US Senator. 

Because you are stupid, you didn't pick up on the fact that I said being a U.S. Senator outweighs being a State Senator. No where did I state or insinuate that being a State Senator doesn't count as political experience. I challenge you to find where I said that that was the case.

I hope you enjoyed making yourself look foolish.

You make it sound like being a State Representative is insignificant.  9 years legislating for the state of Illinois combined with three years of legislating on the Federal Level, is easily comparable to eight years of US Senate experience.

[Keystone Phil]

You make it sound like being a State Representative is insignificant.  9 years legislating for the state of Illinois combined with three years of legislating on the Federal Level, is easily comparable to eight years of US Senate experience.

I didn't make anything sound like that. I said eight years as a U.S. Senator outweighs nine years as a State Senator.

[Eleden]

You make it sound like being a State Representative is insignificant.  9 years legislating for the state of Illinois combined with three years of legislating on the Federal Level, is easily comparable to eight years of US Senate experience.

I didn't make anything sound like that. I said eight years as a U.S. Senator outweighs nine years as a State Senator.

Perhaps, but what is the basis for that assumption?  9 years as a State Senator combined with 3 years as a U.S. Senator, in my opinion, is nearly equivalent to Fred Thompson's experience.

[Keystone Phil]

Perhaps, but what is the basis for that assumption?  9 years as a State Senator combined with 3 years as a U.S. Senator, in my opinion, is nearly equivalent to Fred Thompson's experience.

I just don't see how they are nearly equal when it comes to the experience one should have.

[poughies]

Can't we all just agree that Richardson, Paul, Dodd, Biden, McCain all more experience than these two?

[King]

MARION BARRY FOR PRESIDENT! HE HAS OVER 20 YEARS OF POLITICAL EXPERIENCE AS A CITY COUNCILMAN AND MAYOR OF WASHINGTON, D.C.!

Can't we all just agree that Richardson, Paul, Dodd, Biden, McCain all more experience than these two?

^^^^^^

[Eleden]

Can't we all just agree that Richardson, Paul, Dodd, Biden, McCain all more experience than these two?

Haha ok.

[Keystone Phil]

Can't we all just agree that Richardson, Paul, Dodd, Biden, McCain all more experience than these two?

Absolutely but, like I said before, experience isn't everything.

[poughies]

no it isn't but i think it does mean something.... as for Barry, use a brain, the man was a crack smoking, pimp busting, wife cheating idiot.