#21 Posted on 6.11.04 1524.09 Reposted on: 6.11.11 1526.06
Originally posted by CRZ
Originally posted by fuelinjectedBarack Obama is young, energetic, and probably the most charismatic speaker the Democrats have. That's what the phenomenon is about. That there was actually somebody who spoke that didn't sound like your average BS'ing politician.
Geez, but it wasn't that long ago that you could say the a lot of the same things about Alan Keyes.
Except that no one outside of the extreme right ever had a positive opinion of Alan Keyes, whereas judging by this thread (The W) and the fact that Obama pulled over 70% of the IL electorate (which means he did well far beyond the borders of Chicago) he is appealing to a much broader base.
Now if you want to make an analogy to a minority politician who seemed destined for big things and never seems to have lived up to them, we could throw out J.C. Watts as someone Obama could end up becoming.
#22 Posted on 6.11.04 1539.36 Reposted on: 6.11.11 1559.01
Originally posted by PalpatineWCondoleeza Rice and Colin Powell say hello.
And we all saw how relevant the Bush administration considered Powell. Can't say anything about Rice because I just don't know enough about her standing.
I think the whole point of this exercise is that Obama's someone voters can get excited about on his own merits. Kerry's main selling point was "I'm Not Bush", and the Jeff Cirillo Principle just doesn't hold in Presidential matters.
And about Keyes... "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense". Who was booking this crap?
#24 Posted on 6.11.04 1641.27 Reposted on: 6.11.11 1643.35
Originally posted by Palpatine WCondoleeza Rice and Colin Powell say hello.
Powell I could see, but my problem with him isn't with him; it's more with his son, FCC commish Michael.
Condi? No. No way; if W picks her to move into a Sec. of State role, that might not be bad for the administration. However, I think she's been plagued with problems over 9/11 and Iraq.
Originally posted by Palpatine WThis whole thing is for self-conscious white people. Obama may or may not be a terrific guy; I know next to nothing about him. But the Obama love-fest going on among some on the Left is, I believe, because he's black. The Democrats treat him like a prop, thanks to his skin color. Other than his charisma and general blackness, what sets him apart? Nothing. He has no record. I don't mean this as an indictment; he might be a good guy. But I find the rush to embrace him to be patronizing. Granted, I'm a white guy, but the Obama phenomenon seems to be less about Obama, or advancing black people, than it is about advancing white liberals' self-image.
Where you're correct:
I think part of the reason is that Obama hit a home run with his DNC keynote address. Charisma is part of the full package. And, you're right -- many don't know about him, and he has no Senate voting record -- but he admits that, and he says he's not going to run. Point's moot now.
As for your black-and-white nonsense, step back and admit that he gave a great speech that inspired the base. Didn't matter what color he was; he could have been Black, White, Mochachino, Purple or Rainbow-striped. He gave a speech that stirred hope in the Democratic base and came off more as a uniter than a divider (and yes, that means Kerry). Being a "white guy" means nothing if you can't accept someone -- even if they are patronized or not.
This is also a man who knew he was going to beat Alan Keyes bad enough that he helped out his fellow IL Democrats by letting his workers/volunteers help them out in tighter races.
You're right -- we need to see what this man does at a national level -- but apply that to what you said also and give the man a chance.
#26 Posted on 6.11.04 1946.17 Reposted on: 6.11.11 1958.28
Originally posted by Guru ZimExcept that Watts has proven himself a success, and left Washington on his own terms? Or am I not remembering events correctly.
Back in 1994-1996 when Watts was starting to make a name for himself, I was working for the IL College GOP and with the various local organizations. And I remember the same fevered talk, especially with how awful the group of candidate for 1996 looked, about how "we should get Watts to run!" and how people seemed in the party at that point to assume that his future was leading to somewhere far beyond a House seat. I did not mean to imply that Watts was somehow a failure. But rather the idea that the man did not end up doing what so many people seemed to feel was inevitable for him, which was ascending to higher office. Obama may well do wonderful as a Senator and serve many terms or serve 1 or 2 and decide to move on, just as Watts moved on. In which case he won't have lived up to expectations thrust upon him by folks such as myself.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE