Just curious/Obama

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

my aunt voted for obama (she votes democrat most of the time), she said the main reason was because sarah palin did not have eneough expiernce to be president and she was afraid mccain may not make the 4 yrs

so i asked here why she didn't vote for clinton in '92 against bush, her response was that she didn't think clinton was ready to be president

so i asked her why if she thought someone who had 2 terms as a governor was not ready to be president , but obama was she didn't have an answer for me...

palin became governor in '06, which gives her two years. not two terms. big difference i would think.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Danzig

palin became governor in '06, which gives her two years. not two terms. big difference i would think.

I think he was referring to clinton.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I think he was referring to clinton.

oh, i see.

but clinton had more than two terms, so there goes that.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

palin became governor in '06, which gives her two years. not two terms. big difference i would think.

the person she didn't vote for that had 2 terms as a gov was Clinton
she said he wasn't ready , so i asked how she now knew obama who had less exp then uncle bill was ready , she couldn't answer

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

the person she didn't vote for that had 2 terms as a gov was Clinton
she said he wasn't ready , so i asked how she now knew obama who had less exp then uncle bill was ready , she couldn't answer

i think for many it came down to who they thought would be better, obama or palin. many may have thought mccain would be better than obama, but not so many thought it was a given that john mccain would finish his term, maudlin thought that may be.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by gales0678

see scott here is where i disagree with you - a lot in life is timing and luck

the democrats wanted the "anti war" candidate , they didn't get it in '04 , but . the thing that killed Hillary this year was that she was running against someone who did not have to cast a vote for "iraq authorization" in 2002

thus obama had the single greatest asset on his side that , edwards, biden ,dodd and clinton didn't have that luxury - edwards cam out early and said he made a mistake on the vote , hillary wouldn't budge , it became a constant thorne for her during the primarys

thus he had the clear path to the nomination because he was not in the senate and did not have to make a vote that the others had to do in 2002

now 86% of hillary voters went for obama in the general, do you really think that if it was hillary and not obama on the ticket that his supporters would have gone for mccain - i highly doubt it

the election was a cakewalk , all the problems that the country faced , no republican was going to win -

the key to obama winning was winning the primary , and democrats wanted to go for a candidate that did not have that vote for iraq in 2002 on their resume - it was that simple

You are right that the opposition to the war in Iraq was the single biggest factor that got him through the primaries. In the end though, when he really surged ahead was when the economy stepped front and center. He inspired far more confidence from the voters that he could lead us out of this recession than McCain did. He was probably winning either way but without the economy coming front and center he loses Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida and doesn't get a blowout victory in Pennsylvania.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by GPK

Dala...in your opinion, had some tired ole white bread democrat career politician run on the platform of "Change" and "Yes We Can", do you think the majority of Americans would have rolled their eyes and thought "here we go again"?

It depends. I dont think the politician had to be black, spanish or a woman if thats what you mean. I think he/she needed to be younger to pull that off. When i say "younger" i mean younger than 50.

I am proud of our country in the sense that race didnt hurt him like i thought it might. In retrospect, it probably helped more than it hurt. I say that and I mean not to the degree that many bigots say i.e that he got elected BECAUSE he is black. I think that notion is preposterous and small minded.

Could Biden have pulled off the "yes we can" and "change" thing? Absolutely not.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

It depends. I dont think the politician had to be black, spanish or a woman if thats what you mean. I think he/she needed to be younger to pull that off. When i say "younger" i mean younger than 50.

I am proud of our country in the sense that race didnt hurt him like i thought it might. In retrospect, it probably helped more than it hurt. I say that and I mean not to the degree that many bigots say i.e that he got elected BECAUSE he is black. I think that notion is preposterous and small minded.

Could Biden have pulled off the "yes we can" and "change" thing? Absolutely not.

1/2

[philcski]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

It depends. I dont think the politician had to be black, spanish or a woman if thats what you mean. I think he/she needed to be younger to pull that off. When i say "younger" i mean younger than 50.

I am proud of our country in the sense that race didnt hurt him like i thought it might. In retrospect, it probably helped more than it hurt. I say that and I mean not to the degree that many bigots say i.e that he got elected BECAUSE he is black. I think that notion is preposterous and small minded.

Could Biden have pulled off the "yes we can" and "change" thing? Absolutely not.

I agree.
I expected some "Bradley Effect" when America went to the polls- while I still thought and hoped he would win, I was guessing the margin would be smaller than the predicted 7-8%, whereas it fell right in line. Having grown up in a very mixed racial neighborhood- where racial relations were NOT good in the '80s, even for supposedly socially progressive New York State- I'm very happy to see America has moved forward.