Barak Obama...could he be the next President of the US?
 

I have watched Barak Obama since he became president of the Harvard Law Review my uncle was in law school at the time and he spoke of him as if he were the second coming of the messiah. After reading some of his papers and finally getting my hands on his book I knew there was something different about him. I was also part of the viewing and listening audience when he gave the now "pivotal" speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Now with talks of him running for President what are your thoughts? Does he have what it takes? Is America ready? Are you ready?

I am reading "Dreams of my Father" again and also purchased "The Audacity of Hope" his new book. I have the new book set as the next read. For those who have read them what are your thoughts?

Last question, as college educated, members of BGLOs what is your part in support a campaign such as this?

LoJ

I'm really no fan of his policy opinions, but he may be the best Democratic shot at an inspirational president. Its amazing to me how political geniuses will ignore the lessons of Kennedy and Reagan...American people are simply looking to be inspired, to be led. Political commercials also baffle me, Kerry's best polling happened in the weeks leading up the elections, when he was just doing the patriotic ads with hazy shots of flag waving from the convention. I think Obama could be that kind of leader, but its up to him whether he gets pulled into the politics of it all. Its amazing what a message of hope and American pride will overcome, even in the absence of substantial policy. We'll see.

On a side note, if I were running an 08 campaign, I'd go to whatever ad agency Publix is using...and I'm not even kidding.

sorry, didn't mean to write in your thread, i thought this was the other barack obama one.

No part whatsoever. You should vote for who YOU feel is the best candidate and not (as I assume) vote on race. This seems to be a terrible problem with African Americans today. The Democratic party merely pacifies poor people with social programs that have no chance of working, and the Republicans only care about big business. While it would be nice if Senator Obama would enter the race for President, two books do not make a man known.


Oh BTW.......Oprah for President? Stop it.

???
 

Well to assume that because the Democratic Party "pacifies" the AfAm vote doesn't make the other choice any better. The Republican Party ignores the AfAM vote......so the question then becomes "would you rather be pacified or ignored?" Hmmm interesting....I was raised by 2 Republican parents who were Republican when Republican wasn't cool in the AfAm community. I was also raised in a very political and highly educated household. So I understand the ideals of pacification and know it when I see it....(the Republican Party in the AfAm church, prime example of pacifying a race). They don't care about AfAms, they just have common enemies...those who are perceived as "immoral".

Now as for the 2 books I never said those books made him a candidate for President nor did I say that I felt like I knew him. I said it gave me the impression that he was "different".

On to your Oprah comment. I would also like to address the idea of Oprah being President. That idea is neither far fetched nor unprecedented. You have an actor turned President in Ronald Reagan, and actor/body builder born in another country as Governor of a State....so why not Oprah? Not saying I would vote for her but let's not pose the question as if it is impossible or unconscionable.

Option C: Neither.

Being pacified is being patronized. It's almost worse than being ignored.
When someone is patronizing you they are say "yeah...yeah...you aren't going away so we'll throw you a bone to shut you up." I'd rather someone be upfront and honest about not thinking certain concerns are important so I can know where they stand and vote accordingly.

Black people don't need to align to any political party. Democrat doesn't hold much more tradition or relevance to Blacks than Republican does. Vote based on platform. This way parties will have to work for votes without being able to count on getting a majority of Black voters.

I agree, although I completely understand why having a minority President (whether based on race or gender) is an important social change. It would be a milestone and be indicative of a tipping of the balance of power in this society.


The question then becomes, as Black people what is important to us when voting? William Julius Wilson wrote the Declining Significance of Race in which he argued that class was increasing in significance and race, although still of significance, was declining in its social relevance for us. So should a people with disproportionate poverty, disproportionate criminality, and over 60% single motherhood vote based on class or do many Blacks still feel like race is what impacts our life chances? Poor blacks will undoubtedly vote Democrat, whether that's based on their race or class. Many middle to upperclass blacks will vote based on class and therefore vote Republican. Unless they are thinking of the bigger, more racially utilitarian, picture.

Republicans don't ignore black people, its just generally against their platform to give many black people what they want. Its ideology difference, not negligence based on race.

Last question, as college educated, members of BGLOs what is your part in support a campaign such as this?

LoJ[/quote]

My point is simple: as college educated members of BGLO's, we have no obligation to vote for anyone based specifically on race.As DSTCHAOS points out "being pacified is being patronized". As african Americans we need to stop letting people (Democrats) take our vote for granted and let them earn. Earn it by not only listening to our voices, but show us some results. I would love more than anything in the world to vote for a black man or woman, but my conscious will no longer allow me to do it based soley on race.
Yes you are right, we have had an actor become Presiedent and an actor as Governor of a large state...........but look attheir track records.

What's the difference in this instance? :)

Hear, hear. My grandparents were Dems, my parents were Eisenhower Repubs (the party of Lincoln.) Right now neither "party" is doing right by us. Vote the platform! I will definitely be split voting this election.

Oh and my advice to Barack..wait a while longer. Show what you can do and what influence you really have in your current position. Don't believe the hype--it's a set up!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

Regardless of who fights the good fight, the next President will be a Protestant, white man. :)

ANd again I ask...
 

History has shown that the longer a person waits in the Senate the less likely they are to become President. He should strike while the iron is hot. This climate and opportunity will not present itself again. For him or any other like him for quite a while.

I ask the question again....Barak Omaba....could he be the next President of the US?

He has closed a gap on Sen. Clinton in record time and shows no signs of slowing....

LoJ

No and we pretty much answered your question already.

IMO, both Obama and Clinton are unelectable right now. So if they are who the Dems are hanging their hats on then watch a moderate Repub become the next president.

You're a smart lady.

Is black America ready to embrace Obama?
 

POSTED: 12:46 a.m. EST, March 1, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In recent months, ABC News-Washington Post polls showed Sen. Hillary Clinton running 40 points higher than Sen. Barack Obama among blacks voters asked to name their preference in the Democratic primary.

But in Wednesday editions, the Washington Post reported a poll that has Obama leading Clinton by 11 points among black voters -- 44 percent to 33 percent. Obama is the Senate's only black member and has been campaigning across the country for the last couple of months. Clinton is his chief rival for the 2008 presidential nomination

That change represents a stunning 24-point swing, but does it mean the black community has embraced the Illinois Democrat as its candidate?

Read the rest of the article here

In other words, Rudy. (I don't think McCain is Moderate enough to win)

McCain is struggling. He may ramp it up as questions about Rudy arise. Mitt Romney doesn't have much name recognition. He's polling at about 10% to Rudy in the mid 30's, but there is a year to go before primaries start. By this summer I fully expect Romney to be neck and neck with the other 2. He's the best speaker, has a lot of party support, and can bring in the cash.

Hillary likely will win the nomination. Edwards would be a better choice if someone really got a hold of him and taught him how to win elections. Obama may end up on the ticket, but I don't think it matters. Without a major gaff by whoever the GOP candidate is, Hillary won't win.

WRONG. Nobody is going to hang their hat on McClain (too wishy washy and he's starting to sound ALOT like Bush). Guilani isn't going to win and there isn't a Republican that America trust. The Iraq War is going to leave a nasty taste in our mouths for a long time.

If anything folks will go with John Edwards. But, he's a LONG shot at the moment.

So...anyone wanna reopen this thread?
 

The tides are certainly changing....

These are th latest numbers.......thoughts?

OH HOW THE TIDES ARE TURNING!!! HOT OFF THE PRESSES THE NEW POLL #s



THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats and Republicans in New Hampshire



___

THE NUMBERS - DEMOCRATS

Barack Obama, 32 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 31 percent

John Edwards, 18 percent

Bill Richardson, 8 percent

___

THE NUMBERS - REPUBLICANS

Mitt Romney, 31 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 18 percent

John McCain, 17 percent

Mike Huckabee, 9 percent

Ron Paul, 7 percent


LoJ

Where are these #s from? I'm assuming it is a national poll...

RIF.:D:p

Although I'd still like to know the source.

I saw a political cartoon last night that showed Obama in Oprah's shadow. While I'm not voting for Obama (or Clinton), the comments by the readers were mostly ignorant.

People want to assume Oprah is backing Obama because he is black and yada yada yada. I don't see white celebrities being criticized for backing other candidates because they are white. There goes that "invisibility of whiteness," again.

And even more so, the margin of error

source and margin of error....
 

The telephone poll for the Concord Monitor was of 400 likely Republican primary voters and 400 likely Democratic voters. Maryland-based Research 2000 conducted the poll Dec. 10-12. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.


Now that we have established that point. What does this mean? Does that mean that the naysayers were wrong to assume that because he was so "young" and black that he could never be real contender in the race for the country's highest office?

It has been insinuated that if the election was help today a democrat would win over a republican in the race for president. Now, with that said, does that mean Barack has a legitimate shot at the Presidency?

I think someone saying that they would vote for him on the phone, and that person ACTUALLY putting his name on the ballot are two different things. I still don't think he's going to make it.

Defy Gravity
 

My brother was head of staging for Wicked.....great show....Shoshana Bean is Unbelievable...as Elpaba...and as a singer and performer in general...

LoJ

I've got my tickets for April's performance. I've had them since August. I saw the show in ATL and fell in love with it.:D:D

Well the reason I asked is because essentially Clinton and Obama are tied for the lead. The margin of error is greater than the difference between the candidates in the polls.
I think he's been, and still is, a serious contender and has a serious chance. But Iowa's caucus system is weird and can lead to surprising results. I think the early primaries will tell the tale. If it's a close race or if Obama wins even one it'll solidify his run.

Ahh! NOW I get your sig! ;) Didn't make the connection before...

I used to have "Popular" on the other side (right aligned), too. I don't remember why I took it off...probably because of the new signature restrictions.

REVISIT
 

Well...Sen Obama is now the apparent candidate for the democratic party and will likely be President of The United States of America. Hilary will at some point advise her supporters that Obama is definitely a better choice than McCain unless we will have children(gifts), only to give them to a War that is not making us any safer. And now what do you naysayers have to say? The world is ready. America is ready to embrace change. This is already history in the making. But Oh how the world will change when the "face" of America actually reflects the face of humanity as a whole. A President who will teach us all to tranced race, embrace change and diversity. We seem to be oblivious to the fact that change, adaptability, and diversity are the reason we have thrived as a species on this planet(from a scientific perspective) and from a religious perspective God(whoever you believe to be the Creator), created us all and to attempt to separate us by color or nationality is so superficial and against every major religion in this world. So prepare for Change.

I would love to hear responses from those who didn't believe, per earlier emails, that as Sam Cooke sang so wonderfully...."CHANGE 'GON COME"!

LOJ

I am happy that he will probably be the Democratic candidate, however, I feel bad for him because he has so much crap to undo from this administrantion that he probably wouldn't get to his agenda even in 8 years.

That's a pretty tall order. How will he do that?

Barack, definitely has a lot of supporters. Everyone is routing for him. IMO, he is the best candidate for the job.

Prayerfully, he would pick a VP with military experience. My fingers are crossed for Jim Webb.