Well, that's weird that you knew who he was. I wasn't saying that you hadn't heard of him and I certainly was trying to diminish what you said. But, here in Ohio, I and everyone I know, had never heard of the guy. When it became primary time and his name came up, I actually had to google the guy. So, when I think of a prominent national figure, I think of someone I wouldn't have to google. Hillary fits that mold because of Bill. I follow news and national news, but besides that speech, I had never heard of what he had done or what he stood for. That's what I meant by asking you about being a prominent national figure. No disrespect intended.

And, BTW, you just did that split quote thing. Could you PM me and tell me how you did it. All I know how to do is quote something fully and then delete what I don't want, while still keeping the "[quote]" at the end.

Originally Posted by coachsparky

Sarah Palin sunk the GOP candidate in 2008. I said it the second McCain made the selection it was the blunder that destroyed his chances. In fact, I have heard a lot of people say he selected her because he did not want to win.

I think McCain knew it would be a long shot to win, so he selected Palin as a Hail Mary, I don't think he knew quite what he was getting.

Originally Posted by quinn14

I think his second term will depend on his second two years. If he comprimises with the republicans, then he probably will win. If he just keeps blaming them and not comprimising, he loses. It is all on him now, IMO.

What's he supposed to do if the Republicans (as they indicate) have no interest in compromise?

Asking this more from a strategy stand point than anything.

Originally Posted by Zapp Brannigan

I don't know, and for that reason, I think the President is likely a two-termer. Before Obama won, he was a prominent national figure, and I personally thought he would be the Dem nominee from the get go. I never bought into Hillary, even though many expected her to win the primary. The only Repub maintaining a high national profile, and therefore familiarizing herself with the American public, is Palin, and let's be honest, there is no way she's winning an election. Obama is one of the best prepared speakers we've seen a,d one of the better campaigners in recent times. Not only that, but people tend to vote for the incumbent anyway. I think Obama gets a second term. I don't think Obama has done a great job, but I also don't think he's as bad as Carter was, and that comparison gets thrown at him a lot.

A different model might H.W. Bush, who did a decent job as President but the econmy was still recovery from a downturn and I think voters were ready for a change after 12 years of Republicans.

Obama's chances of re-election are tied almost directly to the economy with the possible wildcard of the Republicans nominating a polarizing candidate such as Palin.

Originally Posted by JensenS

What's he supposed to do if the Republicans (as they indicate) have no interest in compromise?

Asking this more from a strategy stand point than anything.

That is, IMO, one of Obama's biggest problems. He thinks that "compromise" means accepting what he says. The republicans have made plenty of suggestions on what needs to be done, but since none of them include bowing to him, he says they are the party of no. It will get interesting, now, when they introduce stuff in the House. If it passes and he doesn't agree or the Senate doesn't agree, will that make the dems the party of no?

Compromise would have been something like tort reform in the HC bill, which he said no to. Or compromising about how the bailout money would be spent. He didn't do that. He thinks compromise means agreeing with him.

So, the party of no, may be switched now that he has to either compromise or just say no.

Originally Posted by ODH

I think McCain knew it would be a long shot to win, so he selected Palin as a Hail Mary, I don't think he knew quite what he was getting.

I disagree. I think, with the split in the democratic primary between Hillary and Obama, McCain was trying to steal the woman vote. It was a desperate attempt because he knew that any democrat was going to beat any republican at that point. But, he went for it, kind of like a hail mary.

Let's face it, there wasn't a republican alive who could have won that election. Palin was did not swing any votes, IMO. The country was just sick of Bush and repubs.

Originally Posted by JensenS

What's he supposed to do if the Republicans (as they indicate) have no interest in compromise?

Asking this more from a strategy stand point than anything.

It comes down to who is better are getting the side of the story out.
If Obama says he is willing to compromise on healthcare and will listen to reform and modifications proposal and Rebuplicans will only allow a vote on outright appeal with no proposals of their own even though they know it is guarenteed to be vetoed, the "Party of No" label will start stick.

Originally Posted by quinn14

I disagree. I think, with the split in the democratic primary between Hillary and Obama, McCain was trying to steal the woman vote. It was a desperate attempt because he knew that any democrat was going to beat any republican at that point. But, he went for it, kind of like a hail mary.

Let's face it, there wasn't a republican alive who could have won that election. Palin was did not swing any votes, IMO. The country was just sick of Bush and repubs.

Hillary supporters who supposedly weren't going to vote for Obama was one of the most ridiculous stories of the election. There is no way that someone who is passionate enough about politics and is liberal enough to support Hillary doesn't vote or votes for McCain.

I agree there was any Reublican that was beating Obama. Republicans only chance was if Hillary wn the nomination. She could have been divisive enough to swing the election and L know many Dems knew that and that was why Obama got the big start out of the gate.

Originally Posted by quinn14

That is, IMO, one of Obama's biggest problems. He thinks that "compromise" means accepting what he says. The republicans have made plenty of suggestions on what needs to be done, but since none of them include bowing to him, he says they are the party of no. It will get interesting, now, when they introduce stuff in the House. If it passes and he doesn't agree or the Senate doesn't agree, will that make the dems the party of no?

Compromise would have been something like tort reform in the HC bill, which he said no to. Or compromising about how the bailout money would be spent. He didn't do that. He thinks compromise means agreeing with him.

So, the party of no, may be switched now that he has to either compromise or just say no.

The Republicans were voting against Obama's ealthcare no matter what and that was a smart play politically. I agree thee should be tort reform and if the Republicans come up with a revise Healthcare bill that Obama rejects becuase of Tort reform I will be most disappionted.

As far as the bailout, the was a Bush policy that Obama continued and I am sure he was not to enthusiactic about bailing out all of the big banks. However, that has turn out to be a hugely successful program.

It appears that you are lumping the stimulus with the bailout and they are two completely different programs.
My recollection of the stimulus is that there were many tax breaks included as part of a compromise with Republicans.