Does Obama stand a chance?

What is everyone’s take on Barack Obama? Regardless of your opinions on his policies, do you think he will go far? Part of me thinks that he could do, as he is a black candidate that doesn’t come across too aggressively towards white voters, and he is young, and may pick up on those democrats who are sick of Hilary. Also, are there not lots of black Americans who may vote for the first time because they want to vote for (potentially) the first black American president?
On the other hand, does he stand a chance against Hilary in terms of fund raising? And will his admissions of taking drugs as a kid (however long ago) harm him with republican attack ads? Are there still a lot of people who just will not vote for a black candidate?

I think Hilary will win the nomination, and probably the presidency. What do you think?

No, he doesn’t, in my opinion.

Even if we assume he plans on starting to loudly advocate some issues which require spending prestige, he still has to deal with the fact that he’s a black Democrat expecting to win at some of the agricultural states in the West and South. With Rove playing the fear-of-blacks card–and Rove is a master at intimidation by smear, fear, and hatred–Obama’s got a severely uphill battle. He can’t win the Presidency by taking the West Coast, the Northeast, and the Auto States. So I don’t think he can win.

However, I do think his chances would be better than Clinton’s, whose chances have already topped out. The conservatives loathe her, the progressives don’t trust her. (It’s admittedly hard to build trust when for years she voted for every Bush-inspired bill on Iraq and the reduction of freedoms. Especially when she denies ever having misunderstood matters.)

Edwards? He has a chance, mainly because he’s largely unknown, and because he comes from North Carolina.

Gore? If he times matters correctly, he could have the best chance of all. He’s got the most brains of the lot, but he’s a poor stump speaker.

what about the ‘first woman president’ vote though? is there not such a thing? I can imagine a lot of people seeing that as a reason to vote for Hilary. If she wins the nomination would democrats rather not vote than vote Clinton?

There is a lot of anger against Clinton. She’s perceived (rightly or wrongly; rightly, I think) as representing the “official” Washington Democractic think tank folks, who also tried to tell the party in general that Howard Dean’s 2006 strategy of targetting all states accross the board wouldn’t work, and they must think small. Dean’s plan was not only adopted at the crossroots, it won. And then the head of the Democratic National Committee tried to get Dean fired.

And this is the same man who is the chief advisor to Clinton.

As of today, she has finally stated that there’s no need for her to apologize for her Iraq votes, since she accepted Bush’s statement of what was needed acted based on knowledge she had received (and which others ranted and raved was wrong at the time). Already, she’s recceived an onslaught of criticism for this, and–again–it has surprised her advisors. Who apparently didn’t think anyone would especially care.

So Clinton is seen as the money candidate, the big business candidate, the “insider” candidate, which is not a good thing in US Presidential politics. And she is also the NYC candidate, which is death in the South and the West, where a candidate perceived as representing New York (and in her case, New York City) is right up there alongside bin Ladan for everybody’s friend.

No doubt some of this is unfair to Clinton. She’s very smart. She’s forceful, and a good speaker. She knows how to promote her agenda. She desperately wants to win. But she has played it cautious far too long and compromised her credentials as a principled candidate, in a party that earnestly wants to set about proving itself to be principled, when set against the major corruption that has led to over 70 Republicans in federal or state office being indited this past year, alone.

For the rest, there is no real “woman’s vote for a woman’s candidate” in the US. Polls taken at voting booths showed that people voted in 2006 on a few central issues: corruption, Iraq, the economy. They don’t perceive the tremendous damage done to the framework of government by Bush, nor really the depth of damage done economically, or diplomatically; but they are definitely voting now along ideological grounds. Frivolous voting by sexual preference is out, at least for now.

Barak Obama is a no go. He’s not clear on his positions, and from what I’ve noticed he goes with whatever the dominant side goes with.

That mens he’s a Charlie Brown candidate, in my opinion. I for one wouldn’t vote for anybody like that, be they African American, Caucasian or pink and purple polka dotted people eater.

As for Hillary, I might end up voting for her if no viable Democrat steps up. That’s supposing she’s the only one available at the end. I’m sorely vexed she still supports the ongoing conflicts, despite their inherint wrongness. I’m pretty much anti DLC, and Hillary is DLC, which to most people, including me, is Republican Lite. For the most part I tend to agree with Glinka regarding Hillary. I also find it telling hat Bill has become “best buddies” with Bush sr.

Right now as far as viable candidates, I don’t see any of the repubniks as being good for the people, and the DLC dems aren’t much better. I think if any viable Dems step up soon, that will be the best bet. I’m leaning heavily towards Wes Clark and Dennis Kucinich, myself. Al Gore is a no go, and in my opinion, he didn’t do what he should have when bush stole the elections

I feel I must clarify in regards to Gore. He’s a no go because at this time he’s not announced that he’s running, and in fact he’s stated numerous times he won’t run.

I don’t know about Edwards. It seems as though the bushites have found something on him that they’re running with in order to keep him out of the running. It’s something to do with some bloggers on his campaign, and if I know repugs, the idiots will fall for it and those that have a triple digit iq will take it into consideration when voting. Kinda like what happened to Howard Dean with the Iowa scream. (which he was justified in making, in my opinion. I had friends there that saw every bit)

It’s astonishing to think that someone can scream once and rule himself out as president. here in the UK, our deputy prime minister punched a voter in the face on television, and stilll kept his job :smiley:

it’s horrible that it’s possible, and it makes politics a travesty of enormous proportions, no matter your nationalitiy. I would venture to say the ancient Chinese curse is being fulfilled. We are living in interesting times. :confused:

I wouldn’t think that screaming once in the end could keep a strong candidate from continuing their run, either. But a small misstep by a struggling candidate may be sufficient to make them rethink matters, especially since everybody is competing for the same big donors to their warchests.

As for Gore, I wouldn’t rule him out, yet. Not running at this point is a very wise move, since it keeps the frontrunners struggling for momentum–which Gore easily gains by pushing his agenda and his film. Every award he receives is recognition of his accomplishments, and another potential boost to his “shiny factor” if he should choose to run.

But Gore ran once, and failed (I know that’s debatable :smiley:), does this not colour his chances to voters? Some might have the impression that he doesn’t really want the job that badly, given his failure to fight over the election result, and his insistence that he will not stand.

That’s true! Like it or not, people go with their first impressions, and right now the impression is that Al does not want to run, at least where I live.

Quite a few presidents lost during their first bids for the office, notably in modern times, Nixon. What’s more important is that Gore doesn’t have the aura of a loser, one who regularly misses. He’s won most of the races he’s fought. His one real drawback is simply that he’s a poor speech giver. He comes across as academic, and here in the US, there are few things worse than being perceived by many people (especially in the agricultural and range heartlands) as possessing a brain.

Lincoln once said that when the presidential bug bites a person, it holds on and never lets go. I’m inclined to think he was right, and that the only time a potential candidate who covets the office won’t run is when he feels he absolutely cannot win. Sometimes that’s not even enough. Joe Biden (Maryland Democratic Senator) has been trying to grab the office for the better part of two decades, despite mediocre national support during the entire time.

The important point to keep in mind is that it’s far too early to call anything. The election isn’t for 18 months. Candidates won’t be chosen for quite some time to come. If Gore should choose to run, he makes himself a far less visible target by staying out of it until much later on. He trades off a huge warchest (as I wrote above) in exchange for the prestige that keeps mounting for his climate campaign. Whether this is a good strategy or not, and whether it’s a strategy he’s employing at all, remains to be seen. He certainly lacks the communicative focus of Obama, though he also lacks the tremendous baggage of Clinton, who refuses to acknowledge that she’s been an Iraq hawk from the start.

At the moment, I would say Clinton’s campaign machine has peaked, and despite all the money and the DLC behind her, she’s not going to gain any momentum in the primaries. Obama, on the other hand, has everything to prove, and everything to gain; and very little to lose. He’s the outside chance.

Edwards is the proverbial longshot, who could easily step in with the message that he’d pull votes in the rural south and west. Gore is the wild card.

Just read this commentary on the issue of Clinton’s presidential bid. As it emphasizes the “woman vote” point, I thought it might make interesting reading. Might want to check out this editorial, too, as it deals with the single “hump” issue that has dogged Clinton at every whistle stop on her campaign.

Mind, I’m hardly a fan of the Washington Post. But the views expressed in this editorial do mirror those being said by a lot of people who voted this past November to throw out their former Republican representatives, senators, governors and state officials, all because of 3 issues, the leading one being Iraq.

I dont know much about Obama other than he is black but I surely hope that he or someone else than Hillary wins… When Hillary wins it’s gonna be the end of the world. :angry:

Mind you, I’m not defending Hillary by any means. How can you say that without critically studying all the possible candidates? Already I can name a handful of potential candidates that are just as bad, if not more so than Hillary Clinton. John McCain is one that comes to mind. Barak Obama has also shown himself to be more concerned with himself than with the people he’s supposed to represent. All I’m saying here is if you care about where this country, and the world goes, spend some time examining all the potential candidates before making a decision and/or a statement.

Just read an op piece here that does some interesting and positive analysis of the three leading Democratic presidential contenders. Well worth reading, for what it says about each.

And here’s a fascinating, very well-researched article on Clinton’s PR team. It’s a very well-oiled team. The problem is, many Independent and Democratic voters perceive Clinton as more spin than message.

This no doubt has interntional resonance, what with a departing prime minister who has led Labour to victory through three successive elections. Yet there are plenty of differences, too; and at this point, Clinton hasn’t opened up the heavy lead that her well-heeled staff has predicted. Interesting times lie ahead.

How about Ron Paul? He may not be that well known but his fanbase is passionate enough to land him in the hearts of the American people. Mabye at least a vice president? :bulb:

It can be said of every presidential candidate for the two main parties that they have a passionate fanbase, so this is a wash. As for “landing him the hearts of the American people,” I don’t understand what it means. Just because some people are passionate over A’s candidacy, doesn’t mean another 75 million who could care less are going to get all emotional for unspecified reasons over that same candidate. With respect, it doesn’t work that way.

And since Paul’s views are far outside the mainstream of his home state, Texas (where he represents a small district in the national Congress, instead of the entire state), it is unlikely he would be added to a presidential slate in the hopes of bringing those voters into the Republican column. But who knows how this will go? The Republicans are trying to appeal to their far right base, instead of going after the mainstream center, and this has led to some remarkable stands being taken and candidates floated. Anything is possible, including the enbalming of Reagan’s corpse and attempts to get him re-elected.

Strange times, these.

jeez don´t be so harsh :exclamation: Just saying if you watched Ron Paul speak he seems to be a honest and clean kind of guy which is something the other candidates kind of lack. Because of that his fan base seem to be more in the majority of being fanatic then “well he´s not a great man for the job but better than the rest”. And think he gets little publicity in most medium networks but still manages to be known thanks to things like YouTube and MySpace.

It´s still a long way in the politcal timeframe until the primaries and even a lot longer until the elections. Anything can happen…