Why Obama Will Get The Dem Nod... And NOT Clinton

[Domh]

Simple.

1. Obama's followers are fanatical. They will stick with him for the long haul, no matter what.
2. Clinton's followers are not fanatical. They are primarily supporting her now because it seems to be the sensible choice.
3. Saying that Obama has more charisma than Clinton is like saying Domh likes booze.
4. This process started earlier than it ever has.
5. American voters are EASILY BORED.
6. Clinton IS BORING... and becoming more boring every week. The tone of her voice alone is going to be the next "Dean Scream". I predict an insane laughing fit during an attempt at "seeming human".
7. When the boredom and creepiness hits critical mass, in the next 6 to 8 months... Obama and his fanatical base and charisma will be right there to pick up the voters.
8. I wonder if Obama will pick Hillary for Veep? Betcha he will.

When I am looking way down the road (gosh, you mean all the way to the election!?)... I will not be surprised in the least to see Obama as the next president.

[Biker]

Nope.. His record in Illinois politics alone will prevent him from being elected. The second his stance on gun control is made public, he's finished.

[ethics]

You discount Hillary's experience, my friend. Frankly, Obama and Hillary are two sides to the same coin for me.

[Swamp Fox]

I can see him getting the nomination, but I don't see him getting elected. That said, he made the right choice running, because this will give him the experience and contacts for the next time around, maybe in 2012 or even 2016 - he's got time. IOW, he should treat this as a dry run.

[Kangaroo]

Dean's followers were fanatics. He lost.

[Domh]

Nope.. His record in Illinois politics alone will prevent him from being elected. The second his stance on gun control is made public, he's finished.

How specifically is it different than the one listed on his web site?

EDIT - NOT THAT I HAVE BEEN THERE! JUST GUESSING!

[Biker]

He is as anti-gun as they come. Saw it first hand while living in the state. From what I saw of his politics then and what he's saying now, he's a no good lying SOB who's in it for the glory. I don't trust him, and never will.

[SixofNine]

Dean's followers were fanatics. He lost.

Heh, I was going to say that you can use reasons #1 and #2 to explain why Hillary will get the nomination. :) However, I'd give you #3 through #7, but the list has one glaring omission: at least some members of the Democratic braintrust (and perhaps even voters) recognize that there is a substantial "anybody but Hillary" voting contingent in the general electorate.

[Swamp Fox]

at least some members of the Democratic braintrust (and perhaps even voters) recognize that there is a substantial "anybody but Hillary" voting contingent in the general electorate.

I wonder if there's an "anybody but Obama" contingent. There was also a large "anybody but Dubya" contingent in both elections, but he won anyway.

[Domh]

How specifically is it different than the one listed on his web site?

He is as anti-gun as they come. Saw it first hand while living in the state.

Wow... that is specific! :P

From what I saw of his politics then and what he's saying now, he's a no good lying SOB who's in it for the glory. I don't trust him, and never will.

So... he is a typical American politician, no different than any of his opponents from either party.

Hell, I guess I am right on writing-in Frank Zappa.

[Fiona]

you do that too? I alternate between Zappa and Mickey Mouse


So is Edwards like, not even IN the race?

(yeah I know,... I've been busy, sorry. No time for news.)

[SixofNine]

So is Edwards like, not even IN the race?
HE thinks that he still is.

[Sarge]

IF Obama is elected it's because he has been marketing himself as a Moderate. I believe he authored (engineered? coreographed?) "The Audacity of Hope" for that very reason.

I wonder if Obama will pick Hillary for Veep? Betcha he will.

Naw. He'll pick another, lesser known, supportive politico as a running mate. When was the last time a candidate picked another candidate as a running mate? There's too much blood on the campaign trail.

[joseftu]

When was the last time a candidate picked another candidate as a running mate?
Kerry/Edwards?
Gore/Lieberman?
:)

I'm still hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket--the other way around, though, with Clinton in the top spot. That's a sure win, and probably 16 years worth. But their antipathy for each other is seeming too strong for that to happen.

[ravital]

When was the last time a candidate picked another candidate as a running mate? There's too much blood on the campaign trail.
I could be wrong but I think Reagan picked Bush-41 who earlier ran for president himself.

[tke711]

I'm still hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket--the other way around, though, with Clinton in the top spot. That's a sure win, and probably 16 years worth. But their antipathy for each other is seeming too strong for that to happen.
What ever you're putting in your Koo-laid, you just have to share Joe.

;)

[ethics]

He isn't drinking anything, Gregg, that's just Joe's prediction. :)

[Domh]

Good to see so many replies.

I can pretty much assure one thing.

Even Dan Rather (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blratherisms.htm) is going to have to come up with some new material for this one.

[MNeedham73]

Wow... that is specific! :P

I've posted this before (http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm), Domh, but I'll post it again, just for you

<center> Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions </center>Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.<center> Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 </center>The locks I have no issue with, for the record. Banning semi-autos is my major gripe, along with making it even more difficult than it already is (at least here in IL) to purchase a firearm.

[Domh]

The locks I have no issue with, for the record. Banning semi-autos is my major gripe, along with making it even more difficult than it already is (at least here in IL) to purchase a firearm.

Thanks. Not much more clarity there, really. I think anybody could have guessed those were the generalities of Obama's stance on guns.

Locks? Any self respecting gun owner has no issue with locking their gun up if thats the sensible and safe thing.

Banning semi-auto's? Well, not a huge fan of that myself. On the other hand I think any hunter in the world who needs, or even wants, to shoot with a semi is a crap hunter and any one concerned with home defense who cannot get it done with a handgun and shotgun needs some training.

Difficulty to obtain weapons? This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18170761/) guy certainly had no problem, and we all are well aware of how many times he had been in and out of the shrinks office. It is about time we made damn sure that psychos cannot get their hands on guns.

[Techie2000]

Nope.. His record in Illinois politics alone will prevent him from being elected. The second his stance on gun control is made public, he's finished.I disagree, I don't think the gun lobby is strong enough to decide the election, and I don't think most voters decide presidents on gun control. Otherwise Bill Richardson would be the front runner right now.

[Stiofán]

Banning semi-auto's? Well, not a huge fan of that myself. On the other hand I think any hunter in the world who needs, or even wants, to shoot with a semi is a crap hunter


Well, this crap hunter has taken multitudes of geese, ducks, dove, quail and pheasant over the years with his semi-automatic Remington 1100, 1187 and Browning Auto-5 shotguns. But I do bow to the hunting acumen of Jethro here. :biggrin:

[MNeedham73]

Thanks. Not much more clarity there, really. I think anybody could have guessed those were the generalities of Obama's stance on guns.

Locks? Any self respecting gun owner has no issue with locking their gun up if thats the sensible and safe thing.

Banning semi-auto's? Well, not a huge fan of that myself. On the other hand I think any hunter in the world who needs, or even wants, to shoot with a semi is a crap hunter and any one concerned with home defense who cannot get it done with a handgun and shotgun needs some training.

Difficulty to obtain weapons? This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18170761/) guy certainly had no problem, and we all are well aware of how many times he had been in and out of the shrinks office. It is about time we made damn sure that psychos cannot get their hands on guns.

Not sure you understand his stance on semi-autos, domh. He means ALL semi-autos. Pistols, shotguns, rifles, EVERYTHING. People in IL would be limited to revolvers, bolt actions, etc. if Obama would've had his way while in the state senate.

And the loony in VA has to do with what, exactly? The things Obama tried to do regarding gun control were while he was a state senator here in IL, where you already have to apply for a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) which entails a background check by the IL state police and a run through the Feds also, I believe. Then when you go to purchase a firearm, you have to go through yet another background check and a waiting period. Can't purchase ammunition without a FOID either. You can't even purchase a stun gun without one, IIRC.

[Copzilla]

Banning semi-auto's? Well, not a huge fan of that myself. On the other hand I think any hunter in the world who needs, or even wants, to shoot with a semi is a crap hunter and any one concerned with home defense who cannot get it done with a handgun and shotgun needs some training.

I just want to go on record as saying I - a well trained firearms owner, hunter, home defense supporter - believe the above paragraph to be complete crap. It is entirely false.

It also illustrates why we must continue to be diligent in support of our gun ownership rights, since uninformed people will happily give away your rights in support of their candidate du jour.

That is all.

[ravital]

Beyond the question of what's better for hunting and home defense and such (on which I'll always defer to people with actual experience in those areas), the thread was about Obama and the policies he would bring and try to implement. From the looks of it, he's another Dianne Feinstein. I own no firearms and hope I never have to, but in addition to everything else that's wrong with him, this anti-gun record is enough for me to not vote for him.

You know, folks, this attitude of "others may care about this or that or guns or whatever but I don't so who cares" is not doing anyone any good. People may despise firearms, but need to keep in mind that today it's one part of the Constitution they say they love so dearly, tomorrow it will be another part that will actually matter to them much more than guns. We each have a right to support exactly what we want, vote for or against exactly whomever we want, but it's not as if our actions don't have consequences for others, which sooner or later will come home to roost.

[jfcjrus]

{snip} On the other hand I think any hunter in the world who needs, or even wants, to shoot with a semi is a crap hunter and any one concerned with home defense who cannot get it done with a handgun and shotgun needs some training.{/snip}
What about 'sea duck' hunting?
There, the gun of choice is something like a Remmington 1100 12ga (a semi-auto).
If you've hunted that game, in that environment, you know why that's so.

The last thing responsible and legal gun owners/hunters need is someone on their side that pits different types of owners/hunters against each other.

Regards,

[tke711]

Agreed. If semi's were banned simply because they contain the word "semi", I would have to get rid of my 12ga shotgun. I don't think so.

[Stiofán]

Jethro done spoke when he should a kept his yap shut.

[Domh]

You are all very silly and reactionary... and Stiofan is a closet-gay and deeply in love with Leon, as he has clearly shown in his posts of the last, um, well... all of them. :love: I think it is sweet.

If you truly believe that any POTUS will ever have a wild shot in hell at banning semi-automatic weapons in America you need a shrink and a refresher course in 4th grade social studies.

Gun control is a states issue and always will be.

The POTUS sets the agenda and the Congress tears it apart.

If you are worried about gun control and gun owners rights, pay more attention to who you elect to your State HOR and as a Fed Rep in DC.

The Second Amendment is, and always will be, as far out of the POTUS domain as religious expression.

As an issue to consider when looking at POTUS hopefuls... gun control is a red herring.

IMNSHO.

:P

[MNeedham73]

Gun control is a states issue and always will be.

I guess you don't remember the Brady Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act)?

[Domh]

I guess you don't remember the Brady Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act)?

Yes I do remember the Brady Bill. Do you remember that:

"...one provision of interim Brady Law was ruled unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionality) by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States) on 10th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) grounds. The provison compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks mandated by federal law. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, state and local law enforcement officials were free to conduct the check if they so chose and many continued to do so. This issue became moot when NICS came online."

Hey hey! Again... gun control is a states issue and always will be.

As for Obama and his (in my opinion) reprehensible stance on semis:

"Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

This clearly doesn't say anything about keeping the ones I already have.

It is a play to the uber liberals for votes... and nothing more.

He, indeed ANY POTUS, has zero chance of ever coming even close to getting such a thing signed.

Pigs will fly first.

[Domh]

It also illustrates why we must continue to be diligent in support of our gun ownership rights, since uninformed people will happily give away your rights in support of their candidate du jour.

:lol:

How did I miss this? Fish in a barrel, man! Cmon! :P

Only the paranoid and truly uninformed could ever believe that "uniformed people" will EVER have anything even CLOSE to the power to "give away your rights" in support of "their candidate".

Seriously. That borders on :beanie: but is really just :crazy:.

[Sarge]

"Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

This clearly doesn't say anything about keeping the ones I already have.

Remember California (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23indx.htm):

Effective January 1, 2000, SB 23 generally prohibits, the manufacture, import, sale, giving or lending of large capacity magazines (defined as any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but does not include .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding devices).

Enforcement relative to the illegal possession of SB 23 assault weapons went into effect January 1, 2001, following the one-year registration period.

Persons who lawfully possessed assault weapons as defined by SB 23 prior to January 1, 2000 were required to either 1) register them with the Department of Justice between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000, 2) render them permanently inoperable, 3) remove them from California, 4) relinquish them to a police or sheriff's department, or 5) prior to December 31, 2000, sell them to a California licensed firearms dealer who possesses a valid assault weapon dealer permit.

I know this has gone way OT, but...

We've been slamming the Bush administration for it's violation of Constitutional rights, why should we endorse or accept another polititian who advocates the same?

The Second Amendment is near and dear to my heart and anyone who advocates a ban on firearms does not get my vote. Obama claims, like many other anti-gunners, that his gun control views are reasonable and moderate - Bullshit!

Now, back on topic: A Clinton/Obama ticket is likely in these days when politics are driven by polls and popularity.

[Domh]

First... GREAT post. Sarge. :clap:

Remember California (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23indx.htm):

Absolutely I remember that lunacy. The most liberal state in the union making a STATES DECISION. One had to register the weapons or remove them from the State. Also, that law went the way of the Dodo and likely is not to return.

Again, I think your example is a great one and extremely cogent but I also think it works to further defend my proposition that gun laws will always be a states issue and that the Fed will never, even in the case of the Brady Bill which was (post above) deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the very tenets of Federalism and states rights, never ever be able to legislate and effectively enforce nationwide control of firearms. It simply will not happen in this country. Furthermore, if it ever came anywhere close to looking like it MIGHT happen the backlash and uproar would be potentially revolutionary.

We've been slamming the Bush administration for it's violation of Constitutional rights, why should we endorse or accept another politician who advocates the same?

Agreed again. Only thing I can say is that ANY politician seeking to "lead" us in this day and age will be doing one thing or another advocating the violation of our Constitutional rights in one way or another. It seems to be inevitable. I cannot remember a past politician or find a current one who does not fit in to this particular shark-skin suit.

The Second Amendment is near and dear to my heart and anyone who advocates a ban on firearms does not get my vote. Obama claims, like many other anti-gunners, that his gun control views are reasonable and moderate - Bullshit!

The Second Amendment is very near and dear to my heart as well, as evidenced by years of my posts on this subject. I own a Glock 23 Semi and possess concealed carry permits in 2 states in New England. I carry concealed on a regular basis. I grew up with all variety of firearms while living in the state of Vermont - one of a few states where your residence and state ID card of valid drivers license is considered a "concealed carry permit". I fully support that being the law in ALL states... BUT... I also FULLY respect STATES RIGHTS to choose a different course of action if the citizens of THAT state deem it needed and necessary!

My point... is that it really does not matter even a fraction of a bit what a Presidential Candidate has to say about guns. It REALLY doesn't! They address the issue, be they liberal or conservative, for one reason and one reason only... TO GET VOTES. They know, and we should know, that the POTUS is completely incapable of doing anything but set the agenda and attempt to drive legislation... as well as to VETO legislation.

The gun issue... is nothing but a vote getter. It never goes anywhere. No matter who wins and what they said their stance was to get the job... it just never hits the airwaves or makes the agenda.

Again... Brady Bill. It took a man getting shot during an assassination attempt on the POTUS to even get that bill moving anywhere or get it to the attention of the Congress. If thats what it takes to get a federal mandate having ANYTHING to do with guns... I think that speaks volumes.

If Brady weren't shot during the attempt... I seriously doubt that bill would have gone anywhere but the shredder.

Now, back on topic: A Clinton/Obama ticket is likely in these days when politics are driven by polls and popularity.

Agreed again. Pitiful low voter turnout by voters of average intelligence who vote with their eyes and not their brains.

"I like the look of him."

"He seems like a good leader. No I do not know his stance on the issues, he just seems like a leader and we need a leader."

"He hates the war in Iraq and hates guns! He is my guy!"

"She stood by her cheating man! I so respect her! I will vote for ANY woman!"

It is saddening... or at least for me WAS saddening. I am now jaded beyond repair. I will vote, yes... but for the first time I will not be corralled in to a vote. If I have to write in... I will and my conscience will be the better for it.

Oh... and I am NO Obama supporter. I just really do think that in the current, and especially the upcoming, political climate... the guy has a very good shot at the big seat.

[jfcjrus]

{snip}"He seems like a good leader. No I do not know his stance on the issues, he just seems like a leader and we need a leader."{/snip}
WAY out of context, but a good shot. ;)

I just don't think the man will survive the YEAR until we vote, but I guess we'll see.

Regards,

[Domh]

WAY out of context, but a good shot. ;)

Oh I think that could apply to any of them, but I think I see who you are talking about.

No... I wasn't taking a shot at Rudy. I like Rudy!

[Stiofán]

A, the law didn't go the way of the dodo if you are referring to the California Semi-Auto <strike>confiscation</strike> registration act.

and B, I'm not in the closet, I've outted myself and it's you I'm secretly in love with. You big hunk o' furry man, you. :love:

[Abulifia]

Good god, everyone on both sides of the pathetic political aisle suck. Obama and Hillary are especially lame. Neither of them stand for anything. And after both just gave the green light to yet another revision of FISA, they're both as corrupt as the Gee Oh Pee. The Demublicans stand for more of the status quo. This country will be fucked fiscally, globally and domestically for at least the next 3 generations until Americans wise up and get rid of the whole lot of these losers.

[Domh]

This country will be fucked fiscally, globally and domestically for at least the next 3 generations until Americans wise up and get rid of the whole lot of these losers.

And replace them with...

:blank:

[Stiofán]

And replace them with...

:blank:

Good point.

[ShinyTop]

And replace them with...

:blank:


A benign, brilliant dictator, ME!