Story Comments
Posted by: djrevelky 1 year, 9 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 9 months ago
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL, you're on a roll djrevelky! Neither ethnicity or gender is an issue here, get with the program. I mean come on, it's not like we hear daily on the news about the historic opportunity to elect the first woman president or the first president of color. They're just presidential candidates, same as any other...
And, hey, they are both "for change". One is for changing things back to the way her husband did it...the other is for whatever change floats your boat, as long as you recognize he is the "true" change agent of the day.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To be fair, is this not an historic moment in American history? 35 years ago the very idea of a Black man or a woman being on the ballot of a major political party was simply unimaginable. How cool is it that we've come so far so fast? Pretty cool in my book.
As for the second part, believe what you will.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fact that it is being trumpeted as a "big deal" simply shows that we haven't come nearly far enough. There will always be "the first" and that will be historic, yes, but the problem is that we are viewing them with that perspective far more than weighing their merits as potential Commander-in-Chief.
Let's be honest, if a white guy with Obama's experience took a shot at the Presidency, would he be one of the two in contention at this point? Would a white guy with one Senate term under his belt be in contention? We can argue about Hillary's "experience" as First Lady of Arkansas and of the United States, but her only personal experience as an elected official is in NY.
Maybe that sounds prejudicial, but to me it is simple recognition that part of the magic behind both campaigns is this "historic opportunity"...not experience or remarkable solutions to foreign or domestic issues.
Reply-
-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Let's be honest, if a white guy with Obama's experience took a shot at the Presidency, would he be one of the two in contention at this point? Would a white guy with one Senate term under his belt be in contention?"
Like Abraham Lincoln?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Honest Abe never served as a U.S. Senator in my recollection. I think he served a couple terms in the House. He definitely served many terms in state legislature, I remember that. Arguabyly, state legislatures at that time were far more important than either of the two Federal chambers.
Reply-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lincoln:
DECEMBER 6, 1847 -- Takes seat in U.S. House of Representatives
NOVEMBER 7, 1854 -- Wins election to Illinois House of Representatives
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln...
Obama:
In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate
In 2004, Obama ran for the U.S. Senate (and won)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bara...
Not too dissimilar.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll go look if you want, but I'm pretty sure that Lincoln started out as a state legislator somewhere in the early 1830s. He was in government, then out as a private lawyer, and then back in government. I'm pretty sure he had more government experience than Mr. Obama by the time he ran for president.
Reply-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes he did, the Nov. win was to his 5th term. He served 4 before he ran for the Senate and lost, and for the House of Reps. and won. I didn't mean to be misleading, I was just pointing out that both of them served in both the state legislature and Congress.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Let's be honest, if a white guy with Obama's experience took a shot at the Presidency, would he be one of the two in contention at this point? Would a white guy with one Senate term under his belt be in contention?"
um, can you say john kennedy?
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I can say John Kennedy, what does that prove? JFK served 3 terms in the House and was in his 2nd term as a Senator when he received the nomination for President.
Did you know that Joe McCarthy (yes, that McCarthy) was on great terms with the Kennedys? So, beyond his own political career, JFK had some powerful "friends"...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't see them trumpeting it that way. I think it's being discussed, especially in terms of who is turning out to vote for whom, but I don't see it as people using that as the only barometer to vote for the man.
And, in answer to your second question, I think the answer is ... maybe. If you took a White with exactly the same credentials as Senator Obama, with the same charisma and the same drive, boy I don't know how he couldn't be in the race. Now, he wouldn't have the same constituency, but I think he'd be in it.
Senator Obama has more legislative experience than she does and I think he's got more time in the trenches than she does.
Now, I agree that part of the excitement behind both campaigns is the historic nature of the candidates, but I don't see how that's a negative. I've been digging into both of them and frankly, she scares me a bit.
And you're also right in that we haven't come nearly far enough. We'll get there and this may help.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think they are all debatable points. I remember when Barack gave the keynote speech at the last Democratic National Convention and the ebullient praise he got from press and party as a possible up-and-comer, a "rising star" in national Democratic circles is the phrase I remember. How he's parlayed these oratory skills into being the front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination is nothing short of amazing to me.
They both scare me. One speaks well but is wet behind the ears. The other is part of "Billary" and I had all that I could stand of that show back in the 90's.
Reply-
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SOTM-
"How he's parlayed these oratory skills into being the front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination is nothing short of amazing to me"
ill give you the answer. you wont like it because you are a bush supporter, but its still the answer.
whether you personally agree or not, bush is seen by the majority of people as a failure. look at his approval ratings. i dont care about congress' ratings, were not talking about them. not only does everyone who didnt vote for him think hes a failure, many people who did vote for him now feel that way.
people want change, not just incremental change, but what they see as big change. as for the republicans; well, it never really mattered who their nominee is because they have very little if any chance of victory in 09 (also bushs fault).
as for the dems, the presumptive nominee has been hillary for what seems like 4 years now. had bush not been such a failure you would have a "normal" election this time.
continued
Reply-
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
by normal, i mean hillary would have been challenged by edwards and it would be over by now. and shed run against a bush clone.
but people on BOTH sides want change. thats why the reps are gonna nominate the UN-Bush. as for the dems.....
somebody really smart smelled the thirst for dramatic change and remembered a charismatic senator from illinois who was a brilliant orator. and because people are so disillusioned with the establishment of BOTH parties, the fresh faced guy who could deliver inspirational speeches takes a shot.
now i believe that if people werent SO disillusioned he wouldnt even have run. i also believe that if hed have bombed in iowa or NH he would have been done.....
but he didnt!
from there, as they say, the rest is history
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great speakers don't necessarily equate to great leaders. There have been some really persuasive speakers that went way bad...
Hitler, Mussolini, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Ronald Reagan (kidding!), Bill Clinton (kidding! well...)
I'm not equating or drawing any parallels other than to say that the ability to speak well is not always a valid indicator of leadership.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have hit upon one of my pet peeves. It drives me crazy that they constantly break down the votes into "Black Voters", "Women Voters",etc. So voters who happen to be black voted for him in droves in SC. Mightn't that be because they liked him? There are states where he overwhelmingly won the white vote, they obviously aren't identifying with him on race. I know there are people who vote that way, there are a lot of limited minds out there. But I don't like it when poll data is used to make assumptions which are then used to marginalize a candidate's potential. And I don't mean to say you were doing that, I'm just venting.
:D
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well said ZG! What I hear is simply the very debatable analysis of the pundits being parroted. Why a woman who votes for a woman, or a black who votes for a black is different than a old white f@rt voting for an old white f@rt must be explained. I won't hold my breath. Obama has 11 years experience in public office, before that he was a professor of constitutional law. This is all the experience one needs, (Hillary for instance has only 6 years in public office, before that she was a corporate lawer). I'd say career politicians may know more about getting fat at the trough of public funds... but that's not a good thing friends.
Reply -
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I understand your point, it is also quite valid to point out that 8 out of 10 black voters in SC voted for Obama. To me, that is quite suggestive that there was more than just "policy positions" that were driving voting choices.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
catstevensComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are like a child who refuses to try a new food because you've never had it before! If you do not understand Obama's call and platform for "change," why do you assume it will not be good for you?? You're a big boy or girl now, try him, you might like him!
Reply
-
loading ...
dandt1612
moribull
MacR
AlphaGnosis
GHOSTWHOWALKS
MichaelRhodente
Wolfie2007
DropkickaLib
jordan11
Neophile
gamahuche
miklkit
BillieMaxer
IAmMine
ProudBlueTexan
scott4261
Mdiar
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.