I totally agree.
Posted on 12/06/2006 11:09:09 AM PST by BlackRazor
Edited on 12/06/2006 11:16:53 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
With the 2008 presidential field taking shape, the striking thing is how little excitement most of the possible candidates are likely to evoke.
There are the polarizing figures: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich. There are the candidates who've been here before, such as Sens. Joe Biden, John McCain and John Kerry. There are the little-known politicians whose best hope may be the second spot on the ticket, like Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former New York Gov. George Pataki. There are the capital veterans, including Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), whose importance inside the Beltway may make them imagine they have electoral strength beyond it.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Yeah he should run...for the hills.
What's that? You say he doesn't have any? You say he should run because he gives good speeches?
Well, golly then. I guess we might as well not even bother having an election if it's already been decided by the Chicago Tribune...
Even if he doesn't win, more than one candidate forces a debate and will keep Hillary from sneaking in under the radar. She'll be forced to go on the record on things she probably would rather not.
America, where apparently just anybody can be President.
I totally agree.
He is perfect for the dims because he is so purdy.
Just what we need. Another lawyer with no executive experience of any type under his belt at all running the executive branch.
Does the Chicago Tribune even understand the president's job description? (Of course not. It was a rhetorical question.)
Whatever happened to "gravitas," or is that only something white Republican candidates are required to have?
Is the US electorate insane enough to elect this greenhorn? I
can see pundits writing about this just for entertainment, but really....!
"electrifying speech at the last Democratic convention"
What ARE they talking about? It was the usual Democrat bilge. On the basis of one speech, Barack Hussein should run for president? Didn't the MSM say the same thing about Mario Cuomo's speaking abilities and prospects for higher office? What happened to him????
Puff him up, and then after he's got the nomination, look for the skeletons in his closet.
BARF ALERT:
"Senator Obama is a talented, charismatic politician, a handsome man with a winning smile who also has a sharp intelligence. His only weakness seems to be his lack of legislative accomplishments, due obviously to his junior status as a Senator and the fact that he has been in Washington only two years."
Not really a fair comparison. Cuomo, unlike Obama, had substantial executive experience. He simply miscalculated his timing for a presidential run. Like many of the top-tier Democrats, he sat out 1992, thinking Bush 41 would easily win re-election. He was waiting for the anticipated open-seat race in 1996. Oops.
BARACK OBAMA
Could you please provide me with a summary of Senator Osama-obama's extensive accomplishments that would qualify him for such a significant position?"
Well...he was AWESOME on Oprah!
--and would not even be a senator had not his opponent's
sealed divorce records been conveniently exposed at the critical time during the campaign--
It would be fun to watch the very masculine Congressman Hunter debate the very delicate Senator Obama Hussein...
the best dem tic ket would be hillary/obama. this would be good for the O-man because he'll be in the spotlight for 8 years prepping for the big job.
careerwise running as hillary's veep is his biggest opportunity. AND she likes him
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.