I'm not American, but I'm nonetheless watching this fellow with great interest -- Pierre Trudeau's observation about sharing a bed with an elephant is apt. Added: Actually, it's particularly apt since I like Obama in much the same way that I like Trudeau, and he might conceivably have the same sort of mass appeal.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not really a STEP so to speak. You do not HAVE to create a presidential exploratory committee, you can, and it certainly indicates a strong interest in possibly committing to the race.
Its more of a formality that some candidates choose to undertake. With so many people already talking about Obama running, he does not really lose the element of surprise by announcing this.
If he concludes that he should run, or the opposite that he should sit this one out, neither outcome will surprise me. Obama seems like a very level headed person who tries to make GOOD decisions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its not really a STEP so to speak. You do not HAVE to create a presidential exploratory committee, you can, and it certainly indicates a strong interest in possibly committing to the race.
Indeed -- there was one candidate this year who started a commitee, then chose not to run (was it Bayh?).
--j_k watches Obama with interest
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your analogy works, all right. Stretching isn't a legal requirement before a race, but it sure is a good idea. Posts: 1785 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I (obviously not just me)got an e-mail from him this morning. It was a great e-mail - outlining how he got to considering this and talking about the challenges we are facing as a country. It ended with this:
quote: We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.
This won't happen by itself. A change in our politics can only come from you; from people across our country who believe there's a better way and are willing to work for it.
Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things.
So even in the midst of the enormous challenges we face today, I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you.
And that's why I wanted to tell you first that I'll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.
In the meantime, I want to thank all of you for your time, your suggestions, your encouragement and your prayers. And I look forward to continuing our conversation in the weeks and months to come.
posted
"I stand for the rights of puppies and kitties to be cute! And baby seals! And rainbows! And unicorns prancing! A vote for me is a vote for something good!"
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol Twinky your analogy works just fine, just trying to make sure folks don't jump the gun and say he is IN the race.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:just trying to make sure folks don't jump the gun and say he is IN the race.
Speaking of jumping the gun...
quote:"I stand for the rights of puppies and kitties to be cute! And baby seals! And rainbows! And unicorns prancing! A vote for me is a vote for something good!"
posted
Nah Sax has a point. He's throwing a LOT of flowery language at us, and a lot of in general good feelings and positive platitudes, but I haven't seen anything concrete from him yet.
Which is fine really, I don't plan to hold him to anything until he actually declares his candidacy, but until then the kind of language that Sax mocks is all we're getting right now. He's the Cloud Nine Candidate.
Thing is, I think that's what a lot of Americans want right now. They want to be energized, they want to be excited, and they want to believe. Obama might just be that guy, and he's made himself into the most dynamic possible candidate without spending a cent. That's impressive, regardless.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am impressed with Obama's expressed ideas and opinions. However, he's not done anything as a federal politicianto make me respect him other than expressing ideas and opinions to the extent of the collective 'happy finish' that goes on in some circles whenever he's mentioned.
quote: Nah Sax has a point. He's throwing a LOT of flowery language at us, and a lot of in general good feelings and positive platitudes, but I haven't seen anything concrete from him yet.
This was my thought as well. But then again, I haven't done tons of research on him. I bought his book The Audacity of Hope today hoping that it expounds on his vision of things. If anybody has read it, does it do this?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read it, and yes, it does. Although if you're hoping for a fiery polemic, better look elsewhere. Obama goes into his opinions deeply, but as in his speeches, he places a lot of emphasis on crossing partisan lines and working to understand the other guy's point of view. That happens to be a major selling point for me, as I'm also a self-described liberal with very strong opinions, but who is tired of the sniping and reliance on rhetoric over reason coming from both sides of the aisle.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hope that he would be above running a negative mud-slinging campaign. He seems like he'd be above it.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the history of politics, no one yet has really proven to be above mud slinging, and I'm not sure I want them to be.
First of all, all positive campaigns are nice, but the crucible of a mud slinging campaign allows us to see the downsides of a candidate. We NEED to see that side, to know if we're making a mistake or not. Pros and cons are part of the decision making process, not just the pros. I just wish they'd give us relevent negative information. I want to know when and why a candidate changes their mind. If it's because of good information, then I support them. If it's because they were paid off, or because it was politically wise, then I don't. But I still want to know about it.
I don't want all positive campaigns, but I hate what we have now. I want something more balanced and smart, and with some level of faith that the American people aren't completely stupid.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The RNC is bending over backwards to try to get some good negative angles on him. The current showing is poor: Rush Limbaugh started calling him "Odumbo" and criticizing his ears, because he mistook a clip of Obama joking about his ears as being legitimate sensitivity on Obama's part over the size of his ears. And that was .. about it.
And they call him 'inexperienced,' but that's kind of a weak charge too.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting that Clinton's "I tried marijuana but I didn't inhale" made a supposedly big argument against him, but Obama's admission in his memior that he used both marijuana and cocaine when he was a teenager isn't showing up in anyone's mudslinging... yet.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think calling someone with Obama's level of government experience inexperienced is weak. Seems extremely accurate to me, Samprimary.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. If we were looking at a prospective brain surgeon or rocket scientist or whatever, we probably might call them inexperienced with only two years on the job, too. Especially if they were in a roster with people with decades of experience.
The real question is whether or not being inexperienced (which Obama clearly is as a member of Congress) is a bad thing, or a good thing. That's a question I'm not sure of, yet.
'Odumbo' is just plain stupid, but it's Limbaugh so par for the course.
As for the RNC bending over backwards to get some good negative angles yet...perhaps the current showing is poor because it's so early? They need to wait until the candidates are winnowed out so they can focus their efforts...just like the DNC will be doing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think it does, Martha. It's not an elected position. One would have to be quite exceptional (in my opinion, anyway) for performance in a position such as First Lady to count for much in my own personal book.
And, for better or worse, it's not so hard to get decades (or even decade) of experience holding public office that we don't have many in state and national government in that position.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, our current administration has decades of foreign policy experience - all it did was make them arrogant. Maybe someone with less experience would be more open to listening to a variety of opinions instead of only paying attention to who already agrees with you and dismissing dissent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've read it, and yes, it does. Although if you're hoping for a fiery polemic, better look elsewhere. Obama goes into his opinions deeply, but as in his speeches, he places a lot of emphasis on crossing partisan lines and working to understand the other guy's point of view.
Glad to hear it details his views. I think Obama's charm to most people is his ability to cross partisan lines. I'm far from a strong liberal- I've voted for Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats. Obama's broad appeal is his greatest asset. He can get the swing votes in a general election- something Hilary would have no hope of.
quote: I find it interesting that Clinton's "I tried marijuana but I didn't inhale" made a supposedly big argument against him, but Obama's admission in his memior that he used both marijuana and cocaine when he was a teenager isn't showing up in anyone's mudslinging... yet.
I think it's because it's nothing new anymore. It was a little suprising that Clinton had done marijuana. It was more scandalous that Bush had done marijuana, cocaine, and been a raging drunk. But I think we've all gotten used to the idea and its no longer that shocking.
quote:I don't really think calling someone with Obama's level of government experience inexperienced is weak. Seems extremely accurate to me
Well I think Obama will have had more time in public office than W. Bush did before running for president. Obama was an Illinois senator for eight years, then a US senator for the past two years . That's more experience than Bush's six years as Governor (two of which were spent campaigning). I don't remember anybody saying that Bush was inexperienced.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama served in the Illinois state senate for eight years before running for his current position. He also worked locally as a community leader for about ten years before that. I don't think anyone is denying that he's relatively inexperienced on the national level, because he is- although I think the Abraham Lincoln argument is an effective counter. But if you're talking government experience in general, as you seem to be (and my apologies if I misunderstood), Obama does have experience... far more than Hillary.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I meant that Hillary knows far more about how to be president, having been First Lady, than she would if she hadn't. I did not mean that we the public know any more about what kind of president she would be.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoops, my last post was meant to be a direct response to Rakeesh.
quote:I think it's because it's nothing new anymore. It was a little suprising that Clinton had done marijuana. It was more scandalous that Bush had done marijuana, cocaine, and been a raging drunk. But I think we've all gotten used to the idea and its no longer that shocking.
It's more than that. Obama volunteered the information about his drug use, which (a) got it out way before anyone could craft an attack around it, and (b) showed a level of candor that few politicians are willing to show. The net effect is that the story actually improves his public image as an honest guy who, like anyone else, has made some bad decisions in his life but has moved beyond them. Clinton's mistake was in his rather clumsy rebuttal ("I didn't inhale"), which came off as evasive, and rather than deflecting public suspicion, only made it a story that lasted longer. Admittedly, in the end, it didn't really hurt Clinton all that much, but its handling was a public relations flub.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't remember anybody saying that Bush was inexperienced.
This matters because...?
Let's assume that no one said Dubya was inexperienced at the time (I don't assume that, but lets): it would not change my belief that Bush had limited experienced (inexperienced) at national-level politics when he was elected President.
One could also say that experience as a member of the executive branch might be more relevant to the office of the President than experience as a member of the legislative branch. I'm not saying that, but I am saying it's an idea that deserves consideration.
quote:On the other hand, our current administration has decades of foreign policy experience - all it did was make them arrogant. Maybe someone with less experience would be more open to listening to a variety of opinions instead of only paying attention to who already agrees with you and dismissing dissent.
What other hand? I view Presidential candidates on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that experience, or lack thereof, should be a deciding factor or even necessarily a factor. What is done during that experience should be. What is said should also be a factor, but less of one.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama needn't worry about GOP barbs just yet. First he'll have to face the onslaught of the Clintons. When the first mud is slung, you'll be seeing dirty Democrat hands before you see any others. I, for one, am looking forward to a nasty Democrat Primary, especially if Sharpton enters the race. Hillary is going to stand by and lose this thing to an upstart without puttingup a serious fight.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone (other than Mig, of course) have hopes that the next presidential race will be somewhat less nasty and contentious, or is that just the way American politics works now?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if Hillary wins the Democratic primary, we're in for the nastiest race ever. I personally think it is unearned, but I have never seen as much vileness and hatred directed at a single person as is with Hillary.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not one to put a whole lot of weight on experience.
To debunk the two examples offered: Would I want a brain surgeon who has twenty years of experience, or one who graduated at the top of his class just two years ago? Well, has the older surgeon kept current, or has he fallen into habits and routine? Are there practices he is not as aware of, or new theories/procedures that he hasn't studied?
Same with a rocket scientist. Twenty years experience means your computer experience started in the 80's. A new graduate may be just as capable, or even moreso, with handling the applications needed for the job.
To me, experience in "politics" is not necessarily a good thing. Is Strom Thurmond any better of a candidate than Obama because of his vast experience? How about Ted Kennedy? I don't think that years doing a job makes you any better at that job. It may make you a better "player" of the political "game" - but the objectives of that game are reelection and pork far too often.
I can forgive someone far more quickly for inexperience than I can for experienced incompetence or corruption.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that that's probably true, although like Amanecer, I'm not sure that it's entirely earned. What about Obama, though?
And, on a broader scale, what are the chances that we'll get candidates from either side that are interested in conveying what they're about rather than sloganizing themselves and anti-sloganizing the opposition?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not one to put a whole lot of weight on experience.
To debunk the two examples offered: Would I want a brain surgeon who has twenty years of experience, or one who graduated at the top of his class just two years ago? Well, has the older surgeon kept current, or has he fallen into habits and routine? Are there practices he is not as aware of, or new theories/procedures that he hasn't studied?
Same with a rocket scientist. Twenty years experience means your computer experience started in the 80's. A new graduate may be just as capable, or even moreso, with handling the applications needed for the job.
I specifically didn't offer those two examples to demonstrate that experience should have superior weight in the question, but to point out that Obama is inexperienced. I don't understand why I'm still belaboring it at this point...I thought it was pretty clear.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious about Obama in a few respects. One of the tangential goods that he brings to the presidency is that he could possibly attract the best and brightest to go into public service.
Remember after 9/11 when Bush Administration told everyone that the most patriotic thing we could do was to shop and don't question his policies. And at best, the Administration will suffer dissent not because it may be helpful, but because they have a legal obligation to do so, and we should be lucky we have such a freedom because that's what seperates us from the terrorist states.
One hopes, and this is a big hope to pin on such skinny shoulders, that if Obama peels back that veneer of cynacism surrounding the government, Obama will draw some of our better people into public service. That means better public local officials, better teachers, et al. I think the current Administration has done well in convincing some of our best young people to join the defense and the oil industries, I wonder if a side benefit of having Obama as president is that more, better people will be supportive of other community and social concerns.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
White America isn't out to get us, you all are just so busy helping yourselves that we get the short end by accident. And every now and then, we get the occasional lecture that it's the American way to help yourselves and give someone else the short end, and since that lesson never takes for deep reasons of morality and history, we end up in the same place as we started.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember after 9/11 when Bush Administration told everyone that the most patriotic thing we could do was to shop and don't question his policies.
I don't remember the second part happening. I remember many people attributing it to him, as well as many of his supporters saying things like that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:White America isn't out to get us, you all are just so busy helping yourselves that we get the short end by accident.
As opposed to the selfless generosity and social conciousness constantly on display by other racial segments of the United States, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rak, I just used those examples because those were the two I remembered from reading the thread. I know that you aren't saying that inexperienced=bad.
I was just trying to illustrate that experience doesn't have too much bearing on my decision-making process - as it could would work against a person as much as for them.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think that if Hillary wins the Democratic primary, we're in for the nastiest race ever. I personally think it is unearned, but I have never seen as much vileness and hatred directed at a single person as is with Hillary.
That's right, because Preseident Bush has been treated with such loving compassion from the left. The treatment of Hillary has been horrible. I wish Jon Stewart would stop picking on Hillary and start making a few jokes at Bush's expense, that Michael Moore would just leave her alone, I wish they's stop making movies about the assassination of Sen. Clinton, and I wish people would stop making jokes about her intelligence. No, wait, none of that has happended. It's been Bush who's been the target of unending vileness and hatred. You may not mind thatr so much, but don't act as if political character attacks only come from the right.
Irami Osei-Frimpong wrote:
quote: Remember after 9/11 when Bush Administration told everyone that the most patriotic thing we could do was to shop and don't question his policies.
No I don't remember this. I remember that they urged people to shop and go about they're daily business, but I don't recall anyone in the administration saying that it was unpatriotic to question his policies. Frankly, I think your imagining this. Please provide a link to the statement or quote from when this was made.
This whole Obama love fest is fascinating to me. It seems to indicate not so much a support for the guy as a sense that democrats are disparate for anyone but Hillary or any of the other established party stalwarts. Are democrats that disatisfied or disillusioned by thier leaders that they are willing to follow an unkown commodity? Sure seems so.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't recall anyone in the administration saying that it was unpatriotic to question his policies.
When the new anti-terrorism legislation was being prepared, Ashcroft said:
quote: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."
posted
I figured you wouldn't have much of substance to back that up, Irami. Typical for your comments on race, really.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't a big white cabal figuring out how to stick it to the darkies, rather it's a complicated money and influence scheme that's come into existence for reasons of familial ties, religion, social customs, and golf score, none of which is tantamount to racketeering, but is exemplified in Bush's ascendancy to the Presidency and the vices of this scheme are shown through what I consider to be his less than stellar performance. And since, for the most part, I think that people should conduct their private businesses however they see fit, I'm not one to complain until white people use the force of law and policy to penalize black people for not conforming to their scheme, where in my view such complaints sound like, "If they just sold their souls like good white people, we would be a uniformily great nation."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You must traffic in souls a great deal, to be so knowledgeable about how and when people sell them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see them being bought and sold all the time. I think most people are blind to such transactions, and the few who can see keep their lips sealed.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
