im sick to death of the comparisons to rfk

[WalterMitty]

i swear, if anyone else compares obama to rfk, i think im just going to vomit in the floor or something.

there is no comparison.  none.  okay maybe they both inspired some young people. 

im an rfk fan, but in fairness, mccarthy inspired those young people first before rfk even entered the race.  but that is another subject...

my point is, rfk actually accomplished things before he ran for president:

the mccarthy committee (not his finest hour)
the rackets committee
attorney general of the us
senator from new york

obama's resume:

'community activist'
state legislator
us senator

[minionofmidas]

More the the point, Bobby Kennedy was a shameless nepotist with some genuinely own achievements... much like Hilary Clinton.

[WalterMitty]

More the the point, Bobby Kennedy was a shameless nepotist with some genuinely own achievements... much like Hilary Clinton.

there is some truth to that.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

You're right, Mitty.  We've already had the California primary - Obama didn't win it and he's still alive.  No comparison.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm sick of people loving both of these individuals but at least Bobby did have some accomplishments. I wouldn't include Kennedy's time in the Senate as one of his finest hours, Walter. He was known to be not much of anything there. Kind of like another Bobby in the Senate right now...

[© tweed]

you're right, Mitty.  RFK was too pussy to take a stand against a murderous war in fear it wouldn't be politically expedient.  Obama has opposed one from its start - even when 80% of the country was on the other side.

[WalterMitty]

You're right, Mitty.  We've already had the California primary - Obama didn't win it and he's still alive.  No comparison.

no there isnt much of a comparison.

obama is also a much better speaker than rfk.    rfk was very awkward on the stump.

phil, youre right that rfk didnt accomplish much in the senate.  but give him kudos for defeating an incumbent to get there.  not everybody can run against alan keyes.  and phil, i know you are an nfl fan, roger goodell's father took over rfk's seat after his assassination.

[WalterMitty]

you're right, Mitty.  RFK was too pussy to take a stand against a murderous war in fear it wouldn't be politically expedient.  Obama has opposed one from its start - even when 80% of the country was on the other side.

two questions tweed:

1. did they hold a vote on the war in the illinois state legislature?

2.  did obama say in 2004 that his position on iraq was essentially the same as bush's?

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

he also said in an interview in late 2003 (I think) that he would have voted 'no' on the US Senate resolution to go to war.  I don't understand why you hold it against him that he wasn't in the Senate yet and therefore couldn't vote 'no.'

[WalterMitty]

my whole point is...it is easy to be against something when you werent there to make a decision.

obama wasnt looking at any intelligence.  obama didnt have to go on record and cast a vote.  yeah.  he gave a speech opposing the war.  and he also backtracked during the 2004 election.  and now he is opposed again.

he spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and since he wasnt in the senate to cast a vote..he get's by with the double talk.

given his record, he probably would have voted 'present' anyway.

[Franzl]

my whole point is...it is easy to be against something when you werent there to make a decision.

obama wasnt looking at any intelligence.  obama didnt have to go on record and cast a vote.  yeah.  he gave a speech opposing the war.  and he also backtracked during the 2004 election.  and now he is opposed again.

he spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and since he wasnt in the senate to cast a vote..he get's by with the double talk.

given his record, he probably would have voted 'present' anyway.

I think Obama stated quite clearly that he opposed the Iraq War. Are you implying that his stance was irrelevant because he wasn't a member of the Senate at that time?

[elcorazon]

my whole point is...it is easy to be against something when you werent there to make a decision.

obama wasnt looking at any intelligence.  obama didnt have to go on record and cast a vote.  yeah.  he gave a speech opposing the war.  and he also backtracked during the 2004 election.  and now he is opposed again.

he spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and since he wasnt in the senate to cast a vote..he get's by with the double talk.

given his record, he probably would have voted 'present' anyway.

wow.  I'm not going to say Obama can't be criticized.  For sure there are many reasons to prefer Clinton to Obama, however, you really seem angry at him. Mostly because he didn't have the correct career projectory that is generally taken by most politicians.  He made a major leap to the US Senate, and he did it against an easy to beat opponent - true.  But really, how is any of that relevant to this race.  He's run a spectacular race whether you like him or his policies or not.

And to argue that he "didn't have to go on record" is pretty insane since HE DID GO ON RECORD.  No maybe he's getting too much out of that, but honestly, you can't rewrite history and claim he didn't oppose the war enough because he wasn't yet a Senator.  

[WalterMitty]

my whole point is...it is easy to be against something when you werent there to make a decision.

obama wasnt looking at any intelligence.  obama didnt have to go on record and cast a vote.  yeah.  he gave a speech opposing the war.  and he also backtracked during the 2004 election.  and now he is opposed again.

he spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and since he wasnt in the senate to cast a vote..he get's by with the double talk.

given his record, he probably would have voted 'present' anyway.

I think Obama stated quite clearly that he opposed the Iraq War. Are you implying that his stance was irrelevant because he wasn't a member of the Senate at that time?

it was certainly much less relevant than a senator's opinion, since they were the ones who had the make the final decisions.

obama has spent his life giving speeches. 

[Franzl]

my whole point is...it is easy to be against something when you werent there to make a decision.

obama wasnt looking at any intelligence.  obama didnt have to go on record and cast a vote.  yeah.  he gave a speech opposing the war.  and he also backtracked during the 2004 election.  and now he is opposed again.

he spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and since he wasnt in the senate to cast a vote..he get's by with the double talk.

given his record, he probably would have voted 'present' anyway.

I think Obama stated quite clearly that he opposed the Iraq War. Are you implying that his stance was irrelevant because he wasn't a member of the Senate at that time?

it was certainly much less relevant than a senator's opinion, since they were the ones who had the make the final decisions.

obama has spent his life giving speeches. 

That's complete and utter nonsense. What does that have to do with the current presidential race, the fact that he was unable to vote on that issue in 2002? So basically what you're saying, is that Obama, although he CLEARLY stated in public that he opposed the war, would somehow have voted differently, had he been a senator?

[WalterMitty]

i dont know how he would have voted.

he says he would have voted no.  no one can say for sure.

how can you be certain he would have?  you cant.

[Franzl]

i dont know how he would have voted.

he says he would have voted no.  no one can say for sure.

how can you be certain he would have?  you cant.

No, I can't, but one would logically assume that his publicly stated opinion would have influenced his vote in some way.

If you want it that way, then Hillary supporters can't claim that she "worked" on healthcare during her husband's presidency, because naturally, she wasn't in the senate at that time to vote on it. Even though she, of course, played a large role in it....irrelevant....sure, why not?

I do get the impression that you have some anti-Obama days, today for example even stronger than usual. What happened to your comment about losing Wisconsin because he took Valentine's Day off, by the way?

[Keystone Phil]

but give him kudos for defeating an incumbent to get there.  not everybody can run against alan keyes.

Uh, fine, but he handily beat a man who actually wanted to be there and RFK clearly didn't want to be there. I can't have respect for that. Again, this sounds a lot like someone else I know...

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I found that out just the other day. Interesting fact.

[Democratic Hawk]

I've never likened Obama to either JFK or RFK nor would I but I do see something of Reagan in him in that Obama could well be the liberal, who reaches well beyond his ideological base, much like the conservative Reagan did before him

Most Americans were worse off in 1980 than they were in 1976; while many, if not most, Americans are worse off in 2008, than they were in 2000

Both Reagan and Obama encapsulate 'change' at junctures in history (1980 and 2008), when it is, arguably, most needed. Reagan succeeded the incompetent Carter; while Obama could succeed the incompetent Bush and go on to be a very successful president

Dave

[Duke 🇺🇸]

I've never likened Obama to either JFK or RFK nor would I but I do see something of Reagan in him in that Obama could well be the liberal, who reaches well beyond his ideological base, much like the conservative Reagan did before him

Most Americans were worse off in 1980 than they were in 1976; while many, if not most, Americans are worse off in 2008, than they were in 2000

Both Reagan and Obama encapsulate 'change' at junctures in history (1980 and 2008), when it is, arguably, most needed. Reagan succeeded the incompetent Carter; while Obama could succeed the incompetent Bush and go on to be a very successful president

Dave

Obama isn't running against Bush. I don't see how that applies.

[Franzl]

I've never likened Obama to either JFK or RFK nor would I but I do see something of Reagan in him in that Obama could well be the liberal, who reaches well beyond his ideological base, much like the conservative Reagan did before him

Most Americans were worse off in 1980 than they were in 1976; while many, if not most, Americans are worse off in 2008, than they were in 2000

Both Reagan and Obama encapsulate 'change' at junctures in history (1980 and 2008), when it is, arguably, most needed. Reagan succeeded the incompetent Carter; while Obama could succeed the incompetent Bush and go on to be a very successful president

Dave

Obama isn't running against Bush. I don't see how that applies.

Not directly, but McCain is in a bad position from the start, representing the same party as Bush. That will have some influence on his results. People won't suddenly forget which party is responsible for the mess we're in.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

I've never likened Obama to either JFK or RFK nor would I but I do see something of Reagan in him in that Obama could well be the liberal, who reaches well beyond his ideological base, much like the conservative Reagan did before him

Most Americans were worse off in 1980 than they were in 1976; while many, if not most, Americans are worse off in 2008, than they were in 2000

Both Reagan and Obama encapsulate 'change' at junctures in history (1980 and 2008), when it is, arguably, most needed. Reagan succeeded the incompetent Carter; while Obama could succeed the incompetent Bush and go on to be a very successful president

Dave

Obama isn't running against Bush. I don't see how that applies.

Not directly, but McCain is in a bad position from the start, representing the same party as Bush. That will have some influence on his results. People won't suddenly forget which party is responsible for the mess we're in.

2008 is not 2006. The hatred of the GOP will not last forever. It's not like the public is particularly happy with the Congress, which, last I checked, was at 17% while Bush was around 34%.

I find it strange that approval ratings and polls only apply to Republicans.

The war improvement will help McCain by showing he has conviction, and he's always been seen as a maverick by most of the country and a critic of the administration's policies.

Point being, it would be easier if Giuliani was running to paint him as Bush II because he was so close to Bush and was close to being his VP in 2004.

[Franzl]

I've never likened Obama to either JFK or RFK nor would I but I do see something of Reagan in him in that Obama could well be the liberal, who reaches well beyond his ideological base, much like the conservative Reagan did before him

Most Americans were worse off in 1980 than they were in 1976; while many, if not most, Americans are worse off in 2008, than they were in 2000

Both Reagan and Obama encapsulate 'change' at junctures in history (1980 and 2008), when it is, arguably, most needed. Reagan succeeded the incompetent Carter; while Obama could succeed the incompetent Bush and go on to be a very successful president

Dave

Obama isn't running against Bush. I don't see how that applies.

Not directly, but McCain is in a bad position from the start, representing the same party as Bush. That will have some influence on his results. People won't suddenly forget which party is responsible for the mess we're in.

2008 is not 2006. The hatred of the GOP will not last forever. It's not like the public is particularly happy with the Congress, which, last I checked, was at 17% while Bush was around 34%.

I find it strange that approval ratings and polls only apply to Republicans.

The war improvement will help McCain by showing he has conviction, and he's always been seen as a maverick by most of the country and a critic of the administration's policies.

Point being, it would be easier if Giuliani was running to paint him as Bush II because he was so close to Bush and was close to being his VP in 2004.

fair enough, I agree, the congressional approval ratings are indeed bad. I would argue, though, that voters tend to take it out on the president, even if he isn't directly responsible for something.

I'm not saying I agree with it or think it's fair, but a lot of people talk about the president "getting things done". I've seen countless people complain about gasoline prices with direct reference to President Bush, even though (not counting the war in Iraq) the president doesn't have any actual influence.

[Nutmeg]

Well, I'm 'sick to death' of the ridiculous criticism of the candidate's more enthusiastic supporters.  A lot of them are people who have never before given a thought to politics in their lives.  Even if their support is at times immature or over-the-top, I still think it's great that so many people are thinking about the country's future for the first time.  Not everyone is as jaded as you.

(This applies mostly to people in the real world.  Some in this forum are pretty annoying.)

[Duke 🇺🇸]

That's true. I think that 2006 was the voters venting on President Bush and the Republicans. I'm not saying that the Democrats won't gain more seats, I expect they will, but not on the level they did in 2006. I don't think it will have a huge effect on McCain's candidacy. If there was one  candidate that the GOP could run that, at least, gave the impression of a break from Bush, it was McCain.

[WalterMitty]

i think obama's campaign is most similar to mcgovern in 1972 (im speaking of the primary not the general election)

mcgovern led a grass roots campaign and took out the establishment candidate..ed muskie...while at the same time beating back his opposition in the liberal camp...john lindsay and gene mccarthy