Is Obama Done ?

Question US

Is Obama Done ?

by skull Posted March 19, 2008 20:09:16

55 answers
Read all 192 comments
+11 raves

It was fun for a min.

Answers
Results
Recommend This

Top Comment

+12 / -3 raves ACEDMagazine March 19, 2008 20:26:21

Answered: Undecided
I like Obama. I don't agree with everything he says, but then I don't agree with everything Clinton says either. I really don't like the fact that Clinton has such high-stakes corporate backing. I really like the fact that Obama does not. Clinton will be a slave to the corporate hags. And as such, this country keeps getting ruled by the suits.
View thread

Sort By

Most Raves
Least Raves
Oldest
Newest

text size

Comments

+4 / -2 raves
Jen**GPAC** March 19, 2008 21:55:41

Answered: No
He'll be done in about 8 years and counts on fingers 9 months..
+4 raves
fluer March 19, 2008 21:53:51

Answered: Undecided
He may be but then I am more worried about what the Republicans will do to him if he makes the general
+5 / -2 raves
Buck March 19, 2008 21:36:54

Answered: Yes
moderated...
+4 raves
Headhunter 13 March 19, 2008 20:57:16

Answered: Yes
I hope so because if he isn't I have to vote for McCain andf if Obama should win, while we are now circling the bowl with him we will be down the toilet
+1 raves
Artillery12 March 19, 2008 20:33:59

Answered: No
with the media at his side, obama can win this! well, i dont know.
+12 / -3 raves
ACEDMagazine March 19, 2008 20:26:21

Answered: Undecided
I like Obama. I don't agree with everything he says, but then I don't agree with everything Clinton says either. I really don't like the fact that Clinton has such high-stakes corporate backing. I really like the fact that Obama does not. Clinton will be a slave to the corporate hags. And as such, this country keeps getting ruled by the suits.
+2 raves
Headhun... to ACEDMag... March 19, 2008 20:56:06

Do you know who Exelon is and how tied Obama is to them? The own utility companies in multiple location like Com ED in IL, PECO in PA, NJ and DE, DELMARVA and more. Obama helped get the a 10 year contract to provide power in Iraq. I see that as at least 1 big Corporate backer not to mention tye ones backing him because they can't break into the Afican market and they see him as a way in.
ACEDMag... to Headhun... March 20, 2008 13:34:00

One known corporation as apposed to many corporations supporting Clinton...hmmm. Who is in deeper? My point is, of the main three, he is relying less on corporations for support and more on the people. There are things about Obama that I think are shady, just as much as the others. None of them are good candidates. They all come with bad baggage.
+1 raves
Headhun... to ACEDMag... March 20, 2008 14:56:38

maybe if you are so interested and since I only mentioned one you should look into hi Corporate backing. There are a lot of Companies that want to but can't break into Africa that see him as a foot in the door. Plus to me it is a little suspicious that his biggest Corp backer is the one he got that contract for because of a war he does not support?
+2 raves
sioux~P... to Headhun... March 29, 2008 16:06:02 (edited)

To be someone who wants to help "his people" so much, he is spending more than anybody has EVER spent to get himself elected and it's too much for just the "little" people to be giving. I guarantee he is backed by some huge corporations and, for sure, George Soros.
+4 raves
~BINK~ to ACEDMag... March 19, 2008 20:59:12

it good you pay attention to other than just race and gender. there should be more voters like you!
+1 raves
Archie to ACEDMag... March 20, 2008 00:07:07

Unfortunately, big corps favor Obama more than Clinton. Do you ever wonder why?
+1 / -1 raves
ACEDMag... to Archie March 20, 2008 13:31:35

Where are you getting this information from? From what I have seen and heard (and I have friends in Washington) they favor Clinton much more.
Archie to ACEDMag... March 27, 2008 03:15:58 (edited)

Oh, P. J. O'Rourke was on Maher's show..(he did some very extensive interviewing this season) and although a dedicated republican sometimes I trust the guy! He's a straight shooter. Actually he made a bad slip on Maher by accepting that all the big corp executives (especially repubs) are favoring Obama over McCain ...think of Obama as a naive dummy. They hope that is inexperience = free pass. Now personally, I favor Clinton over Obama but I don't think he is a naive dummy.

BTW, who the heck DR'd you for asking a valid question..gee...folks are really getting edgy and intolerant here.
+1 raves
skull to ACEDMag... March 20, 2008 15:11:42

They will watch Clinton as president and every move she makes , she would be the first Women president , They same if Obama won. I do not think they would take a chance after seeing what bush has done.
+2 raves
nobama2012 to ACEDMag... July 26, 2009 19:12:25 (edited)

Please...are you that blind? Obama has the unions and other criminals backing him. Wake UP!
+4 raves
Archie March 19, 2008 20:22:49

Answered: Yes
At least the mania is gone. Hopefully, we will get to see the real person now. We may like him or not like him but at least the facade is shrinking.
+4 raves
MT Chris to Archie March 19, 2008 20:25:59

Actually, your thoughts are well received by me. You (and others) might be interested in this article by Maureen Dowd, if you haven't read it already:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/0...
+1 raves
ACEDMag... to MT Chris March 19, 2008 20:32:10

Thanks for the article.
+3 raves
Archie to MT Chris March 19, 2008 20:47:45

Thanks for the article Chris. I read it but I don't agree completely especially with: "Up until now, Obama and his worshipers have set it up so that he must be so admirable and ideal and perfect and everything we’ve ever wanted that any kind of blemish — even a parking ticket — was regarded as a major failing.
With the Clintons, we expect them to be cheesy on ethics, so no one is ever surprised when they are."

Look, to me saying that the Iraq war is wrong is not "unpatriotic". I have always said it; and similarly, saying that Obama should not get a sympathy vote because he is somewhat Black is not racist either. I don't think the media or voters are making a fair comparison between Obama and Clinton. Hillary is constantly scrutinized where as Obama gets free tickets on every issue.
+3 raves
MT Chris to Archie March 19, 2008 20:59:28

Yeah, I can see your point on Dowd's exaggeration about Clinton and Obama. I also agree on the media issues to a degree. I don't think the media is doing enough to focus on actual policy issues of either Clinton and Obama. I'm worried the primary race has become so distracted by Obama damage control that we will not be able to go back to a policy debate in the final moments of the primaries between Clinton and Obama. Anyway,the big point of all of this is what you say above and what Dowd concluded in her op-ed: Tearing down that image of Obama-as-Messiah may allow the scrutiny to go back to real policies? I sure hope so - I'd be much happier if America turned down Obama over their informed disagreement with his policy positions than if they turn him down in an irrational frenzy.
+5 raves
Archie to MT Chris March 19, 2008 23:17:37 (edited)

Yes, you have a good point there. I agree that a candidate should be selected or turned down because of policies. In the past, I did try to bring up this point of SH. To me his "race" should neither be a disqualification nor a qualification.

My question is shouldn't he have to prove himself just because he is Black? Do we as democrats not deserve the "fittest" candidate, considering that the "Law of natural Selection" holds true for elections too?

Obama has won many states and many delegates so far. He is doing well. However, what bothered me so far is:
1. He did not win any of the big democratic States.
2. He kept whining about the fact that he was not on Michigan's Ballot/ did not campaign in Florida; however, he does not want both of these states to hold their primaries again. Wonder why? To me whatever happened in 2000 was undemocratic and whatever is happening today is undemocratic as well. We need to hear everyone out.
3. I did not like Michelle Obama's slander on Hillary. That was very poor in taste. To me Obama should have stepped up against it right away. It was more direct than Clinton's so called "racist" banter. And by the by, only folks who are unaware of Clinton's ties with Black community would dare to say that Clinton is racist.
Those comments in SC about...

Yes, you have a good point there. I agree that a candidate should be selected or turned down because of policies. In the past, I did try to bring up this point of SH. To me his "race" should neither be a disqualification nor a qualification.

My question is shouldn't he have to prove himself just because he is Black? Do we as democrats not deserve the "fittest" candidate, considering that the "Law of natural Selection" holds true for elections too?

Obama has won many states and many delegates so far. He is doing well. However, what bothered me so far is:
1. He did not win any of the big democratic States.
2. He kept whining about the fact that he was not on Michigan's Ballot/ did not campaign in Florida; however, he does not want both of these states to hold their primaries again. Wonder why? To me whatever happened in 2000 was undemocratic and whatever is happening today is undemocratic as well. We need to hear everyone out.
3. I did not like Michelle Obama's slander on Hillary. That was very poor in taste. To me Obama should have stepped up against it right away. It was more direct than Clinton's so called "racist" banter. And by the by, only folks who are unaware of Clinton's ties with Black community would dare to say that Clinton is racist.
Those comments in SC about Jesse Jackson and MLK were not considered racist by either Jackson himself or MLK's son--MK,Jr-- so why do Obama's supporters keep using the race card. Because after the SC primaries Blacks started voting in Obama's favor in huge numbers. I find this type of "block" voting divisive and not unifying for this country at all.
Furthermore, if Obama turns out to be lame duck like Bush, are we automatically going to disqualify all blacks from running in future? Because that would not be fair to anyone either. In other words is Obama the most qualifies Black candidate for this type of "block-vote"?
4. Obama opposes the Iraq war but would "love" to Bomb Pakistan. That to me is far worse than facing 10 Iraq's or 10 Irans. Therefore, I want to know more about his foreign policies.
5. Every time, Obama talks about how he has faced "issues" because he was "black" scares me. I don't want a president who will later feel obliged to oblige only certain voters. Because that will be exactly like bush trying to please those who voted for him.
(more)
+2 raves
ACEDMag... to Archie March 20, 2008 13:53:57

All good points. I think the presidential race should only include policy discussions. Slander and personal attacks should not be allowed by any candidate. To me, they are all acting like children when they do this. And who wants an immature brat running the country that can't show a bit of common decency or respect to others, even if they are their opponent. And if either Clinton or Obama get in and don't do "great" jobs there will be problems for blacks and women trying to run in the future for the reasons you cited above. I really don't like the idea of someone getting in there to focus on a limited set of plans because they feel they are owed something either. Admittedly, my confidence in Obama has lessened considerably since the "God Damn America" crap , and other things that have been popping up here and there. It will all boil down to the issues. In fact, I have this quiz about issues I think I will post a poll on - lets you know which candidate is the best for your stance on the issues.
+1 raves
Archie to ACEDMag... March 20, 2008 17:47:02

ACED, that would be a wonderful poll. Today itself I saw in news that Obama's camp made Hillary open-up her logs of daily chores as the first lady. What a waste of time. The whole Monica Lewinsky affair is out again and I have no idea how does it even relate to the true issues in this election.

Your comment is so precise--- these candidates are acting like babies.
+2 / -1 raves
southernbell March 19, 2008 20:19:53

Answered: Yes
moderated...
+4 / -1 raves
MT Chris March 19, 2008 20:15:35 (edited)

Answered: Undecided
I hope not. But I wonder if America is ready for Obama yet? I would hope so. If petty issues sink a great candidate that never got a chance to have his policy positions seen by the public at large, that is a grave tragedy for America. You'd think after 7 years of Bush, people would get past the politics of slime. I am very somber about what has been going on lately.
+1 raves
skull to MT Chris March 19, 2008 20:19:01

I not surprise , America The land of the free
+3 raves
Headhun... to MT Chris March 19, 2008 21:00:19

he has never stated a policy position he reads nice speeches and moves on. We can't be ready for Obama because Obama is no where near ready to lead. He would like bush be a president in training with no experience laeding anything
+2 raves
Studied to MT Chris March 20, 2008 02:44:14

Unfortunately, Obama will not appear on any one on one interviews, so no one will ever get to see what his real policies are. Until he stands up and acts like a responsible adult he can NEVER be a great candidate. If he would have decided to put himself out there for everyones scrutiny, only then could people decide who he really is and what he really stands for.
+3 raves
Lykos March 19, 2008 20:12:16

Answered: Yes
moderated...
+1 raves
skull to Lykos March 19, 2008 20:15:40

I see you are fair.
+2 raves
Lykos to skull March 19, 2008 20:16:24

moderated...