Agree totally. 2016, 2020, give or take.
Assuming he lays down some nice tracks in the mean time.
Better chance than hillary, less chance than a sno-cone in hell.
Why waste the Money?
(secret code embeded)
I’ll bide my time and look for President Obama in Ought 12. A wonderful time that will be, for all kinds of Americans.
I’d love to see it happen, but unless things change drastically in the next 10 years or so, any presidential candidate whose name sounds even slightly like “Osama” isn’t ever getting elected.
Might not be as strange as it sounds…HEREis an article from Newsweek that hints things might be changing.
I logged into Obama’s website and was quite impressed.
And as far as him being black…I don’t think that would really matter in the big picture. Sure, there are people who wouldn’t vote for him because of that, but I am going out on a limb and suggesting they are the same people who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat no matter what color/religion/race/sex etc. If anything, the fact that he is black might just might even work to his advantage politically.
And if you read the article, you will see quite a few Presidents have been elected with less Washington DC experience.
What could happen or not happen in the next 10 years that would impact that? Say he runs in 2016 or 2020: Bin Laden will probably be dead by then, and September 11 will be 15 years in the past. The name probably wouldn’t be a big handicap at that point, even if the Coulters of the world try to go nuts about it.
And hey, if they can sell that drug Fosamax…
When everyone just knows someone’s going to make it to the White House way early on, it’s not going to happen. When was the last time a potential presidential election winner was seen this far in advance? Too much hype too early … Obama will be getting rippped to pieces by backlash before he even declares for a primary.
If the U.S. has a chance at electing a minority president very soon (within 20 years), it will be someone nobody is talking about now. If short-time congessman Bobby Jindal (R-LA) wins the 2007 Louisiana governor’s race (and he’s the clear front-runner), and then takes it again in 2011 … he could be primed for a run at the 2012 Republican nomination.
“Bobby” is a good, sellable name … far more widely accessible than “Barak” (heck, disregarding spelling … “Bobby Jindle” sounds like a NASCAR driver!). And maybe the flak that a guy like Obama will be taking will keep the hype/backlash cycle from getting to guys like Jindal too early.
It’s all a big “maybe” – mere harebrained speculation 6 years out. But it’s fun to think about.
I agree absolutely on this point. The man could be Gandhi, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, and Abe Lincoln ass wrapped together, and people are still going to think “terrorist nutjob” when they hear his name.
And even if they get over the Obama/Osama thing, I think they won’t know what to do with “Barack”. Kenyan? Vulcan?
Oh, and his middle name is Hussein. Strike three.
NOTE: This is not my personal opinion. I know nothing about the man and his politics, beyond the fact that he is a Democrat. I’m just commenting on what I think “Mr. and Mrs. Middle America” are going to think, based on his name alone.
This is all speculation on this thread.
Regarding his odd name…hmm, Oprah (she’ll never make it in showbiz with a name like that), Ice-T (change your name to Chuck and we’ll put you on Law and Order), Whoopi Goldberg (insulting Jews and naming yourself after a fart cushion? Get outa here lady)…Queen Latifah…
You get my drift. Should he decide to run, there will be the initial Jay Leno, Dave Letterman, Conan jokes and then the big haha is over and people don’t care what your name is, just who you are. I mean, please…Spiro Agnew? Arnold Schwarzenegger?
John F Kennedy I believe.
God’s sake y’all, stop trying to steal my senator. Let him at serve at least one term, I think he can maybe do some good for Illinois. We elected him, he’s ours, dammit!
And some of it is remarkably patronizing. I mean, I’ve been known to have a pretty low opinion of people, but… actually, what makes it worse is that Democrats at large will probably be having this debate in a semi-public manner (after failing to keep it private) 15 years from now, wondering “who do the Republicans want us to nominate?”
I couldn’t agree more.
Have you noticed that in discussions about the potential candidacy of Hillary, almost no one even mentions the fact she would be a woman running for President…Republicans loathe her because she is Hillary Clinton, not because she is a woman, and Dems are simply doing the math to see if she could win in the General Election. But the concept of a woman running for President seems to already be a non-issue, and Hillary hasn’t even announced yet if she will run for the office!
I think the same would happen with Obama…if he does decide to run, by that time it will be abundantly clear that he is a black guy with direct family ties to Africa and has a funny name…but once the biographically details have been hashed out on the media, my guess is people will begin to focus on what the man has to say.
Sure, there are people who would never vote for a woman, or would never vote for a black guy…but I give the American public enought credit and think those sexist/racists are in such a minority as to be a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. It will boil down to Dem vs Rep, Urban vs Rural and Red vs Blue states…pretty much the same split as in the last few major elections…and my personal feeling is that at that point, it won’t make a difference if the candidate is black or a woman, or hell, even a black woman. I bet Oprah could win, and I am not joking.
Two cents from a Republican.
Is Obama ready or qualified to be President right now? No.
On the other hand, there are very, very few politicians in either party who can deliver a speech or get people excited, the way he can.
99.9% of the time, a Vice Presidential nominee adds little or nothing to a ticket. Even if Obama isn’t the best-qualified person the Democrats have available, Obama definitely WOULD add something to the ticket. He’d energize the party’s base. He’d ensure a much larger-than-usual black turnout (that can make a huge difference in the “purple” states). And unlike most liberal Democrats who ATTEMPT to sound religious (but usually end up sounding stilted and phony), Obama can talk about his Christian faith without shame and without seeming to condescend to his audience.
I wouldn’t vote for him, because he doesn’t share my ideology. And I don’t think he’s ready to make such a huge jump yet. But from a PURELY strategic standpoint, he’d be a great addition to any Democratic ticket. If he really wants to run for President, I think he’d do well to wait a few years and gain more experience. But I wouldn’t blame the Democrats’ 2008 nominee if he/she thought Obama would bring a lot of the ticket.
… interestingly, a candidate with Kennedy’s infidelity issues couldn’t win in today’s media climate (see Gary Hart). Obama, of course, doesn’t have Kennedy’s and Hart’s issues.
I thought Clinton had all the infidelity issues before he got elected? I am not sure I can agree with your statement, I think with Hart it was the pictures of the sex kitten on a private boat with him, and his response that did him in.
BTW: Reagan had some infidelity issues in his past also, as far as cheating on his first wife Jane Wyman (sp?) I believe. No one made a big issue of it at all.
Jim
Hampshire, while this thread is undeniably interesting reading, we prefer not to resurrect zombies about then-current events when it might lead to confusion with now-current events. I’m going to close this thread and split the new posts to a new thread of their own.
New thread is right about…here.