Obama's Challenge to Hillary?

Barack Obama is running for President. Or at least seriously, seriously, thinking about it.

He conceded as much on Meet the Press yesterday. "I don't want to be coy about this," Obama told Tim Russert, "Given the responses that I've been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility, but I have not thought about it with the seriousness and depth that I think is required."

A pretty frank admission, after months (or years) of flattering media coverage. But why hint at a possible candidacy now, in advance of the midterm elections? Is he just trying to sell his new book, The Audacity of Hope? Or is there another possibility: Obama's hoping to push Hillary Clinton out of the race. Also on Meet the Press, Wall Street Journal reporter John Harwood said a former top Clinton Administration aide told him Obama would run and Hillary wouldn't.

If they both run, the election becomes Obama versus Hillary and then everyone else. If Hillary doesn't run, it's Obama versus everyone else.

Is the Democratic primary big enough for an Obama and two Clintons?

Comments (42)

1. Second pro-Obama post on "The Nation" in less than a week???

   Is this a hint of things to come? Barak the "anti-Hillary" candidate of "TN"?

   Actually, I think Obama is doing an "Edwards". He runs, likely not to get the nom, but puts himself out as a "serious candidate" and gets the Veep spot.

   Plus as Mr Berman noted, he sucks out the oxygen from any other "anti-Hillary" candidates...even Mr Nichols' previous fave, Russ Feingold.

   If he doesn't hit HRC (or whoever wins...if you like) TOO hard, then he doesn't have to walk back a lot of criticisms.

   Rallies the black vote and the "youth vote" (maybe), but still centrist enough that EARLIER "Nation" articles criticized him for being too "accomodating".

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 11:00am

2. Same answer to first article

   Other than being Black and young, he has done nothing., and deserves the same...DO something first....at least write a bill in the Senate so people know you are actually there...

   Hillary needs an hispanic on the ticket, not a black...the dems aready own the black vote and have for years.

   Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 11:29am

3. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 11:29am

   So Republican presidential hopefuls can be business failures and a cerimonial govenor, but a Democratic president doesn't qualify after being a state Senator and a U.S. Senator? Why do you have different standards for the two parties?

   Posted by BlueTexan at 10/23/2006 @ 11:56am

4. I don't have different standards...I am just unsure who is qualified...I haven't seen many over the years who have been, although I will give you this,tho....natural leaders do seem to rise to the challenge..I think Reagan was a natural leader as was/is Clinton...I don't think Bush 1 was, Bush 2 did and then fizzled, Carter never came close. Nixon was and then failed, Ford was a goof,Johnson was, Kennedy could have been if he had lived longer, Truman was....now, looking ahead...Hillary? No...Rommney, Maybe, Edwards..NO,.... Kerry,.. NO. McCain,...no....Obama, no evidence, ...I see no one who is a natural leader and I beleive most natural leaders avoid that job in Washington for obvious reasons.

   Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 12:07pm

5. Posted by BLUETEXAN 10/23/2006 @ 11:56am

   BLUE...it's not just me or MAASCH...check out Hilary Rosen (no con) on HuffPost.

   He's a first term US senator. Obama for Veep...nothing higher...yet.

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 12:07pm

6. ZERO

   I agree, but who are these "real leaders" and other than winning seats on the Berkeley or Cambridge City Council or in Vermont, what could anyone, outside the mainstream mush and immediately marginalized by the media, be elected to? Our elections are pretty much like the annual Oscars but even without the biteless one-liners. McCain is our next Prexy and he ain't gonna do nuthin' to rile K Street, Wall Street or the corporate biggies. We will continue marching.

   Posted by donescobar at 10/23/2006 @ 12:09pm

7. I had picked Obama for Hillary 8 months ago here, but I now believe she will pick Richardson of New Mexico, if he can stand her...he is a westerner, Hispanic, Governor , he CUT taxes, has expeience on a federal level, Repubs like him, and is NOT from the East,, where as Obama is black...and young...although since he has no record what so ever, he then can not be attacked....

   Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 12:21pm

8. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 12:21am

   Three other points on Richardson as HRC's Veep--

   He also put National Guard on the border (plays well with the anti-illegal immigration crowd, to off-set any fear of him as a Latino).

   He's a former Sec'y of Energy, as debate over US energy policy resumes in 2008.

   and he'd force McCain to campaign in the Southwest (home turf) instead of where he needs to campaign, the Midwest and battlegrounds.

   Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 12:34pm

9. JM

   For the record, Obama co-authored a bill with Lugar

   http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=3413

   another on his own (albeit a minor piece) http://tinyurl.com/y7efah

   Another co-authored with Talent

   http://www.e85fuel.com/news/072705_obamaleg_release.htm

   with Coburn, McCain & Carper http://tinyurl.com/vd2c6

   with Reid http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73467

   on his own (Re: voter fraud.. http://tinyurl.com/y2nadf)

   Maybe you should check out his "issues" page....before you make unsubstantiated claims that is.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 10/23/2006 @ 12:36pm

10. Co authored? I have seen more co-authored bills...I am distinctly speaking of a defining bill where HE, Obama, is putting forward something we can all turn to,and say, that ws his idea and he fought for it... as opposed to..."yeah, me too, put my name on that, too.." bill.

    LOC, you know full well what I mean..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 12:40pm

11. Besides, Senators never seem to reach the WH...with a few exceptions..(voter fraud in '60?) .....he has no record..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 12:42pm

12. Senator Lieberman's protoge is fairly typical of the lesser-evil warbot candidates that democrat rags like The Nation are wont to pimp these days. Too bad they're going to get Hillary, like it or not.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 10/23/2006 @ 1:17pm

13. Now, finally, I get it.

    JOHN MAASCH is able to channel the thoughts of ... dead people (perhaps including LVLIBERTY1). Here, MAASCH is merely channelling and transcribing James Joyce's next sublime "stream of consciousness" novel, from the beyond ...

    haven't seen many over the years who have been, although I will give you this,tho....natural leaders do seem to rise to the challenge..I think Reagan was a natural leader as was/is Clinton...I don't think Bush 1 was, Bush 2 did and then fizzled, Carter never came close. Nixon was and then failed, Ford was a goof,Johnson was, Kennedy could have been if he had lived longer, Truman was....now, looking ahead...Hillary? No...Rommney, Maybe, Edwards..NO,.... Kerry,.. NO. McCain,...no....Obama, no evidence, ...

    This would explain MAASCH's consistently Joycian poetics; he is merely the stenographer to the master's literary voice.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/23/2006 @ 1:47pm

14. ZERO Well, yes, I'd like to hope for a "revitalization of the American national political system," but I cannot (yet?) envision how or why that is going to happen. What's going to "force" the media to take the stand you'd like to see? As far as I can tell, from the NYT and WashPost, their readers want a bigger STYLE section and more PEOPLE magazine-like stories.

    Posted by donescobar at 10/23/2006 @ 1:50pm

15. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 12:40am

    First, there were at least two of his own. Second, by your logic co-authored bills are then accredited to no one? (Sorry - but a two author bill is still a pretty substantial piece of work.)

    You know what I mean.....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/23/2006 @ 1:57pm

16. Glen,

    Do us BOTH a favor and place me on ignore list.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 2:02pm

17. and Glen,

    ..based on what I've read from you, I don't see where you "get it" any where...ever..

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 2:06pm

18. LOC,

    I get exactly what you mean....Obama, or his type, are what you will vote for to fill the WH...another man of the people..despite millions and no government experience...:)

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 2:09pm

19. LOC,

    I get exactly what you mean....Obama, or his type, are what you will vote for to fill the WH...another man of the people..despite millions and no government experience...:)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 2:09pm

    Tell us, John, what made George W. Bush qualified to be the President of the United States.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/23/2006 @ 2:13pm

20. I'm sorry, but isn't all this sudden DIS-interest in "experience" a bit odd?

    I seem to remember how a few were saying how IMPORTANT experience was in 2000. "Served in the House, served in the Senate, re-elected to both, served 8 years as Vice-President".

    Now all of a sudden, experience doesn't matter and "Hey! What about Bush!"

    Uh...are you guys sure comparing Barak Obama's inexperience with George Bush's inexperience...is going to sell Obama?!??!

    Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 2:18pm

21. Mask,

    That is exactly what they are selling....and as far as Bush, he was a governor of a huge state and had bi-partisian support...and I don't care if one describes it as a figure head state...he ran the place and won re election against an opponent..Obama?..

    ..even going out of business is part of a learning curve and you will find almost all successful people have been failures for more time that successful, at least in thr beginning,....they go hand in hand...the problem arrives from one who doesn't learn from the past failures and a case can be made out of Bush, and everyone else...

    Posted by john maasch at 10/23/2006 @ 2:28pm

22. Mask,

    I've told you before....Obama will be elected in 2008 if he CHOOSES to run. If he listens to the old guard that are telling him he's not experienced enough then he will not win in 2008...simply because he will not be a candidate.

    The front runner Republican will win the "experience matters" voter segment against ANY Democrat candidate. If you vote based on "experience" in 2008 you'll be voting for old man McCain. Period.

    Obama will have a fairly easy ride on the experience attacks in the primary as he'll be going up against Hillary and Edwards who are also thin on the experience front and therefore will not be hurling that kind of mud.

    Posted by freedomplease at 10/23/2006 @ 2:30pm

23. Posted by ZERO 10/23/2006 @ 2:27pm

    As I stated on another thread....as the target of accusations of being a "paid agent of the GOP", I really can't think of anybody who would MORE likely be one than ZERO.

    I mean, if you were Rove, and wanted to depress the liberal vote....what better than tell them that "There's no difference between the Repubs and Dems!".

    After all...it worked in 2000 with an "Unsafe At Any Election Time" candidate, didn't it?

    Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 2:30pm

24. So, John -

    "governor of a huge state and had bi-partisian support" is enough to elect someone President?

    Even if, while they were governor, their state was:

    #1 In overall toxic releases

    #1 In recognized carcinogens in the air

    #1 In suspected carcinogens in the air

    #1 In developmental toxin in the air (affecting brain and nervous-system development in children)

    #1 Cancer risk

    49th in spending for the environment

    #1 In major discharge facilities with 575 major facilities

    #2 In total number of minor Nipdes facilities, about 5,700.

    3,000 Miles, or one third, of Texas rivers and 44% of Texas bays are polluted to the point that they do not meet the standards set for recreational and other uses.

    13 Texas lakes were covered by advisories or bans on fish consumption in 1996.

    #1 in use of Deep Well Injectors as method of Waste Disposal

    #1 in Total Number of Hazardous Waste Incinerators

    #1 in Environmental Justice Title 6 complaints

    #1 in production of Cancer causing Benzene & Vinyl Chloride

    #1 Largest Sludge Dump in Country

    #1 in the Emission of Ozone Causing Air Pollution Chemical The state of Texas under G.W. Bushís leadership is ranked 50th in spending for teachers salaries

    41st in per capita spending on public education

    43% of Texas teachers plan to leave or are considering leaving teaching.

    Money that could have gone into raising teacher salaries went into tax cuts for the rich.

    The high school dropout rates in Texas are 30% overall

    The high school dropout rate in Texas is 50% among minorities

    Missing students and other mirages in Texas enrollment statistics profoundly affected both reported dropout statistics and test scores.

    At the start of every school year, school began with literally hundreds of classrooms without teachers

    Governor Bush appointed a teacher certification board that, instead of working on improving the standards for the teaching profession and improving teacher quality, he decided instead to allow people who have poor credentials to enter into the teaching profession

    One in five Texas high school teachers are not certified

    About 41,000 of 63,000 vacancies in Texas public schools were unfilled in 1999

    Since about 1982, the rates at which Black and Hispanic students are required to repeat grade 9 have climbed steadily, such that by the late 1990s, nearly 30% of Black and Hispanic students were "failing" grade 9.

    Texas charter schools were even poorer than public schools. Even though the racial mix was skewed to non-white, and the number of schools (66) is small, the economically disadvantaged rate was very similar, the percent of special ed students was less in the charter schools, and the test scores were uniformly substantially lower.

    On national tests (NAEP), with one exception (4th grade math), Texas scores have remained flat over the period Bush was governor After Bush took office, Texasís own state test TASP (a college readiness test) results showed a sharp decrease (from 65.2% to 43.3%) in the percentage of students passing all three parts (reading, math, and writing).

    Performance on the SAT in Texas did not improve since the early 1990s, (compared with SAT takers nationally)

    79% of Texans who are 25 or older have a high school diploma or equivalency certificate and 24% have bachelor's degrees - both lower than the national average

    147,000 people in state prisons. Counting state jails and on parole, there are 545,000 people in the system.

    On any given day 450 people were on death row. Since 1976 Texas has executed 138 people - some of which were people who were mentally ill, profoundly retarded, and people who are innocent.

    48th in per capita funding for public health

    47th in delivery of social services

    5th in percentage of people living in poverty

    #1 in percentage of poor working parents without insurance

    #1 in children without health insurance

    -----------------------------------

    I'll take good intentions and a lack of experience over another failure like GWB any day.

    Anyone with revisions or corrections (or additions) to the above list, have at it...

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/23/2006 @ 2:35pm

25. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 10/23/2006 @ 2:30pm

    So inexperience wasn't a problem with Bush in 2000?...odd.

    And why this love affair with Barak? Only a year ago, David Corn (familiar name to some here, I'd venture) called him "accomodating" when he didn't question John Bolton at his confirmation hearing.

    He's voted pretty "centrist" (almost a Hillary clone)...and yet in a week, we've seen TWO "Hail the Conquering Hero" articles here at that bastion of progressive thought, "The Nation".

    My question....why? Talk of the "anti-Hillary" been around for a year now, does "TN" think Barak is the man for that job? Odd (again), what in his voting record comes off as "anti-Hillary"?

    First Mr Nichols was "Fine with Feingold"...then we got "John Edwards, Champion of the Poor"...now "Bully for Barak".

    Internal polling or just Flavor of the Month?

    Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 2:35pm

26. Posted by MASK 10/23/2006 @ 2:18pm

    No MASK, it seems to be that its the Republicans that are playing the "experience card" with Obama. The response is well...he was a state senator and a U.S. senator. I wouldn't exactly call that inexperience. I don't think I've seen anyone here saying Obama and Bush have the same experience. Its not even a question, Obama will have had more substantive experience than Bush is 2008. Plus, at Obama's age...Bush was just getting around to getting into politics...Bush wasn't even the govenor of Texas until age 49. Before that we all know that he was knee-deep in blow and failed businesses.

    No, the "he has no experience" response is simply a knee-jerk reaction from folks deathly afraid of having a young, charismatic, man of color as our next President.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 10/23/2006 @ 2:36pm

27. Posted by NEW DAWN 10/23/2006 @ 2:35pm

    Makes me miss Ann Richards even more.

    Hopefully the state can get its colletive head out of its ass and vote for Chris Bell in November.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 10/23/2006 @ 2:40pm

28. Posted by BLUETEXAN 10/23/2006 @ 2:36pm

    Amen, Blue.

    Posted by New Dawn at 10/23/2006 @ 2:44pm

29. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 2:09pm

    "Obama, or his type..." Care to elaborate?

    as to "another man of the people..despite millions and no government experience..."

    1) What is wrong with a "man of the people"...isn't that the cornerstone of what the Gov't in our country is supposed to be?

    2) millions of what? and what do they have to do with anything? If you wanna talk millions of dollars and the effect on gov't, let's talk about the Bush oil dynasty....

    3) No experience in gov't? Funny, Senator Obama served in IL gov't for 7 years before going national. He also has a degree from Harvard and was the Pres of the Harvard Law Review (a post chosen primarily on academic distinction) Can we put that up against GWBs "pedigree"? Dubya ran for TX Gov'r in 1990 and then for POTUS. So a 10 year pre-POTUS record. Obama has 7 in state senate, and by '08 will have had 3 more - gee, that adds up to 10 as well! So it was OK for Georgie boy (a mediocre BA history student), but not for someone with a Harvard Juris Doctor (magna cum laude I might add)?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/23/2006 @ 2:49pm

30. There's a good analysis of Obama in this month's print version of Harper's magazine. He opposed a Democratic amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have limited credit card interest rates to a mere 30%. Now that's standing up for your real constituents- the credit card industry.

    People like this don't get heavy coverage in the mainstream media UNLESS they are sellouts to the self-serving social elite that has absolutely nothing in common with 90% to 95% of the American people.

    They go to the israel lobby on bended knee to request Congressional committee assignments [tinyurl.com]. Who do you think they will be loyal to- the saps that voted for them? Laughable.

    Posted by fromredbird at 10/23/2006 @ 2:54pm

31. Well, as a conservative who absolutely despises the Dem. party and the mental disorder known as liberalism, I'll have to admit that Obama has impressed me so far. He seems to be one of the VERY few Dem's who is somewhat sane and rational. This could be an act, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. ( Did I just use "Dem's" and "sane and rational" in the same sentence? I must be losing my mind ) Although, I do question the job/pay raise his wqife experienced recently, but hey, nobody cares that William Jefferson took a $90,000 bribe ( see: double standard, "i'm a black Dem. so I'm exempt from any criticism/consequence to my actions" ), so what's the big deal. Anyway, Obama is the best the Dem's have to offer since they turned their backs on the only other "sane and rational" member of their party, Joe Lieberman ( but hey, he's a Jew, so who cares...just ask Cynthia McKinney and her Jew hating POSSE)!

    Posted by barry25 at 10/23/2006 @ 3:37pm

32. Gosh, Barry25, I'm so glad I'm not your English Composition teacher. But I do get the "25" now. Out of 100, 25 would be the grade for your effort. You might want to read some of those who suffered from that "mental disorder known as liberalism." Good luck, and remember how helpful topic sentences can be.

    Posted by donescobar at 10/23/2006 @ 3:50pm

33. Posted by BLUETEXAN 10/23/2006 @ 2:36pm

    BLUE...is comparing Obama's lack of experience and Bush's lack of experience a "selling point" for Obama?!?!!?

    And for you other Barakites...isn't it a LITTLE scary that "BARRY25" likes him???

    Posted by Mask at 10/23/2006 @ 3:59pm

34. Hillary needs an hispanic on the ticket, not a black...the dems aready own the black vote and have for years.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006 @ 11:29am

    Who gives a rat's ass what Hilary, or any other potential candidate might need.

    America needs the best candidate, period.

    Posted by skeletonman at 10/23/2006 @ 4:00pm

35. Posted by MASK 10/23/2006 @ 3:59pm

    MASK...don't you get it...I'm not saying Obama is inexperienced!! You are! So is MAASCH. Don't you see what we are saying...the "Obama is not experienced" card is not working. He has experience.

    It looks to me that the "no experience" crowd is just concerned that Obama might have the "rock star" persona to pull this thing off. Next month, they'll move on to some made up "he tried to cover up the Foley scandal" or "Obama loves Osama" etc.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 10/23/2006 @ 4:15pm

36. Hillary is experienced! I'll give her that! She's experienced in defending the actions of TERRORISTS like the Black Panther's. She's experienced in LYING ( all those women lied about my husband, it was just a vast right-wing conspiracy ) in order to feed her insatiable lust for power, when she knew that the narcissistic - sociopath ( Slick Willy ) was betraying her and their family constantly and consistently ( shit, we all did, remember the Jennifer Flowers tapes...if you didn't believe that was his voice on those tapes you're probably stupid enough to think that Bush blew up the levees too!). She's also experienced in how to act like a lunatic liberal and scream at the top of her lungs ( see: a sweaty shrieking Al Gore ) that " we have a right to question any administration.."! She's also experienced in how to make racist remarks and suffer no consequences because of the "D" next to her name ( "Gandhi ran a gas station in Queens" or something to that effect ).

    Posted by barry25 at 10/23/2006 @ 4:32pm

37. Is anyone else concerned that an Obama obsessed media in the last two weeks before a major election is significant distraction? To borrow from sports, isn't this like Detroit thinking about winning game five of the world series before they win games three and four? So my question is what is all this Obama about? Is all the Obama talk a symptom of hubris among democrats? Is it to put a strong, articulate, somewhat plain spoken democrat out there so people don't focus on the would-be Speaker of the House? Is the media purposely saturated with Obama to obfuscate real issues, like Republican scandals, hell on earth in Iraq, unchecked resource inequality at home, nuclear proliferation abroad, and energy independence? I'm uneasy with an all Obama, all the time news cycle. I think the rest of us should be too.

    Posted by umbriell at 10/23/2006 @ 9:04pm

38. Wow third blog tonight that this fits into Thanks massch your have once again proven beyond a doubt stupity is alive and well in republican America.

    Excellent points, the wanker squad once again proves they are totally clueless anally retentives with massch in the lead wheres his sidekick lvl.

    Gotta check this out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15147009/ another factual revelation we should all heed snd spread as far and as fast as we can.

    Posted by dycel8r at 10/23/2006 @ 10:57pm

39. Another fine post to pass along http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

    Posted by dycel8r at 10/23/2006 @ 11:05pm

40. Posted by BLUETEXAN 10/23/2006 @ 4:15pm |

    BLUE...how is being a Senator for 4 years "more experienced" than being a governor of the 2nd largest state for 6 years?!??!?

    Call Bush and Obama "equally" experienced if you like (again, no "help" to Obama, I think)...but he's not MORE experienced. He has NO executive experience, merely some legislative.

    Good or ill, Bush WAS the holder of an executive office, not a legislative one. And since Jack Kennedy pulled out a squeaker against a generally distrusted Nixon in 1960...NO legislator has won the Presidency...only those with executive experience.

    Posted by Mask at 10/24/2006 @ 09:15am

41. Glen, Do us BOTH a favor and place me on ignore list. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/23/2006

    No dice, MAASCH, not doing you any favors.

    And speaking of "getting it": Recently, you did promise to do us all the favor of leaving this august webpage out of (sniff sniff) feeling disturbed. The decision was roundly applauded by several posters, myself included. Indeed, I was filled with glee at having no further need to witness your naseauting sub-middle-brow bleatings for the 2 or 3 weeks that this state of nirvana prevailed.

    And then? You return, to generalized scorn and derision.

    What is it about this sequence of events eludes your comprehension?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 10/24/2006 @ 10:02am

42. Experience is a total red herring, for all concerned. And speculation about Obama, Hilary, Pelosi as Speaker, etc., is all just a distraction from the one thing the Dems need to focus on: "Throw the bums out". It is the one theme about which there is majority support.

    As to the corporate-kissing Dems, unfortunately they are the better bet (as compared to the corporate-kissing Republicans) in the short run. In the long run, we need to clone Russ Feingold in someone without the baggage of a Jewish surname (which will still spell defeat in the majority of the country against anyone but Condoleeza Rice........because America MAY still be less likely to elect a female African-American than a Jew)......

    What sad times when the best hope for Liberal agendas rests on the resilient nature of American rascism.......

    Posted by dmsteinman at 10/24/2006 @ 10:26am