Obama Steps Up... And Into the 2008 Race

posted by John Nichols on 01/16/2007 @ 12:37pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (109)

Subscribe Now

With his decision to file the necessary paperwork to launch a presidential campaign exploratory committee, Barack Obama puts an end to speculation about whether he really is interested in being the Democratic nominee in 2008.

The exploratory committee is political performance art. Obama's not exploring anything. He's preparing a candidacy that, if all goes as planned, will be launched officially on February 10 in Chicago.

So Obama is running.

Now, the question is: How far will he get?

To a much greater extent than the other announced and prospective candidates for the party's nomination, that depends on the immediate response of grassroots Democrats to his prospective candidacy.

There is no question that Obama is a political superstar. That allows him to leap over many of the hurdles that are erected by the overseers of the American political process.

Obama does not need to build name recognition, in the sense that more senior figures such as Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack must. Even before he delivered the keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, the Chicagoan was the most prominent state senator in the nation.

After Obama delivered that address to the approval of the delegates--and to generous reviews from most of the political and media class--he secured his US Senate seat and arrived in Washington accompanied by some of the highest expectation ever attached to a new member of Congress.

Predictably, Obama failed to meet those inflated expectations. His relative caution on the big-picture issues of Iraq and domestic civil liberties, combined with some disappointing votes on consumer and economic issues, disappointed many of the serious activists who had been most enthusiastic about his appearance on the national political scene.

As candidates began to position themselves for the 2008 presidential race, however, Obama began to look more and more attractive.

On the list of possible candidates, he was, with New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, one of three genuine first-tier figures--high-profile politicians with what a man who skipped the 2008 race, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, describes as the "star power" to draw media attention merely by opening their mouths, assemble a crowd anywhere in the country and, presumably, to rapidly raise the money needed to remain viable throughout the caucus and primary process that will identify the nominee.

As Obama made the rounds of state party conventions, fundraising events and rallies during the 2006 Congressional election season, grassroots Democrats remembered his inspired speaking in Boston, rather than his uninspired votes in Washington. And they gave him a welcome that most politicians can only dream of.

The message from the party base was clear: Clinton had not closed the deal. There was an opening for another first-tier contender in the Democratic race, and Obama could take it.

Instantaneously, Obama was a contender and thus began the process that culminated with Tuesday's announcement of the exploratory committee.

Did Obama hit the trail for Democratic Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in the fall of 2006 with a plan to propel himself into the 2008 competition? Perhaps. He is, by his own admission, ambitious. But most of the evidence suggests that he was taken aback by the intensity of the response he got.

Obama's stepped back to consider his options, and he was smart enough to recognize that the opportunity was real and that it might not come again.

So, now, he has stepped up, and in.

By establishing the exploratory committee, he will be able to raise money to hire staff and build a basic campaign infrastructure in advance of the expected formal announcement in February. He'll need it. Clinton and another contender, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, are far ahead of Obama when it comes to putting together the multistate campaign apparatus that is needed in a fast-paced presidential campaign.

Can Obama catch up? Yes, but only if the grassroots Democrats who have been so enthusiastic about the prospect of his candidacy now turn that enthusiasm into practical commitments in states such as Iowa, where the first caucuses will be held a year from this week, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. That transition will have something to do with Obama's star power, of course, but it will have much more to do with how he defines himself.

Democrats like Barack Obama. But they don't necessarily know what it is about him that appeals to them.

Obama's challenge is to quickly provide grassroots Democrats with a rationale for his candidacy. There will be a lot of discussion about how he must compete with Clinton, but that's not the challenge. If she runs, Clinton will do so as what she is: a cautious centrist with lots of money and prominent support but with dubious grassroots appeal.

Obama's real challenge will be to make sure that he compares favorably with Edwards. The 2004 Democratic nominee for Vice President has done a reasonably good job of identifying himself as the Democrat who wants to bring the troops home from Iraq and address fundamental issues of economic and social injustice at home. And he has spent a lot of time talking about those issues with the party faithful in the states where Democratic activists and voters will make or break Democratic candidates. Already, Edwards is beginning to attract the endorsements--particularly from labor union leaders and members--and the volunteer base that he needs in states such as Iowa and Nevada. Obama will have to move quickly, and seriously, if he wants to block not just Clinton but Edwards. That is the only way for him to transform his star power into the practical support base for a winning candidacy.

Comments (109)

He'll also need to offer some SPECIFICS.

Right now, he's almost all platitudes and "let's move beyond politics" (whatever the hell that means...you either STAND for something that other people might oppose...or you don't).

Plus the recent Edwards flap, shows that Wolfson and the Winged Monkeys Crowd have probably been doing "opposition research" on Obama for the last six months. They might turn up something more than just "I tried cocaine, but didn't sniff".

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 12:43pm
" There will be a lot of discussion about how he must compete with Clinton, but that's not the challenge."

He should figure out what it is that he brings to the tsble at all. He has no experience in anything except being a civil rights lawyer...that may appeal to certain groups and the fact he is against the war will appeal to another...but main stream America?

I don't see it..no depth....Hillary brings a lot to the table, both good and bad...but Obama brings....?

Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 12:45pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/16/2007 @ 12:45am

Even if you throw out the African-American thing and the "Looks like he's 27" thing....he faces a LOT of "historical hurdles".

1. No Senator elected since John Kennedy.

2. No Northern Democrat elected since John Kennedy.

3. Only one person younger than him since Kennedy, Bill Clinton, ever elected.

4. Last Democrats elected since Kennedy have been either an incumbent President or a state Governor. (Same for GOP, too, less Nixon as a Veep in '68).

5. He'd be the LEAST experienced politician elected since Warren Harding.

and reasons 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc.---Hillary. Best poll Barak has show him 20%+ behind her. She's got the super-delagates (many former Clinton people). If Edwards and Obama fight it out for the liberal base...it splits it and the centrists and conservative Dems ALL go to HRC. And she's married to THE best fundraiser in the Democratic Party....who is ALSO pretty good at the "black churches" thing.

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 1:07pm
He should figure out what it is that he brings to the tsble at all. He has no experience in anything except being a civil rights lawye

"experience" isn't necessarily a determining factor in becoming a successful president, as evidenced by the current commander in chief. though bush had lots of experience prior to being elected in 2000, he clearly hasn't learned very much. not only that, he has driven the country so far into a hole that most sober analysts feel that we might not recover lost ground until 2016, and i'm not just talking about the deficit and debt. i'm talking about all manifestations of this totally warped, regressive, neoconservative doctrine. a doctrine so antithetical to the progressive american spirit of pluralism, debate, democracy and transparency. fuck bush!

Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2007 @ 1:07pm
1. No Senator elected since John Kennedy.

2. No Northern Democrat elected since John Kennedy.

3. Only one person younger than him since Kennedy, Bill Clinton, ever elected.

4. Last Democrats elected since Kennedy have been either an incumbent President or a state Governor. (Same for GOP, too, less Nixon as a Veep in '68).

5. He'd be the LEAST experienced politician elected since Warren Harding.

this is a really pathetic argument, mask. these are very general trends. and there are innumerable, and equally trivial, statistics which would suggest that nobody would win (such as, there has never been a female president, or when was the last time a former mayor of new york won?).

try something else.

Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2007 @ 1:12pm
Posted by DARLADOON 01/16/2007 @ 1:12pm

Sorry, DD for bursting your Barak balloon, but trends are called "trends" because they indicate where things tend to head.

And my main criticism of Obama was stated first....the man is all CLICHES and namby-pamby platitudes. So throw executive or even legislative experience out, as a LEADER he's all talk and no specifics. Sure he opposes the war in Iraq, no Dem but Lieberman is for it...but is he full on for cutting funding as Dennis Kucinich is...or symbolic votes like your gal Nancy "No Union In My Hotel" Pelosi?

How does he want to "move beyond politics"...without STANDING for something that somebody somewhere will POLITICALLY oppose? What "common ground" does he want Americans to work from...that isn't "not so common" to maybe as much as 40-45% of them?

I KNOW he's your perfect candidate...because he SOUNDS so good.

I actually prefer people can back it up with some actual principles.

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 1:18pm
What does Obama actually OFFER?

Posted by ZERO 01/16/2007 @ 1:13pm

Oh, crap....I'm sounding like ZERO again....yikes!

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 1:19pm
Even if there was no other powerful Democrat running for President other than Clinton, what will happen in 08 hasn't been determined yet, largely because no knows what Iraq will look like.

Posted by Jlarousse at 01/16/2007 @ 1:23pm
Obama has been no more wishy-washy on issues than a certain candidate in 2000 that is currently our decider-in-chief. Bush was about as wishy-washy as they came during his run. No one knew what he stood for, but everyone would have had a beer with him (assuming W was willing to take a brew at the time). Perhaps, Obama's doing exactly what he thinks he needs to be doing to be the next president. Which is...say wishy-washy things and tread lightly on the issues.

Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2007 @ 2:01pm
Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2007 @ 2:01pm

Uh, BLUE...did you just compare Obama...with Bush?!?!!?!?!?

Well may be....

"In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border. President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."----wikipedia.org

And he got this...might assure him of the Congolese-American vote!

"On December 22, 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act", marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor."----Ibid

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 2:10pm
uh, mask, he ain't my candidate. and your argument still sucks.

Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2007 @ 2:11pm
I think I will cast my presidential vote for Brian Schweitzer, (D) Governor of Montana, if he runs.

None of the other jokers impress me much. I once respected McCain, but he sucked up to Bush for the sake of his chances in '08. Besides, his conservative politics suck too.

Voting for HRC is a waste of time because she cannot win.

John Edwards couldn't even get his home state to go for Kerry in '04. Obama? If Edwards cannot win in the South, how can Obama?

Dodd? Vilsack? Please...

My other option is Al Gore. He is the one I really want to vote for. I'll drop Schweitzer like a diseased rat if Gore runs.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2007 @ 2:16pm
"Thay're nawh THREE Americuh's: Da rich, da poor, and Obama's Americah!" - John Edwards

Posted by woodyee at 01/16/2007 @ 2:17pm
MASK, DARLADOON,

Dodd, Vilsack, Obama, Edwards, Clinton - they are all "my" candidates because I am a member of the Democratic party.

And damn proud of it!

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/16/2007 @ 2:20pm
Posted by MASK 01/16/2007 @ 2:10pm

MASK, I compared Bush and Obama in the sense that everyone (including you) complain there isn't enough substance regarding his politics. I say his substance is no less than Bush's during his first presidential run. Bush...the guy everyone thought was so approachable and fatherly (but with very little political substance...fuzzy math anyone?). On the flip side, you have robotic Gore, spouting out plans for this and that...the media hated him. (Nevermind that he won the popular vote, the fact the media loved Bush gave Bush the momentum he needed to "win" the election.)

So, I think Obama has taken his campaign strategy cues from Bush. I also think Obama has been casting safe votes (which I find lacking in the character department) and will use them to disarm his critics, but once in office will reveal is true progressive self (we hope).

Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2007 @ 2:20pm
Posted by DARLADOON 01/16/2007 @ 2:11pm

DD, NOTHING would be an "unsuckable" argument against Obama for you. You've made up your mind and there's no shifting it. Hence the reason you offered NO actual counter-argument but...

"Nuh-huh, your argument sucks!"

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 2:33pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 01/16/2007 @ 2:16pm

Schweitzer's not bad....Richardson would be better, a combo of both, may be the best.

Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2007 @ 2:20pm

I wonder how DD would respond to you saying that Obama "has little political substance" and "takes his campaign cues from Bush"????

Thinking the word "sucks" would come up!

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 2:35pm
mask, one cannot make a "counter-argument" to your random selection of general historical trends, which have absolutely no bearing on whether obama will win, and whether obama's positions on the issues are valid or invalid.

you basically have said......nothing. and i'm replying to let you know that.

also. obama ain't "my candidate". and i'm a member of no political party.

Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2007 @ 2:38pm
Mask, you excel in taking things out of context.

Your 12:42 post, "He'll also need to offer some SPECIFICS. Right now, he's almost all platitudes and "let's move beyond politics" (whatever the hell that means...you either STAND for something that other people might oppose...or you don't)."

My 12:20 post, "I compared Bush and Obama in the sense that everyone (including you) complain there isn't enough substance regarding his politics."

Your 2:35 post, "I wonder how DD would respond to you saying that Obama 'has little political substance'" (Notice the "you" in that sentence.)

Why do you attribute the idea that Obama is light on political substance to me when YOU brought it up in the FIRST post on this thread?!?! MASK, you are like a dog chasing his own tail. I hope you get dizzy and pass out.

Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2007 @ 2:45pm
Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2007 @ 2:45pm

Well, gee, BT....I'm SORRY if I was "taking things out of context" separating your Bush/Obama comparisons.

Why not make it simpler....tell me what you think of Obama WITHOUT mentioning Bush???

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 2:56pm
Unfortunately for this Illinois voter and former Obama fan, I am not happy about his decision to run for President in '08. His short voting record does not live up to his campaign rhetoric. His stance on funding or not defunding Bush's latest troop increase dumbfounds me. American voters, myself included, thought we sent a strong message to Congress on November 7 to end the Iraq war. Defunding by Congress is the ONLY way to bring this about. Even is the vote is vetoed, atleast the record will reflect the will of the American voter. I am deeply disappointed with Obama's lack of courage of his convictions. I'll be voting and campaigning for John Edwards for '08. Sincerely, Yvette Farris, Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, UNITE HERE

Posted by YFarris at 01/16/2007 @ 2:56pm
"and whether obama's positions on the issues are valid or invalid."----Posted by DARLADOON 01/16/2007 @ 2:38pm

Could you NAME a few specific positions on the issues of Senator Obama, and tell us if you think they are valid or invalid?

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 2:57pm
Posted by MASK 01/16/2007 @ 2:56pm

I think Obama is using the precedent that has been set for him by previous candidates. Say broad, sweeping statements in a convincing manner and get the everyday joe or jane to fall in love with you. If you get into too many numbers, stats, etc, you appeal to the intellectual, egghead crowd but turn off the "C+ Americans"...but as we all know, the majority of Americans aren't intellectuall eggheads. It's not about politics folks, its about PR.

I think Obama has been casting safe votes. Votes that might arguably go against what he's told his voters or that seem to contradict his positions, but he's going to use those to take the ammunition away his potential opponents. Besides, almost all his Dem opponents will have just as many "bad" votes in their closet and his Rep opponents won't want to drag out votes that support their positions. He's setting the stage for '08, not trying to save the world (at least not yet).

Once in office, he'll do whatever tickles his fancy. That precedent has been set so high by the current president that no one will be able to complain when Obama is president.

Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2007 @ 3:05pm
"will use them to disarm his critics, but once in office will reveal is true progressive self (we hope)."

It called a liar. I thought thats why you hated Bush/Cheney...because they "lied"...and now its OK?

I see.....

Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 3:13pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/16/2007 @ 3:13pm

Yes, MAASCH, you might call it that. But in this day and age, its called being a politician. Until the public begins to hold their politicians accountable, then we won't get anything else.

And yes, that is why most of us here hate Bush/Cheney (lying about war) and can forgive lesser lies (i.e., saying you aren't having sex with a certain intern).

Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2007 @ 3:17pm
Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2007 @ 3:17pm

MAASCH, on second thought, I think most here hate Bush/Cheney because of lying, but because of their sheer disregard for the Constitution and the equal power of the legislative branch.

Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2007 @ 3:19pm
insert "not" before "because" in that last post

Posted by BlueTexan at 01/16/2007 @ 3:20pm
I believe they hate Bush/Cheney because they are republicans. If the war were not an issue, then someone would find something else...

as far as the intern lie...

I am on record here masny times..I would have been proud of Billy idf he had said..I had the intern, she is grewat, I hit the dress, send me the bill...next question, and if it is about her, press conserence is over...and will stay over whenever anyone askes me asnother wquestion about interns, dresses, cigars or sex.

Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 3:43pm
I could defend that on style and substance...Besides...he is stuck with Hillary...yikes, I bet there are hundreds of interns we do not know of..

Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 3:45pm
Defunding by Congress is the ONLY way to bring this about. Even is the vote is vetoed, atleast the record will reflect the will of the American voter.

Bush cannot veto a funding bill that does not pass congress. this time it's the congress that has the veto pen. by not passing the funding request for the war they have a veto. Bush cannot over ride that veto.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 3:56pm
Sorry, but Obama is just a show. Outline here what he has to offer. You will see it is just tough talking.

Tom Tancredo is the man. If Tancredo simply could campaign on economy, alternative fuel resources and Iraq war, he could turn out to be a viable candidate.

Hillary Clinton is what America needs to be bring this country to its knees.

Posted by Marlon at 01/16/2007 @ 3:56pm
Unfortunately for this Illinois voter and former Obama fan, I am not happy about his decision to run for President in '08. His short voting record does not live up to his campaign rhetoric. His stance on funding or not defunding Bush's latest troop increase dumbfounds me. American voters, myself included, thought we sent a strong message to Congress on November 7 to end the Iraq war. Defunding by Congress is the ONLY way to bring this about. Even is the vote is vetoed, atleast the record will reflect the will of the American voter. I am deeply disappointed with Obama's lack of courage of his convictions. I'll be voting and campaigning for John Edwards for '08. Sincerely, Yvette Farris, Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, UNITE HERE

Posted by YFARRIS 01/16/2007 @ 2:56pm

This illuminates the substance of the problem with some Democrats:

John Edwards had a hard time getting through yesterday's anti-surge speech at Harlem's Riverside Church, repeatedly interrupted by cheering from the pews.

But his stiffest words were for his former Congressional colleagues: "Congress must step up NOW and stop this president from putting more troops in harm's way. Silence is betrayal! Speak out, and stop this escalation NOW, Congress. You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war - use it!''

And Senator Clinton's campaign team seemed to think she resembled these remarks; after the speech, one of her closest advisers, Howard Wolfson, complained to The New York Times that "In 2004 John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign. Today, he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration's Iraq policy.''

http://tinyurl.com/y48bn5

Hey, Howard Wolfson, you dumbass, the problem is you aren't fighting the administration's Iraq policy when the American people told you loud and clear that's what they want. If only people like you could oppose the most damaging Presidency in American history as vociferously as you whine about being "attacked", as you put it.

The Democratic Party elite is approaching an ever greater degree of worthlessness as all of America watches and the results are going to be very interesting.

Posted by fromredbird at 01/16/2007 @ 3:57pm
a stirring speech at Riverside church, THE peace church in NYC, which is in New York state, by the NY senator? no, by the exsenator from Carolina. smooth, Hillary, smooth.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 4:03pm
Hmm. Do we really want a pretty face charmingly spouting populist rhetoric while backing racist, imperialist policies? Who sees "both sides" of the issues -- i.e. Republican and Democratic sides -- while conveniently leaving out the deeper analysis available in the alternative/left press?

Don't let his charm fool you. His policies are solidly mainstream -- with a hearty love for power and especially US power over the rest of the world. Don't forget that intelligence can be used for evil, too.

He has supported war on Iran. And he voted...

- against censure of Bush

- to stop filibuster of conservative Supreme Court nominee Alito

- for extension of USA/Patriot ACT

- to confirm Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State

- for the anti-immigrant border wall

- for class action lawsuit "reform" -- i.e. giveaway to corporations -- despite overwhelming Democratic opposition

- for Bill Frist's bill lauding Israel's attack on Lebanon

He abandoned...

- Murtha in the vote to get out pf Iraq

- Dick Durbin when he compared Guantanamo torture to Nazi & Stalinist prison camps

- Cynthia McKinney when racial profiled by Capitol police

Obama has been for a while now part of the chorus advancing the march towards war with Iran. Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"

He further stated, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over." And he has been weak and inconsistent in his opposition to the Iraq war.

He is also happy to join in immigrant-bashing -- his own website says "Senator Obama shares the growing public concern about illegal immigration in the United States. The challenge facing President Bush and Congress is how to effectively stop the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders."

He accepted Lieberman as his mentor (actually, Lieberman says Obama chose him), and stumped for him during the primary.

See the following article...

http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/608/608_04_Obama.shtml

and more...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04242006.html

He is not a friend, but a wolf in sheep's clothing. Of course, he is one of many in his party, but he is a particularly charismatic -- and thus dangerous -- one.

As Eric Ruder wrote back in 2004, just after Obama's acceptability to the Democratic establishment showed in his invitation to speak to the convention:

"No wonder Democratic Party officials are thrilled about Obama. With his liberal credentials and ability to appeal to a range of audiences, he can sell the kind of victim-blaming rhetoric and conservative policy proposals that establishment Democrats can't."

And it's no wonder even some conservatives have endorsed him (e.g. David Brooks in the New York Times) -- they would love to have a charismatic black liberal help save right-wing programs, even if it means backing a Democrat. The policies are more important than the party, after all -- as long as it's a corporate-funded party...

Posted by kevinsneel at 01/16/2007 @ 4:21pm
and will use them to disarm his critics, but once in office will reveal is true progressive self (we hope).----Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2007 @ 2:20pm

He is not a friend, but a wolf in sheep's clothing.----Posted by KEVINSNEEL 01/16/2007 @ 4:21pm

Gee, WHO to believe about Obama?!?!?!!?.....LOL!

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 4:46pm
and will use them to disarm his critics, but once in office will reveal is true progressive self (we hope).----Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2007 @ 2:20pm

He is not a friend, but a wolf in sheep's clothing.----Posted by KEVINSNEEL 01/16/2007 @ 4:21pm and will use them to disarm his critics, but once in office will reveal is true progressive self (we hope).----Posted by BLUETEXAN 01/16/2007 @ 2:20pm ... He is not a friend, but a wolf in sheep's clothing.----Posted by KEVINSNEEL 01/16/2007 @ 4:21pm ...

Gee, WHO to believe about Obama?!?!?!!?.....LOL! Posted by MASK 01/16/2007 @ 4:46pm

How about we look at what the guy had actually done?

As for shifting left... Since when has a Democrat moved left in office? Clinton/Gore? How about NAFTA, welfare reform, and sanctions on Iraq? Jimmy Carter? What about support of Suharto in Indonesia and the Shah of Iran and defunding f abortion? Kennedy & Johnson? Have you heard of Vietnam?

No, this is a party dominated by corporate money. And no product is ever better than advertised!!

Posted by kevinsneel at 01/16/2007 @ 5:02pm
Yes, Darladoon, F... Bush and thank you Kevinsneel for reminding us just how revolutionary democracy can and should be to best serve "we the people."

Posted by lewwelge at 01/16/2007 @ 5:23pm
What does Obama actually OFFER?

Posted by ZERO 01/16/2007 @ 1:13pm | ignore this person

Charisma.

Posted by cliffy at 01/16/2007 @ 5:42pm
Charisma.

Posted by CLIFFY 01/16/2007 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person

a very limited benefit.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 5:46pm
He takes safe votes.

He hasn't enough experience.

He's just a show.

Don't let the charm fool you. He's mainstream.

Well, at least no one said that Barack Obama doesn't deserve to be president because he's black. Then I might have gotten mad.

(Although, seeing all of you hold him to a much higher standard than you hold the current Jackass in Chief or suggesting that he serve as a running mate to someone (Edwards, Gore, Clinton) whose ass he could kick has come real close to pissing me off.)

I think that I understand now why some folks that would have really made good presidents, Mario Cuomo being the best example, decided instead to take a pass. Between having to have just the right pedigree and having to raise the money to run, trying to be president must be a major league pain in the ass.

Especially if your goal is to please progressives, oops, I meant liberals. I love you. In fact, I consider myself one of you. But sometimes, I think that your trend toward ideological litmus tests is exactly why we've had nearly eight years of George W. Bush, his unending war, and his other disastrous policies. Isn't that the same thing that you chide Republicans for?

And in case you're wondering, yes, I am talking about Ralph Nader in 2000.

Progressives have no one but themselves to blame for the Nader debacle and now you're trying real hard to ensure that you, and by extension the country, take it on the chin again. I think that if anyone took any time to read either of Obama's books, you'd find that he has a lot of good ideas and some of them might even be, well, progressive enough for you.

But I hope that he doesn't run in 2008, mostly because I think that Democrats (and, unfortunately, progressives) will do as much to make sure that he doesn't win as conservative Republicans will. You can't help yourselves.

But look at it this way, if you keep playing around and another Republican ends up occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, The Nation will be in the black. I did a paper on the subject of alternative newsweeklies for a graduate school class and found that The Nation's subscriptions have doubled during the time that Bush has been in office while subscriptions for the National Review went down. Depending on which side of the fence you're on, the magazines that encourage you to bitch do well when you're out of power.

I'd rather see National Review experience a subscription upsurge than see another four years of Republican rule. How about you?

Posted by edwriter at 01/16/2007 @ 5:51pm
"ideological litmus tests" Posted by EDWRITER 01/16/2007 @ 5:51pm

If you call supporting immigrant rights and opposing US imperial aggression against Iran, if you call supporting workers' rights against those of corporations... if you call those "litmus tests," then I proudly stand on the side of litmus tests. Not on the side of people who will bomb Iran and contribute to immigrant-bashing. Which side do you stand on?

As for who to blame for Bush -- how about the Senate Democrats that failed to investigate the Bush victory, and that refused to filibuster Bush's policies? How about the Gore campaign that dropped lawsuits in the name of "national unity?" How about the party that votes for Bush's policies while asking to be supported because they're not Bush?

I AM against Bush. I protested him even BEFORE he was elected. But I am against everything he stands for -- and that includes everyone who stands for the same basic things. And on the great majority of core values and policies, that includes virtually all the politicians in both major parties.

We will continue to slide backward in this country until we reject the idea that lesser evilism is more important than principle. I want to see progress toward heaven -- not a slower slide into hell.

Posted by kevinsneel at 01/16/2007 @ 6:09pm
But look at it this way, if you keep playing around and another Republican ends up occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, The Nation will be in the black. I did a paper on the subject of alternative newsweeklies for a graduate school class and found that The Nation's subscriptions have doubled during the time that Bush has been in office while subscriptions for the National Review went down. Depending on which side of the fence you're on, the magazines that encourage you to bitch do well when you're out of power.

I'd rather see National Review experience a subscription upsurge than see another four years of Republican rule. How about you?

Posted by EDWRITER 01/16/2007 @ 5:51pm

You of all people should be able to recognize that the writing craft of The Nation simply outclass National Review.

Any data on which magazines gained readership before Bush got elected? Like Mad Magazine for example?

Posted by fromredbird at 01/16/2007 @ 6:13pm
Obama doesn't have a chance.

Just watch this speech given by John Edwards yesterday [youtube.com]. He's seven parts JFK and one part Jimmy Carter.

Hillary Clinton's campaign advisors saw it and they are apparently beginning to panic.

Posted by Linette at 01/16/2007 @ 6:23pm
zero, pretty funny you complaining about someone being a racist. maybe he just thinks there are "flaws" in non-white cultures. kinda like you.

and edwriter is female. so you better hurry and click ignore now.

Posted by loveloki at 01/16/2007 @ 9:29pm
You of all people should be able to recognize that the writing craft of The Nation simply outclass National Review.

Posted by FROMREDBIRD

Red, I can only say that the Nation has a better website than NR...but judging by the quality of the content, NR rules...... spoken as a 15 year+ subscriber to NR...........Not that I expect you to agree, but tell me, how many issues of NR have you ever read?

Posted by davebarlett at 01/16/2007 @ 9:30pm
edwriter, i'm going to have to agree with zero on this. no way in hell am i going to vote for someone who does not oppose this quagmire.

i don't know where you get the idea that we're not holding the thug president to as high a standard as obama. most of us here would like to see the rotten bastard tried and hanged for his actions. i don't think anyone here wants to see obama hanged.

Posted by loveloki at 01/16/2007 @ 9:33pm
But back to the subject of Obama, reminds me of Gary (New Ideas)Hart, who looked good, spoke well, and ran hard, but when Walter Mondale so cuttingly asked, "Where's the Beef?" people woke up and realized that he was short on substance. That was before his "monkey business" in Bimini was exposed by my hometown paper, the Miami Herald.

I don't live in Illinois,(Nor am I a democrat, as regular bloggers know) but if I did I'd probably not be inclined to vote again for a senator who ran for president after only 2 years of non-achievement...Not that I can't understand that Obama let the rock-star treatment go to his head...maybe he's angling for the VP slot, but he'd still only be window dressing on the ticket.......

Posted by davebarlett at 01/16/2007 @ 9:44pm
Oh, stop fussing y'all!! We'll get somebody's governor in the WH....he,he,he..

Posted by ACook at 01/16/2007 @ 9:45pm
Obama will be a much stronger candidate after spending eight years as Al Gore's vice president.The Gore/ Obama ticket is the strongest the party can muster. Al Gore can win again.

Posted by c. perry at 01/16/2007 @ 10:11pm
I noticed DARLADOON's defenses of Obama dried up...

when LIBERALS started to attack him!

Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 10:22pm
Barack Obama is a Senator, a lawyer, a professor and a father. Only by returning to the principles that gave birth to our Constitution, he says, can Americans repair a political process that is broken, and restore to working order a government that has fallen dangerously out of touch with millions of ordinary Americans. Those Americans are out there, he writes–"waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them."

I am one of those waiting Americans and I am absolutely electrified that our time has finally come. Barack Obama's time has come. America's time has come. To make it all work we need to get Barack Obama into the White House as soon as that damn Texas idiot goes home.

Posted by thomasdunn at 01/16/2007 @ 11:53pm
Obama's lack of experience in government may actually be an asset. He's had less time for the system to corrupt him.

Posted by robgo2 at 01/17/2007 @ 12:14am
www.draftgore.com

Obama is a positive new voice and i can see a VP spot but as president? Al Gore needs to be pulled into this and we have plenty of time. I think that starting this early with so many important things going on in congress is counter productive. I do think that Obama deserves credit for putting himself out there and taking the flack from the rabid media that we have. I think that because of that he will have earned the right to be VP. Especially if he articulates a positive democratic message. America needs good people who are willing to run for office and I tip my hat to him.

I think Hillary assumes too much. the nepotism in her end of the party is destructive. It is third world politics to allow that kind of resume, much like Bush.

Gore should certainly be in the running but he should wait til the last possible moment to enter. Until the primaries are here this is all academic.

Posted by there ya go at 01/17/2007 @ 01:37am
"We as a nation are still too dumb to elect blacks, women, or people with funny sounding names."

Like Abe Lincoln ? Millard Filmore? Chester Arthur ? Grover Cleveland..twice ? James polk ?

which names do you mean?

Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2007 @ 02:04am
I, for one, am praying ALGORE enters the race..He alone can save the republicans , with the help of those on this site, from themselves.

Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2007 @ 02:05am
We as a nation are still too dumb to elect blacks, women, or people with funny sounding names.

Posted by MADLIB 01/16/2007 @ 11:37pm

You mean like a BLACK WOMAN with the name "CONDOLEEZZA"?!!??!?

Careful now with your response. Accuse the "evil right wing bigots" of NOT voting for Rice and you undercut the whole "She's part of the evil cabal and neo-cons love her" thing. Say they would vote for her, and you undercut your "evil right wing bigots" would never vote for a black or a woman or both!

Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 08:54am
To the Tancredo supporter above: the man is one of the most notorious racist bigots in the national government and he will not be running for (or, thankfully, winning) the presidency anytime soon.

Actually, he's the only one willing to enforce EXISTING immigration laws, which is a main duty of the Presidency.

If you want some bi-partisanship towards impeachment of Bush from Republicans, then there's your issue. But since Democrats are too stupid to rise above the hollow platitudes of "helping" minorities and need more "victims" to illustrate the differences between the parties, its so much easier (lazy) to paint someone as a racist than to actually uphold our Constitution.

So Democrats platform is:

If you want to uphold existing immigration legislation, you're just a bigoted racist that deserves to be shunned.

If you wage a war that has been authorized with bipartisan support by all legal means, then you're a traitor.

--Keep trotting that out, and you'll lose every time.

Posted by Sliver at 01/17/2007 @ 08:59am
--Keep trotting that out, and you'll lose every time.

Posted by SLIVER 01/17/2007 @ 08:59am | ignore this person

except of course the last election. and the next one.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 09:02am
He's had less time for the system to corrupt him.

Posted by ROBGO2 01/17/2007 @ 12:14am | ignore this person

it is not the system that corrupts an individual, it is individuals who corrupt the system.

Obama has two years to show what he is made of. as of now he is a cypther.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 09:05am
cypher

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 09:05am
I agree with the last comment by MASK. Obama needs to get to some specifics. What does he really stand for.

Posted by Tgasloli at 01/17/2007 @ 09:13am
Obama for prez.? What does he have save his skin?

Posted by HelenDAO at 01/17/2007 @ 09:14am
Jesus H. Christ, Mask, Maasch, and all you dissembling provocateurs . . . go back to whatever Neo Con slime pit you crawled out of and sit on it already. Actually, don't, since I enjoy Darladoon ripping you new ones. People, don't get pulled into supposed "debates" and "arguments" these geniuses posit to you. They open their anuses and spew out their flattulence simply to instigate, obfuscate, and choke you on the stench of their souls. How's that for trolling?

Posted by tensity1 at 01/17/2007 @ 09:18am
Obama for prez.? What does he have save his skin?

Posted by HELENDAO 01/17/2007 @ 09:14am | ignore this person

he is a US senator, a somewhat exclusive club. he was elected by the people of his state, a not insignificant accomplishment.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 09:18am
except of course the last election. and the next one.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/17/2007 @ 09:02am

Interesting that you're not debating or debunking my premise, but would rather point to the scoreboard which looks to be pretty even right now, save for the Executive office.

he is a US senator, a somewhat exclusive club. he was elected by the people of his state, a not insignificant accomplishment.

Which qualifies him to be exactly 1% of a consensus. Not exactly inspiring towards a leadership position. He's gonna have to come with more than that. Ethnicity, 2 years experience in a committee and speaking well aren't gonna cut it.

Posted by Sliver at 01/17/2007 @ 09:32am
Interesting that you're not debating or debunking my premise, but would rather point to the scoreboard which looks to be pretty even right now, save for the Executive office.

I just piked the most absurd of an absurd post. keep deluding yourself about an even scoreboard. congress is in the hands of dems, the white house will follow.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 09:44am
I rest my case, JR since you've proven my point. Its always about style over substance.

Posted by Sliver at 01/17/2007 @ 09:53am
Posted by TENSITY1 01/17/2007 @ 09:18am

Curious...speaking of Obama and his lack of them, do you have ANY specifics on why I'm a "neo-con"?

or what is "dissembling" about me saying almost the exact same thing as many of the liberal posters here about Obama???!???!!

Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 10:07am
Posted by SLIVER 01/17/2007 @ 09:53am | ignore this person

in your dreams.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 10:23am
I, for one, am praying ALGORE enters the race..He alone can save the republicans , with the help of those on this site, from themselves.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

Mashy, dittos (heh, heh)

Posted by davebarlett at 01/17/2007 @ 11:11am
Obama has been getting lavish news media ever since the Democratic Party elite anointed him at the convention- and surely, this only happened because he shook hands on a corporate agenda. That, and his ability to make superficial Democrats go gaga regardless of his inexperience, nondescript corporate-oriented voting record, and refusal to forthrightly oppose the Bush administration's crazed sturm und drang, are his two primary talents.

Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 11:35am
And the "they're-just-going-to-fake-their-way-into-office-and-then-turn-on-the-r ight" theorists here are absolutely hilarious. Save it, already, with the bizarre excuses.

Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 11:39am
John Edwards could 'smoke' Obama at any time. I agree.

To Dr. Zero on my Tancredo support: Can you show us why you Tom Tancredo is a racist?

If you are talking about his stance on illegal immigration, that has nothing to do with racism in spite of what you and others try to convey.

Posted by Marlon at 01/17/2007 @ 11:55am
Posted by MARLON 01/17/2007 @ 11:55am | ignore this person

I don't know if Tancredo is a racist. what I do know is that the immigration "problem" is a political and economic one, and not merely a law enforcement one. Tancredo is a demagogue, who hopes to ride this issue to prominence.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 12:03pm
What I think is going to happen: Obama doesn't have a chance. Hillary will probably lose to John Edwards.

Tom Tancredo has too much opposition against him. Therefore the only choice left:John Edwards. Write this down:John will be your President in 2008.

Posted by Marlon at 01/17/2007 @ 12:22pm
Posted by MARLON 01/17/2007 @ 12:22am | ignore this person

you're not exactly making a case for your pronouncements. try it sometime.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 12:30pm
One more thing: Tom Tancredo is not fighting for law enforcement only when it comes to immigration. Uncontrolled immigration is the most serious problem in America today. I am not campaigning for Tom Tancredo. I just urge you to keep an open mind and read his proposals.

Posted by Marlon at 01/17/2007 @ 12:35pm
To Dr. Zero on my Tancredo support: Can you show us why you Tom Tancredo is a racist?

If you are talking about his stance on illegal immigration, that has nothing to do with racism in spite of what you and others try to convey.

Posted by MARLON 01/17/2007 @ 11:55am

Millions of racists can't be wrong when they say racism has nothing to do with it?

Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:39pm
Posted by MARLON 01/17/2007 @ 12:35am | ignore this person

you are welcome to lay out a position, yours or Tancredo's. you have not done so.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 12:40pm
FromRedBird, it remains; show me how he has been racist. Can you actually show us?

Posted by Marlon at 01/17/2007 @ 12:41pm
JOHANNESROLF, I agree I haven't made a case for my statements toward Obama. It is because there is not a lot to say. The man just keep venting his frustrations and saying cliches. Just watch his interviews.

Posted by Marlon at 01/17/2007 @ 12:43pm
Posted by MARLON 01/17/2007 @ 12:43am | ignore this person

you misunderstood me. I thought you were speaking about the immigration issue. in any case, I and surely many others will be glad to debate you, when you actually state your views.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 12:52pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/17/2007 @ 11:35am

That's wild....FRB is now one of us "dissembling provocateurs from the Neo-con slime-pit"?!?!??!?!?!?!?! (Posted by TENSITY1 01/17/2007 @ 09:18am)

Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 1:38pm
Wow!

I can see that I really dropped a stink bomb into the dinner party with my last post. If I didn't know better, I'd think that Zero and Kevinsneel were ready to send the deprogrammers here to Philly to get my "DLC bias" taken care of.

Of course, anyone who truly knows me would laugh until they had an accident at the contention that I have a pro-DLC bent. I'm just a practical progressive, something that most African Americans are. We're a little too broke, and still too marginalized to be anything else.

I'll start with the easy question first, which came from Fromredbird. I don't know how Mad Magazine's subscription rate has gone since Bush has been president. But I'm assuming that it's gone really well because comedy itself has done well during his term. Comedy clubs that went silent in the 80s and 90s are making a comeback. Bush is a fountain of material.

And yes, much of the writing in The Nation is top knotch. But some of it is no great shakes. I've been a subscriber to The Nation for years because it provides me with information that I can't always get from the other news sources that I take in, but I also think that of late it's practiced some of the same demonization that National Review does when it comes to the left.

Which brings me to National Review. I had to read several editions of the magazine for my paper and found that while some of the stuff was informative, much of it was warmed over news and snarkiness that tried to pass for biting commentary. But I have to say, the magazine's website was a visual masterpiece. I'm guessing that there's where most of the advertising budget goes. It certainly doesn't go on layout.

As for the actual topic of this thread, whether or not Barack Obama should be president, I still stand by my contention that he shouldn't try to run because he'll get attacked as much by the left as he would the right, if not moreso.

I guess I should address the bulk of my next remarks to Zero, especially since he's all but called me a shill for the DLC (again, my friends would need Depends after hearing that one.)

Now Zero, I would never even think of telling you or anyone else whom to support. But I've gotta say, I'm also more than a little offended that you think I'm stupid enough to say "vote Democratic or else."

First of all, I'm black. When you're black in this country and have even a little gray matter working for you, the first thing that you're taught by anyone you know politically is "We have no permanent friends. We have no permanent enemies. We only have permanent interests." I'm going to vote for whom supports my interests.

Because most of those friends of mine who would be engaged in side-splitting laughter at your "DLC shill" contention are also political operatives, it's a lesson that I've learned very well.

Since I don't know where you're getting your information that Obama, a man who began his career in politics as a grass-roots activist in Chicago's South Side, is against Immigrant rights or for a war in Iran (seeing as he voted against the war in Iraq, I'm guessing he's not) I can't question your source.

But I can say that you're practicing some serious hyperbole by saying he's a "Joe Leiberman type." I've talked to the man and considering that I filter out liars for a living, I'd have picked that up if it was there.

I also have to say that you've proven my point in regard to the higher standard (and the condecending tone that goes with it) that you and others have set when it comes to an Obama candidacy. The first thing that pops out of your mouth is "lack of experience." The current White House is filled with experience. How well is that working out?

I've gotta say, man. I'm really disappointed in you, Zero. You're entitled to your opinion and i'm really glad that you've got one and are willing to share it. But it's obvious to me that this must have been the only post of mine that you've ever really read and I've been contributing to various Nation forums for a while.

While I believe that Obama could stand to stay in the Senate for another few years, I also believe that it's his right to research his options in this matter.

But because I'm that nasty combination of pragmatic and black, I know he won't even make it out of the primary if he does. DLC folks won't embrace him because they want pro-business, pro-war (and pretty damned disappointing if you ask me) Hillary Clinton as the nominee and folks like you won't embrace him because he's not calling for the execution by hanging of George W. Bush.

In fact, after writing that sentence, I see your problem with Barack Obama. He understands that the only way this country is going to work is by all of us working together and trying to cooperate with each other.

And I got that from talking to him....something I don't see you trying to do for some reason.

Posted by edwriter at 01/17/2007 @ 2:00pm
And yes, much of the writing in The Nation is top knotch.

Knotch?

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 2:08pm
There will be a lot of discussion about how he must compete with Clinton, but that's not the challenge."

He should figure out what it is that he brings to the tsble at all. He has no experience in anything except being a civil rights lawyer...that may appeal to certain groups and the fact he is against the war will appeal to another...but main stream America?

I don't see it..no depth....Hillary brings a lot to the table, both good and bad...but Obama brings....?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/16/2007 @ 12:45am | ignore this person

What did this moron we now suffer as president bring to the table? Dodged the war, failed businesses, alcoholism, drug abuse...

Posted by mtspence05 at 01/17/2007 @ 2:24pm
What does Obama actually OFFER?

He's black. That's the hype, the story. If the man did not have an African father he would not garner all this attention.

He showed his true colors (no pun intended) when he signed off on that credit card bill.

Posted by mtspence05 at 01/17/2007 @ 2:27pm
Obama is a work in progress. He is getting pressure from mainstream Dems to toe the line on the war and economic issues, but he is not in their pockets as yet. A healthy dialogue with the grassroots could bring us a candidate worth working for; trashing him for not being our ideal candidate will be largely a waste of time. As much as I agree with Kucinich on many of his positions, he pretty much proved in the last election that not only is he unelectable, but he is incapable of drawing enough votes in the primaries to have an effect on the national debate. The Hillary alternatives look to be Obama and Edwards, so, as John Nichols suggests, Obama needs to demonstrate that he is different (and better, and more progressive) than Edwards to have a chance. Fighting Hillary for the middle of the road is a losing battle.

Posted by fromage at 01/17/2007 @ 2:28pm
A war hawk! Are you kidding me? He is the only contender for 08 that I can think of that showed strong support AGAINST the Iraq war to begin with - even calling it a "stupid war" - which it turned out to be. What does Obama have to offer? He can bring back those stolen by the right because they feel the left lacks any substance or depth - he's not afraid to talk about God, which may scare some people but until we (i.e. liberals) remember that the majority of Americans do believe in God and that its okay to have a moral compass, we'll continue to lose Christians who feel they have no place in our party. Read "The Left Hand of God" and "God's Politics." Lastly, he would restore honesty. I, for one, would be thrilled to have a president who beyond being astonishly smart and intutitive was also honest, unafraid to admit to his flaws, to say what he has learned from his mistakes, etc. It would be a breath of fresh air from the current regime who claims to NEVER make mistakes!

Posted by LiberalMamaII at 01/17/2007 @ 2:32pm
I'm a Joe Biden supporter but with his crusty ways I will be surprised if he makes it past the 3rd hurtle.

But, Obama has Oprah shouting his praises (on the Larry King Show). The silent non-voting women may just hop in their SUV's in sync, and vote for Oprah's choice!

Posted by fjanata at 01/17/2007 @ 2:33pm
""We as a nation are still too dumb to elect blacks, women, or people with funny sounding names."

Like Abe Lincoln ? Millard Filmore? Chester Arthur ? Grover Cleveland..twice ? James polk ?

which names do you mean?"

Those names weren't "funny sounding" at the time. I don't think James Polk was or is. I think what that person meant is that in this day, especially, we are so anti-foreigners we would never elect someone with a name that sounds foreign or ethnic. I think he's wrong, I think Obama should and will win!

Posted by LiberalMamaII at 01/17/2007 @ 2:37pm
we are so anti-foreigners we would never elect someone with a name that sounds foreign or ethnic.

Posted by LIBERALMAMAII 01/17/2007 @ 2:37pm

You mean Irish sounding like "Reagan" or "Kennedy"....or German sounding like "Eisenhower" or "Roosevelt"?

Oh, and since you think Obama "should" win....can YOU give us some SPECIFIC political solutions that he endorses?

Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 2:44pm
How about instead of negating (an annoying habit of progressives) candidates for what "I haven't heard what they offer.", go out and actually read their books, go to their web site to see first hand what their plans might be. It's not about hearing, it's about gathering information. What are we...13 year olds? Do you need a class on each candidate so you can "hear"? Do some research and then have an intelligent argument.

The "trends" argument is crazy making...Bush ran 7 companies into the ground before he was elected and it didn't stop him from taking the presidency. I would like to know (actually already do) wether or not Clinton, Dean, Obama, or McCain belong to a Freemason associated "secret society." The last one who didn't was Kennedy and he was assasinated. Hummm...

Posted by bartja at 01/17/2007 @ 2:52pm
"Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend."

Obama's entry into the race for the Democratic Party's nomination may, just may, help to spur the kinds of discussions about political matters that ordinary people need to have in order for substantive change to take place. The Democrats are not a command and control party and when they attempt to emulate the Republicans by acting like one they get presidential candidates like John Kerry and Al Gore (who has since seen the errors of his presidential campaign).

What Democrats need to do is to create the sort of populist political momentum that works to wrest the nation's political agenda from the pundits encircled by Interstate 395. Candidates like Edwards and Obama can only successfully compete against command and control Democrats like Hilary Clinton if they base their appeals to the party's base.

Posted by ptcruiser at 01/17/2007 @ 2:53pm
I would like to know (actually already do) wether or not Clinton, Dean, Obama, or McCain belong to a Freemason associated "secret society." The last one who didn't was Kennedy and he was assasinated. Hummm...

Posted by BARTJA 01/17/2007 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person

I know what let's do. let's form an anti masonic party.

that actually has already happened a while ago. wasn't a big hit.

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 3:07pm
Obama has the charisma and national appeal, which Clinton and Edwards lack. He promises a clean break with the divisive politics of the past and a fresh start on dealing with the nation's problems. The Democratic need to take the presidency in 2008 will drive the party to a candidate with the broad national appeal and recognition that Obama has. Money he can get, and he has an experienced team of advisors on board already. As president he would be smart enough to surround himself with good people. The competition will be interesting. Lyle Sykora Lanark, IL

Posted by dog at 01/17/2007 @ 3:46pm
"As president he would be smart enough to surround himself with good people."

that's what they said about Bush

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 3:49pm
I used to like Obama, but after his vote for the border fence on September 29, he will not have my vote.

Posted by Alberto at 01/17/2007 @ 3:56pm
I was talking about the dumbasses who comprise a large contingent of this country who wouldn't dare see a black female president, or female president, or black president, etc. etc.

Posted by MADLIB 01/17/2007 @ 2:11pm

My bad...didnt realize it was a "Most Americans are dumbasses" standard liberal rationale.

Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 3:58pm
that's what they said about Bush

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/17/2007 @ 3:49pm

is that the second or THIRD comparison of Obama and Bush?!?!?!?

hehe

Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 3:58pm
okay, so I mispelled a word.

Does that negate my point?

Posted by edwriter at 01/17/2007 @ 4:01pm
Barack Obama, this country needs more experienced politicians for the damage we have incurred. Charisma is not a qualification.

Posted by RossE at 01/17/2007 @ 4:13pm
Obama is the Republican Party's trojan horse! Middle of the road, ‘undecided's are repelled by him, and the Republicans know it. To say he can't win is missing the point. Democrats love an underdog, and the Republicans know that too. He is too inexperienced, it's true - even if he does seem to say all the right things. As diabolically simplistic as it sounds, what really makes Obama's eclipse of the Democratic field so crippling is that his name rhymes with Osama and his middle name is Hussein. Uneducated voters are afraid of things what even SOUND Islamicistic! Add to that the redneck undecided voters' unspoken (often secret) disdain for a man with a mixed race background. And hey - the REPUBLICANS just LOVE this guy! How how HOW did Barak seem to COME from out of nowhere? The Republican dominated mainstream media has THRUST Obama into national prominence - giving him free air time and asking his persective on absolutley everything. Barak being human just loves his own press, and can't help but soak it up. He is playing right into the Repub.'s hands. As Obama repels the political middle, many who might have voted Democrat will either go Republican or just not vote. Obama helps seal the Republicans taking the White House in ‘08. Wake up Democrats! Step aside Barak, and defer to your senior Democrats.

Posted by DavePortland at 01/17/2007 @ 4:34pm
okay, so I mispelled a word.

Does that negate my point?

Posted by EDWRITER 01/17/2007 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person

not at all. it was just very creative spelling, got any more like that?

Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 4:39pm
"Obama has the charisma and national appeal, which Clinton and Edwards lack. He promises a clean break with the divisive politics of the past and a fresh start on dealing with the nation's problems. The Democratic need to take the presidency in 2008 will drive the party to a candidate "

Come on. Both Edwards and Clinton can deliver all the charisma that they want, as much as Obama does. The point here is that I think people will look more than charisma in this election. Believe me.

Posted by Marlon at 01/17/2007 @ 5:10pm
I'm intrigued. I'll be curious to see how his campaign proceeds. Here's what I like about him: 1) He doesn't have a lot of history as a politician, but what he does have shows an ability to work with both sides. This will be a disadvantage in the primary but a plus if he gets elected. No matter what Congress looks like in 2008, I want a Democratic president who can work with Republicans. No, I haven't always agreed with how he's voted on various issues but I appreciate that he doesn't just follow the Democratic "party line" without thinking about it. 2) After six years of a president who thumbs his nose at the constitution, I like the idea of a president whose area of expertise is constitutional law! 3) Charisma DOES count! Right now our national reputation is in the toilet. We're going to need all the international good will we can get to dig out of the hole Bush has gotten us into and a charismatic president will be much more able to garner that good will.

I haven't made up my mind yet, but I'm sure not writing him off!

Posted by Tori58 at 01/17/2007 @ 6:11pm
I am really enjoying hearing the muffled voice of mask coming from the ignore closet and it also amusing to read the replies, some of them quite humorous.

Joseph

Posted by outsideag at 01/17/2007 @ 6:52pm
He isn't hooked up, he doesn't owe big money interests, and that alone makes him very, very appealing.

Posted by hrrtfs at 01/18/2007 @ 12:39pm
dear editor, why should obama fair better than jesse jackson and martin luther king ? while india, bangaldesh, pakistan,israel, UK, phillipines, sri lanka and other contries have had women presidents/prime-ministers, head of a political party for over fifty years, USA is still discussing black and woman. With his muslim, middle name, hussain, obama does not stand any chance. It is just the hollywood style of show biz politics to show to the world that black and minorities have a voice in US democratic process, like a black phone operator at the front desk in a fortune 500 company. Obama should hide for years in senate or elsewhere, before thinking of doing any thing big. He needs more experience and more acceptance, than he has now. arun misra

Posted by misrausa at 01/18/2007 @ 3:07pm