Obama running - a huge mistake, IMHO

[Hawkeye-X]

I hate to throw in another Obama thread, but I think Obama is not just experienced enough to run for President. I know he's a very popular politician, but he filed way too early, in my opinion, to run for President. Let him a have a truly stellar career as a Senator then he can try running.

Plus, most Senators don't have the ability to win presidential races because they have to defend their own voting records which are public against MSM, other contenders, etc. I just don't think Senators are truly a good candidates for President, imho.

I'd rather look for governors, experienced VP's (Hey, Gore!) and retired Senators (Edwards) - They carry the experience, plus they can govern.

You may shoot me down if you wish.

Hawkeye-X

[Nickster]

1. I'm not sure he's the best candidate either, but how can you say that he needs more

experience as a Senator before he runs and then say that anyone with a Senate record would have a terrible time getting elected and then mention someone like Edwards who has a pretty sparse Senate record as well?

[Hawkeye-X]

4. Well, for one thing, Edwards left the Senate

and has travelled all over the country on his own time (spent 3 years), listened to the people, and formed opinions based on this. That's why I am willing to consider Edwards because he does take the time to listen to the people all over the country.

Obama represents Illinois and barely has time to listen to people and form opinions based on the feedback.

[Nickster]

12. That's all well and good, but Edwards has little experience in foreign policy which as you can

see by the current mis-administration makes a huge difference both domestically and internationally. Being in touch with the people is a good thing, but I don't think it makes him ready to lead yet.

I don't think either Edwards or Obama would make an ideal candidate just yet. Either would be WAY better than what we have now, most certainly. I'd be behind either of them getting the VP slot.

I'm still waiting, I haven't seen my ideal candidate yet. Assuming that Gore isn't running this time around.

[On the Road]

41. Foreign Policy Experience Does Not Seem to Limit a President

FDR, Carter, Clinton -- none of these had significant foreign policy experience before inauguration.

What does disturb me about Edwards is that even during the 2004 campaign, he seemed to be in agreement with Bush on Iraq, to the point where he sounded as if he would do the same thing in the same situation.

All of which makes me take less seriously any criticisms Edwards comes out with now. I do like Edwards in many other ways, but this is a big reservation.

[Nickster]

43. True, but in these times we are going to need a Herculean effort to fix all the foreign

policy damage that has been done, so if the candidate isn't bringing that experience then he damn well better be bringing some heavy hitters along with him. We seriously need someone like FDR to dig us out.

[WCGreen]

49. But Barak has been to Hawaii

[BikeWriter]

106. Oh, WC! You are good!

[Bjorn Against]

93. Neither did Bush, and look where that got us

I think that after the disaster of this administration foreign policy experience is going to be a lot more important to voters in future elections. People now realize that our reputation in the world is important, and I think people will want a candidate who is able to regain the respect of the international community.

[question everything]

59. And, Edwards was a trial lawyer before going to the Senate

which means, for one thing, that he is a fighter. He won't take any swift boating lying down. (Kerry did not, eventually).

Obama has only been a teacher and a state Senator, none that requires demonstrating executive skills.

[NYCGirl]

62. Well, Obama wasn't "only a teacher", he was the first African-American president

of the Harvard Law Review, worked for a law firm specializing in civil rights, and then taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

[DemBones DemBones]

82. But he has very limited experience in government and politics,

which will hurt him among voters.

[NYCGirl]

84. So all this isn't enough?

In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate from Chicago's 13th District in the south-side neighborhood of Hyde Park. In January 2003, when Democrats regained control of the chamber, he was named chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.<12> Among his legislative initiatives, Obama helped to author an Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to lower income families, worked for legislation that would support residents who could not afford health insurance, and helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs.<13>

In 2000, Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Rush, a former Black Panther and community activist, charged that Obama had not "been around the first congressional district long enough to really see what's going on".<14> Rush received 61% of the vote to Obama's 30%.<15>

After the loss, Obama focused his efforts on the state Senate, authoring a law requiring police to videotape interrogations for crimes punishable by the death penalty<4> and supporting legislation that required insurance companies to cover routine mammograms.<16><17> He ran unopposed in 2002.

Reviewing Obama's career in the Illinois Senate, commentators noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build coalitions.<18><19> In his subsequent campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose officials cited his "longtime support of gun control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises", despite his support for some bills that the police union had opposed.<20>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#State_legislature

[DemBones DemBones]

110. I'm just saying that with more experience

at the national level, he'll have a better shot at winning.

[Radical Activist]

142. But your statement was a false one.

Obama has extensive experience in politics and government. He wasn't born in 2004. Even before he was elected to office he was a community organizer and ran a massive voter registration drive.

[benEzra]

126. It's his stance on the gun issue that concerns me...

he said some seriously scary things in '04 on the gun issue. He's a brilliant thinker, but he's swallowed some major BS on that one. The "Dems'll take yer guns" meme is FINALLY dying a well-deserved death after the '04 debacle, and I don't want to see it revived.


------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[madmunchie]

131. He has more experience in Government than does Edwards AND

he knew it was wrong to go into Iraq. So if you think that Edwards is (qualified) NOT, Obamma is definetly better qualified. Obamma has a record of WORKING for the the people for the last 9 - 10 years.

[Radical Activist]

141. Because he has other reasons for opposing Obama

(like support for another candidate) and he's grasping at straws to criticize Obama.

[OregonBlue]

Actually I agree. Well put.

[nitpicker]

7. I agree.

2008 probably will prove not to have been a good idea.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. The longer

you are in the senate the less likely you are to win. they will have more votes to use against you. With the Dems in charge he won't have to vote on many polarizing issues. I think it's a great thing. Especially if he can stop the Clintons.

[bigdarryl]

3. The last time i checked to run for President looked like this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Requirements_for_holding_office
President_of_the_United_States

[election_2004]

5. Look on the bright side...

If the fear is that inexperience is a handicap for someone who becomes president, maybe Barack and Hillary will basically drag each other down and cancel each other out in the primaries?

[Inuca]

6. Agree about the lack of experience, BUT

why is an inexperienced ex-senator better than an inexperienced current one?

[Bullet1987]

17. ...

why is an inexperienced ex-senator better than an inexperienced current one?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[venable]

35. well, Edwards experience is exactly double that of Obama

at the point of announcing (4 years v. 2 years)

and he has spent the last couple of years EVERYWHERE around the country, and in many parts of the world, doing serious work.

both Obama and Edwards are a bit greener than, say, Gore, but Edwards does have a definite edge on Obama in the experience rating.

Also, having run in the primaries and the general election is an experience that is meaningful and is shared by very few.

[Inuca]

76. I definitely agree with your last statement

But not with the rest. Well.... I also agree that they are both a bit green, to green IMHO. Talent, intelligence, vision, etc., all these things are very important, but the next president will inherit such a mess, that I think that experience and true maturity is more important than in a long time.

[beaconess]

95. Not really

Obama spent 7 years in the state senate before running for the U.S. Senate. So he's had 10 years of political experience, compared with Edwards' 4 years at the time he began running for president.

Obama also has other extremely valuable experience. He's lived overseas, he worked as a community organizer - no small shakes - this is one of the hardest jobs one can imagine, but also one likely to give one an invaluable view of people, the problems they face and what needs to be done to address them. I would stack up Obama's years as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago against Edwards post-presidential election tour any day.

[bling bling]

107. Obama=9 years experience in government (state+federal). Facts=more convincing argument. Try google

nt

[venable]

122. uh, thanks for the tip, but google not needed

it's not as if I don't know that Obama was in the Illinois State legislature...I am just not putting the same stock in it as some others are.

I know a couple of former US legislators who, for years, dealt intimately with their own state's legislators, and they dismiss (not haughtily, but clearly) the state and local government experience from national. Just a very different animal. I am following their lead.

As for community organizing. That's magnificent work, but again, doesn't set him apart from Edwards and his anti-corporate courtroom work.

As for life experiecne - I give the nod to Edwards, not for his globalism (that goes to Obama), but for his humble origins, his day to day exposure to blue collar struggles.

[madmunchie]

133. Oh please!!!!!!! Read Obamma's book

"As for life experience - I give the nod to Edwards, not for his globalism (that goes to Obama), but for his humble origins, his day to day exposure to blue collar struggles."

How about Clarks "humble beginnings"? His father died when he was a very young boy and his mother was a single working mother for awhile until she remarried

Kucinich - They were so poor that they actually lived in a car.

Don't go on and on about poor boy Edwards, just because (like a car salesman), he has. Again, he is focusing on himself and his humble origins, like he cornered the market on that....

[venable]

134. car salesman is a little rough, don't you think

and of course JE does not have the corner on hard times.

those you mention, and many others do, as well. Clinton, for example

Vilsack, for example.

I just don't think that derogatory comments about someone's biography, and how it plays into who they present themselves as politically, is fair.

[madmunchie]

137. Edwards goes on and on about his and basically has so much

of what he is about wrapped up in his roots. Now normally that isn't bad, but with Edwards, that is his only real message and it really gets to people, the trouble is that so many others came from equal or worse backrounds and THEY have so much more to offer. They don't talk about that one thing over and over and over again. Personally, if I hear, "son of a millworker.." one more time, well I'll vomit!

[madmunchie]

132. Correction: work in Government in an elected polistion - 9 yrs Obamma 6 yrs Edwards

Obamma actually served the people in the office to which he was elected before he went to Washington

Yeah, Edwards has been everywhere in this country working for himself campaigning.....just about as "serious" as Bush saying this his work is "hard"

Nobody disagrees that Edwards has more experience in campaigning...that is WHAT he does...and that is what he will continue to do if he gets in the WH, he will again be busy campaigning for the next 4 years....

[k_jerome]

8. I welcome Obama. nt.

[Lawrence]

9. let's see here, where to begin

Obama's credentials will be in 2009:

seven years in illinois legislature, and 4 years in congress

Abraham Lincoln's:

eight years in the Illinois House and 2 years in Congress



I agree with him on almost every issue and believe he has the highest potential to win of any democratic candidate. Who would you like in his stead? Hillary?


Consider what happened to McCain in 2000- The fresh-faced straight shooter who stood by his word. Eight years later of work in the senat has pretty much turned him into a souless republican party shill. More troops in Iraq? and have you HEARD about his campaign manager?


Now how much do you want to risk

A) Obama getting dragged down in the senate and losing his conviction

and

B) Clinton getting elected and screwing it up for any more democrats for 12 years

[bdamomma]

10. experienced? do you think bush was experienced for this

presidency?

[fuzzyball]

54. And look at where the inexperienced Bush has brought us

with his lack of geo-political expertise. Obama
will likely be equally disasterous. Go with Gore,
Dodd, Bayh, etc instead. I would even go with Hillary
since she benefits from Bill's 8 years in the WH.

[bdamomma]

60. you don't know if Obama would disasterous.

[fuzzyball]

64. I also don't know if I would lose at the horse track

but I prefer not to gamble. I know for sure my money
will be safe at the bank savings account. Just a matter
of how much you want to gamble.

[Doctor_J]

92. Bush is inexperienced and stupid and arrogant

Obama is inexperienced and brilliant and will listen to advice. No comparison.

[Connie_Corleone]

11. I think you contradicted your own statement.

The reason that senators' voting records are used against them is because they spend so much time in the senate. They develop years and years of seemingly contradictory voting records.

I also think that Obama needs to strike while he's hot. It's better to run now while you have the public's interest instead of 9 years from now (assuming a Democrat wins in 08) when everyone has forgotten about you and you have become more cynical about congress.

[bigdarryl]

14. and they start talking in code words like there reading to a kid

[kstewart33]

13. I'm glad he's running. A real test for Hillary.

And that can only be good for the party. I want Obama and Edwards to push Hillary out of her poll-tested shell. Where's her leadership on Iraq? On any issue at all? She's too busy raising money and triangulating.

[wisteria]

29. Obama nor Edwards are a match for Senator Clinton, she can mop

the floor with both of them. And, I am absolutely no fan at all of Senator Clinton's. She is a heavy weight in more than money, she has a vast smear machine and ruthless henchmen on stand-by. It isn't even a fair match-up.

[ripple]

37. Even with all that,

she can't erase the animosity so many feel for her. Hillary's disadvantage is that she's already pretty much established her support. People who like her already support her and people who don't like her probably aren't going to, many dems included.

The more people get to know Obama, the more people like him. Call it charisma, likability, common-sense ideas, sincerity...whatever. People really like him. Once he becomes more well known in the mainstream, I think we'll see his numbers explode.

By contrast, there's no place for Hillary's numbers to go but down.

[fuzzyball]

66. Hillary and other centrists will rip open Obama's far left voting record in

Illinois legislature in due time. That will pretty much
finish him off.

[ripple]

73. I wouldn't be so sure

I think voters are more likely to vote for someone who takes a principled stance, even if they don't agree with the candidate on all of the issues. Voters are sick of political pandering- they want a candidate they can at least trust, even if they disagree with them sometimes.

[fuzzyball]

86. The most votes in EVERY election are in the center

I am talking about presidential elections. Extreme wingers
on either side get clobbered. Examples: Goldwater, Mondale.
Obama is way to the left of Hillary. Has slim to none chance
of winning. But he has every right to try.

[ripple]

99. He's to the left of Hillary, but I wouldn't consider him

an "extreme winger" by any stretch. Obama has a unique ability to talk about progressive issues in ways that don't seem polarizing to the average voter. Hell, just look at his popularity in extremely red areas of Illinois.

I think he'll prove you wrong on the chances you're giving him. I would consider his chances good to very good. Again, keep in mind that Hillary and Edwards have already established their support bases- neither is likely to expand their numbers by much.

Obama hasn't even really begun to tap into the larger electorate. Barring any stupid moves on his part, I think he'll make one hell of a showing in the primaries.

[fuzzyball]

65. You are 100% correct, amigo.

[InvisibleTouch]

15. I think he will end up as the VP candidate.

He's taking John Edwards' role this time around. I for one am glad to see him in the race.

[BayCityProgressive]

19. Hillary

doesn't have a horrible voting record beside son Iraq. it isn't just the Iraq mass murder that makes me dislike her though/....she cant take a stand on ANYTHING. I have not heard her make a clear statement since she was first lady. After some of the causes she championed as first lady, I am extremely dissapointed in her. I thought she would be much more progressive.

[xultar]

16. Fuckin PLEASE. And Bush was? Can't a Black man run?

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. I wish Cornell West would.

[Nedsdag]

27. Well, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

In that case, Chris Rock, Morgan Freeman and James Earl Jones should run as well. :sarcasm:

[xultar]

36. I wish a lot more Blacks would run but let's be honest...Cornell won't win

It'd just be a waste of dough and his time.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Depends on the office he ran for.. but maybe he does more good as

a professor. He can reach a lot of people that way.

[LSK]

56. oh I see, now if you dont like Obama you are a racist

:eyes:

Back to the lounge for me.

[fuzzyball]

67. Congreesman Ford is much more qualified black man than Obama

come lately.

[Nedsdag]

68. Excuse me?

You're kidding, right?

Since when do you begin to say who's blacker than who?

I'm surprised you weren't deleted.

[fuzzyball]

87. Excuse me, I was comparing two black candidates based on

qualifications. Please re-read my post.

[Nedsdag]

94. I guess you're DLC then.

Ford fits you perfectly.

[fuzzyball]

103. Yes, and that makes me just as good as any other democrat

or are we going to split this party apart?

[Telly Savalas]

100. Qualified at what?

Not being in the Senate?

[fuzzyball]

104. More Qualified in this sense...

Rep Ford has been in US Congress lot longer, and
he came very close to winning in a southern state
which would have been a first for a black candidate.

Obama beat a last minute carpetbagger right wing nut
substituted for sec Ryan who had personal laundry
exposed. Also Ford is much closer to the center where the
most voters are. Obama has a very left wing record in IL
legislature, which will be given a thorough anal exam by
the repugs if he is the nominee. Ford has few such problems
if any.

[Hippo_Tron]

117. Ford's views on school prayer and gay rights won't resonate with most Democrats

In Tennessee liberals voted for Ford because any win that's not a Republican is a huge victory in a state that is that red. But Tennessee is to the right of the country and on the national level party activists aren't nearly as willing to sacrifice their principles as they are in Tennessee.

Unless Ford changes his positions to run for President, the party faithful would sit on their hands and refuse to show up on election day. States that are as red as Tennessee won't vote for Ford because they've proven they won't in ideal conditions. To get 270 you simply need the blue states and Ohio. Sherrod Brown who is more liberal than anybody we will nominate, including Obama, just won in Ohio by 10 points. Even if you add in Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona you're still doing so by trying to appeal to an electorate that is more liberal than Tennessee and you can do so without being for school prayer and against civil unions.

In a less than ideal year you might need someone like Bill Clinton who is more liberal than Ford but not as liberal as Obama. 2008 will be an ideal year because so many people will vote Democratic on Iraq alone if we are still there (which we will likely be). Plus the GOP bench is a joke. McCain and Giuliani won't survive the primaries and Romney and Brownback will get destroyed in the swing states. I don't think Hillary Clinton is all that electable but I think that even she could win in 2008.

[fuzzyball]

138. Good analysis....except Ford has the best chance to win in GE

because Iraq will most likely not be a big factor as
it was in 2006. My guess is a strong draw down will
commence in 2008 January and bring the troop levels well
below 80-90 thousand by election time. Either Iraq will
have been stabilized by then with 80-90K US troops or
it will be under Iran & Shia domination & a bloody purge
of Sunni's, with Americans troops redeployed.

As for the 2006 election, many of our democratic winners ran
on CENTRIST agenda, if my memory of news serves me correctly.Especially in Virginia & Montana senate contests.

Finally, Barack Hussein Obama will not be at the top of the
ticket in 2008 anyway, so all this is simply hypothetical.

[Moloch]

114. Thank you! Its about time somebody pointed that out...

It seems a lot of people don't even want Obama to run because they're afraid a black man can't win. Obama can and will win.

[cboy4]

18. I don't believe it's a "huge mistake." If voters don't think he's

experienced enough, they won't vote for him.

It's called democracy.

[mtnsnake]

20. What good is experience if it makes you a rotten president?

I'd rather see someone who's capable of leading and healing the country, like Obama, than some over-seasoned, hardened politician who's dead set in his ways from over exposure and years of political posturing.

The bottom line isn't political experience. It's who's the best at restoring the honor and dignity that once belonged to the USA. Obama's that man.

[SaveElmer]

21. Lets examine the experience of the last President from Illinois...

Three terms in the state legislature and one term in Congress...

My recollection is that he did pretty well as President!!!

[CalebHayes]

23. Do you think Lincoln was experienced enough?

[Pirate Smile]

24. Judgement is more important then experience. The best option

would be good judgment AND experience. The only person who IMO fits that is Gore.

If it comes down to either experience or judgment - I'll take judgment.

I think Obama is right to jump in for 08.

[Shadrach]

25. I like Obama

But he needs a bigger resume in order to get my vote in the primaries. He is young and he will eventually get his turn. :-)

[Nedsdag]

30. How long?

Until the next "big thing" comes around while he's still languishing in the Senate?

Last I checked, anyone who was born here and is over the age of 35 can run. Plus, he has as much legislative experience (Illinois State Senate) as Sen. Clinton (six years, First Lady).

[Shadrach]

33. Get at least a full term in the Senate.

And that doesn't mean much since I also think it is a weakness in both Clinton and Edwards as well.

I think Obama has more potential than any of the candidates. Give him some more history he will be, without a question, a tough guy to beat.

Right now the question marks of a senator going into his third year might be used against him and people actually buy that stuff.

[ripple]

38. People don't buy into the experience thing

nearly as much as they buy into misleading attacks about a legislator's voting record. The longer Obama remains in the Senate, the longer the list of misleading attacks.

[Shadrach]

123. That's a good point...

to take into consideration.

[Pirate Smile]

89. That is the Republicans. Democrats don't give people their turn. A person

has to jump in and fight for it.

If he ends up as VP (which he very well may) then he will get his turn otherwise the Democratic Nomination race is a free for all.

[athena]

111. He's older than JFK and Clinton were.

He will be 47 in 2009 (He was born in August 1961). JFK was 43 when he assumed office, and Bill Clinton was 46.

The public wants a young and energetic candidate. If you do some research, you will see that Obama has more experience than Lincoln did when he ran for president. Plus, good judgment is more important than experience: LBJ had tons of experience but couldn't deal with Vietnam.

It has been pointed out by several pundits that now may be the best time for Obama to run. It is likely that a Democrat will win in 2008, and after eight years of Democratic rule, it may be much harder for Obama to win.

[w13rd0]

26. Actually...

...his not having a lot of experience in the Senate may be why he can surmount the "Senators aren't good candidates for President" thing. And keep in mind, it was just THIS YEAR that an African-american won a governorship. So that's threshold on two statewide seats, one repeatedly. So it's within "striking distance". And that may be enough to prompt him to run.

Furthermore, and I preface this by saying that of those that have announced, Edwards is one of my favorites, how can you say Obama doesn't have the experience then follow up with "retired Senators (Edwards) - They carry the experience, plus they"?

Also, even if Obama doesn't win the primaries, media attention and his position can give him the opportunity to make sure issues are discussed that would not be otherwise. Part of the problem here is that generally speaking, people on this board have no issue with "concept candidacies", candidates that advance a particular ideaology or boundary, as long as it doesn't look like they actually have a shot.

I DO think there are too many Senators running, or considering running. But I'd love to see Obama in the race.

[beaconess]

97. Bingo bingo bingo!!!

[kentuck]

28. He's running for VP...

The top of the ticket would love to have Obama as VP, in my opinion.

[Eurobabe]

61. Yeah they all said that about Clark too

Is this one of Hub2Sparkly's aforementioned FART threads?

[truebrit71]

31. He has the hot hand right now, why not press it? Besides, if it gets Hillary...

...off the front burner as the "presumptive Dem nominee" then I am all for it....

Oh, and the "experience" thing didn't seem to account for much with the current numpty in the WH, so why should it matter now?

[Auntie Bush]

52. Doesn't the guy/fool in office prove we need someone with a diversity

of successful life experiences, Foreign policy experience, military experience, brains and good judgment. Clark and Obama have the latter but Obama lacks the former...like military and foreign policy experience. I think Clark has all the experience one needs...plus he's not an insider...which is excellent.

I have great faith in Obama...but I think he should wait and get more rounded world experiences. I'd like to see him VP first in order to get those experiences. Then he'd be really ready and do the best for our country in 8 more years.

[truebrit71]

135. Hey, Wesley Clark is still my number one pick..Always will be...

...but I like the attention Obama's name brings to the contest...it just means the light will be shining even brighter when the General comes to the fore...

[Der Blaue Engel]

32. So don't vote for him

Honestly, I don't see the point of these threads.

[Irreverend IX]

34. It makes sense for him to run now.

Would he have a stellar career as a Senator? Maybe, maybe not. He's been a media darling since he was elected, but after he spends a few years in the Senate people may grow disillusioned with him once they realize he plays the same political game as the rest of the DLC Dems. It makes sense for him to strike while the iron is hot and see how far he can ride the wave.

But I certainly don't think it's good for the party that he run, nor that he would make a good president. He seems to shift with the political winds just like Hillary, and I haven't seen any evidence of strong progressive values on his part. His "audacity of hope" spiel reminds me of the empty platitudes high school honor students use to fill their college application essays. Someone like Edwards, who's demonstrated character as well as charisma, would be preferable.

[athena]

139. You haven't read his books, have you?

I suspect not; if you had, you would not be claiming that he "shifts with the political winds" or shows no "evidence of strong values". Read Dreams from my Father before you claim that his "audacity of hope" theme is an empty platitude. This is a guy who gave up a well-paying corporate job in NYC to take a job organizing Chicago's poor $13,000 a year. This is a guy who wasn't born into wealth but put himself through law school and wrote his own books. If you honestly think that Obama is a fake but Edwards isn't, you clearly know nothing about Obama.

I'm amazed at what I'm seeing here on DU. People who criticize Obama without knowing anything about him seem to think they're smarter than the rest of us; but there is nothing stupider than not recognizing a great leader when you see one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. On the contrary, it creates exposure, makes the opposition take

him seriously, and sets him up for the future.

If he makes a creditable run he is positioning himself very well for the VP slot of the actual candidate. Much like Edwards did in 04 - he also started as a presidential candidate, then took the #2 slot on the ticket.

Edwards/Obama 08?

[Clark2008]

42. He more exprienced than Edwards. eom

[zulchzulu]

44. Let him run...

Obama may or may not get the nomination in 2008. It will be interesting what will happen this time around with him being the frontrunner so early in the primary season. The MSM wants someone to go against their seemingly appointed star Mrs. Clinton.

A year is infinity in politics. When the primary season starts a year from now, we'll see how the political landscape is.


On edit: changed subject line after realizing Clinton did not run in 1988...

[ElizabethDC]

47. Clinton did *not* run in 1988

although he strongly considered it. I think that, at this point, the media are pushing Barack as much as they're pushing Hillary. Everytime one of them is mentioned, the other is, too.

[zulchzulu]

55. Welcome to DU and...

...you're correct. Clinton decided at the last minute that he wouldn't run in 1988. I seemed to remember him running but dropping out early... my bad...

"...There was some media speculation in 1987 that Clinton would enter the race for 1988 Democratic presidential nomination after then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo declined to run and Democratic frontrunner Gary Hart bowed out due to revelations about marital infidelity."
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-clinton

[GenDem]

45. I don't know.....

I get the feeling the country is hungry for a fresh face. He's so forthright, highly intelligent, and comes across as an anti-politician. If, by chance, he wins the nomination and gets elected as the first black president -- my guess, is that he would put together the very best team of foreign policy advisor's. I also am pretty sure he is a pretty quick study, and will always be curious. A polar opposite of what we have now.

[Catchawave]

46. I'm glad he's running !

He'll add much to the national dialogue, keep the other candidates honest and then we'll sort it all out during the primaries!

He now qualifies for the April 2007 debates in NH (including those candidates with exploratory committees).

Welcome to the fray Sen. Obama :patriot:

[Sir Jeffrey]

48. We do tend to elect governors to the presidency...

but Obama is different. These are perceptions I have garnered from many of my apolitical twenty-something friends and relatives. Take this with a grain of salt, but I am relaying some of the stuff I have been told.

He has that gift for coming across as genuine. He has charisma. He gives you the impression that even if he doesn't know the ins and outs of a specific issue, he will consult with advisors and do what is best over what enriches his buddies. He seems very knowledgable. He does not speak in soundbytes. He seems to take principled stands and his principles are consistent.

After 6 years of George, people are sick of divisive politics. Obama seems to give them something more important to look forward to.

As a poli sci buff, I will add my own personal observations about the guy.

Political consultants try to teach the mannerisms and eloquence that Obama was apparently born with. I fully expect him to rise to the challenge of any debate and catch a lot of people by surprise...mainly people who underestimate him as a lightweight/inexperienced candidate.

He writes his own speeches. I cannot stress how important this is when delivering a speech. Bill Clinton could improvise on the podium like no other, but that gift was unique in American politics. Writing your own speech gives you "flow" and "eloquence" when you deliver it.

Most politicans suck at writing, so they have experts write their speeches. People can tell when you are just reading someone else's words, which feeds into the stereotype that you are an uninformed puppet, always speaking in platitudes. Obama is not only a gifted speaker, but an excellent speech writer. Since presidential races are more like TV commercials and less like sifting through resumes for the best candidate, this is an enormous advantage.

He has a knack for disagreeing with people while not coming across as being divisive. I still have no idea how he does this. Just watch how he responded to George's last speech with Keith Olbermann.

He may crash and burn as a candidate, but if he does it would be shortly after the nomination campaign season started in earnest. If he gets the hang of the process early, which I expect he will, he will be a formidable candidate.

[Tellurian]

90. Yes, you're absolutely right..

I'm for every democrat out there putting the boots to the maniacal Republican hold on
America. O Bama is doing an extraordinarily fine job of communicating what has to be
done to end this senseless war. It might not be a bad idea if he mentions, this
is a Resource War for Iraqi Oil, benefiting private interests... BIG OIL.

[beaconess]

98. Nice analysis!

[AJH032]

50. how is a retired senator better than a senator?

they both have records to defend. It's not like once they retire it disappears. A retired senator, it seems to me, would have a harder time.

[Ninja Jordan]

72. Agreed. That made no sense.

[geiger]

51. he should not run

he is not ready, he has no idea what he stands for, and he's on an adreneline trip that's good for noone.

[ripple]

53. Just because YOU have no idea what Obama stands for

doesn't mean HE doesn't. There is a plethora of information out there, if you would just do your homework.

Adreneline trip? Assume much???

[geiger]

70. Interesting, the assumptions you are making about me, and you know nothing about me

except you're an Obama fan(atic?), and I am obviously not.

I am making a subjective assessment. Anyone can throw out a lot of phrases and platform statements. That doesn't mean they necessarily understand what they mean or what the larger policy implications are. Something I read about him that I agree with: he believes in his own destiny. He may be a leader, but he needs to take care as to where he wants to lead.

[ripple]

78. You said this:

"he is not ready, he has no idea what he stands for, and he's on an adreneline trip that's good for noone."

I apologize if I sounded overly harsh in my reply, but the above statement implies a lack of knowledge or understanding about Obama's political ideology and policy stances. You're post makes several assumptions that have no factual basis- and if there are facts that back up your claims, you did not provide them.

I'm truly interested to find out where you read the "he believes his own destiny" statement. Based on his writings and from hearing him speak, he has a sense of humility that not many public figures share willingly, for fear of seeming weak. He also downplays the media hype repeatedly, saying he doesn't trust it, and that he's careful not buy into the hype. Can you cite your source for the 'destiny' comment?

I freely admit that I whole-heartedly support Obama's presidential run. He brings a breath of fresh air to an otherwise stagnant political structure. Obama could very well become the first truly progressive, populist president in American history. That doesn't make me a fan or a fanatic. It makes me hopeful for my country.

Again, I apologize if I offended you.

[w13rd0]

101. Ah...how do you know the primaries have...

..."officially begun" on DU?

People calling one another cutsie names like "fan(atic)".

[Timmy5835]

57. Experience? Please..........

What experience did Carter, Reagan, Clinton or for that matter Shrub have? It seems to me what you really need is common sense.

[Zavulon]

58. No need to shoot you down here, I agree with you.

God, I hope Gore runs.

[Norquist Nemesis]

63. Obama is certainly a charismatic speaker and definitely vulnerable

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BS030017

The "experience" thing is completely subjective, IMO. I'm not ready to say he doesn't have 'experience'. The questions for me are: 1) Is he competent and capable of leading? 2) Can he negotiate effectively? 2) What is his philosophy of government/what is government's role?

I'm convinced he gathers all of the information he can and thoroughly thinks things through. How often does he thread the needle for political salvation vs. taking a firm stand remains to be seen. He's going to have to come out with some firm stands that exhibit vision and leadership in order to get a majority following. He can do it, but I'm not ready to go all out in support of any one candidate just yet.

It's going to be a loooooonnnnnngggg time before July 2008, and campaign fatigue for November 2008 already set in. Can't we just merge the best of all of them and be done with it! *sigh*

[Grandrose]

69. No mistake

I will be very happy if he runs. 

My dream ticket would be Gore/Obama, experience and hope for a
better country and world.

Oh happy days!

[Ninja Jordan]

71. Disagree. It's now or never for Obama.

He is as popular now as he's ever going to be in his political life. The longer he stays in the Senate, the worse his chances become. Your post is inconsitent. Senators don't make good candidates, but John Edwards (a former Senator) is a good candidate? Wouldn't an opponent have MORE votes to use against him than Obama?

[AtomicKitten]

74. He'd be an idiot to ignore this level of momentum.

I think he's a breath of fresh air and will do fine.

[DuaneBidoux]

75. It\'s NEVER a mistake, in a democracy, to run. It would be a mistake to nominate him.

I think he could make some great contributions to the debates that occur in a nomination process but I agree that he is too green. I feel that, in view of the Bush shit pile the next administration will inherit we absolutely must have someone with extensive foreign affairs and hopefully military experience.

[ripple]

79. That's why Clark would make an outstanding running mate n/t

[trillian]

77. Agree with you about BO

...but am scratching my head at this.....

and retired Senators (Edwards) - They carry the experience, plus they can govern.

Edwards only has legislative experience. Congress deals with policy and politics. Neither one of which has anything to do with governance

[terrya]

80. I don't think Obama will say no to VP.

I oppose an Obama run in 2008, also. Not enough experience.

[DemBones DemBones]

81. I agree. I don't think he can become our

first black president with as little experience as he has at this time. If he somehow got the nomination, I think he'd lose the election.

[FrenchieCat]

83. Welcome Sen. Obama and may the best man/woman win......

and the best one will be the most authentic, loved the press pundits, straight forward, articulate, knowledgable, quick on his/her feet with the most money who can stand pain and respond like an authoritarian bad dog with just a few words of all that comes his/her way. He/she must have a sense of humor, not take themselve too seriously, knows what in the fuck they are talking about and be able to make a good and lasting impression on TV and know how to pick who surrounds them. They must not only look the part of a leader, but carry themselves consistantly in that manner. Down to earth without too many seeming contrived photo-ops will be key and with a good innate sense to go for the throat of anyone standing in her/his way. Actually Honesty not required but seeming honest a must.

[bluehighways911]

85. You Clinched it for Obama

Thank You.

You have just made the case why Barak Obama will be the next President.

Experience? And you bring up Gore, Kerry and Edwards. Do you reread before you push send.

Kerry and Edwards voted for this stupid war. And now they flip flop. Won't it be fun to hear that every time Edwards opens his mouth.

Experience got us here. And if you could have heard Obama in the debate, you would be wetting your pants wishing Kerry and Gore could have busted the right wings balls.

Isn't hilarious. You are on a message board and judging Obama's experience.

Thanks for the laugh. Your satire was brilliant.

[bcoylepa]

88. he should run

I think this is his time -
if he waits 4-8 years it might pass him by

let's talk a bit about experience vs inspiration

he is a least as experienced and way smarter than the fool we have now - and he can be very inspiring - we haven't seen that in a while and I think the country needs a bit of inspiration
Gore & Edwards & Clark can be too -But Obama has something else - he connects
at first glance I am a bit tired of the damage white men have done and think it's time to expand the options if we find a viable candidate - nothing personal you know

[McCamy Taylor]

91. Run, Obama, run. Everytime a prominent minority candidate runs

registration among disenfranchised groups rises, because the Democrats are able to show their all-inlcusiveness. This is a good thing for the general election.

Having Hillary and Obama as two front runners will give the Democrats so much all-inclusiveness this time and with Edwards running around with his "Silence is betrayal--everybody get political" message, I expect to see voter registration and participation rise over what it was in 2006.

[beaconess]

96. George Bush has 6 years of the most relevant possible experience one can have to be president

If a resume is the end-all-and-be-all, George Bush should be the second most qualified person on earth to be president - second only to Bill Clinton, who was president longer. And we all know that, despite his in-depth hands-on experience sitting at that desk - experience that far outweighs anyone else's experience as senator or congressman or governor or general - he sucks.

So much for the "experience" argument.

Bush sucks, not because he lacks experience - he could get another 20 years experience as president under his belt and would STILL suck. His problem is the kind of person he is, how he solves problems, how he sees the world, how he views and interacts with people, especially those who don't agree with him.

So I'm not worried that Obama - or Edwards or anybody else - doesn't have the classic good-old boy experience that has always been seen as the only appropriate route to the presidency. I'm much more concerned about their worldviews, their approach to people, how they synthesize information, how they address conflict, how they solve problems. THAT'S what matters to me, not how many years they spent casting votes in the Senate.

[BorisTheBlade]

102. agreed

I think the dems are better off putting effort to some other candidate

[BikeWriter]

105. Uh, include allied commanders in your exceptions and I'll agree.

GENERAL WES CLARK FOR PRESIDENT!

[NV1962]

130. ...with experience as HEAD OF STATE, and I'm in

Tisk tisk, BikeWriter! ;)

[bling bling]

108. Obama isn't experienced but Edwards IS? Is this a joke?

And the fact that Senators voting records get in the way ought to be an argument FOR Obama to run now.

This must be a joke.

[AtomicKitten]

109. 8 years in the Illinois State Senate is worth - what - squat?

I'm beginning to smell a concerted effort to tank this bright young man's future.

[BikeWriter]

113. He's a bright young man, but not a Presidential contender...

Unless he had GOP money behind him, which he will, BUT ONLY IN THE PRIMARY.

[AtomicKitten]

119. not exactly certain where you're going with this

but let me say it is truly unfortunate when (alleged) Democrats are so enmeshed in one possible contender that they can't tip their hats to the new kid who is turning heads.

We should be setting off fireworks; instead we are lobbing bitchy hand grenades at him. Feh.

[BikeWriter]

145. I'll assure you I am not an (alleged) Democrat! I prefer...

to call my outlook on Obama realism.

[bling bling]

127. Absolutely. There is no other logical explanation.

I can't think of any rational reason why someone would start a thread or a reply which essentially went off on a Dem using wrong information, mischaracterizations, and made-up gossip-like statements to bolster their argument and then concluding it all by conveniently pointing to the Democrats who they DO support for president.

Personally, I want Obama to run but I would never start a thread critizing Kerry for X and then pointing out how wonderful Obama is related to X by contrast. That is, unless I was a crazed facts-be-damned Obama groupie or something like some of the Kerry people. A vast majority of my time in GDP is spent posting facts and links to counter the shameless, baseless, and often pathetic accusations against Dems by people who are either clueless and don't seem to care a whit about their credibility or people who have an obvious agenda and don't care about looking silly to those of us who actually check the facts.

[TheDonkey]

112. wtf! It's a great time to run now b/c his voting record isn't that extensive as if he waited

like you suggest!!!

If Obama's lack of experience is a problem they he will not recieve the nomination. Some people just need to calm down. Are you expecting we just appoint a nominee or actually have a "RACE"!!

[Hippo_Tron]

115. Truly stellar career in the senate, that's a good joke

Senators don't have stellar careers because it's very hard to get things done in the Senate, especially when your tenure inevitably will involve minority status at some point.

IMHO the last Senator that ran for President who had a truly stellar senate career was Frank Church. He challenged executive authority and spearheaded FISA. Maybe 1 in 100 Senators leave contributions that significant if even that many. Church also got lucky because FISA was passed at a time when the President was weak and people were generally distrusting of executive authority. At pretty much any other time, the President would've vetoed FISA and that would've been the end of it.

Kerry's willingness to take on Iran-Contra was actually pretty impressive as well. It would've been noteworthy if he had been running in say 1988 or 1992. By 2004 Iran-Contra was nearly 20 years old and nobody gave a shit anymore. If Obama sits around in the Senate for another 15 years it's likely that he'll fall into that trap as well.

Oh yea I also forgot to mention that I'm 19 and don't deny that I really like the idea of having someone under 50 in the White House. Granted, I also really liked Kerry who doesn't meet that description.

[Hippo_Tron]

116. How many losing Vice Presidential candidates have been elected President in the 20th century

Hrmm lets see here... we have President Muskie, President Mondale, President Quayle. Don't look now but I think the price of potatoes just went up.

[NV1962]

118. I may agree (or not) on your opinion on the Senator, but...

I'm a bit mystified how you could oppose that someone is running as a candidate.

Troubling approach that, methinks.

To be perfectly honest, I have the same reservation toward his experience at the national level as you also appear to have, but I think it's a GOOD thing that he runs, adding CHOICE to the mix. And I maintain that even moreso with another formally announced candidate, to which I have a less than positive disposition; be that as it may, I think it's a GOOD thing that John Edwards runs - for exactly the same reason.

In my book, all elections are a democratic party. And that's aside from occasionally contentious, above all an inclusive party to celebrate.

And frankly, I think it's pointless to b*tch and moan about less favored candidates; show the good quality of preferred alternatives, and let fickle democracy do its job.

If it works, democracy brings out the best in us. I'm getting too old and tired to let the fear factor play along.

[Leilani]

120. I'm happy Obama is in the race

He impresses the hell out of me.

Of course I'm not prejudiced with the fact that he's from Hawaii. Out here so many people are of mixed races, & it's not really a big deal. I wish the entire country could adopt that attitude.

The guy has something special about him that comes along very rarely. He's brilliant, yet he talks like a real person, not a politician. He talks TO people, not at them.

He has an easy elegance about him that I haven't seen since JFK.

He gives me hope, he makes me smile. I think he could do so much to unite the country.

Go Obama!

[AtomicKitten]

121. woot

[Leilani]

136. "We should be setting off fireworks"

I like that!

Hawaii is fireworks crazy...

:toast:

[MiniMe]

124. The experienced VP (Gore) was a Senator from 1985-1993

He was also a member of the House of Representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore

[hippiechick]

125. I agree with you, Hawkeye ...

... Sen. Obama's the media darling now, but his experience and voting records will be thoroughly picked over and he'll have flamed out in about 6 months.

I think (no insider knowledge, just a hunch) that Gore is well aware of the 'peaking too early' or 'them that's on top got nowhere to go but down' part of politics, which is why if he is considering a run, he's not talking about it. Let the others shoot their wad early in the game, then
step in when the time is right.

:hippie:

[techno-nubian]

128. You think John Edwards is better? John Edwards is wack.

He has too much a John Kerry jr. appeal.

[mnhtnbb]

143. No, no. Edwards has an RFK of the south appeal.

[generaldemocrat]

129. If Edwards is running, then so should Obama. n/t

[Radical Activist]

140. Your second point is exactly why he should run now.

Years of voting in the Senate won't make him a better candidate than he is now, and it might make him a worse one.

And the general voting public has often voted for the candidate with less experience. It doesn't matter much to most people.

[beaconess]

144. Great point

Nixon lost to JFK
Ford lost to Carter
Carter lost to Reagan
Bush I lost to Clinton
Gore lost (sort of) to Bush II

And I'll bet that if Bush II ran again as president, he'd be beaten by just about ANYBODY, despite his 6 years of hands on presidential experience.