Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 12/05/2006 View Mon 12/04/2006 View Sun 12/03/2006 View Sat 12/02/2006 View Fri 12/01/2006 View Thu 11/30/2006 View Wed 11/29/2006
1
2006-12-05 Home Front: Politix
Why it will be 'President Obama' in 2009
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-12-05 14:25|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I've never had a good feeling about Obama. I think I'd rather see Hillary in the White House than that guy.
Posted by The Doctor 2006-12-05 15:17||   2006-12-05 15:17|| Front Page Top

#2 This McCullough guy does realize that if the Republicans had gotten Mike Ditka to run against him, probably nobody would remember who Barack Obama was?
Posted by tu3031 2006-12-05 15:47||   2006-12-05 15:47|| Front Page Top

#3 The author might be right...if the US and geo-political situations remain exactly the same eighteen months from now as they are today.

I'm in the way of thinking that something major will change between now and then. I don't know what, or where, or when, but it *will* be huge and we'll be talking about a different cast of characters in August '08. IMHO.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-12-05 16:02||   2006-12-05 16:02|| Front Page Top

#4 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Heeheeheeheeheehee

*guffaw*

*snort*

Good one, "Kevin McCullough."

Best masturbatory fantasy laugh of the week.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2006-12-05 16:04|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]  2006-12-05 16:04|| Front Page Top

#5 why it won't: "Barack Obama"
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-12-05 16:44||   2006-12-05 16:44|| Front Page Top

#6 I just don't see it. Even the lefty media slurping at his shoes will have to admit his lack of experience. And when was the last time a Senator was elected President? I think you have to go back to John F Kennedy.

LBJ was Vice President first, So was Nixon, and Bush Sr. Ford was never elected as President. Reagan, Carter and Clinton were all Governors. Seems we've gone over four and a half decades without electing a Senator (and never elected a Mayor). The only thing going for Obama is the last Senator we elected was also somewhat inexperienced.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-12-05 16:48||   2006-12-05 16:48|| Front Page Top

#7 The MSM has its own dictionary. Per your first point, rjschwarz, No Experience = Fresh, Uncontaminated (lol), Not an Insider (lol), etc.

They can spin anything, either way, given enough time to make the meme stick.
Posted by .com 2006-12-05 16:54||   2006-12-05 16:54|| Front Page Top

#8 "...take his oath on the bible"

what was his middle name again?
Posted by Chetle Clasing1203 2006-12-05 17:47||   2006-12-05 17:47|| Front Page Top

#9 Lynn Swann didn't lose in Pa. because he was inexperienced, unknown, or unfriendly.
He lost because of the same reason Obama will lose, skin color. Democrats are scumbags, true, but they are racist scumbags.
Posted by wxjames 2006-12-05 17:58||   2006-12-05 17:58|| Front Page Top

#10 I thought Swann lost cuz he was a Trunk in Donk Political Machine Country, but that's just me.
Posted by .com 2006-12-05 18:00||   2006-12-05 18:00|| Front Page Top

#11 I've seen elsewhere rumormongering on what the full ticket is to be: Obama / Ellison. Nothing would do more to destroy the 2 party system than that...which is probably why it will come to pass. Buy stock in JollyTime while it's still cheap.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2006-12-05 18:08||   2006-12-05 18:08|| Front Page Top

#12 He wasn't particularly impressive in New York, I hear.
Posted by eLarson 2006-12-05 18:15|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2006-12-05 18:15|| Front Page Top

#13 Lynn Swann didn't lose in Pa. because he was inexperienced, unknown, or unfriendly.
He lost because of the same reason Obama will lose, skin color. Democrats are scumbags, true, but they are racist scumbags

You have a very valid point. My father and Godfather are both faithful Donks, but there is no way in hell they are voting for a "Smoked Irishman"
Posted by Mike N. 2006-12-05 18:58||   2006-12-05 18:58|| Front Page Top

#14 Wow. That's purdy ugly.
Posted by .com 2006-12-05 19:03||   2006-12-05 19:03|| Front Page Top

#15 Obama's problem is that he will never get past Hillary! She'll kneecap him but good, and the Angry Left will pile on too.
Posted by Mike 2006-12-05 21:02||   2006-12-05 21:02|| Front Page Top

#16 I don't know what, or where, or when, but it *will* be huge

I'm with Sea on this one. Gonna be a bumpy ride, IMHO. I also predict widespread (hopefully sublethal) effects from exposure to Pelosium-2007.
Posted by SteveS 2006-12-05 22:05||   2006-12-05 22:05|| Front Page Top

#17 Will say again that Iff the WOT is unresolved or mostly unresolved by 2008. HILLARY will NOT WANT TO POTUS - as for OBAMA, few iff any Amers will want a mostly inexperienced Pol in the WH, espec now that Israel keeps being threatened and Radical Iran is going hell-bent for self-sufficiency in nuke materials, whether for domestic energyu or weapons. One of the primary functions of the post-Bill Clinton, Billary-led/centric anti-Amer Amer DemoLeft is TO CONVINCE MAINSTREAM AMERICA THAT THE STATUS QUO IS UNCHAMGED AND WILL GO ON FOREVER, MEANWHILE EMPOWER + ENTRENCH ANTI-US US SOCIALISM=GOVTISM + PRO-OWG'ism AT HOME WHILE WEAKENING USA's POSITION OVERSEAS. Obama is best left for Year 2012 - IMO, it remains Senator = VEEP Hillary's CO-POTUSes GORE, KERRY, or DEAN for 2008, prob GORE. The RINO CINO Lefties are calling or labeling COMMUNISM, LEFTISM-SOCIALISM, GOVERNMENTISM + TOTALITARIANISM, etal. as anything + everything but what it truly is - e.g. Its NOT OWG, NOR "WAR FOR THE WORLD/EMPIRE", NOR "WAR TO THE DEATH", NOT EVEN "THE FINAL STRUGGLE, etal. but "GLOBALISM"! Amers are the ONLY ONES being demanded to pay any future REGIONAL = TRANS-REGIONAL/CONTINETAL = GLOBAL TAXATIONS WHILE SIMUL NOT BE ALLOWED TO RULE, CONTROL, DOMINATE OR GOVERN OUR OWN GLOBAL EMPIRE.
AMERS CAN WAR FOR EMPIRE AS LONG AS WE VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY DON'T RULE OR GOVERN IT.
AMERICA = GOOD GUYS > ARE THE ONLY ONES WHOM HAS TO SURRENDER, NOT OUR ENEMIES.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-12-05 23:30||   2006-12-05 23:30|| Front Page Top

23:54 gromgoru
23:47 gromgoru
23:46 gromgoru
23:44 gromgoru
23:44 newc
23:42 JosephMendiola
23:40 gromgoru
23:39 newc
23:34 newc
23:34 gromgoru
23:31 gromgoru
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:30 newc
23:17 3dc
23:13 Old Patriot
23:12 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:11 Mick Dundee
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:54 USN,Ret
22:48 twobyfour
22:46 DMFD
22:21 Zenster
22:19 Glenmore









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com