What Makes Obama Attractive?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
deep said:
Hillary is perceived as a competent, effective Senator, the fact that she is married to a popular, well-respected exPresident has not sidetracked or interfered with her work in the Senate

i can not name one thing hillary has done to improve my life as a new yorker.

she is perceived as a competent, effective national politician who only gives a shit about local issues when there's a lot of media attention to be gained.


all around, i just find obama to be more bill clinton like than hillary. not that i'm sold on obama at all... but he seems to be more fo the dynamic personality that this nation needs right now, as opposed to another polarizing figure such as hillary.
 
Last edited:
Clinton leads the front-running candidates of both parties -- Obama, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney -- in the percentage of voters who say they would definitely vote for her if she won her party's nomination, with 37 percent.

Obama is second to Clinton in potential voters who say they would definitely vote for him in the general election, with 30 percent. McCain, who is third in that category with 22 percent, is first among voters who say they'd consider voting for him if he were the Republican nominee, with 35 percent.
 
I don't trust the polls but I also find the absolute hysteria of "she can't get elected" to be extremely strange. Because you operate on an electoral college, there are very, very few truly unelectable candidates, especially in this age of political division.

Hillary can absolutely get elected. She may not be my first choice or yours, or much of the country's. But this notion that she's unelectable is nonsense that has been repeated enough times that otherwise thinking people have begun to buy into it.
 
I think what a lot of us younger people (ok, so perhaps I'm not quite as young as the rest of you) are forgetting is the power of older people in this election. They have so far gone overwhelmingly for Clinton. I don't think they consider her as polarizing a figure, and you know they will vote.

I think she would beat any Republican this year, including McCain. That being said, I can certainly understand the worry if she is the candidate, as her approval ratings have never been that high.

I'm kind of looking at this from a long term view for the Democrats. If Clinton gets the nomination and can win the election, the future looks bright for the Democratic party, knowing that they have a future President in Obama waiting in the wings.

Of course, if Obama wins the nomination instead, I'll be rooting for him just as much.
 
anitram said:


Hillary can absolutely get elected. She may not be my first choice or yours, or much of the country's. But this notion that she's unelectable is nonsense that has been repeated enough times that otherwise thinking people have begun to buy into it.

There is no question about it.
 
U2DMfan said:
What change does Obama bring?

Think about it.

It's a wish and promise of change to what?

As opposed to Hillary's agenda or what we have now?

It's more than a promise of change that is for SURE.
He represents a new generation with a new way of doing business such as not bowing to special interests. Hillary's campaign is nothing but the same old thing, the establishment. Selling out to the drug companines and Rupert Murdock is NOT representing the best interest of the middle class. And to say that she is not the only one taking money is a lame argument on that one, because Barack has shown more integrity than her IMO.

Not to mention voting for the WAR before it started giving BUSH a blank check to do as he pleased. That shows POOR judgement on her part. Her explanation now is just ridiculous. She says her vote was about letting the weapons inspectors back in instead of approval for dropping bombs on innocent people. That is a load of crap. She is back tracking and making excuses.

If I knew like Barack that there were no WMD's before we went to war, why didn't she????? My brother knows a weapon inspector and told him that before the war there were no WMD's and Bush was beating the war drums without reason.

Barack gave up a lucrative law career out of school to work and to give back in the community before he even was a blip on the national political scene.
Everything Hillary says and does is politically calculated and to say that Barack has no experience is a load of garbage.
Wasn't it her husband that ran on the premise of hope and change and little experience? Don't get me wrong I voted for Clinton both times and was a fan until NAFTA and the way he sold out to the Rep. Congress, not to mention THE scandals. Bill represents a lot of baggage rather than a big asset IMO.
 
Last edited:
Jeannieco said:


Wasn't it her husband that ran on the premise of hope and change and little experience?

12 years as governor of Arkansas is major experience.
 
joyfulgirl said:


12 years as governor of Arkansas is major experience.

Obama's supporters keep ignoring his experience and seem to be going for slogans, feelings and speaking style.


FIRED UP AND READY TO GO!!!!

chanting "YES WE CAN. YES WE CAN. YES WE CAN."


Obama supporters, please help me out here.

Do some research and show me a viable U. S. Presidential candidate that has had a similar career track as Obama.


Perhaps, I am missing something?

I am open to new information that can help me arrive at a different conclusion.
 
Why is it that people ignore Obama's stances and say "all he says is change?"

He has stances, and they are stances I agree with for the most part.
 
W's stance was:
T0 RESTORE HONOR AND DIGNITY TO THE WHITEHOUSE

and that appealed to many people
that let their feelings influence their vote.




I have been around long enough to
learn that "stances, slogans, platforms" are designed to get votes


I have learned that the best indicator of what someone will do if elected president is
- what they have done in the past



how do you believe W' did with his stance ?

T0 RESTORE HONOR AND DIGNITY TO THE WHITEHOUSE
 
Well, in a comparison of pasts before presidency, Obama kicks W's ass, so I don't really see the point.
 
phillyfan26 said:
Well, in a comparison of pasts before presidency, Obama kicks W's ass, so I don't really see the point.


being a Governor, elected and reelected did give W - some credibility


Being a Governor is serving at the highest level of state government, the Executive Branch (i e Presidency).
 
But how well he did there also matters.

How well he did when he was a businessman matters.

And he was bad. At both. Hence why I take the whole experience argument with a grain of salt.
 
Don't think I am defending or supporting W

I did not support him in 2000 or 2004

I believe he has been one of our worst presidents.


I am hoping for a Dem win in Nov.


I understand why many people are attracted to Obama, especially young people.


I just "very strongly believe" that Hillary has a much, much better chance of bringing that win in November.


Please realize that we are talking about probably 2-3 states that will determine the election.

We do not have a Democracy, we have an extremely poor concept in the "Electoral College".


Headache can vote for Bloomberg if he wants in Nov, his vote won't really matter.

NY electoral college votes will go to the Dems.



U2democrate is working very hard to build the Democratic Party in Virginia, a Southern State.
She knows that many of the voters that voted for Dem Jim Webb for Senate will not vote for Hillary.
She believes Obama will do better in Virgina. She may be right.
But, most likely Vir will go GOP again.


In my state CA, my vote won't change anything.
I don't believe McCain or any GOP candidate has a chance to get our 52? electoral votes.
They will go Democratic, no doubt.


So what states will determine the Whitehouse in Nov.

Florida is key. And Hillary is strongest there.

Ohio? maybe one or two more?

Are you in Penn. Does your vote count?
 
Last edited:
I am in PA, however I do not turn 18 until two months after the November elections.

PA is relatively purple, but tends to be Democratic. My vote most likely wouldn't matter much.

For the rest, I understand where you are coming from and tend to agree.
 
Thanks for the shoutout, deep :wink:

I agree that whoever the Dem nominee is this year Virginia will still be red, as more people turnout in Presidential elections despite the recent trend here going Democrat. (Gov. Kaine, Jim Webb, Dems took control of the State Senate). We're still building that and it'll be while before the state goes blue for a president.

However with the swing states it could get interesting. I wish I had the confidence that you have in Hillary, and I'm sure you wish you had the confidence I have in Obama, but as we can see it's just not the case.

I will say that I wasn't sure Obama could pull it off until Iowa when I saw him pull in so many Independents in such a white state. Same goes for New Hampshire, even though Hillary won, he still got a tremendous amount of votes that is unprecedented that gives me confidence for the general.
 
U2democrat said:


I will say that I wasn't sure Obama could pull it off until Iowa .

It would be better if we chose our President with a National Caucus night in November 2008

than this piss poor, out dated, corrupt "electoral college" scheme.

but that is not the case



anyways, Iowa means and very little

If I were in Iowa and I had a choice to caucus - party with a bunch of Hillary blue hairs
or I could caucus - party with a bunch of clollege co-eds

where do you think I would have been :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom