Obama Phenomenon....Is it because he's more like Colin Powell than Jesse Jackson

[KoKo]

or Reverend Al Sharpton or Martin Luther King?

Does he speak better with more of an "International Voice" given his background and so folks who are comfortable with Condi and Colin as African American Powerhouses can NOW see OBAMA as the Powell or Rice for the Democrats?

That's what I'm thinking as I watch him on the media. He was just on CNN saying: "Wolf, we don't need to relitigate what happened to get us into Iraq we have to deal with where we are now."

Obama could have been Colin or Condi...or Biden or Lieberman or Hillary or McCain saying that.

At least he didn't ask for "More Troops" but he did say: "We have a chance of winning this thing." ...

[IndianaGreen]

1. Obama has the charisma and appeal of a Nelson Mandela

and I think he can unify our country much in the same way Mandela did South Africa.

[nickshepDEM]

3. I agree, but I would extend that a little further.

I think he can unite the world. I think he's the perfect guy to reach out to the international community and patch up all of Junior's fuck ups.

[IndianaGreen]

5. His recent trip to his family's ancestral home in Africa

including the village were his paternal grandmother still lives, was an international sensation. The British press had more coverage than the US press.

[KoKo]

17. Okay, Indiana....what does his trip to "Ancestoral Home" do for us with

Bush/Nazi's/Neo-Cons/Corporatists and all the rest? :shrug:

Please help me with this. If I was running and went back to MY Ancestoral Home...or Kerry, Gore, Clinton and the rest....How would that make us better candidates?

[IndianaGreen]

26. Obama spoke at length about global poverty and inequality

and, unlike our current White House occupant, he received a warm welcome everywhere he went.

[KoKo]

30. All Dem Candidates when running speak about those issues...what's

different? That he spoke in Africa? :shrug:

[KoKo]

12. Obama was in Prison like Mandela? He has fought for us to Be Free From

Bush while serving time in Prison? :eyes: Wha?????? And, America is South Africa? :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

28. I spoke of "charisma" and "appeal"

which cuts across ethnic and racial barriers.

Speaking of Mandela, many American politicians (including Democrats) thought Mandela was a communist and a terrorist when he was in prison. They thought the same about Jomo Kenyatta.

[KoKo]

37. Obama is not those you speak of...he has Charisma and Appeal...but

where is his "stature" compared to figures who suffered for so much oppression except in his memory of what it was? :shrug: Is that enough? Is that enough "experience" that outweighs others who might be running in their "OWN" experience in life?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Which base are you talking about, the Republican base?

I am part of the Dem base and I like Obama. I don't know yet who I will support, but there are several Democrats that fit the bill (if they were to choose to run): Gore, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, and Obama.

[Radical Activist]

6. I just went to North Carolina and everyone asked me about Obama.

The base I've seen loves him, outside of a few on DU who are determined to make him appear more moderate than he is.

[Kagemusha]

11. Guess I'm reading too much Daily Kos.

Guy's practically a hate figure there.

[IndianaGreen]

15. I suspect some Kossacks prefer someone else for Prez

Obama was an early opponent of war in Iraq, that alone buys him a lot of goodwill on the Left.

[KoKo]

19. Wasn't he a State Senator? Couldn't he have said what ever he wanted to

say, then? He just said to Blitzer on CNN..."I'm not interested in re-litgating the Iraq War." (meaning how it came about which is what Wolfie asked him).

So Obama was "against the war in Illinois" when he didn't have to vote in the REAL US SENATE so now he can say: "I'm not interested in re-litigating the Iraq War (meaning I don't want hearings or Impeachment about how we GOT INTO THIS WAR...I just WANT IT TO BE SUCCESSFUL.")

How does this make him any different from Edwards, Lieberman or Kerry or Hillary who VOTED FOR THIS WAR who now don't want to deal with how we GOT INTO THIS WAR?

[Radical Activist]

21. Obama was running for US Senate in a Democratic Primary

and made his opposition to Iraq known very early on. That's how he's different from those who supported the war when Obama opposed it. You can't really blame Obama for not being Senator a year sooner.

And Obama has an excellent progressive record for his time in the Illinois State Senate.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Obama was running for the US Senate at the time

Obama endorsed the ISG report on Iraq, which I suspect most Democrats will support except for Lieberman. Judas Joe already expressed his opposition to engaging Syria and Iran, like the good Likudnik that he is.

[liberalpragmatist]

32. Here was his antiwar speech from Oct. 26, 2002

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/iraq_war.php

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq

October 26, 2002

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

[KoKo]

38. It's a profound and lovely speech...but he didn't have to vote In US Senate

with the considerations of those who were THERE...so how can we know if circumstances might have changed or NOT for him?

We don't know that...but we do know that his recent statements are much more conciliatory to the "Powers that Be" since he was elected and now serves in the US Senate and not his own State Senate.

That's all I'm saying...2 cents.

[Radical Activist]

22. That would explain

the repost here of a ridiculous Kos post bashing Obama for using the left as Straw-men without giving a single example of Obama actually doing that. How odd.

[Kagemusha]

35. I've read some of that, yes. It's not wholly (that is, 100%) without basis but

it's a pretty hideous spin on it. The gist I got from one blog is that Obama interferes with the desire of radical leftists to be seen as normal people so they resent Obama triangulating against them when they're on the cusp of achieving mainstream status. I think they're silly to think that such a thing is possible. The public's seen the Republicans fail after six years. Reading too much into it is vanity to a large extent. Not that I want to deny people their vanity but... Obama just plain does not sound bad when you actually listen to him saying these things. He makes it sound like constructive criticism and friendly prodding, pulling forward rather than kicking down. The problem here is when you deal with people who are radical leftists who want to be accepted as the new mainstream. In such a scenario, Obama appealing to centrism and moderation is the exact opposite of the master plan: make the radical, moderate. (Just in this case, do it with leftist ideas rather than Republican ones.)

But when you really get down to it, like the incident between Sen. Webb and President Bush about Webb's son serving in a Marine combat unit in Iraq, Obama hasn't kissed the leftist base's butt enough for some people's tastes. Nothing like an activist scorned.

[Radical Activist]

36. I see your point.

In the State Senate, Obama represented an area of Chicago where socialists and radicals really were a serious part of his constituency. I think he is probably differentiating himself from those groups, while remaining liberal, in the same way he always has.

[charlyvi]

33. Huh? He tied with Edwards for first place in the DKos straw poll.

dKos Reader Poll. 12/6. 15,834 respondents (as of 3:30 p.m. PT)

2006 2005
Dec Jul May Mar Jan Nov Sep Aug Jul

Edwards 28 15 8 7 8 12 10 7 7
Obama 28
Clark 26 17 15 15 22 26 34 35 34
H. Clinton 5 2 2 2 3 6 8 9 10
Richardson 4 2 1 2 3 5 3 4 4
Kerry 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 2
Bayh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Vilsack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Biden 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Gravel 0
Dodd 0 0 0

-- not running --

Daschle - 0 1 0
Feingold - 38 44 48 30 19 19 16 10
Warner - 10 10 11 12 14 4 3 5


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/6/182730/331

[LittleClarkie]

52. Where are you getting that idea

I haven't seen it, myself.

[MasonJar]

7. Obama is a very eloquent and elegant speaker despite his

youth and inexperience. But can he win this time? I certainly expect to see him as president someday.

[KoKo]

14. Huh? My post was about what you said! He is an eloquent speaker in the

mold of Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Both of whom are excellent speakers whether we agree with them or not.

Did you read my post? I tried to load the subject line knowing that many DU'ers don't even read the "body" of a post anymore. :shrug:

[AlinPA]

8. Colin Powell is a liar who followed Rove's instructions to lie about WMDs. Obama

is nothing like that.

[karash]

9. .

Obama can definitely win. He's a black politician who truly cares in the way Halle Barry is a masterful black actress. His neo-liberalism is profound, and he will help American liberals come to terms with the continuing economic order in a way that has much of Western Europe smiling, and which cunningly negotiates the tricky terrain of the Middle East and Asia. He is a governmental businessman, like Clinton, and with him running the ship, there will be no more ill-planned debacles like the War in Iraq. No, I suspect that like Clinton, Obama will be a very smart, reasoned, prudent steward of the American ship. If we need to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, it will be done with sanctions instead of a direct attack. If we need to deploy depleted uranium across Eastern Europe, we will do it for humanitarian reasons, not out of revenge for a terrorist attack. Our own soldiers will be spared, and be rewarded with better medical benefits for pressing the button to fire the missile at the neighborhood full of women and children.

To liberals, Bush is the dark smirk of death; the direct, uncompromising reflection of the graves our empire creates. Obama, however, will manage things so efficiently that liberals will hardly have to worry about them. The poor in America will be better treated, and the foreigners of choice will die more quietly, in less dramatic ways, and without any of Bush's bellicose rhetoric.

America needs men like Obama and Clinton to help it maintain its blinders. Klansmen, NRA, racists and evangelicals can stomach Bush--but American liberals cannot. They require Obama to help them keep their lifestyle without reminding them of the death it requires to maintain. They need intelligent, charismatic men who can much more efficiently perform the killing of empire; who can open up the poor nations to the raping of the World Bank with smiles and clever economic agreements instead of military leverage and threats.

Obama thinks the war could be fought "better" and that it could be "won." How can you "win" something that is already as bad as Iraq? How can you "fight" "well" when you shouldn't be fighting in the first place? These are simple premises, but compared to Bush, less extreme statements like "we must fight the war better" can seem to be sensible, when in reality they are just a cleverly-disguised version of the same justification for murder and national theft as Bush's cowboy dyslexia.

Instead of the smirking death's head of Bush, American liberals desperately crave the polished form of an Obama, a (Hilary) Clinton, or a Dean. It is protection from what they do not want to think about.

[jonnyblitz]

13. .

:thumbsup:

[KoKo]

24. Nothing "like that" means "What?"

:shrug: Colin Powell was a fine person and loved by all on both Left and Right UNTIL he lied to the Left about Saddam's WMD in front of the UN and kowtowed to the Bushies until he was fired.

Wha? You think that Obama already saying we souldn't "ask questions" ("relitigate" (Obama's words) how we got into Iraq doesn't remind some of us of Powell who sat and watched and even participated in an Invasion and Occupation of another country based on Intelligence that was cherry picked by Cheney and proven FALSE? Obama doesn't want to "re-litigate" how we got into Iraq?

Sheesh! He wants to WIN! How the hell are we going to WIN!!!????

[AlinPA]

43. I am referring to original post's "he's more like Colin Powell ...". He's not.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Because he gives off the impression that he's non threatening....

something White folks can deal with better.

I'm still very worried that this New found press love is not going to last till January of 2007. I believe that the media is currently working overtime to get him into the line up and in turn discourage others from entering the frey. What happens once the line up has been determined, we don't truly know....but the lovefest for Obama will end at some point, and then all I can say to Sen. Obama is "watch out". Usually the higher they rise, the harder they fall, and this is especially true of our Black heros, unfortunately. At some point I think that they will start to demonize him as so many of our great Black men have been. So excuse me for my skepticism, but in my mind, its just a matter of when..... :(

[KoKo]

16. True....MLK's body lies "moldering in the grave" his MESSAGE LIVES...

but his spirit and work are floundering.

Good Post...to think on...kind of what I was getting at...

[blm]

18. Well, now we know why he didn't sign the letter of inquiry for Downing Street Memos.

He doesn't want the issue of how Bush lied us into Iraq to be examined - just as Clinton and the others wanted DSM issue dropped.

[KoKo]

29. Signing the "Letter of Inquiry" for Downing Stree Memo's wouldn't have

been a "Career Builder." Signing "internet stuff like that" is a "bomb," if one is ambitious.

[blm]

34. That was the Senate letter of inquiry that he wouldn't sign, not the internet petition.

.

[KoKo]

39. I didn't say he signed the "internet petition" or the "Senate Petition" in my post. n/t

[blm]

41. must have read it wrong, then - mea culpa

.

[Buzz Clik]

20. I just see a guy.

[Radical Activist]

23. I'm not sure I get your point.

Are you saying Obama is more popular because he's a good speaker and uses big words? Jesse Jackson is a good speaker and uses big words.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were viewed as "black leaders" who represented the interests of black people. Its difficult for African-American candidates to dispel the perception that they are only going to be a voice for black people. Obama has done an excellent job at convincing non-black voters that he will be a voice for everyone, regardless of their race. That is one reason he did so well in Illinois. Its a very difficult thing to accomplish and it speaks to Obama's skill as a leader.

[KoKo]

27. Both Condi and Colin did an Excellent job of convincing us they should Hold Power.

They rose to the top of their careers after long years in service.

[Radical Activist]

31. Any candidate

who is seen as an issue or movement leader that hasn't held a major office has to deal with the experience issue. It was a problem for Nader as well as Sharpton and Jackson.

[KoKo]

40. It's a huge factor in weighing a candidate running for President, though,

wouldn't you agree? Going up against the Baker/Kissingers and Powers that Be amongst the Think Tanks leaves one very vulnerable. Perhaps Obama will pick up stronger "Powers that Be" than either Carter or Clinton had when they came in as "Fresh Faces" without much baggage with lots of "speaking power, ability and Charisma."

:shrug:

[-..__...]

42. Al Sharpton?

Are you serious?

The "Rev" is a publicity seeking buffoon and more of a divider than uniter.

[Clark2008]

44. Democrats would be wise to listen to whomever the corporate

media is touting...


and vote for the person they're NOT talking about.

And, that's all I have to say 'bout that.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

46. agree

[Radical Activist]

48. Don't tell that to the Deaniacs

The corporate media pumped him up for months before Iowa. AOL Time/Warner employees were even one of his top donor groups in the primary.

Couldn't it be that Obama is just a better communicator both to crowds and in the media than most others?

I went the rout you suggest last time and supported Kucinich. This time I'd like someone who is both liberal and can get good media coverage. There's nothing wrong with winning.

[aaronbees]

45. No

He's his own person, and that's what makes him appealing -- he's not "more like" this or "more like" that. The thing is it wasn't Colin or Condi or anyone else who said that; it was Barack Obama who's already spoken out against the war. What mkes him appealing now, I'm convinced, is that he's a positive person who wants to find solutions moving forward. After so much strife and negativity for six years (at the very least), how can that not seem appealing to people? People LOVE him because he invites them in to his vision for America. I think it's just that simple.

I'm not saying he would be my choice in the election (far too early for that), but his approach is refreshing.

[Telly Savalas]

47. JFK would be a more apt comparison than Colin Powell

[fuzzyball]

49. JFK was pro-strong defense spending and pro-taxcuts....Obama

if he is pro-strong defense spending and pro-taxcuts,
then he indeed is more like JFK.

[Telly Savalas]

56. I'm not talking about policy stances.

I'm talking about his public persona and communication style --- the subject of this thread.

[fuzzyball]

58. Any good Hollywood actor can impersonate JFK better than any

Politician. That means zilch to me. The policy and agenda
statements is what counts.

[Telly Savalas]

59. Then why did you bother to post in this thread?

[question everything]

50. Neither Powell nor Obama are descendants of slaves

Neither participated in the Civil Rights movement.

For better or worse they do not have that baggage.

[karash]

51. .

"People LOVE him because he invites them in to his vision for America. I think it's just that simple."

Are you talking about Reagan, or Obama? Because Reagan was great at forgetting the past too, and the press couldn't get enough of talking about his positive visions of the future. While he sowed the seeds of more war and poverty. Mind, Obama won't do exactly that, but saying "I think it's just that simple" to join in his vision is not a sustainable solution. America can't just sweep all the bodies of the dead under the rug and then participate in a bright new bipartisan vision. It is going to be painful and expensive to acknowledge the crimes of the past and begin to redress for them, and that can never be done by people whose only focus is winning the corporate system by providing a "positive vision."

The corporate media is filled with people providing a positive vision, in one form of the other. Now, I'm not advocating the negative little worldview that exists in the dust bunnies between a Glenn Beck type's ears, but there is a strong difference. For America to change--to actually *change*, and not just switch administrations to either side of the corporate "center" ever few years--it is going to have to acknowledge the brutal crimes of the past and deal with them. Just like a psychotic patient on the couch attempting to be healed. The nation cannot improve by embracing a positive vision and pretending that the murders of the past did not happen. And anyone who can genuinely advocate that--like Obama--might be well meaning, but is driving the nation down the same path of denial and recurrence it has been on for a great many years.

[aaronbees]

55. You're comparing him to Reagan?

You're responding to my post, I believe. I'm confused about your analogy to Reagan. I mean, FDR and JFK even inspired a sense of looking forward and getting Americans to participate in their idea of America ... was FDR like Reagan in your view? And where do we see that Obama will somehow sweep the past behind without addressing it? I'd like you to point to me to something in his record or what he's said that tells us that. And you understand the difference between rhetorical persuasion and actual results right? Like it or not, people don't always vote for position papers; that's reality. I'm talking about his general effect on folks -- as posted here and elsewhere -- that seems to inspire confidence in him. Whether or not he can back that up is a separate point, to be honest, but I suspect he could and should not be dismissed so easily, which is what I've seen here at DU.

[Solon]

54. I don't see how the Civil Rights movement can be considered baggage...

Granted, the KKK bloc will consider it a negative, but, to me, someone who is willing to put their life and liberty on the line for freedom is a BIG plus for me, period.

[Solon]

53. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and/or Barack Obama would all make good presidents...

If you are talking about "widespread" appeal needed to win elections in this white-majority country, then Obama probably has the best chance, sad but true. As far as Condi, I don't see any advantage for her as candidate in the Republican party, period, the Republican base loves her where she is at, but there is a limit to their tolerance of minorities, period.

Colin Powell HAD a better chance, after Gulf War 1, simply because he had a LOT of positives going for him, at the time. First, he was considered a "war hero", of sorts, and the visible face of a winning war, even if it was a farce. Second, he is the prodigal son of poor immigrants, and no matter how much Americans can be xenophobic, we simply LOVE stories like his. Last, but not least, Colin Powell was a moderate, apparently he recently rediscovered this moderation but now his name is tainted, so forget that. Before Bush the Lesser, Colin Powell had broad ranging appeal, mostly with independents, partially this is fueled by not only his political moderation, but moderation in speech as well.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have their pluses and negatives as well. Both are passionate voices of the underclasses of this country, something that for the longest time has been silent in national discourse. Jesse Jackson had a personal scandal a while back, that could possibly taint any presidential run, then again, most Americans don't really give a crap about shit like that, as evidenced by the apathy displayed about Bill Clinton's actions, and the outright, dare I say it, admiration, for the infidelities of JFK.

Al Sharpton has a bad habit of sticking his foot in his mouth, however, he also seems refreshingly honest about his beliefs, and he simply doesn't take any shit, I like that about him. :) This can be viewed as a negative or a positive depending on you proclivities.

Barack Obama is a little too much on the Moderate side for my taste, hovering in the center-left area. To me, he isn't the best candidate, but isn't the worst either. As far as the statement you quoted, it seems to ambiguous to really mean much, and could be interpreted in any number of ways. I will say that a big plus for Obama are his oratory skills, I haven't seen anyone make speeches like him in my entire life, period, he beats even Bill Clinton on this. I was born in 1978. He doesn't compare to Fredrick Douglass, JFK or even MLK Jr. but he's good, we have to give him props for that.

To be honest, the biggest negative against Obama is his lack of executive experience, not necessarily to ME personally, but to many, this is a negative. This alone shouldn't disqualify him as a candidate, for one of our greatest presidents had just as little experience, Abraham Lincoln. Am I directly comparing them, no, but Abe Lincoln was a man who grew into the office, just like ANY candidate should do, regardless of experience prior to attaining said office. Actually, that is something I view as important in any candidate, that they aren't PERFECT for the office, but that they want to LEARN to fit into the office.

Being President of the United States shouldn't be an end, but a means, Abe Lincoln was a man who, upon attaining office, and facing a growing crisis, had absolutely NO experience in how to deal with it. He wanted to restore the Union as it was, Slavery and all, but he learned, later on, that this wasn't possible, and simply put, he adapted to the office, rather than trying to bend IT to his will.

The thing is, Barack Obama, just like most candidates that aren't Governors, is an unknown in this area, he could be a good president, or a bad one, he could change policy positions in mid office, and, rather than deriding this as "flip flopping" we should praise it as an example of character growth. Whether he is actually given the chance to actually do this is up in the air, and, as I said, some of his policy positions concern me. But, I will vote for him for president in the general, if not in the primary(note, I endorse NO ONE at this point). However, if I am to criticize any candidate, it will be based on their policies, and I will defend them when they are criticized for anything else.

As far as Martin Luther King Jr. well, he was before my time, but like most schoolchildren, I learned a LOT about him in school, and being a history buff, I watched and read a lot about him, call me a fan if you will. :) Actually, this reminds me of a movie back in the 1990s, an HBO or Showtime "TV MOVIE" but with decent production value. It was a "what if" movie, basically what happened was that MLK Jr. was inside his hotel room in Memphis, receiving a phone call from Bobby Kennedy, to be on his ticket as his running mate.

Basically, neither Bobby nor Martin Luther King Jr. are assassinated and Bobby wins the presidency, with MLK Jr. as Vice president. After an expansion of LBJ's war on poverty, in addition to 8 years of peace(got out of Vietnam real quick), MLK Jr. runs on the Democratic ticket and wins himself, between the two of them, social services are greatly expanded, and poverty is reduced greatly. Actually, LBJ's war on poverty did, initially, cut poverty down, greatly, and cheaply too in real life, but Reagan cut the programs drastically, leading to an increase in poverty in the 1980s. In the movie, MLK Jr., of course, did the opposite, and practically eliminated poverty, and handled foreign policy and other crises, like the AIDS crisis much better than Reagan in real life.

It was fiction, that much is obvious, and in some cases seemed to be a little to much light and sunshine, but the POTENTIAL was there. But we will never know now, the most we can do is latch onto his dream, and hope, someday, that it will come to pass. To be honest, he was more than an embodiment of the civil rights movement, but also was becoming the leader of the poor, regardless of race, and peace movements. If I had a "dream ticket" he would be on it, but that's a wish that cannot be fulfilled.

To be honest, I don't know if Obama is the right candidate right now, as I said, he is an unknown. What we need is not only a political leader, but someone who would inspire OPTIMISM again, but at the same time base their policies, not in common sense, but in realism. We need someone with these qualities who isn't afraid to speak the truth. I'm not saying Obama is that person, he may not be, 2 years is a long time, especially the way politicians count it, so, your guess is as good as mine.

[Bullet1987]

57. There's nothing wrong with being like MLK...

...I just think Obama speaks for all people instead of just African-Americans. Or he doesn't emphasize it as much as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Let's not forget, Jackson speaking from a Civil Rights movement POV was important for a certain time period. So there's nothing wrong with that...I just think to make a better run as President...you need something a little more and Obama has that.