Wednesday August 8, 2007

Barack Obama is coming to Miami

Barack Obama rally

Saturday, August 25th, Barack Obama will be in town, and you can get tickets to go see him speak at the Miami-Dade Democratic Party website. This isn’t a blog about national politics, but I feel compelled to say that Democrats, at least, should seriously consider going to see him. I’ll explain why as briefly as possible.

Barring some unforeseeable event that would give a Republican a chance, the next president will be either Obama or Hillary Clinton. Either one would make a good president in terms of policy, but I think Obama would be a much better leader for the country in terms of someone we have to listen to/see all the time. In a word, it’s all about sincerity. (This is something of a circular concept, because for a politician being “sincere” often means appearing sincere, but let’s let that go.) I think even opponents of Obama and even supporters of Clinton would agree that he is more sincere then she is. To me, that makes him the better choice for president.

That would be enough reason to go see him, but there’s something else. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Clinton has the edge in the race. If things go the way they look like they’re going to go right now, she’s the next president. But for now, it still very much could go either way. So you have maybe the last chance ever to see Obama talk while he (and everyone else) believes that he may well be the next president. If the reports of his oratorical powers are to be believed, this is an opportunity not to be missed. Also, insofar as his slimming chance is still substantial, your attendance (and $30 ticket price) is helping push things his way.

Tags: ,

comments powered by Disqus
  1. Habla Mierda    Wed Aug 8, 11:40 AM #  

    I can’t, for the life of me, understand the appeal of Obama. I look around and everyone is fanatical about him, but he really hasn’t done anything to deserve it. Policy opinions aside (I vehemently disagree with 95% of his positions), he has nothing going for him other than he can speak well. That’s not a reason to elect someone. It should be a barrier to electability if you can’t.

    As for Hilary… it’s the first time I’ve ever actually been afraid of someone becoming president.

  2. Dave    Wed Aug 8, 12:10 PM #  

    Its a sad day in politics when anyone with as little practical experience as Obama can get elected President. What qualifications does this guy have other than being a very nice young black gentleman? As you say, he may very well be the next President but I see no reason to go hear him spew polibabble at me. So far, I have seen no discernable position from this candidate that merits more than a passing glance. His comments on Pakistan recently show he doesn’t have a clue about world politics or diplomacy. He comes from the same Chicago machine politics that beat up my friends at the Chicago Democratic convention years ago and I for one don’t see that they have evolved much in the last 40 years. As for Hillary, she is the only reason I might be willing to vote for Obama. She really is politics at its worst.

  3. srcohiba    Wed Aug 8, 12:22 PM #  

    cult of personality.

    the only true qualified candidate on either side is Bill Richardson.

    I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. But the public prefers celebrities….

    Obama is green and 4 years too early. Totally unqualified; he’s never held an executive position and is by his own admission, a tout of socialist ideals.

    Hillary, is a demagouge and a mugwump who makes decisions on polls rather than on courage and on what’s right.

    I hope the country wakes up esp. the dems and puts Richardson ahead of these bozos.

  4. billermo    Wed Aug 8, 01:32 PM #  

    that photo of Barack looks like he is about to crowdsurf.

  5. Carlos D    Wed Aug 8, 01:59 PM #  

    It’s funny how most people who claim Obama has no experience and hasn’t done or said anything don’t know a damn thing about the man or his actual policies.

    Look on his site, it has a detailed listing of his policies.

    Healthcare reform, getting the hell out of Iraq, restoring foreign image of the United States, the right stances on immigration, all the good stuff.

    Complimented by his proven ability to actually make things happen. He doesn’t play by party standards and tries his hardest to be an unbiased, honest politician.

    That’s a lot more than you can make of puppet-Clinton and 98% of Washington.

    In his youth, he got voted president of Harvard Law School, (a staunchly conservative bunch) by understanding their viewpoints and surrounding himself with people who disagreed with him.

    He stuck to his guns, listened to everybody and actually got shit done.

    Hilary is Kerry-Dukakis part 3. Weak, establishment candidate the republicans don’t attack at all during the primaries so they can end up facing an easy target.

    They’ve got so much ammunition on her it’s astounding – and mark my words, they’ll bring her down if she becomes the party nominee.

    Obama’s got the message, the ability, the right foreign image and the will to get shit done. They can’t bring down Obama any more than they are doing now. They are scared to face him.

  6. srcohiba    Wed Aug 8, 02:31 PM #  

    Carlos: what experience does he have as an executive? His only expereince is as a legislator and his only federal senate experience is less than one term. He’s not much better than Edwards.

    Richardson on the other hand:
    1) former member of congress
    2) former UN Ambasador
    3) former Sec. of Energy
    4) current 2 term Governor (executive) of New Mexico

    even though he is liberal on social issues; he’s fiscally responsible and does not believe in the tax tax tax mentality of Obama. He’s managed to attract jobs and businesses to New Mexico without raising taxes.

    Obama is a lot of talk . . . a cult of personality. And Harvard Law School conservative? Where have you been? Cambridge is a liberal as they get.

    So once again, no one can light a candle to Bill Richardson . . . but again, the Dems don’t care about experience and qualifications, it’s about the cult of personality and the money….

  7. knowless    Wed Aug 8, 02:37 PM #  

    what are you guys, crazy? anything is possible! george bush has been in office for 6.5 years and counting…! nothing, absolutely nothing would be worse.


    not that this is necessarily true, but my impression of those of you who have commented is that not only are you mysogonists, you are also racists in the most elemental way.

    i’m not even a democrat, i consider myself historically disenfranchised by u.s. politics and policy, regardless of the administration. nonetheless, it doesn’t take much research to know that barack’s legislator career advocates and fosters accountability and bipartisanship (see washington post archives for specifics). besides his transparency stance and his ability to compromise, he’s a civil rights lawyer, giving some indication of being able to think clearly on what side to stand. also, as it is now he’s against corporate lobbyists which obviously hilary is not…who cares about experience, the biggest retards i have come in contact with have tons of experience in something or other. oh, yeah and they’re all men.

  8. Dave    Wed Aug 8, 03:02 PM #  

    Knowless: your name says it all! And if you’re going to use big grown up words, I suggest you learn to spell. It’s “misogynist” and I assume you say that because we dispise Hitlary who is the sorriest excuse for a woman I ever saw. Who else would have stayed married to Bill “blowpop” Clinton after Monica Lewinsky? Go ahead and vote for gender and color if you want, but don’t go making accusations of bigotry to those who judge candidates by what they do and not what they look like.

  9. Carlos D    Wed Aug 8, 04:24 PM #  

    Hey srcohiba, I agree with you about Richardson.

    I do like his stances and his experience on a lot of things. And best of all I think he’s one of the few dems that can garner a ton of votes from the right if nominated.

    But you bring forward the best point yourself when saying Obama is mostly a cult of personality. Presidential politics are a dumbed-down popularity race. More people vote based on whether or not they like somebody’s face than we give credit for.

    Marketing yourself and winning over allies with charm is a universally important facet of politics and I think it’s paramount to success as the de-facto leader of the world.

    Point being, I like Richardson but I don’t think the nation can elect him as president. He’s an excellent politician but not a particularly exciting one. I’d love to see him on the end of a nominated ticket. Obama-Richardson or even Clinton-Richardson would definitely prove extremely appealing tickets.

    I hope the race card doesn’t stop them from doing it.

    Edwards and Obama ARE similar in their lack of executive tenure, but Edwards lacks strength in public relations.

    I think he’s viewed as an opportunist, unremarkable candidate with malleable positions and I don’t think he can win. He sure didn’t help Kerry worth a damn.

    As for my claim about Obama and Harvard Law School; he was actually president of the even more exclusive Harvard Law Review.

    I really recommend reading this (you have to register with the nytimes to read it):

    It’s an article about Obama’s time at the school and the election that made him the first black president of that exclusive club. It’s also probably the article that sold me the most on him.

  10. srcohiba    Wed Aug 8, 04:53 PM #  

    Carlos, I think if Richardson was at the top of any ticket, he would win against any of the current candidates. He’s solid. The problem is the leftist base of the Dems who vote in the primary and of course a lot of the donors that simply rather donate to the popular talking head of the day….

    Believe me, I’m GOP and I’m disillusioned with the whole pack. However, on qualifications, there’s no match to Richardson. And as a plus, Richardson would have a lock on the spanish vote I believe. They may try to put him on the bottom of the ticket, but that won’t buy anyone votes. Honestly, no one votes for Prez based on the VP. If O’Bama or O’Hillary get the nod, those that like them will vote for them. THey are too polarizing – you either like them or not; no one will vote for them based on the VP. Honestly, either one could run the corpse of LBJ in the VP slot and it wouldn’t make a difference…

    but then again, maybe they should run LBJ on the top slot…he may win…. :-p

  11. knowless    Wed Aug 8, 04:57 PM #  

    dave you’re right. i don’t spellcheck and maybe i should, BUT mysogynist is not a big word and there’s no need to get your panties in a wad unless you are a bigot!

    “sorriest excuse for a woman” ha. she’s a politician like all the other swine. i wish there were more like her out there to even out the political, gender field. and monica lewinsky? are you serious? that was an overblown crock of shit, it hardly had any reason to make any headlines. this country has real problems and crap like that is what keeps people entertained away from real issues. come on man, pull your pants up and speak of something substantial, or is paris hilton on your agenda now?

    in any case, yeah richardson is a formidable candidate and a hispanic and that’s nice but he’s in too deep with the energy industry and that’s a bit scarey. he too, seems to have his head in the right place.

    yet all of these choices wobble when questioned on gay rights, and that is just too p.c. for me. no real character. they just want to be president of the US for their self-serving agendas.

    i have no solution. does anyone?

  12. YellowBeefCake    Wed Aug 8, 05:36 PM #  

    his appeal? Biden wasnt too far off “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”

  13. Dave    Wed Aug 8, 05:57 PM #  

    Knowless: Sorry but I don’t wear panties. I also don’t think the Lewinsky scandal was overblown (although I do like your pun!)out of proportion since I don’t think its too high a hurdle to expect our political leaders to show some common sense and then not lie about it to boot. I think the Clintons big sin is actually their demonstration of being totally amoral in the larger sense. They pardoned Marc Rich as their last act in office. What does that say about them? As to a solution, you are not going to get a perfect candidate. If you’re a democrat you best bet is probably Bill Richardson. If you are a republican, it’s probably John McCain. Both of them seem to have a basic sense of right and wrong on a universal basis. Both are thinking people. If you can find a black and/or female version of either of them I’ll be happy to support them

  14. Jonathan    Wed Aug 8, 07:48 PM #  

    The Republicans are lame but the Democrats are dreadful. This column catches some of the idiocy, including Richardson’s, on economic issues.

  15. Stinky    Wed Aug 8, 09:26 PM #  

    I think Knowless is some homeless looking dude with a bad case of BO who writes some crappy articles for the New Times. Anytime someone points out Obama’s lack of substance, he explodes into self conscious self righteousness and acusses such debater of racism. He is also a gender confused individual so hence the term panties in a bunch when referring to another man. He is also surprisingly “mysogonist” himself hahaha. Listen Knowless, not backing Obama does not mean being racist, not backing Hillary doesn’t mean being anti feminist and not backing Bush doesn’t mean being a black panther. Your guy simply has no qualifications. Spinning economic plans that have been proven to be disastrous for other nations into the solution for our woes (ask any honest Canadian about their health care system) is just being deceitful. The proof that this guy just doesnt have it is that he is backed by all these airheads in Hollywood and by lame ass angry disenfranchised losers like you. OH btw, you are historically disenfranchised from US politics? then don’t fucking leave your opinions on US politics and go play with your doll at your favorite hobo/dive bar!!!

  16. knowless    Wed Aug 8, 11:02 PM #  

    stinky, you have too much time on your hands, you jokester, you…AND you don’t know how to read. clearly, i am not an obama fan, in fact i despise every one of our choices; they can hardly be called that. i’m not going to explain the panties in a wad comment and how it is irrelevant whether it is directed towards a man or a woman; honestly you get it and are trying (unsuccesfully, i might add) to be funny.

    if i sound like a homeless, stinky dude who writes crappily for the new times THEN you have no perception for tone. i am a woman you dork! what are you being so confrontational for? what are you a drunk? yeah, that’s probably what you are, that and a shitty, fast driving maniac.

    go to hell and drive while intoxicated or better yet, bike there…

  17. b.a.c.    Wed Aug 8, 11:51 PM #  

    If socialism means health care, better public works, public transportation then sign me up

  18. Carlos D    Thu Aug 9, 12:18 AM #  

    What a weird flame war this thread has become. And on this of all sites also.

    So nobody can admit to liking any of the down on their luck republicans and everybody disses universal health care and free trade doubters.

    Who the hell do you people want in office?

    And to the guy who said Obama was spinning economic plans that proved to be disastrous to other nations.

    Prove to me any nation that’s ever been bankrupted by their universal health care system.

    Second, your hateful and ignorant spew prove that you obviously know nothing of Obama’s health care plan. He intends to allow Americans to purchase of cheap, government sponsored health care.

    Read here:

    We still have to purchase the plan, it’s not just taxed up the wazoo. Then, the rest of the plan works on making private health care cheaper for those who do have it.

    Health insurance companies are crooks that take advantage of what we hold most dear. Not to mention, insuring a nation of 300 million is not nearly the tax burden it may seem like.

    What Iraq cost could’ve bought the entire nation comprehensive health for approx. 3 or 4 years (and that’s including private health care consumers that don’t need it, not charging for it and not putting out any new taxes)

    People who claim health care would be an economic burden LOVE to conveniently ignore the costs of private health care to American labor forces.

    Having the government help would free a ton of pocket space in many a strained industry who has to compete with international labor (I.E. the auto industry.) Less money on health care means more jobs and higher wages, higher wages plus the ability to compete abroad equal further economic prosperity.

    It’s stupid to be ignorant of the government’s ability to successfully implement a health program. Just because it’s associated with long lines and communism doesn’t mean universal health care couldn’t fit snugly into the world’s biggest economic force.

  19. Habla Mierda    Thu Aug 9, 12:48 AM #  

    @b.a.c socialist countries have always been known for their powerful economies

    @alesh there’s something wrong with your site that causes major slowdown when trying to input text in mobilesafari

  20. noneemoose    Thu Aug 9, 10:54 AM #  

    Countries don’t go bankrupt. Really, they don’t.

    ALL election results are a cult of personality. Sometimes that personality has a little meat to it. This is mostly coincidental.

    Executive experience in the White House is irrelevant, except for the fact that as a qualifier it is a good indicator of electability. But not post-election success. The examples of this irony are so well known that to mention them would be superfluous.

    When was the last time the most qualified candidate won? I am willing to bet it has never happened, including what turned out to be some of our greatest presidents. Sometimes we just get lucky.

    It is therefore perfectly alright to vote for someone you like, based on whatever criteria you like them, no matter how vapid, shallow or insubstantial. Because when they screw up, and they all do, you can always say “Well, at least (s)he’s…”

    Why do you think we’re always asking God to bless America?

  21. Peter O'Mara    Thu Aug 9, 01:38 PM #  

    How can people say he has no expierience?? Idiots elected Bush when then only elected office he held was Governor for 4 years in Texas. Obama brings a fresh prospective to Washington politics – which is exactly what we need.

  22. noneemoose    Thu Aug 9, 04:03 PM #  

    Peter, Peter. You have to learn not to cut yourself with your own knife.

    If someone who voted for Bush 43, who had 4 years of experience as Governor, an executive, is an idiot, then voting for someone who doesn’t have executive experience isn’t an idiot? I know it sounded good in your head. But, believe me, anyone can monday-morning quarterback.

    And I agree that he would bring a “fresh prospective” to Washington, but then, the future always looks bright when a new President is elected.

    Obama was a state senator for 8 years and has been a US Senator for a little over 2 years. Whether that is enough experience to be President or not, to me at least, is irrelevant. But facts are facts. Compared to other candidates in the race wh have been in federal office for many years, or have likewise held elected executive offices, objectively and relatively speaking, he has no experience.

    Only thing is, when they hammer him on it, he has to come up with better ways of saying “experience doesn’t matter.” Because, though it may be true, it doesn’t inspire confidence.

  23. Adam    Thu Aug 9, 04:53 PM #  

    The primary will come down to Obama’s supposed “lack of experience”. After all the “experience” of the Bush-Cheney ticket has handed us. After Hillary’s utter failure at bringing bipartisanship to health care reform last time Clinton was in office, how are you going to say that Obama is lacking? Do you want another 8 years of this mess?

    You republicans complaining about Obama’s tax tax tax position, look at your own party. The only reason that anyone’s taxes have gone down ($360, big whoop) is that the war is being financed on emergency credit and is not budgeted for. LOL! Bush has not cut my taxes. Bush has not made me safer. Clinton won’t either.

    Look at Obama’s policies in terms of the things that aren’t widely covered by the media. Look at his efforts to get away from PAC money, and to bring fundraising to light. This is not sexy stuff, so it doesn’t get covered, but it is real reform in the way our government works…the same kind of reform that JFK proposed.

    Look at his honest response to questions and how the other candidates are faulting him for it. Oooh he said we wouldn’t use nukes in Pakistan, well good for him, because we shouldn’t use nukes in Pakistan, and he’s standing up for what’s right and not constantly hedging his bets like Clinton and the rest. He might make some mistakes of action, but I can hardly think of a president that hasn’t made some, and it certainly doesn’t correlate with their executive experience. In fact, I would much prefer a president that says, hey, I made a mistake, we’re going to change that, than one who continues 5 years in to cover their eyes and pretend everything’s going swell.

    Which brings me to Hillary and her FLAWS of JUDGMENT in terms of supporting the invasion of Iraq. This was plain to see that at best it would be a morally wrong war, and at worst a morally wrong failure resulting in a genocide and new breeding ground for terrorists. This was easy to see if you stopped buying the boldfaced lies and read a little below the surface. I can’t see how she failed to do this, or perhaps she just didn’t want to look “weak”, which is how you are labeled when you stand up for civil rights or international law these days.


  24. knowless    Thu Aug 9, 07:22 PM #  

    adam: what’s with your website..?

  25. Jonathan    Thu Aug 9, 09:36 PM #  

    Yes, brilliant fellow, Obama, threatening our weak ally Pakistan while offering a free platform to enemies like Chavez and the Mullahs, and unilaterally throwing away geopolitical leverage by forswearing use of nukes. But don’t worry! War isn’t healthy for children and other living things. And if Obama is president there will be no more wars. So that’s one less thing to think about while we do fun stuff like socialize medicine.

    BTW, you do know that after Obama’s clever “let’s invade Pakistan” speech, Bush phoned Musharraf to reassure him that not all Americans are naive fools. I don’t know if Musharraf had time to change his pants before he spoke with Bush.

  26. Carlos D    Fri Aug 10, 02:37 PM #  

    BTW, you do know that after Obama’s clever “let’s invade Pakistan” speech, Bush phoned Musharraf to reassure him that not all Americans are naive fools. – Jonathan

    Wow, really? He should’ve conferenced in the rest of the world as well, I don’t think they’ve gotten the memo that we aren’t naive fools who invade countries unnecessarily.

    Threatening to use nukes is teh super awesome foreign policy man, why don’t we just hold a press conference telling the world that we have not decided against using nukes on them.

    I also love how you refer to the potential use of the most destructive force on the planet as “geopolitical leverage.”

    That Darth Vader’s a swell guy, not ruling out use of the Death Star, because it’s effective interstellar-political leverage?

    You obviously have no idea how post-Cold War politics work. Everybody knows we have nukes and everybody knows that if they threaten to nuke us we’ll threaten to nuke them. You don’t have to prance around like a jackass letting everybody know that you CAN use them.

  27. Jonathan    Sat Aug 11, 02:50 AM #  

    Naive fools threaten their allies and placate their enemies, as Obama proposes. So far he sounds like Jimmy Carter, which isn’t a good omen. The possibility that our invasion of Iraq was a bad idea doesn’t make Obama’s statements wise. A presidential candidate should know better.

    And who says we should threaten to use nukes? You made that up. I criticized Obama’s unforced repudiation of US nuclear weapons, which is an entirely different issue.

  28. Biscayne Bystander    Sat Aug 11, 04:20 AM #  

    As if any of this matters. Voting machines are still rigged.

    Watch Hacking Democracy


    I could think of no worse example for nations abroad, who for the first time were trying to put free electoral procedures into effect, than that of the United States wrangling over the results of our presidential election, and even suggesting that the presidency itself could be stolen by thievery at the ballot box.
    Thomas Jefferson
    (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

  29. Alex K    Mon Aug 13, 07:41 PM #

    hey biscayne bystander thanks for that link! i am going to watch that documentary.

    i completely believe that some very suspicious activity happened with the last election. read christopher hitchens’ article in vanity fair (link above).

    very very disturbing!

    OBAMA IN 2008

  30. Liana    Wed Aug 15, 11:09 PM #  

    I am getting sick and tired of listening about his inexprience. So what was Kennedy’s experience when he was elected?
    And if it is experience you are after, why don’t you elect Cheney? He’s done such a wonderful mess after all.
    As for Pakistan, let’s get things straight. Musharaf has been tolerating terrorist camps all along. Read,0,1916755.story. The Pentagon has said the same thing Obama has said. Read
    Where is the blunder exactly?

  31. Jonathan    Wed Aug 15, 11:36 PM #  

    Musharraf lives on a knife edge between being our ally and accommodating the Islamists in the NW territories and his own government. He has limited freedom of action, he could be overthrown at any time, and if he goes, his replacement is likely to be a lot worse than he is. Obama’s remarks weakened him by suggesting that the USA does not see him as being fully in control. This was a huge, IMO disqualifying, blunder for a would-be president to make. It is now more likely that we will actually have to invade Pakistan at some point, at least to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if Musharraf gets bumped off. This and other recent gaffes explains Obama’s slump in the polls. And yes, Cheney would handle it better. So would Bush, Giuliani and probably Mrs. Clinton.

  32. Miguel    Mon Aug 20, 10:25 PM #  

    habla mierda obviously is a bushy otherwise why would you call yourself habla mierda and why would you diss a guy who is articulate? Uh let me see maybe because bush habla mierda and is inarticulate.

    By the way, your site sucks and Obama rules.

  33. Keen Observer    Wed Aug 22, 10:03 PM #  

    Hello, ALL…just observing this site..and I noticed a little “polite” exchange of words between “Dave” and “Knowless”

    Referring to your Aug 8th (3:02pm) post Dave… before you attack Knowless on his/her spelling, I suggest you also look how to spell “dispise” …correction- DESPISE


    Knowless… I can’t believe you couldn’t pick it out either???

  34. jenny l.    Sat Aug 25, 01:29 AM #  

    Hillary is as much of a democrat as bush is a republican-they are neither, they are corporatists and represent the interests of corporate america…Hillary should be ashamed of herself for supporting the use of force in iraq; when all she had to do is rollover kiss her husband and ask him what was the deal about wmd’s. she shouldnt carry not one vote.
    Richardson and kuccinich even though we all know kuccinich will never make it.
    I wondering if they all can be bought now that wellstone is gone…

  35. knowless    Tue Aug 28, 09:28 PM #  

    thank YOU keen observer! I DESPISE missing an opportunity like that…next time…