Obama say it isnt so!

[Seattleallstar]

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.

The Illinois Democrat said he could no longer stand by the statements he made after his 2004 election and earlier this year that he would serve a full six-year term in Congress. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.

"That was how I was thinking at that time," said Obama, when asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" about his previous statements.

"Given the response I've been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility" although not with any seriousness or depth, he said. "My focus is on '06. ... After November 7, I'll sit down and consider it."

Obama was largely unknown outside Illinois when he burst onto the national scene with a widely acclaimed address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.

In a recent issue of Time magazine, Obama's face fills the cover next to the headline, "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President." He is currently on a tour promoting his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream."

On Sunday, Obama dismissed notions that he might not be ready to run for president because of his limited experience in national politics. He agreed the job requires a "certain soberness and seriousness" and "can't be something you pursue on the basis of vanity and ambition."

"I'm not sure anyone is ready to be president before they're president," Obama said. "I trust the judgment of the American people.

"We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the paces pretty well," Obama said. "




If I were his political advisor I would highly advise against it this time considering the poltical climate right now regarding the democrats. He must first truly make a connection with Black America, and assure them he is their man. Then he has appeal to the masses which he has already done a great job of, but in addition to that he must get the Americans with some remnants of bigotry and racism to accept the idea that there can be a man of color as President. It really would be wise and prudent for him to get some years under his belt in D.C., before he goes to the Oval Office.

Obama in 2016!!!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.

The Illinois Democrat said he could no longer stand by the statements he made after his 2004 election and earlier this year that he would serve a full six-year term in Congress. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.

"That was how I was thinking at that time," said Obama, when asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" about his previous statements.

"Given the response I've been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility" although not with any seriousness or depth, he said. "My focus is on '06. ... After November 7, I'll sit down and consider it."

Obama was largely unknown outside Illinois when he burst onto the national scene with a widely acclaimed address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.

In a recent issue of Time magazine, Obama's face fills the cover next to the headline, "Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President." He is currently on a tour promoting his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream."

On Sunday, Obama dismissed notions that he might not be ready to run for president because of his limited experience in national politics. He agreed the job requires a "certain soberness and seriousness" and "can't be something you pursue on the basis of vanity and ambition."

"I'm not sure anyone is ready to be president before they're president," Obama said. "I trust the judgment of the American people.

"We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the paces pretty well," Obama said. "




If I were his political advisor I would highly advise against it this time considering the poltical climate right now regarding the democrats. He must first truly make a connection with Black America, and assure them he is their man. Then he has appeal to the masses which he has already done a great job of, but in addition to that he must get the Americans with some remnants of bigotry and racism to accept the idea that there can be a man of color as President. It really would be wise and prudent for him to get some years under his belt in D.C., before he goes to the Oval Office.

Obama in 2016!!!

Jerry, I disagree....as we said in the 60's, "If not now, when? If not me, who?"
This may be the perfect time for him (although I'd prefer to see him as VP with Hillary)...a stay in the US Senate seldom helps potential Presidential candidates because there will be voting decisions that will always come back to haunt a candidate. He's a fresh face in a time when many many voters are fed up with BOTH parties (me for example)....I'd much rather trust my future to a guy who is intelligent and honest than another political hack bought and paid for by special interests! As far as the racial issue goes...do you really think it will vanish in another 4 or 8 years? That will always be an issue...until a person of color is elected...then, like the Catholic issue that Kennedy faced, it will be moot! There are 3 candidates that I can support at present...Hillary, Obama and Cordy, if one of those doesn't run...I'll vote but under president mark "none of the above"

[Seattleallstar]

I dont think it will vanish (racial issue) but I just believe since he is a relatively new face in the political arena it would best serve him as a future presidential candidate to learn a few more things and form a stronger tie with others in the Democratic party. A VP with Hillary would certainly be a step in the right direction, or a VP with whoever comes out as the Democrats candidate for president.

John Edwards and Barrack Obama would certainly be unstoppable

I don't think we'll see a black president until the baby boomers are dead. It's really unfortunate.

[GenuineRisk]

Argh; just a few days ago I read an article on why Obama's inexperience might not matter and now I can't remember where I read it... pbbt. I wanted to post the link. Well, here's another article on him.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152252/

Though, with Somer, if it were a choice between the two, I'd take Hillary, just because I think she'd do a better job. I'd prefer someone more liberal, but can't have everything. At least she's smart. So is Obama, though. So if he gets the nomination, s'okay with me.

Edwards would be good, though, too. And I like Biden; I just don't see him getting the nomination. Well, I guess there are worse things than to have a few potential candidates one actually kind of likes, right? They all seem focused on domestic issues, which I think is what we need.

Seattle, I LOVE these thread titles. Keep 'em up!

[Seattleallstar]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Argh; just a few days ago I read an article on why Obama's inexperience might not matter and now I can't remember where I read it... pbbt. I wanted to post the link. Well, here's another article on him.

http://www.slate.com/id/2152252/

Though, with Somer, if it were a choice between the two, I'd take Hillary, just because I think she'd do a better job. I'd prefer someone more liberal, but can't have everything. At least she's smart. So is Obama, though. So if he gets the nomination, s'okay with me.

Edwards would be good, though, too. And I like Biden; I just don't see him getting the nomination. Well, I guess there are worse things than to have a few potential candidates one actually kind of likes, right? They all seem focused on domestic issues, which I think is what we need.

Seattle, I LOVE these thread titles. Keep 'em up!

I try GR, its time to start talking out on these things.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

I don't think we'll see a black president until the baby boomers are dead. It's really unfortunate.

That isn't true. A black candidate could easily win. The states where a prejudice might hurt him are states where he would lose anyway. The way america is now it is all about 10 states that are swing states, and all of those states would vote for a black president. The states where they wouldn't are not voting for a democrat anyway.

[Revolution]

Obama has a better chance of winning than Hillary Clinton. In fact, the reason why he is now considering running is because many feel elections are now basically 50-50 crapshoots unless you start with high negatives, something Hillary Clinton has, and Obama doesn't.

Originally Posted by Revolution

That isn't true. A black candidate could easily win. The states where a prejudice might hurt him are states where he would lose anyway. The way america is now it is all about 10 states that are swing states, and all of those states would vote for a black president. The states where they wouldn't are not voting for a democrat anyway.

I didn't state it as fact. GFY.

What Obama isn't: black like me



If Barack Obama makes it all the way to becoming the Democratic nominee for President in 2008, a feat he says he may attempt, a much more complex understanding of the difference between color and ethnic identity will be upon us for the very first time.

Back in 2004, Alan Keyes made this point quite often. Keyes was the black Republican carpetbagger chosen by the elephants to run against Obama for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois. The choice of Keyes was either a Republican version of affirmative action or an example of just how dumb the party believes black voters to be, since it was obvious that Keyes came from the Southeast, not the Midwest.

That race was never much of a contest, but one fascinating subplot was how Keyes was unable to draw a meaningful distinction between himself as a black American and Obama as an African-American. After all, Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan. Other than color, Obama did not - does not - share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.

Of course, the idea that one would be a better or a worse representative of black Americans depending upon his or her culture or ethnic group is clearly absurd. Even slavery itself initially came under fire from white Christians - the first of whom to separate themselves from the institution were Quakers. The majority of the Union troops were white, and so were those who have brought about the most important civil rights legislation.

Why then do we still have such a simple-minded conception of black and white - and how does it color the way we see Obama? The naive ideas coming out of Pan-Africanism are at the root of the confusion. When Pan-African ideas began to take shape in the 19th century, all black people, regardless of where in the world they lived, suffered and shared a common body of injustices. Europe, after all, had colonized much of the black world, and the United States had enslaved people of African descent for nearly 250 years.

Suffice it to say: This is no longer the case.

So when black Americans refer to Obama as "one of us," I do not know what they are talking about. In his new book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama makes it clear that, while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American.

Will this matter in the end? Probably not. Obama is being greeted with the same kind of public affection that Colin Powell had when he seemed ready to knock Bill Clinton out of the Oval Office. For many reasons, most of them personal, Powell did not become the first black American to be a serious presidential contender.

I doubt Obama will share Powell's fate, but if he throws his hat in the ring, he will have to run as the son of a white woman and an African immigrant. If we then end up with him as our first black President, he will have come into the White House through a side door - which might, at this point, be the only one that's open.

Interesting read.

[Revolution]

Stanley Crouch is a bomb thrower, always trying to stir up controversy, just like a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Saying he will come to the White House through a "side door" is digusting. The liklihood is this joker gets plenty of comments fed to him from the Junior Senator from NY, who sees Obama as the biggest threat to her.

His comment that Obama "has not lived the life of a black american" is moronic. Last I checked his wife is black and so are his children.

Obama sees past race, that is what makes him unique. Stanley Crouch is like a Jesse Jackson, he likes to cry race whenever he gets a chance. That is how he makes his living afterall.

Originally Posted by Revolution

Stanley Crouch is a bomb thrower, always trying to stir up controversy, just like a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Saying he will come to the White House through a "side door" is digusting. The liklihood is this joker gets plenty of comments fed to him from the Junior Senator from NY, who sees Obama as the biggest threat to her.

His comment that Obama "has not lived the life of a black american" is moronic. Last I checked his wife is black and so are his children.

Obama sees past race, that is what makes him unique. Stanley Crouch is like a Jesse Jackson, he likes to cry race whenever he gets a chance. That is how he makes his living afterall.

Plus he looks like a muppet.

[Danzig]

who IS that guy? obama hasn't lived the life of a black american?! where does he get off judging who lived what? if you're a living black american, aren't you living the life of a black american?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

who IS that guy? obama hasn't lived the life of a black american?! where does he get off judging who lived what? if you're a living black american, aren't you living the life of a black american?

Danzig,
That's just too true!
Thanks for pointing out the fallacy of "muppet's" words.
LMFAO!

[GPK]

as long as middle-upper class white american males control the majority of corporate america....Hillary has not a chance in hell.

[Danzig]

actually, i think hillary has a shot, not as good as some, but better than others. she'd be around 8-1 if you wanted to make a morning line.
many would think it was still bill in charge, if hillary got elected--and bill would probably win if he ran again. i'm not saying that would be the case, that he would BE the puppet master--she seems very strong willed, but i think many--not a majority, but many would think HE was still calling the shots.

the ones she would have to win over--those blowhard old school bible thumping male chauvinists who would quote the good book ad infinitum regarding women being in charge--it's just not right they'll say. it's an abomination....yada yada.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

actually, i think hillary has a shot, not as good as some, but better than others. she'd be around 8-1 if you wanted to make a morning line.
many would think it was still bill in charge, if hillary got elected--and bill would probably win if he ran again. i'm not saying that would be the case, that he would BE the puppet master--she seems very strong willed, but i think many--not a majority, but many would think HE was still calling the shots.

the ones she would have to win over--those blowhard old school bible thumping male chauvinists who would quote the good book ad infinitum regarding women being in charge--it's just not right they'll say. it's an abomination....yada yada.

So interesting you posted that, Danzig-- I just read something about women and fundamentalist religion on Salon.com-- here's the link. I promise it's short, less than a page.

http://salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006...ion/index.html

How much do I love that Salon's women's issues page is called "Broadsheet?" Me, I likes my feminism with a dose of humor in it.

[Danzig]

some christian religions are as guilty as other, supposedly more zealous, religions as far as women and being treated as second class. just a month or so ago a church fired a woman who had taught bible study for years and years, due to the text in the bible regarding women being 'over' men. and of course catholics whose hierarchy refuses to even discuss women being priests....
but then, it's always been my contention that the bible was written, or translated, by wealthy, poweful men, and has been used to keep them so, and keep women and 'peasant's' down. the argument for years back hundreds of years ago was that if god wanted you to be rich, you'd have been born to a rich family--that attempts at improvement were against what god wanted! that if god wanted a woman to be in power, well, she'd have been born a man! and of course that was why the bible was not allowed to be printed in the language that the masses could read, they might try to figure things out for themselves.
but i think things are improving, slowly in some places, more rapidly in others. but there is still a long way to go.

[GenuineRisk]

That's the thing with translation-- there's no exact translation of anything, because it's impossible to say something exactly the same way. My personal pet peeve is the use of Paul's letter to the Corinthians at weddings- you know, the love is patient, love is kind, etc. etc. The kind of love he was referring to (he wrote in Greek, I believe) is not romantic love; it's charitable love. In fact, the King James version of the Bible translates it as "Charity." ("Faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity.") A lovely sentiment, yes. Not right for a wedding. Though I heard it read at a funeral once and it made me bawl.

Anyone who thinks love is patient has never heard my husband fussing at me to hurry up and get my coat on...

I think the Bible is a pretty decent attempt by men of faith to explain their world as they understood it at the time they wrote all the individual books (plus that Jesus guy said some pretty smart stuff). But I don't think it's inerrant or infallible.

And I really wish the major religions would just get off the whole sex thing. Did you hear about that major evangelist and anti-gay crusader, Ted Haggard, who has just been found out for paying for a male escort, and has been accused of using crystal meth? I have little sympathy for him in light of the hatred he has helped spread over the years, but I have enormous sympathy for a man who must have grown up feeling such a depth of self-hatred because narrow-minded bigots hid behind the Bible and told him people who felt the way he did were evil and God hated them.

Not to mention, no one is going to stop pre-marital sex, and I think getting married solely because you are desperate to sleep with someone is about the worst possible reason. Marry someone because you're pretty sure when you're old and wrinkly, you're still going to like talking to them, not because you want to get into their pants. And I think you need to get past the whole hot and bothered period to even know that. Hot and bothered burns itself out after a while and then you have to decide if you really like the person.

Of course, in a perfect world, you'll get past the whole hot and bothered period, and still enjoy getting into their pants enough to keep doing so. Can't talk ALL the time.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

The writers and/or translators must have been real morons...or someone is. You may have to actually crack the book yourself to figure that one out though.

Let's not confuse some Catholic teachings, which have or had nothing to do with the actual Bible, and the actual Bible. Also, let's not confuse Catholic politics (ie the Vatican is a nation with real political power) with Catholic religious teachings and/or the Bible as they are (often) not intertwined...

In the alternative, carry on as you were.

my mistake--i should have said 'used and translated by' rather than 'written or translated by'...
so often people try to use the bible to back up an argument...peaceniks quote turn the other cheek, while warmongers use eye for an eye. amazing the differences in one book--and the variety of viewpoints that find 'back up' in that same book. but then i've always found people will use just about anything to prove a point!