Well, may as well pack it in. Markos has called it for Obama.

[beachmom]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/5/12817/5575

2008: If Obama runs, he wins

by kos

Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 10:03:31 AM PST

Standard caveats aside (it's early, we don't have a set field, blah blah blah), it's hard to see how Barack Obama loses the nomination barring scandal or the mother-of-all gaffes.

snip

Again, we don't know what the final field will look like, so things can dramatically change. But an entrance into the race would make Obama the prohibitive favorite. If politics is about seizing opportunities, it would seem a no-brainer for him to enter the race now.

What's more, Obama would then be tough to beat in the general. He would very well be the favorite in that race, even against a McCain, and would probably be a net positive for Democrats running down the ballot. So it wouldn't be a terrible thing by any means.

(Tired disclaimer: None of this implies endorsement. I will say nice things and mean things about all these candidates before it's all said and done. As of now, I have no preferences or favorites.)

He mentions Kerry in passing as "maybe" NH being "fertile territory" to him. But since the race is over before it's started IN DECEMBER 2006, there's no need to talk about it anymore, is there?


(Uh oh, somebody call Obama. The Markos kiss of death has just non-endorsed/endorsed you, which is usually not a very good sign)

[Firespirit]

1. He's also joined the conventional wisdom about Vilsack

Honestly, I have NO IDEA where this line about Vilsack sweeping Iowa has come from. Where is the EVIDENCE for it? The most recent polling of Iowa that I've seen (which, admittedly, is from the summer) has Vilsack coming a distant fourth in his own state.

[MBS]

3. I don't get it about Vilsack either

IMO , he's going NOWHERE. Mark Barrett's hypothesis-- that he's a stand-in for HIllary, or as some other agenda-- makes the most sense to me.

[whometense]

7. The idea that he's worked out a

deal for VP does make sense. Otherwise, I don't really see it. Though in his defense, I thought he came across well on This Week last Sunday. He's a thoughtful guy - but way low on the charisma scale. Not that that should matter.

The concept that someone makes a good presidential candidate because their politics/positions are unknown is a sickening one. It goes along with Obamamania - a blank slate is preferable to someone with a track record that can be picked apart by the opposition. Will people ever wise up?

[whometense]

4. I heard a snippet of Ed Schultz

in the car yesterday afternoon, and a guy called in who was pushing this point - he said Vilsack is totally underrated, was a fantastic governor, and he'll take Iowa. For what it's worth. No idea who he was, though.

[Mass]

6. I did not get it either. I think that this comes from the fact that many

still cannot figure out what Vilsack can offer and therefore imagine a plot with Hillary. He would somehow have entered the race in order to avoid Hillary to have to fight in Iowa and allow her to focus on New Hampshire and North Caroline.

[wisteria]

2. This is actually embarrassing. The network pundits haven't the

nerve to go this far. Has Kos lost it? He must be losing his touch. The race is over before it even begins and to think, I was going to push important points like experience and credibility and proven leadership. I suppose none of that matters- all we need to win is a new face with no record.

I staying out of this discussion with a big WHATEVER! The Clark, Gore, Edwards, Bayh and Clinton people will be sure to pass some of our opinion of this poll along to Kos.

[Mass]

5. Markos has definitively joined the pundits' camp and is touting

conventional wisdom and pack mentality.

I like Obama, but he will have to prove that he can survive the excitation that comes with the fact that he is a new face. How often can you be on TV before you stop being a new face?

In addition, read the Sirota analysis concerning Evan Bayh.

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=536CFF3E-E0C3-F090-A39E19B1F023C672

While Sirota is extremely harsh on Bayh (probably more than he deserves), part of what he says applies to Obama as well:

This is a typical career politician move - don't actually talk about what you are for, talk about what your party supposedly must talk about or not talk about. This kind of behavior usually comes from a person who actually has nothing important or substantive to say, other than "look at me, I want attention." And in this case, of course, Bayh doesn't even have the guts to define what "ideological" means. So let's do it for him: The American Heritage dictionary defines "ideological" as "Of or concerned with ideas."

...

Obama sometimes has the same problem (and some other Democrats as well). He spends more time defining what Democrats should do and not do than saying what he stands for(I guess politicians that were formed by the Clinton school, whether they agree with Clinton vision or are more liberal, have this tendency -- trying to define how to win rather than your principles). This is the major issue I have with him.