Obama In Africa

You can catch up on Senator Obama’s six-nation trip to Africa as the Chicago Tribune has been following his journey since last Saturday, publishing an article each day complete with loads of photos. After reading far too much about the race for governor in Illinois, it is both refreshing and exciting to have this man represent our state.

From cab drivers to politicians, the countries have been obsessed with his visit. Here at home he’s liked and admired by just about everyone regardless of political party. Hmmm…maybe we could have him hold the position of U.S. Senator and Illinois Governor at the same time! Just a thought.

What are your thoughts on Senator Obama? Do you think he’d make a good U.S. President?

37 Comments so far

  1. Danny Doom (unregistered) on August 25th, 2006 @ 10:59 am

    Obama is the one and only hope for President in 2008. Everyone else (that we know of so far) will further the divide, be it Clinton or McCain or Gore or Guiliani. It’s time for new blood — no Bushes, no Clintons — and Obama is the only one who can bring it all together. Yep, my eggs are all in his basket.

  2. nikkos (unregistered) on August 25th, 2006 @ 11:33 am

    I don’t think he’s ready for the Oval Office, although the paradox of the Senate is the more time you spend there the less electable you are (due to the voting record paper trail which is easy to attack and often hard to defend).

    No candidate exists in a vaccuum- meaning, my evaluation of Obama depends on who he would be running against.

    That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with Danny that we have to stop the nepotistic dynasties and stop electing Bushes and Clintons.

    Time will tell.

  3. JoJo (unregistered) on August 28th, 2006 @ 1:38 pm

    While Obama certainly isn’t as embarrassing as your typical Democrat senator (think Ed “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy or Robert “Sheets” Byrd), I’m not really sure that he’s done anything noteworthy.

    Could someone fill me in on what he has accomplished that would even make him a contender for the Presidency, besides being an eloquent speaker (which I agree does not currently reside in the White House) and not having killed someone (Swimmer) or been a former member of the KKK (Sheets).

    Just askin’.

  4. nikkos (unregistered) on August 28th, 2006 @ 2:09 pm

    “Ed” Kennedy?

    If you’re going to recycle ridiculously tired conservative “jokes,” then you can at least get the man’s name right.

  5. nikkos (unregistered) on August 28th, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

    Rather than provide my rhetorical foes the slightest satisfaction, I will correct myself: though I have never seen nor heard of him being referred to as “Ed,” “Ed Kennedy” is a perfectly acceptable nomenclature for the Senator.

    Chappaquiddick is still an old, old saw, however.

  6. JoJo (unregistered) on August 28th, 2006 @ 2:56 pm

    Nikkos, thanks for letting everyone know that we can refer to the senior Senator by his first name.


    Remember, if Nikkos hasn’t heard of it, it’s unacceptable!

    BTW, would you like to explain how Chappaquiddick is a “joke”? Would it be a “joke” if someone in your family was killed and the person got off scott-free due to his last name?

  7. JoJo (unregistered) on August 28th, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

    A 2nd BTW, you didn’t provide any info as to what Obama has accomplished while in the Senate.

    That was the topic being discussed, until you handed down your nugget of wisdumb.

  8. nikkos (unregistered) on August 28th, 2006 @ 3:47 pm


    Perhaps you could learn from my example- when wrong, I admit it and try to move on.

    Chappaquiddick is often employed as a punchline by conservatives as a way to demean and diminish Ted Kennedy, in similar fashion to jokes about Bill and Monica, Jesse Jackson, “Shrillary,” et al. They are old and tired.

    I already provided my opinion of Obama in the comments above. You seem to assume that my kneejerk response is to support and defend Obama. Perhaps if you had read what I had written above you would see that is not the case.

  9. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 9:42 am


    I’ve noticed, after looking through your previous posts (when people other than the moderators actually posted on this site), that you are not one to admit mistakes. I can cite several examples if you’d like. Get over yourself – you’re not as great as you think you are.

    How do you compare Chappaquiddick to jokes about BJ’s and race pimps? Does it not bother you that Ed Kennedy killed someone? I know he’s not a Republican, so the same standards don’t apply, but are you really that partisan? If so, you are pathetic.

    BTW, thanks again for letting me call the Senator by his first name. I really appreciate that! I can’t wait for your next ruling so all of us proletariats can know what is and is not acceptable.

    Why would your evaluation depend on who Obama is running against? That doesn’t make any sense at all. He’s a good speaker, but not if he’s running against candidate x? He’s passed so-and-so legislation, but not if he’s running against candidate y? Just so you know, you don’t make any sense and you come across as a bitter, egotistical man.

  10. Bill V (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 10:34 am

    Nice to see some comments regarding Obama. Not sure if the comments are really on the money. My take is that being a good and eloquent speaker certainly helps, Junior Senators never really do much of anything. Maybe another term will help. Just based on first look, he’s up there with the others that are possible candidates. How can he not look good up against some of those names?

  11. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 10:37 am


    You seem bent on getting me to respond to your tired and lame comments about Kennedy, et al- none of which has anything whatsoever to do with Obama.

    Frankly I don’t care what you think about me or my politics. Nor do I think you deserve a substantive response to any of your queries since you seem to be unclear on the concept of representative politics.

  12. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 12:15 pm

    This post was about Senator Obama and his ability to handle the Presidency. I’ve asked repeatedly what would even qualify him as a candidate, and no one has any ideas. So does no one really think he’d be a good president or what?

    I agree with Bill that against most other Democrat candidates, he looks good, but that’s not saying much. He doesn’t have the experience and I’m still not sure what he’s done to be even be considered. I’m sure I won’t find my answer on this blog since there seems to be a lack of communication.

    As for Nikkos-
    The topic was Obama until you decided to prove your superiority over others and try to show that you know everything, which pretty much backfired. You then referred to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne as a joke, and when questioned about your obtuse statement, you say it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic. Why do you make such remarks if you are not willing to respond? Pretty much, when you are proven to be wrong, the subject is off limits. How convenient for you.

  13. Bill V (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

    Yes, you are correct. I have no idea why he would be a good President. It just seems like if given time he might develop based on what I’ve seen (and that’s not very much) so far. You won’t find a lot of political answers here. In fact usually more questions than answers. Glad you came by.

  14. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 12:49 pm


    Thanks for the civility. Although not expected, it’s certainly appreciated.

  15. Danny Doom (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 12:55 pm

    Just saw this thread and have no desire to really get into it, but…what did George W. Bush ever do that gave voters the impression he would be a good President? Seriously? Anything? His life history leading right up to and including his governorship (if that’s the right word) of Texas doesn’t exactly scream “Presidential material!”

    I don’t think it really matters so much, it’s the potential, and Obama has tons of it, in my opinion. Leadership and speaking ability go hand in hand (see GWB’s disastrous terms as an indicator of what happens without both), and Obama seems to me to be a true uniter in the way that he carries himself and treats others. People really like him. He inspires. That’s not a partisan comment, you can see evidence of it on a regular basis.

    Governors and senators build up two different backgrounds and this makes it easier for governors to become elected President. It’s unfair, I think, but whatever, that’s what history says. I say Obama needs to run before his history as a senator can be used against him, fairly or not.

  16. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 12:56 pm

    Wow, you’re really onto something there JoJo. Please explain how Ted Kennedy’s drunk driving accident makes Obama a poor Presidential candidate. It may make Kennedy a poor candidate, but that’s another topic for another thread.

    I get the impression you’re waiting for a “librul” to come out in support of Obama so you can deploy whatever talking points you scribbled down off of Fox News. You seem particularly frustrated that no one will take this position. Perhaps that in itself is the answer to your question.

    While we’re at it I’d be curious to know which potential Presidential candidate you favor at the moment. Buchanan? He’s probably too liberal for you.

  17. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

    First off, funny how I’m the one accused of getting us off topic. The topic, which originally was Obama, has now been turned into – What did GWB ever do…

    Back to Obama, for the most part I agree with you, in comparison to other Democrat candidates. Obama does have good speaking ability (although that doesn’t fully equate to leadership). He’s more of a uniter than most Democrat candidates and for the most part he does handle himself well.

    Presently, I think Obama would be a good VP candidate and could get into the Presidency that way.

    I never said the Swimmer’s accident affected Obama’s chances, as you can see by my posts. I simply said that he seemed better than other Democrat senators, such as Kennedy, because he doesn’t have (that we know of) any huge skeletons in his closet (ie. He’s a better candidate than Kennedy because no one has died in his car).

    I have no talking points about Obama. I was just interested why so many people, blogs, magazines, pundits, etc, think he’s such a good candidate, because I haven’t seen anything spectacular besides his speaking ability. Bill and Danny kind of answered the question, while you were posturing yourself for snide comments and condescending remarks. Well done.

    Which candidate do I support at the moment (notice how I’ll answer the question and am not tip-toeing around it, worried about your “talking points”)? To tell you the truth, I’m not all too happy with the state of politics right now and most politicians look like they’ll do more of the same. If I wanted the Republicans to win, I’d say Giuliani. If I had to choose who I think would accomplish the most for our country, I’d say Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence or Mitt Romney.

  18. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 1:53 pm

    Giuliani eh? No skeletons in THAT closet…

    Unless you count the following as skeletons:
    – Extramarital affair(s)
    – He announced the end of his second marriage via press conference, before he had even informed his wife. Classy.
    – Race-baiting campaign strategies
    – Bernard Kerik nomination: no background check; ties to the mob; love nest near Ground Zero
    – there’s a new book out (“Grand Illusion”) with some particularly damning assertions that fly directly in the face of his image as “hero of 9/11,” like his bioneheaded move of HQ’ing NYC’s terrorist and disater respinse unit in one of the WTC buildings- years after the first WTC attack. The thousands of gallons of fuel stored there in case of emergency helped bring the building down on 9.11.

    Since this thread was initially about Obama, I’ll go ahead and say I think Obama could clean Rudy’s clock.

    Gingrich: Dumped his first wife while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. Classy! Divorced from his second wife when she found out about his affair with his congressional aide. Of course none of this stopped him from trying to tar and feather Clinton.

    Pence: No name recognition amongst the voting populace.

    Romney: Remains to be seen if GOP voters will elect a Mormon from Massachusetts.

    If this is the best the GOP can do, I say bring it on.

  19. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

    Oh, and btw, how come McCain isn’t on your list JoJo?

  20. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

    Yes, Giuliani and Gingrich do have skeletons, but none that drowned in a couple feet of water…

    Whether or not Giuliani would win, who’s to say, but I think as of now, he’s got the best chance to win for the GOP. Of course, things will definitely change; we’re still over 2 years away.

    Clinton deserved to be tarred and feathered – he lied under oath to a grand jury and to the country. Classy.

    Pence is a no-name, which could end up being a plus.

    McCain is not on my list because I think he changes his position too often, a la John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry. McCain is an opportunist and wants to be loved too much.

  21. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

    …again with the Chappaquiddick reference. Basically, your position is that a candidate is OK to elect as long as they have not been involved in a drunk driving accident that killed someone.

    That’s certainly a low bar, even by Republican standards. I thought the whole point was that Republicans were so much more mature and superior than Democrats- why then do you measure your candidates’ worth against Ted Kennedy? If he’s as awful as you think he is, why is he your frame of reference? Maybe because in order for your losers to look good you have to compare them to a recovering alcoholic?

    Seriously, why are you so tenaciously stuck on stupid?

  22. Danny Doom (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 2:18 pm

    Just to clarify…

    “First off, funny how I’m the one accused of getting us off topic. The topic, which originally was Obama, has now been turned into – What did GWB ever do…”

    This is about Obama. And the point being that if you took, for example, the current President, and examined his history before taking office (and I do mean “taking”!) there isn’t much there. Bill Clinton, for another example, was a governor too. Did he do anything memorable before becoming President? Not really. Reagan was an actor, then a governor. Obama? A senator. What does he need to do to convince people that he’s worthy? Well, he’s on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, there’s a start.

    I think you get my point, despite your usual way of talking bullshit.

  23. Bill V (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 2:21 pm

    Hey enough already! To increase Obama’s chances of President some day, let’s just have him be US Senator and IL Governor at the same time. Then we’ll really see what he can do. Now you guys, please get back to work!

  24. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 2:23 pm

    And btw, if “haven’t drowned anybody” is the new GOP bar for entry, does Bus get retroactively downgraded on account of Katrina?

  25. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 2:27 pm

    It’s OK Bill- civility in political discourse is overrated anyways!

  26. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 2:56 pm

    (sigh) Not having killed someone is a good start to anyone’s presidential aspirations.

    Yes, conservatives (of which there aren’t many in the GOP) are typically more mature than liberals. Case in point: conservatives believe more in personal responsibility while liberals rely more on the government to solve problems. Liberalism creates dependency on government, then when the government doesn’t respond as quickly as hoped (Katrina), the government dependents become angry because they weren’t taken care of. If more people were mature and took care of themselves, this country would be much better off. The problem is, it’s so much easier to have someone bail you out as opposed to bailing yourself out. Just like for you, Nikkos, it’s much easier to always be right than it is to admit you don’t know everything.

    I’m assuming that when you mention my “losers”, you’re referring to members of the GOP, the party that controls the House, Senate and Presidency. Yes, losers indeed. What would that make members of the Democrat party? Zing!

    No, I don’t get your point. It’s hard to take someone seriously who still thinks Bush “stole” the election. Of all the recounts Gore demanded, he lost all of them. Gore lost the election, Kerry lost the election, get over it and try harder next time. Do you think the fact that the Democrats have no ideas and plans for the country is due in part to people like you who can’t accept reality and move on? Reagan had solid ideas on how to move the country forward and the American people responded to that.

  27. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 3:09 pm

    You are truly delusional.

    Can you really argue with a straight face that we would actuially be worse off now if we had a President Gore or President Kerry rather than Bush?

    Hey, at least neither Gore nor Kerry drowned anybody, right? They could always run as GOP candidates.

    Although they’d have to work on the extramarital affairs- neither of them have any to their credit as far as I know.

  28. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 3:19 pm

    I have no idea where you pulled this out of, since I said nothing even close to it, but yes, I believe a Gore or Kerry presidency would have been worse for not only our country, but for the world.

    Please note that if you don’t agree with Nikkos on a matter of opinion, that you are labeled “delusional”. Gotta love that liberal tolerance!

  29. Bill V (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 3:24 pm

    I also wrote a post about beer and wine! And there are no comments at that post! C’mon, go tell me what you think, or has the politics worn ya’ll out?

  30. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 3:25 pm

    JoJo, you’re just a delusional crank. The more you write the more you prove my point. I should have heeded my own advice to not feed the trolls.

    The GOP may be good at winning elections, or stealing them as the case may be, but despite control of all 3 branches of government, as you reminded us, the GOP simply cannot govern.

    While they win elections, they lose everything else: an American city, 2 wars (so far), they’ve lost our credibility and they have lost the confidence of the American public.

  31. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 3:36 pm

    The GOP lost an American city? It was a NATURAL DISASTER!

    Does anyone, I repeat ANYONE, take this guy seriously?

  32. Bill V (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

    I think he’s talking Gary, IN :)

  33. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 3:57 pm

    Yes, it was a natural disaster, nothing could be done, “no one could have anticipated the levees breaking, ” etc. etc.

    JoJo, from your comments I have deduced that you think a government should do next to nothing for its people. No wonder you consider Bush a success.

  34. JoJo (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 4:05 pm


    You are not intellectually honest. You say the GOP lost an American city. That is the rhetoric of a cracked-out urban outdoorsman lying in a filthy gutter surrounded by his own vomit, not the rhetoric of a reasonable person. No political party can stop a hurricane – you are unbelievable and I’m starting to think you’re just joking around. You can’t be serious…

    First off, I don’t think Bush is a success, and secondly, I think the government should do what they are supposed to do –as defined in the Constitution.

  35. nikkos (unregistered) on August 29th, 2006 @ 4:10 pm

    I suppose that’s one more instance of the conservative “maturity” you’ve been telling me about, eh?

    And for the record, I am not joking.

  36. JoJo (unregistered) on August 31st, 2006 @ 8:45 am
  37. kenyan (unregistered) on August 31st, 2006 @ 1:48 pm

    Kenya has stepped up criticism of US Senator Barack Obama, accusing him of insulting the Kenyan people and trivializing their achievements during a visit to his father’s homeland.Two days after abruptly changing its tone on Obama, who had been welcomed as a returning hero but incurred official wrath with blistering criticism of corruption and ethnic divisions, Nairobi launched a new attack on the lawmaker Thursday.

    Less than 24 hours after the rising US political star left Kenya to continue an African tour, government spokesman Alfred Mutua blasted Obama for choosing “to dwell on non-issues” in a nationally televised speech on Monday.

    “Senator Obama made extremely disturbing statements on issues which it is clear, he was very poorly informed, and on which he chose to lecture the government and the people on how they should manage their country,” he said.

    Mutua said the government would write a formal protest to the junior senator from Illinois who he suggested had falsely claimed his trip to Africa was intended to “nuture relations between the continent and the United States.”

    Noting the government had “spared no effort in making his stay and travel … enjoyable and fulfilling,” Mutua said Obama’s criticism of President Mwai Kibaki’s administration was unfair, unwarranted and unjustified by facts.

    He said Obama was wrong in asserting that Rwandan genocide fugitive Felicien Kabuga had bought protection in Kenya, that graft had plunged the country into “crisis” and that dangerous tribal divisions were on the rise.

    Obama’s comment about Kabuga “is an insult to the people of this country,” Mutua said, adding he had “ignored” accomplishments in fighting corruption and boosting economic growth from near zero to six percent in three years.

    “This cannot be achieved in a country, which Senator Obama says, is experiencing a corruption crisis,” he said, before slamming the lawmaker for allegedly “trivializing” Kenya’s ethnic harmony and “magnifying tribalism.”

    “Senator Obama enjoyed the vibrant freedom of expression and wide democratic space in this country during his tour,” Mutua said. “Instead of acknowledging this… he chose to dwell on non-issues.”

    A day after Obama’s stinging speech at the University of Nairobi, Mutua dismissed the lone African-American in the Senate and potential Democratic Party presidential nominee as “immature” and an opposition stooge.

    But his harsh comments on Thursday marked a new escalation in animosity between the government and Obama, who left Kenya late Wednesday

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.