Should Obama run for President?

[Tiggeroshii]

[dragonkeep]

1. He is too inexperienced at this point....

don't waste him by running him too soon.

[mntleo2]

4. So Was Bush, Only

... Bu$h as also an asshole, a petulant tyrant ~ and worse and he is not very smart.

Obama is extremely intelligent and he is a man of compassion as well as already attuned with political savvy. He would be loved the world over as well as respected here at home. You can see it in his eyes, he is a born leader. There are some things you cannot teach, and those are the very things Obama possesses.

Cat In Seattle <---who has seen that look only a few times in my 54 years and one was Jack Kennedy.

[MurrayDelph]

85. Obama would be a good president in 2008

but, given time, he could be a GREAT president.

[primative1]

100. So was Bush?

If that is your point then look at what a swell job inexperience has done.
Lets stick with known quantites; I dont have a desire to roll the dice.

[rocktivity]

26. I agree--he's only 47, what's the rush?

If, however, Obama were to spend four to eight years looking over President Wes Clark's shoulder and THEN running for president, I would not be insulted...

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[Norrin Radd]

68. If I could recommend your post, I would. ; )

n/t

[Raydawg1234]

33. hmmm "experience" has accomplished so much in Washington these days

:sarcasm:

That is exactly why Obama should run

[Imagevision]

61. Obama inexpeienced? -- Giuliani was the Mayor of N.Y. - (WTF?)

[Bullet1987]

86. Yes...

I think he should run...and I think he CAN win. Let's not forget that he is on the foreign relations committee. And I think this experience excuse is overrated as hell. I mean, you can be in government for two decades...that doesn't mean you're going to be a better President.

[SaveElmer]

102. Abraham Lincoln...

Had a couple terms in the state legislature and 1 term in Congress...

Worked out ok for him...

COme to think of it...he and Obama are from the same state...

A certain poetic justice in that

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

106. imo inexperience should be a requirement...

look what the 'experienced' have done...

[Betsy Ross]

2. Why shouldn't he take a shot at the primaries? nt

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Exactly.

I'm guessing even those who won't vote for him in the primaries at least secretly want him to give it a shot.

[BluegrassDem]

6. The people who don't want him to run are scared he'll actually win

This inexperienced argument against him is borderline racist IMO. A black man has to have double the experience as a white counterpart. Somehow Obama needs inexperience, but it was okay for John Edwards to run, even though he was a trial lawyer before he got his Senate seat. Bush had very little experience being a governor in a state that has the weakest governship.

Al Gore and John Kerry are experienced as they come, but they lost! So someone tell me how having a long record actually helps you?

[cui bono]

10. Nope. I'm not scared that he can win. I would love him as Pres someday...

but I don't think he's ready yet.

How about Gore-Obama?

And Gore and Kerry did not lose. Haven't you heard about the voter/election fraud?

[MODemocrat]

21. That's not true; I'd work for him, vote for him if he were nominated

However, I want to see someone who has more experience. We really need someone who knows how to work
with domestic problems. Bush has been all about war.

[goclark]

67. I agree ~ he has as much right to run as anyone else

If GWS can run for dog catcher, this brilliant man can run for anything he wants to any time he wants to.

IMO, telling him that he should wait is like telling Rosa Parks that she shouldn't have taken a seat because, " It wasn't the Right Time."

He is a citizen of the United States, he meets the qualifications and he can run if HE pleases!

[Imagevision]

89. If the lowest of the incompetant (Bush) can be elected, there are NO rules!

[Imagevision]

92. Obama should give it a shot, let the chips fall...

[greeneggs708]

5. How About This

Obama helps end this war. Get the economy back to life. Get oil companies out of Cheney's ahole. Finds out why Bush lied to start a war.

But since DU is now living in 08 and doing nothing about 06

He is my Seantor. Great Senator. Listens to us. Has a boatload more experience then Bush. And kicked a religious zealots ass in his Senate race.

So when the primary comes, I'll worry about it. But I appreciate your wasting time.

[Tiggeroshii]

7. 06 is done, right?

The 08 campaign has started. Why is it bad to worry baout 08 now?

[madmunchie]

57. Nothing, you are right the election is 06 is over, we are now starting to

look at 08 and have every right to do so!

[NOLADEM]

8. Yes. In 2012. He isn't ready yet, folks

WHAT does he have to point to as a success or experience? NOTHING substantial.

He is a good man. Don't rush him. We will need good leaders in 2012. He isn't ready yet.

He regularly gets schooled by more experienced pols. He is a good public speaker. That's it, so far.

[ripple]

44. I disagree

President of the Harvard Law Review, successful civil rights attorney and community advocate, excellent legislative record in Illinois, successful carer so far in the US Senate.

If you think he was "schooled" by McCain, you missed the silent sting Obama delivered when he politely called McCain out on his political grandstanding. You might be referring to something else, but I honestly don't recall any other public skirmishes involving Obama.


And 2012???? WTF? I'm hoping that democrats will actually WIN the WH in '08, and then reelection in 2012. By then, Obama will have been in the Senate far too long- his voting record would be completely misrepresented and misconstrued by the Karl Roves of the world who shamelessly prey on the general public's ignorance.

[goclark]

69. He is the Master of His Soul, not US

WE have the right to vote or not to vote for him if he runs.

I'm sure that we don't want to tell a Black Man or any Man/Woman in America that he/she needs to "wait" to complete his/her dreams.

He is qualified and if we are to live up to the true meaning of the Democratic way of being Inclusive,we should, IMO, be supportive of his RIGHT to run.

To do otherwise is like telling him to " go to the back of the Bus" until we have determined that he is ready to ride in front.

[Imagevision]

93. Obama, the best that's come along since JFK and Clinton!!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. the qualifications are:

born in the US, a US citizen, a least 35 yrs of age, and 14 yrs a resident of the US.

These strikes me as the only qualifications - only because they are part of Article II of the US constitution.

Now, on other issues, is he qualified?
That's a toughie. Yes and no.

Being ruined by the kool-aid they inject into the "inside the Bloat-way" waters is not news anymore. It happens to almost every single person who gains national office. A few seem to be immune. Feingold, Durbin, and a few others. But not many. From that perspective, his relative inexperience in the Senate can actually be viewed as a plus. Besides, he saw how sausage was made in Springpatch, Illinois, he's traveled around the world far more than most people - and that alone becomes a priceless education. He is attractive and well-spoken. But should he run?

NO and HELL NO.

Unlike Feingold and Durbin, when given the opportunity to run with the bulls, (the bulls being the cancerous growths that infect Illinois politicians much like smallpox, flu, HIV and the plague destroy unprotected populations, he gladly accepts.
Does anyone think that his tardy apology for his real estate dealings won't harm him? Does anyone think that he has had no other dealings with Rezko, Segal, Daley (brother john, that is) Stroger, and other members of the Illinois political-criminal combine? Of course he had. They paid for his campaign and rolled out the troops to get him elected.
Even if Obama were as pristine as a glacial mountain stream before the days of acid rain, it means that the fish contained in that stream still smell bad. Our opponents would love to stomp on an Obama campaign and you can be sure that their files are filled with juicy tidbits.

It is not that I don't like Obama, I do. He is bright, he is eloquent, and he can keep his senate office forever. But a run for president would be his downfall, and possibly our party's.

[cui bono]

11. Interesting... didn't know any of that. Will use The Goggle later. ;)

[ripple]

35. Interesting tin-foil perspective, but no sale.

With speculation like that, you're doing the repugs' dirty work for them. And as we well know, it doesn't even need to be true- speculation is as good as gold.

So, thanks for the insight. :eyes:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. Bull. Get @@@@@@. Or better, get a chicago news paper

because you know not what you type.

Just because your golden choice happens to have made some serious mistakes of judgment, you attack the bearer of bad news? Why don't you join the freepers? You'd be more at home with logic like that.

Do you EVEN KNOW why he issued a two page apology last month? Do you even know who he partnered with and worked with in Springfield? Do you have a clue of his admitted connections and ties to Cook County and Chicago powerhouses? This is not speculation - but since it tarnishes your rose colored glasses, all I can say is that you have a surprise coming.


On edit. oday's suntimes:
The story behind the story is even more unseemly.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

[ripple]

47. I know I haven't seen evidence to back up your assertions

I was aware of the Rezco deal and had already dismissed it as a non-issue. The article you linked only reinforces that for me.

As far as the other "connections", I happen to understand just how easy it is to turn an otherwise benign business or personal association into a sinister "connection", so please forgive my cynicism.

You made some serious allegations in your original post. This is what you said:

<i>"Does anyone think that he has had no other dealings with Rezko, Segal, Daley (brother john, that is) Stroger, and other members of the Illinois political-criminal combine? Of course he had. They paid for his campaign and rolled out the troops to get him elected."</i>

My question to you is do you have any evidence to show that Obama was elected through corrupt practices? The fact that an unsavory character happens to support an individual candidate or elected official does NOT make that candidate or official equally as unsavory, purely by association. I'd be happy to look at any evidence you have to share, but so far, I just haven't seen any tangible evidence of wrongdoing.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

55. I see this as a binary situation

Either:
a) you love Barack so much, that you attack anyone that might tarnish his artificial halo (even the messenger) , and refuse to admit to a mistake just like our current president. Yup, that has to be it. You think like our president thinks.
b) You are totally ignorant of the vile and corrupt practices that take place every day, week, month, year and especially, every election in Illinois. OK, but you refuse to acknowledge your obvious ignorance. Ergo, You think like our president thinks.

When someone provides a rational suggestion as to what will happen to a candidate in the future, based on facts in the public domain, and also suggests that other dealings, maneuvers, organizations, people and local power brokers might also have history with your chosen son, and your response is to suggest that freepers are attacking your choice, well, let me put it to your gently.

No one. NO ONE. NOT ONE PERSON gets elected as a democrat in Illinois without the power brokers approving of the person. In fact, only once in the past 20 years has someone gotten into office without their approval, and he was a Republican from a banking family who refused their money, and after election, their advice. Fitzgerald was his name, and he was solely responsible for what we call Fitzmas (no relation). Then again, because he bucked the system, the criminal-political combine did their utmost to remove him from office and they succeeded. Can't have an indie in place.

Barack came up through our system here. THROUGH, not AROUND IT. If you are too dense to understand what that means in terms of debts, promises, obligations, blackmail, questionable dealings, and much, much more, then I'd bet that you still believe in the tooth fairy, Santa, the Great Pumpkin and the non-battery powered Bunny. Your naivete is striking and amusing. But it still remains, uninformed, sweet and misguided.

Fine. You want to stick your head in the sand, fine. Here's a shovel. And a pail. Dig. Rah, Rah, Oh Ba Ma!

The reality is far stickier, dirtier, and much more complex. Do you honestly think that a national candidate from a corrupt state like Illinois could actually beat out several primary candidates? ARE YOU KIDDING? And then to beat three others in the general election? HAH!

Here's some milk and cookies for 12/24, just in case you ran out.

[ripple]

64. A 'binary situation'? How about a nuanced discussion?

You forgot option c) This person posted unsubstantiated allegations- allegations that serve no purpose other than to ‘swiftboat’ someone who might not be their candidate of choice.

I didn’t accuse you of being a freeper- I simply pointed out that there is no factual basis for your potentially damaging assertions, which means that you are saving the freepers some trouble. Rather than “thinking like the president”, I’d like to believe that I’ve at least learned a thing or two from the Rove playbook: Whisper it and they will repeat it. It makes no difference if it’s true or not. Just keep whispering.

Now that you have explained further, I realize that you weren’t targeting Obama specifically- in fact, you don’t think ANY politician from Illinois should be considered for the office of president. Ok, my little bitty mind can grasp that.

I’m well aware that corruption has been rampant in Illinois politics for quite some time and while I understand your bitterness about that, I hope you realize that corruption exists to some degree in every other in every state, as well. If you think there is ANY politician who has not compromised his or her personal or public integrity in some way at some point in his or her career, I have some ocean-front property to sell you right here in Kansas. Unfortunately, that is the nature of politics. There is a difference, however, between unsavory political compromises and outright illegal activity. Unless Obama is under investigation or we expect him to be, it seems ridiculous to treat speculation about who he's met with, what he's talked about, who's donated to his campaign, etc. as criminal activity.

To get to your point about what it takes to actually win a primary and a general election, I strongly disagree that Obama's Illinois ties will make a difference one way or another. Marketing and charisma sell a presidential candidate more than anything else. The marketing is a must, charisma is helpful, and the rest can be spun. As much as the corruption in your state obviously tarnishes your view of Illinois politicians, I don’t think the rest of the nation is going to give a rat’s ass when it comes time to vote.

Don’t forget: Clinton was elected after Paula Jones (and look at Foley-I’ll bet he garners as much name recognition as Tom Delay at this point- people LOVE sex scandals), and both B*’s were elected after their family’s intricate and scandalous ties to the Carlyle Group were exposed (not to mention Sr’s Hussein and Iran/Contra ties, Jr’s military desertion, numerous drunken failures, etc.). Skeletons alone won’t prevent a person from being elected.

And by the way, I honestly don’t think I’ve ever been insulted in such a clever an amusing manner. Thanks for that!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

78. just as an aside,

Obama and Rod Blagojevich share something in common, other than dealings with Rezko. Fund-raisers, political consultants, "alleged" grass roots organizations in Chicago, Cook County and elsewhere.
Rod will be the second governor in a row to be indicted by the feds, probably in early February. Why? because of the very same people that tie Obama to Bloggo.

I wish it were otherwise. I wish that Obama was 100% clean. I wish that his political friends and godfathers weren't mob oriented. I wish that he had no dealings with a pond scum like Rezko. but that is not the case.

[goclark]

70. And Martin Luther King should not have dared to oppose

the VietNam War if we go by that theory.

History will record that he was the Cindy Sheehan of that era.


OBAMA is not only qualified,he is as "ready" as all the others.

Some will say, as we slaughter our own, that Hillary is not ready either and she has FAR more experience than Obama.

How ready do you have to be to be better than GW?

How perfect was John Kerry? He sure was to me and I supported him 100%!

Did they do their best to beat his family down and his reputation ~ sure they did ~~~ it's called POLITICS.

If they can't stand the heat, POLITICIANS are smart enough to get out of the kitchen.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

79. Are you comparing Obama with ML King?

Seriously?

Name one thing that Obama has done in Illinois or in the US Senate. Just one.

[goclark]

80. They are both African American Public Figures

Yes, I am saying that African Americans have traditionally been told that they must "wait" to do many things that others are not given a time table to do.

Under your theory, how many "things" must Obama do in order to meet the qualifications to be President?

The last time I checked he more than qualifies for the office.

Shirley Chisholm broke group for African Americans when she ran for President.

She inspired, by her very presence in the process,other minorities to go into politics. That is a big part of what I believe inspires Obama. While I'm sure that he is smart enough to read POLLS, he also has a strong thread in his DNA that tells him to not listen to those who tell him " you are not ready."

He has the right to run and he should not change his mind because some feel that he is not ready.

As of this moment, we have no idea what the political climate will be in America. But, I do know this~ he is smart enough to know if he wants to run and he will make that decision based on his own thoughts and the polls that are taken by the American people.

Someone mentioned the mind set of the American people when JFK ran for president.

People said he could not possibly win because he was Catholic.

He had "experience" but he was Catholic.

[TankLV]

12. Wrong on the viewpoints, wrong on the issues, wrong person...

NO!

Bigtime!

Wouldn't be agog over him if he wasn't black, either...

[qwlauren35]

13. I Want to WIN the Election

Not set a precedent.

Until Obama has such a wave of following that white people are chanting his name in the streets of Alabama and Mississippi, I don't want him to waste money on a presidential bid. Let him build a legislative record of merit over the course of TWO terms, and then be chosen for VP by a VERY strong presidential candidate.

Please don't think that I wouldn't be proud. I would, if I thought it was possible... but I don't.

I would be happier to see him championing other races and getting more recognition during various senatorial campaigns. Above all, I ***NEED*** to see him keep his seat for a second term, as Moseley-Braun did not...

In fact, I'd like to see a second black senator before I sacrifice Obama to the presidential campaign mill. I'm into baby steps...

[beaconess]

34. So he should just stay in his place until white people in Alabama and Mississippi chant his name?

I don't recall white folks in Alabama and Mississippi chanting Kerry's or Edwards' or Clark's or Clinton's or Bush's names in the streets, but that didn't stop any of THEM from running.

Why the higher standard for Obama?

[Telly Savalas]

38. Some people support an electoral strategy which requires

the KKK to be part of our base. Perhaps if we nominated a white guy who advocated a constitutional amendment which overturned Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, we'd have a better chance of winning the voters who would reject Obama because of the pigmentation of his skin.

I'd just assume target the millions of non-racists who live in the South, but I'm one of those lefty loonies that your mother warned you about.

[qwlauren35]

51. That's hilarious.

Sounds like you think that KKK members are the ONLY PEOPLE LEFT IN AMERICA who would not vote a black man into the presidency.

I don't believe that for a second. When I was growing up, we were taught that you have to work twice as hard to get half as far as white people. That was 40 years ago. Maybe you think it's changed. But I and most of the folks (black) I know don't think it's changed enough to get a black man elected as president.

H*ll, we can barely keep one in the Senate!!!

[qwlauren35]

50. It's hard to explain...

I personally feel uncomfortable when folks like Alan Keyes and Al Sharpton make high profile races. I don't like giving Americans a reason to see us looking like clowns. Our media image isn't that great anyway...

Now, as to Obama... I'm more excited about Obama than you can imagine. I don't usually send money to out of state candidates, but he's the exception. I know a lot of us (black folks) are thrilled to have him in the Senate. So, maybe it's my lack of knowledge. But in *my* short lifetime and even shorter time of playing close attention to politics, I've never seen anyone win a presidency on their SECOND run.

Another thing I look at is the money. I've never quite known where it goes. But I know that black folks across the USA will pour money into an Obama campaign. And unless that seriously buys us something, I don't feel good about that either.

But I guess I should really answer your question. Why do I hold Obama to a higher standard. Because that's reality. You don't make it in America being black and mediocre. You only make it being black and STELLAR. Because being a minority in America is a disadvantage, and it has to be compensated by bringing something more to the table. I was taught this, most of my friends (black) were taught this, and I've seen it play out more often than I want to think about. I've seen black people get fired for the same things white folks get away with. Without Affirmative Action, there are thousands of black folks SURE that having EQUAL qualifications won't get them anywhere. It's well known that having a "ghetto" name can mean that your resume hits the circular file before a person gets below your address.

So, that's why I hold us to a higher standard. That's why I try to encourage those behind me (black) to excel, push themselves, groom themselves to shine, check out every opportunity that looks good, and to never rest.

I've seen a lot of very successful white people who are below mediocre. BELOW. They don't have anything to offer except being white and kissing some *ss. That's what my people are up against when it comes to getting jobs and winning political races. We're not just competing with the best. Sometimes we're competing with people we KNOW we can run circles around... if we could just have a chance. But we live in a society where opportunities still go to those with connections, and if not to those with connections, then to those who make someone feel "comfortable". And that's a measure too many of us just can't win against.

I don't know if you'll understand what I'm saying. But that's why I hold Obama to a higher standard.

And If he's going to spend his money... and MY money, and my people's money on a race, I want to know that there's something in it for him at the end of it. Right now, I'm worried that it's too soon.

But in the end, it's his call. And he runs, he'll still get my money.

[beaconess]

56. Sharpton and Keyes don't make me any more afraid of looking like a clown

than George Bush or Mark Foley make the average white person feel ridiculous. Any white person who assumes that I or any other Black person is foolish solely because another Black person may come across as strange is not likely to vote for a Black person anyway, no matter what, so I don't bother with them and couldn't care less what they think about anything.

But the vast majority of White people in America are, in my view, fair and decent and when given the chance will more often than not, do the right thing. I certainly don't think that Black folk should sit on the sidelines waiting for Whites to start to accept us before we get into the game. Often, the only way to convince reluctant Whites that it's time to change is to get in their faces and SHOW them. If we wait quietly on the sidelines until White people suddenly come around, nothing will ever happen.

[qwlauren35]

95. I admit...

Sometimes I'm the kind of person that King railed against in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". Not the racists, but the moderates who wanted baby steps.

It's a catch-22. Whenever we seem to take huge strides, we get hit by backlash.
There was no such thing as a SWAT team before there were Black Panthers!
For each win, somewhere, there seems to be a loss. When the best of us head for the best schools and best jobs, and don't look back, our communities lose strength... because WE don't want to live there, work there... or open businesses there any more.

I guess I'm just not a big risk-taker. And that's my choice. However, I'm glad that there are risk-takers among us. And when they do stick their necks out, and I respect their visions, I guess I should do my best to support them.

I know that we are not a monolith, that we have diverse experiences and diverse views. But I have noticed that there is always a tendency for Americans to group and label. We have associations for our ethnic groups, not just blacks and Hispanics, but even Irish and Italians.... and let's not forget the Polish! I just hate to see any of us reinforce the stereotypes that others are fighting so hard to eradicate.

If you've ever seen Chris Rock's stand-up, he says it pretty bluntly when he speaks of the n's who embarrass the rest of the b's.

[beaconess]

97. I hear what you're saying

And I understand your concern that in order to succeed, a black candidate must be STELLAR.

But I feel Obama is that. Anyone, especially from his background (not privileged or connected) who ends up as Editor of Harvard Law Review, then later kicks ass in a 5-way primary with more than 50 percent of the vote and commands the kind of respect and admiration he does is impressive. But a BLACK man doing all of those things, in my view is a BAAAAAAD mf!

I think he has what it takes to go all the way. And even if he doesn't win, he will blaze a trail so bright and clear for the next Black star that it will be worth it.

[rep the dems]

14. I think he should.

If he fails in the primaries, he still has a good chance of bouncing back in 4 or 8 years when he's a little more experienced. And if he does win the nomination and chooses a good running mate, people won't be as concerned about his so called lack of experience as they are now. If he thinks the time is right, then he should go for it.

[FrenchieCat]

15. I'm a mixed bag on this.....

On the one hand, we need alternate voices out there, and I need to see up close what this man truly believes in, and why he things that he qualifies for the presidency notwithstanding the fact that he is a wonderful speaker and a very intelligent man.

However, we need as many senators actually doing work in the next two years to rectify 6 years of Bush mayhem, and 12 years of Republican rule. If all of our Democratic Senators who are interested in running actually do, we will be facing a loss of real work being done by 6 senators (Bayh, Obama, Kerry, Dodd, Biden, Clinton....1 less than I last calculated since Feingold has announced that he understands what is important for this country rather than focusing on his own inspirations).....at a time when we have much, much work to do. That's a real problem for me. How much do these folks want to see some real movement back to where we were vs. wanting to see how well they do in a horserace that many have no real chance in?

[hopein08]

16. No...if Ford couldn't win a lousy Senate seat in Tennessee...

why would anyone think Obama could win a national election? And I am not prejudiced or biased in any way. Ford should have been able to win in Tennessee and Obama should be able to win the presidency but the time is simply not right and there are too many issues that still need to be dealt with in this country. And I really am simply stating the sad facts as I see them.

I think Obama should do what Feingold did. Explore the possibility deeply and if he finds that he is not wanted by the people and could not win, step aside and let someone else try.

[BluegrassDem]

17. So will Obama do any worse than Kerry?

At least with Obama, there'll be a HUGE turnout among African-American voters all over the country. That is something you can take to the bank. If that happens, then the whole dynamic changes of which states are winnable. Sure, Obama wouldn't capture the bigot vote, but he'd do very well among white people, particularly white women. I would almost guarantee that Obama would do better than Kerry did in 2004.

[blm]

22. Kerry got 10-15 mil more votes than Gore and about 15-20mil more than Clinton.

In fact, BushInc had to spend 4 years suppressing the vote, purging voter rolls, and gaining control of the input and output of voting machines all over the country to stay in power.

Just because the media and the Dem strategist class scapegoated Kerry the last two years doesn't make it true - They let McAuliffe and his DNC off the hook for his failure to strengthen the party infrastructure in all the states where it had been collapsed since the mid90s, and his failure to secure the election process and counter the RNc's votestealing tactics.

ANY Democrat would have had the same weakass DNC that Kerry got stuck with as the nominee. Had Dean been in charge of the DNC, he would have spent those four years countering the RNC tactics we learned about after the 2000 theft, so by te time the party knew who the nominee was, that person could concentrate on performing THEIR duties instead of also assuming the election process duties of the DNC.

[hopein08]

25. I didn't say a word about Kerry in my first post...

So I'm not sure why you're arguing with me by bringing Kerry in to the discussion. But, since you have...

Yes, the African-American vote would be for Obama. From what I know, that is pretty much a given. And that does change the whole dynamic of which states are winnable. I realize that we can't seek the bigot vote or anything ridiculous like that. But wasn't a big part of the reason that the "Harold, call me"/naked white girl ad was called racist because almost everyone agreed that it would uspet young white men that an African-American guy dated a white girl? Aren't that many, many more things like that which could and would be used however much we hope and pray that our country has moved beyond that? So the dynamics would change but I don't know if it would be enough to make a real difference.

This is all aside from the fact that Obama does not have a deep enough background. And I say background instead of experience because experience is a double edged sword.

But, in my humble opinion, Obama would do worse than Kerry. Kerry did extremely well, as cited by the other DUer who replied to you. I want the Democrats to be an all inclusive party. I don't want to put up candidates specifically to get the votes of one group. If that is what is coming to...where are the German-American candidates that best represent me? We need to have a candidate who has a chance, however slim, of winning in every state. And I am honestly very sorry to say that that candidate is not Obama.

[CitizenLeft]

19. agreed in theory, but...

...the two men are very different. Obama has celebrity status already, and already has national recognition. He also has enormous charisma that, to me, Ford didn't have. He's also much more polished than Ford.

The answer "if not now, then when?" is valid here... if America's not ready, then when will it be?

I think he'd make a great VP candidate, setting him up for a presidential run later. So let him test it in the primaries and see how it goes. He'll never do anything if he never runs.

[hopein08]

27. VP would be much better for Obama, I agree with that...

But I don't know about the "if not now, when?" thing. I don't really think that I like that question at all. It makes it sound too much as though one isn't willing to wait and realize that things take time.

Perhaps I can best phrase my thoughts on Obama like this...

From what I have seen, Barack Obama would make a pretty good president. However, I do not think he would win the presidency in 2008 for a very wide variety of reasons. But he seems good enough that I would hate to see him run and lose and forever be tainted by a loss as Kerry seems to be. So perhaps it would be better for him wait until 2012 or even 2016.

[beaconess]

37. I am so sick of Black people being lumped together and forced to succeed or fail

based upon the experience of other Black people.

A hell of a lot of white candidates failed all over the country, but that certainly hasn't stopped other white candidates from running for office. I don't hear anyone saying, "hey, that Rick Santorum couldn't keep a lousy Senate seat in Pennsylvania, so why would anyone thing Wes Clark (or John Edwards or Tom Vilsack or Evan Bayh) could win a national election?"

Obama is not Ford and Tennessee is not the nation.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. Tennessee is pretty far off our electoral map for '08

And so is most of the south, Virgnia and Florida aside. And Ford got 48% of the vote which is quite a bit. Just because the south won't vote for a black person doesn't mean that the rest of the country won't.

[liberalpragmatist]

75. Tennessee has become one of the most Republican states in the country

Ford pulled 48.1% - that's the most ANY Democratic candidate for Senate since 1990 and more than any Democratic presidential candidate since 1976 (Clinton got to 48% even in 1996).

He made some missteps, but considering that the Conservative/Liberal ratio in Tennessee (as measured by the exit polls) is 48/14, he did pretty damn well.

[CitizenLeft]

18. if he emulates the person he's most compared to...

JFK, then he should. JFK was young and raw and only had 4 years in the Senate under his belt when he make a break for the nomination in 1956. He lost, but he learned a lot, regrouped, and won in 1960. He was inexperienced in 1956, but by 1960, I think he had shed that label.

[Telly Savalas]

39. But JFK couldn't win because the nation just wasn't ready for a Catholic

to be president. We would have done better in 1960 if we'd run JFK for VP and made our presidential candidate a nice respectable protestant who could appeal to voters in red states.

[goclark]

72. Speak Telly! Excellent example

It's hard for me to deal with telling a Black Man , a graduate of Harvard Law school and member of the SENATE from a major State, that he needs to "WAIT."

Just the word "WAIT" makes Sister Goclark's blood boil.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. I don't think that Kennedy sought the nomination in 1956

I think that he tried to get the number 2 spot on the ticket.

[goclark]

81. And how do you know that is not Obama's thought too?

He has the right to explore all of his options.

He should be no different from anyone else that runs for office.

Jesse Jackson ran for President, he was deemed "not ready" by many. He did not let that stop him and I am blessed that he didn't listen to those that wanted to be his time clock.

I was privileged to be on his campaign committee. So was a young lady named Maxine Waters. So were countless others that were inspired by his being a part of the process. I recall seeing Jesse's children in San Francisco, putting up balloons and putting signs together. As we all know, one of those young men is now in Congress.

From a practical purpose, if OBAMA got into the race,he would without any doubt, bring out the African American vote that so many want to "count on" on election day.

Want our votes but don't want our participation in the process ~ we say NO to that notion.

We have earned our ticket in the Democratic Party and we have earned our ticket to dream the American Dream.

[Larry in KC]

20. Clark-Obama in 2008, Obama-? in 2016 (16 years of class!)

[rocktivity]

28. Works for me.

:bounce:
rocknation

[bigdarryl]

76. What has Clark done to be more qualified than Obama...

he was a career military man and that doesn't qualify you to be a President

[Jai4WKC08]

82. You've answered your own question

He was career military, spending 34 years in public office.

The military has been a traditional route to the Oval Office throughout American history. Of our 43 presidents, twelve were general officers first -- almost a third. Most of the rest served in the armed forces in some capacity. One of the most important -- and many would say THE most important -- function of the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Another is being in charge of every aspect of foreign policy. Clark's NATO position, the war he led in that position, his similar peace-time command in Latin America (but where he oversaw the Haiti restoration), his role in the Bosnia negotiations, and the time he spent as Clinton's military strategy officer give him a very unique set of experiences in both of these critical aspects of the office.

It's not his only qualification, it's obviously not even an essential one (altho more important in time of war, seems to me), but it's certainly one that Obama doesn't have.

But there are SO many other qualifications Clark has that Obama doesn't. There's almost nothing a governor does that Clark hasn't: health care, education, infrastructure, labor relations, budgeting, environmental protection, and on and on and on. Granted there are a few things a senator does that Clark has not, but 1) they mostly aren't relevant to the office of president, and 2) Obama is too junior to have done them either.

[MrSlayer]

23. No. Not yet.

I'd like to see him at least serve his full term in the Senate first. Maybe become governor of his state. 2016 sounds about right to me.

[politicasista]

24. Depending on what Michelle (his wifey) thinks n/t

[Infinite Hope]

29. How come there's no "Hell No" option?

:sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

30. Why the hell not?

He appears to be able to kick HRC's ass and, if he can do that, he can kick GOP ass.

And it's an ass-kicking the Dem candidate should be able to deliver.

[Hollow Shells]

31. I would vote for him. n/t

[mtnsnake]

32. With only 30% of DU'ers saying he should run, then that means he should.

Considering how he's about the only one who would have a shot at beating Hillary out, you'd think that all the anti-Hillary naysayers on this forum would be PRAYING that Obama runs.

[AtomicKitten]

36. they have visions of other candidates dancing in their heads

Hill and Obama are kicking ass in the polls so they must be destroyed, doncha know?

[Telly Savalas]

40. It's so early those polls don't mean anything.

Joementum was leading in all the polls in the early stages of the 2004 race.

[ripple]

41. I agree

Dems are horrible devil's advocates, myself included.

Obama's my first pick for 2008- I especially like Obama/Clark. Regardless, I would answer "yes" in any poll phrased in this manner, because I believe anyone who wants to run should do so.

[AtomicKitten]

42. yep - the more the merrier

:)

[mtnsnake]

46. That is it in a nutshell.

[Alexander]

43. Yes, but not in '08 - so I chose "no".

[clichemoth]

48. No one currently in the Senate should run.

That includes Hillary and Kerry. The balance is too precarious for someone to abandon their post to campaign and historically governors have made much better candidates anyway, no Senator has won since JFK. We need them where they are.

[primative1]

49. I'm A Tad Suspicious

Knowing very little about Obama, the alarms in my head immedietly go off when he is offered up so conveniently by our compliant media.
Who is he?
His much lauded convention speach was ... yawn ... a speach and his senate record has been ... yawn ... an uninspired reflection of minority ststaus.
So who is he? Really? Why is the media that we all question tripping over itself to tout this guy?

[BluegrassDem]

54. You'll never be pleased with Obama

If you really think that speech he gave at the convention was a "yawn," then it must take an awful lot to excite you. Everyone LOVED that speech and the delegates at the convention were captivated. If you don't like Obama or won't support him, just say so...but don't denigrate that speech. And frankly, Obama oozes charisma. Charisma goes a long way in winning over peoples' hearts and minds, including the media.

[jpwhite]

52. Edwards/Obama in 2008, Obama for pres in 2016

I liked John Edwards in 2004 and I still like him. He is from the south and I think he could win the general election. If Obama is the VP he can gain experience and then run in 2016. It's a perfect plan. I would get Wesley Clark to be the nominee for Secretary of Defense. I feel he would do an excellent job of managing our military. Al Gore could be the Secretary of State and work with other countries on protecting the environment. What a cabinet!!

James
[e-mail]

[madmunchie]

60. Two inexperience less than 1 term Senators don't deserve the

two top jobs in the WH. Yes, I know that Edwards finished his 1 term, but he spent close to half of it running for the WH. I wouldn't vote for Edwards, unless he ran against Bush and since Bush can't run anymore, I guess Edwards won't see my support. Obamma needs more time before he goes for the Big House.

Edward is all ego and no experience. He didn't even have the decency to finish 1 term in office before he basically abandoned his responsibilities as a Senator to campaign for the Presidency. He has been really busy campaigning for the Presidency already...how many visits too Iowa so far? Way too ambitious, not enough Government Experience and voted to send us to Iraq....Anybody who voted giving * the authority to go to war gets an "F" and has an uphill battle with me before I support them for a run to the Big House.

I don't understand why people like Edwards, he is the Brylcreme (?) Boy in an empty suit that achieved great wealth and an opulent lifestyle and now wants to run the free world with barely 6 years experience in Government.... Call me old fashioned, but what the Hell is wrong with a little more humility, experience and some wisdom?

[noonwitch]

53. Yes, but not in 2008

Depending on the outcome of 2008, he should run the next time.

I do think he'd be a good running mate for Gore or Edwards. If Hillary is the 2008 nom, she should pick a southern white male as her running mate (Wesley Clark or Bill Nelson, or someone like that).

[Imagevision]

62. Obama could have run right out of College and been better then Bush

What the heck experience did the uniter have that would have made him more qualified? -

[IndianaGreen]

63. The inexperienced Obama opposed the Iraq War while our experienced

legislators fell all over themselves in voting for the Iraq War Resolution.

Obama running for President is Hillary's biggest nightmare! While Obama may not win the nomination, the enthusiasm his candidacy would generate will strip Hillary's campaign from its "inevitability" mantle, and perhaps open the door to other candidates such as Wes Clark, John Kerry, etc.

[1932]

65. Yes. He'll bring a valuable voice and perspective to the discussion.

The primaries will be better because of his participation.

[upi402]

66. Sure! W was inexperienced, stupid, addict, alcoholic. AWOL, and

had a track record of destroying Texas and any business daddy or his cronies gave him to play with.

Gee, do we need some media? I mean *that's* what pushed Bush on the public, not his merit.
Obama could do well for America by just being in the debates. I thought Sharpton was brilliant (and skin color has zip to do with it) because he added great truth. And everyone knew he was not going to get the nomination. What a public service!

[The Sushi Bandit]

71. NO - NOT QUALIFIED

SORRY!!

nice guy but too green (not the party) to run our country

[goclark]

74. Last time I checked he met the qualifications

and last I checked, this is a free country and he can run if he wants to ~

Last time I checked it was 2006, not 1864 and he is FREE to run if he wants to.

That being said, we are FREE to not vote for him if we want to, that is what should make America great.

[Clarkie1]

73. Sure, if he wants to. Why not? nt

[bigdarryl]

77. Who is qualified for President that's my question

No one knows for sure who's qualified.Obama should run now as some pundit said you don't get to be top dog forever. six to eight years from now he's not going to have the star quality he has now. look at Edwards in 04 people were saying he had no experience as a six year senator and as 08 approaches he's not as popular as he was in 04. if he runs against Hillary he looses. in fact i predict if Hillary gets the nomination for the dem's she looses in the general election to any republican. they are dying for her to run because they know they can beat her. why do you think Cheney said she can win in 08. he's full of shit he known damn well the republicans have the goods on her.trust me the republicans are more afraid of going against Obama than Hillary.

[Jai4WKC08]

83. I voted yes, but not because I want to see him win the nomination

Certainly, if he CAN win it, more power to him. That's what democracy is all about.

But I don't think he's ready to be president, and I think most Democratic primary voters will see that. Perhaps I am naive in that regard.

What I do think is that whoever does win the nomination will be extremely likely to choose Obama as a running mate, or at least will be under a great deal of pressure to consider him. I don't have a problem with that, but I think it would be a good thing if the nominee first gets a chance to see how Obama performs under the media scrutiny to which a presidential candidate is usually sujected. It would also be good for the voters to see as well, so that if for some reason he is not selected, they can judge for themselves why or why not.

I wouldn't be completely honest if I didn't admit a second reason -- I think he will help keep Hillary Clinton down. From what I hear, she has the African American vote pretty much wrapped up, based largely on Bill's popularity with that community. Obama should peel away a few layers there. Also, I think a large number of those who support Clinton do so mostly because they are enamored of the idea of the first woman president. Let's fact it, most of us would like to see that. But most of us would also like to see the first black president, maybe even more than the first woman, and frankly, if Obama can win the nomination, he has a better shot than Hillary of winning a general.

[More Than A Feeling]

84. I think he should, in his own interest, the party's interest, and in the country's interest

Obama actually doesn't have much of a window to run. By 2012, there will be rock stars like Eliot Spitzer running, and the rock star niche will be pretty crowded. If he wants it, now is the time.

The party will benefit because it will make the competition fiercer, and produce a better nominee (hopefully, we won't have the candidates tearing each other to shreds so the Republican waltzes in, like Arnold's re-election.)

The country will benefit from Obama getting another platform for his unique voice.

[ellisonz]

87. End the Southern Strategy Now!

Gore/Obama 2008!

:dem:

[demo dutch]

88. Like him. bit too inexperienced, & too young

[Imagevision]

90. Folks who say Obama is inexperienced, need to take another look at George W. Bush...!

[IndianaGreen]

91. The Hillaristas see Obama as a threat to their queen-in-waiting

They also want Dean out as DNC Chair so that they can tinker with the nomination process in favor of Hillary.

[Catchawave]

98. Lieberman should run !

He's experienced....:sarcasm:

[many a good man]

94. What's he got other than charisma?

Let him run and show us what he's got.

[Bullet1987]

96. I agree

...what does he have to lose?

[Auntie Bush]

99. Someone need to send Obama a copy of this poll.

All the accolades from the press and their fudged polls are trying to get him to run. I don't think he can win against someone with lots of experience in world affairs and executive experience. He's young and needs more time to learn. 2012 would be perfect!

[SaveElmer]

101. He can't run in 2012...

Because we will be supporting the reelection of the Democratic President elected in 2008!! :-)

[IsItJustMe]

103. Of course he should. You have to start somewhere. They all do.

I won't vote for him. But he has to get his name out there if he has presidential aspirations. Which I think the msm has convinced him to have. He may very well be our president in the future. Not in 08 though.

[Geek_Girl]

104. Yes I like having choices in the primaries

He may not get my vote but I'd still like to see him run.

[thatsrightimirish]

105. He should

But if Obama is on the ticket I would put a conservative dem below him. POssibly Dave Freudenthal. The Governor of Wyoming.