Obama Running for President.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

I am still trying to figure out why He is running.

In the Illinois legislature and a one termer in Federal Govt.

What does He know about world polotics or for that fact polotics in the USA?

Here's some presidents with less political experience than Obama...

George W. Bush - 1.5 terms as TX Gov.
Ronald Reagan - 2x as California Gov.
Jimmy Carter - 2 term GA senate, 1 term GA Gov.
Woodrow Wilson - 3 years as NJ Gov.

Also, squirrely girl, Kennedy was a member of the House and Senate for over a decade before running for president - I'd say that's probably a decent amount of experience.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Also, squirrely girl, Kennedy was a member of the House and Senate for over a decade before running for president - I'd say that's probably a decent amount of experience.

This is kind of a bizarre "how many grains of sand is a pile?" argument, since that really adds up to 3 or 4 terms total - it's really kind of a moot comparison, anyway, since I'd argue that experience does not necessarily result in preparedness for the job. It's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition . . .

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is kind of a bizarre "how many grains of sand is a pile?" argument, since that really adds up to 3 or 4 terms total - it's really kind of a moot comparison, anyway, since I'd argue that experience does not necessarily result in preparedness for the job. It's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition . . .

It's Earp, I thought that was the right kind of argument to make.

[shinerbock]

Geeky, well, I'd place the value of a couple terms as governor above the value of being in the US senate for half a term and in the state legislature for a bit. Granted, I think long term senate service would be valid qualification, but if you're choosing between a 8 years running a state vs 6 years as a senator, I think experience as governor is likely more valuable. People will obviously bring up foreign policy, but a first term senator is not likely to have any grasp of foreign policy yet either...

About Obama...

Running would be extremely stupid. I know he's tempted to cash in his chips now, but he simply won't win in 2008. If I was advising him, I'd tell him to run if he wants, but under no situation should he become a potential VP. Reasons why...

1) If he runs into 2008, he needs to win. He won't, so he shouldnt. Getting his feet wet now is not a bad idea, but unless something happens and gives him a real shot at winning in 2008, he needs to drop out when the going gets serious.

2) He can't be a VP. Hillary won't win. Unless he signs on with Evan Bayh or someone like that (who would actually have a chance to win), he'll be putting himself in a terrible situation. Look at Edwards in 2004. He was a golden boy, but once he signed on w/ Kerry he became an attack dog and things got dirty. I think VP would be fine if he could win, but Hillary won't win and the DNC is too stupid to consider anyone else.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

1) If he runs into 2008, he needs to win. He won't, so he shouldnt. Getting his feet wet now is not a bad idea, but unless something happens and gives him a real shot at winning in 2008, he needs to drop out when the going gets serious.

it's too early, america hasn't completely warmed up to him yet. 2012, he should be ok.

[shinerbock]

I'd say 2016. I think whoever wins in 2008, unless a lot of stuff happens, will serve two terms. Of course, I think if someone like Clinton actually did win, she might lose reelection, but in that case Obama wouldn't be in the running.

I personally hope he follows the DNC stupidity playbook (basically anything they do without Carville) and blows his future chances. However, from a strategic standpoint he'd be wise to wait it out.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Geeky, well, I'd place the value of a couple terms as governor above the value of being in the US senate for half a term and in the state legislature for a bit.

It would seem that the electorate would agree with you.

Recently, the road to the White House has been through Governor's Mansions for whatever reason.

Senators have not done too well.

That may be due to governors having to actually "run" something.

Or, it could just be a fluke, I suppose.

[shinerbock]

I hope Romney gets the nom, he'd be great.

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I hope Romney gets the nom, he'd be great.

Why don't you try having him for a governor before you go around singing the man's praises.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I hope Romney gets the nom, he'd be great.

Maybe you or Collin can fill me in on your support for the guy a little bit - he's obviously incredibly bright, and his business background is impeccable, I have no doubts there. His background, however, is almost purely in organizational work and budgeting/forecasting - past 'balancing' the MA budget (which primarily came via cutting local funding for towns, plus a ridiculous accidental surplus in capital gains taxation), what has he really done?

I love the idea of giving each kid a laptop, but that wasn't really a tremendous success, and MA schools have actually suffered due to budget cuts that helped to push the budget into balance - I think MA is like 47th in the nation in school funding. The usual Repub platforms (vouchers, anti-gay marriage, pro-life) are fine and whatever, but some of these are kind of bizarre - he based his response to the MASC's ruling by claiming "Children have a right to a father and a mother," which blows me away.

While I'm very supportive of a return to conservative economic ideals and decreased central gov't and spending, does he really represent the best way to do this? Is this the only issue he really brings to the table?