That seems awfully political for a graduation speech.

I dunno. I'm just not sold on this guy. He has the potential to be great, he has tremendous charisma but whatever his skill as a politician may be, it's his politics itself that worries me. I just don't see his 'government as miracle' rhetoric jibing with many people who might otherwise vote for him out of JFK like starry-eyed wonder.

 There's at least three more years before the 'Draft-Obama' movement gets chugging. In that time, I hope he takes at least a half-step toward Clinton and a half-step away from FDR.

We shouldn't keep him in the wings. That doesn't mean he should be our Presidential nominee in 2008. He should be a permanent fixture on Sunday talk shows though. He's already a media darling, and he has the ideas and the rhetorical skill to articulate the Democratic message. 

plenty of time for him to have a term or two in the Senate, then one as Governor, and then run for President in 2016

Agreed. The Senate has become little more than a Hot Air Club for posturing blowhards. The hard work, and the interesting experiments, is getting done today in the statehouses. 

I thought Senator Obama made a nice little stand today against Henrietta Holsman Fore (nominated to be the undersecretary of state for management):

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said Thursday he was troubled by racially insensitive comments attributed more than a decade ago to a woman the Bush administration has tapped for a top State Department job, and he threatened to block her nomination until his concerns were addressed.

He needs to keep doing things like that, speaking truth to power, and not getting to caught up in any partisan bickering.  So far, I'd say he's done a nice job in the Senate...but as a previous comment noted, the Senate ain't no path to the White House.  The sooner he gets himself on a presidential ticket, the better.

He's a powerful orator, a man who can truly speak the language of patriotism in a manner that is inclusive rather than exclusive.  If the Blue/Red divide in the country continues to spark as much tension as it has in the past year, people might well be ready for a different kind of language, a different kind of candidate in 2008.  I think he's our best hope, outside of Edwards...and I still say that putting the two of them together on a ticket would be dynamite. 

yeah, we need another triangulating slickster like we need another war in the middle east.

Did you not read the speech?  Obama is closer to Clinton then you think, he used Clinton's new economy new jobs lifelong education rhetoric in the speech. 

Obama's defence of the government and the good that the government does is sorely needed right now, because social security is under attack, and with our budget being so far out of balance and with corporate welfare running rampant we need someone to stand up and tell people that the government can and has done good for everyone.   I can't think of a better person then Obama to send out and defend the good programs the government does well. 

The Senate is much less of a platform for grand rhetorical displays than it used to be. In fact, oratory itself is becoming less important. It used to be said that TV created a soundbite political culture. Well, fewer and fewer people even watch TV anymore, and it's unlikely that  people will be podcasting politicians' speeches.

In the internet age, ideas need to be expressed succinctly. Brevity = force and power. Osama will be judged on what he can do, not on his ability to turn a phrase. If he can take a lead role in finally delivering us the national health insurance system we desperately need, then he's worthy of the Oval Office. If not, then he can look forward to a long career of bloviating with the other Senate blowhards, to be followed by an extremely lucrative position as Chief Fixer & Lobbyist for GoldmanPfizerMicrosoftTimeWarnerDisneySBC

We already have a Dem, Rod Blagojevich, in the statehouse in Springfield. We're so blue we can elect statewide a guy with an unpronounceable name and another whose name is just weird.:)
Blago's 1st term hasn't been very smooth. For reasons difficult to understand he's fought with the legislature even though they're Dem-controlled. He even has a bitter feud going with his father-in-law, a Chicago alderman. But I doubt very much that Obama would be interested in the office unless the path was absolutely clear. His one big blunder was challenging Bobby Rush for his congressional seat.
Even though he's a rookie in DC, he learned a lot about how to handle himself in a legislature while serving in the IL Senate. I think he knows how to avoid dumb-looking votes, but we'll see. 
He might be personally ready for an ’08 run, but assembling a staff would be tricky. Right now, I think he runs things out of his hip pocket. No one speaks for him and, as you can see, anyone else's words aren't likely to be as brilliantly chosen. I doubt he worries about staffers with private agendas. This seemed to be a problem in the Gore and Kerry campaigns, but all I know is what I read in the papers. Mr. Baer can speak to how he might avoid those pitfalls.
Watching him do a one-on-one with a local anchor is a thing of beauty. Someone asks him a dumb question and he just flashes that smile and deals.

Assuming I'm the poster you are referring too, allow me to answer:

Regardless of what we believe, the people at large are not going to respond as well to Senator Obama's fawning rhetoric about the grand benevolence and effectiveness of government than if he took a more pragmatic approach; not in the post-Reagan era anyway. Such an approach could potentially alienate voters, who might otherwise be open to state-based solutions.

If we are ever to get beyond the Reagan era of "government is the problem", we'll need an articulate spokesman for the other side. We can't just let anti-progessive ideas go unchallenged. Obama (or Edwards or Schweitzer or Spitzer or even Dean) could be that spokesman. We need our own Reagan; someone who'll expand the Democratic coalition by convincing people not just to vote for Democrats here and there, but by making them believe that the Democratic approach to governance is the right one. That won't happen if we run away from liberalism. We need to pick it up, dust it off, and make it shine again.

I don't think Obama will be ready in 2008, but I think his message is great. Government has walway been it's best when it has been progressive and willing to help people in need. The GOP can talk all they want about small government, but history shows that any period of small government is followed by a major crisis of some kind. Give the country a few more years of Bush, and they'll be screaming for more government help.

To tell you the truth, I am pretty disappointed by the reaction here to that speech.  Let's forget any political calculations, let's forget the greater context of the speech (Reagan Revolution vs. Clinton's vision - of course by saying this I am bound to piss a lot of people off), read those words.  Read them again.

How can you not be blown away?  How can you not put down your coffee and just say YES!

I felt like the best of JFK and William Jefferson Clinton just combined with a young African American senator, and his personal distinct background, to deliver a speech that absolutely encapsulated a view of prgressive national greatness that everyone from the center to the far left could accept (and all that was done within the non-politcal setting of a grad speech).

Call me naive, sayi I'm on the bandwagon, I don't care.  I just got chills reading those words.  2008 may or may not be his time, maybe he gets on the ticket, maybe we win the White House with an "older" VP who then moves to Secretary of State in the second term (excuse me, is the Gentleman from Delaware listening).  Who knows, and right now, who cares.  For the first time since the election I feel like an elected Dem articulated a bold positive vision for the future.

Sign Me Up.

I'm with you, Fear and Loathing. That speech gave me goosebumps. One thing I've noticed with Obama is that, if this speech and the DNC speech are any indication, he frequently refers back to American history, and specifically, the Founding Fathers, in order to make an optimistic case for liberalism. This seems like such an obvious rhetorical technique, but the fact is, not many politicians do it, and certainly few do it as well as Obama. (The textbook example, of course, is MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.)*

After the careful, plodding and often uninspiring rhetoric of Gore and Kerry, Obama is a breath of fresh air. 

* Incidentally, I don't think it's an accident that in both cases, the speakers employing this technique so effectively were African-American, who, fairly or not, are often seen as outsiders. And while King was trying to show Americans that the seemingly radical changes he was pursuing were, in fact, perfectly in line with the country's historical traditions, Obama has somewhat more prosaic concerns -- reassuring people suspicious of a guy with an unusual name that sounds a lot like the most hated man in America. That's not to say Obama doesn't mean what he's saying, just that someone of his background has to be more aware of such things.

Anon ... you were right on with the point about Obama using American history to stress the successes and achievements of liberalism.  Obviously, conservatives have always done this (how many times in your average Right wing rant do you hear "founding fathers"), even going so far as to without fail always mention the tax cut that JFK enacted (without, of course mentioning that when he took office, the top bracket was much higher than today) after winning the White House.

By intertwining liberalism and major accomplishments of American history, Obama is hitting a note that Marshall Whitman is always bringing up BullBooseBlog - - progressive national greatness.  Bear Any Burden isn't a Republican theme, it's ours, just like this country is and we need to take it back.

The immigrant rhetoric as I noted elsewhere buys into the historical myth that Americans are genetically endowed to lead the world by the immigrant experience. Semi-liberal, but still crypto-fascist if you ask me. 

And the Democratic party has never lifted a finger to stop the witch hunt that still goes on for Islamic organizations and charities. I guess we don't need to hear from that group of immigrants.

As for the rest of Obama's short career, let's get the nasty nicknames right, not Osama, O-bomb-ya. Where are some Arabs we can send this guy to kill off, to prove his willingness to use force and his ability to project American power?

We shouldn't forget the negative effects of "establishing credentials" in the Senate.  After his first term, yes, Obama will have a record established and it can then be attacked and twisted by opponents in a presidential race.  Remember "John Kerry voted for tax increases 300 times?"

I think that Obama should only spend one term in the Senate, if that.  A long Senate voting record can be all too easily manipulated in fodder for opponents.  When was the last time a President came from the Senate? 

Obama is an impressive communicator of what must be the Democratic message for 2008.  However, unless the strategy is to abandon the southern, rural electorate completely, I'm afraid that Obama should wait in the wings until the Democrats regain some credibility in that sector. 

I live in a red state, surrounded by Nascar voters, and I'm here to tell you that the Democratic Party is seen as kowtowing to the so-called leftist agenda of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other assorted opponents of the "American Way".   Much as it pains me to say it, a black Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 will reinforce that perception big time, unfairly or not.  It will be a gift to the GOPers' propaganda machine and could cause futher erosion of the Democratic Party at the state house level, too.  

Democrats must put up a candidate in 2008 who can run strong in the south and rural America.  Unfortunately, thanks to the GOP's cynical and corrosive "southern strategy" over the past 20 years or so, I don't think a black candidate can help the Democratic party at this point in history.  Obama is young, and he should wait until the country has had time to shake off some of the hateful effects of GOP rhetorical excesses.

Obama appears to be a forerunner of the type of "solar ethic" and "humanitarianism" religion that the philosopher Don Cupitt has proposed to replace the moribund "ecclesial Christianity".  I'm pleased that Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.  (Yeah, the one whose inclusive commercials ABC won't air.)

I think the idea of Obama as Gov of Illinois is a good one.  Governors of major states really exercise executive power, and it would be a great springboard into the White House.

   I am sorry though, I am not all that optimistic for the next 10 years of US politics as seeing Obama get into the White House.  It would be nice; even if he was on a national ticket would be a step.

    First getting the election process so that it isn't routinely rigged is crucial.  Something must be done (and you can't leave it to presidential candidates or aspirants) about the media machinery of justifying the lying and suppressing the truth.
The media is getting more ridiculous, like the media lockdown of Votergate 2004, which doesn't bode well for the future of national politics.

     There is also the need for much national political organizing, like the national organization canvassing door-to-door for members (active) and donations, like ACORN type groups do.
But these things are in turn blocked by 'glass walls' of underground repression from coming to fruition effectively; these glass walls must be smashed.

    In short, if we want a president like Obama, there's a lot of groundwork that needs to be done.  It isn't like a smart, visionary, eloquent figure like him can get elected.  Dorothy, we're not in Kansas any more.

Ok, first an applogy - While I read most of the comments, I did not read every one of the 39 responses.  Thus, if I repeat anything anyone else said - please pardon the repetition.

First, I am big fan of the Obama.  One of the people I work with came to be after his speech (on cable if you recall) and said, "I have seen the future of the Democratic Party and his name is Obama."  It was a great speech, delivered with charisma and credibility.  So is the commencement speech. 

As for the future: - some thoughts.

He has plenty of time!  He is in his early 40s and just got to the Senate - give him a little time.  He needs to run, if he wants to, when he is ready - not just because we perceive we need him.

Gov. of Illinois - saw a lot of these suggestions.  Not a bad idea: except of course that, Illinois has a Democratic Governor right now.  Minor detail.

Presidency from the Senate:  where to start.  (Ok how about the easy one: LBJ did not go directly from the Senate to the Presidency - last time I checked he was Vice President first - you remember: the photo of him as VP taking the oath of office on that plane in Dallas with a stunned Jackie with him. ) 

Next: John Kennedy and Warren Harding are the only two Presidents in the 20th Century to go directly from the Senate to the White House.  Every other President in the 20th Century was either a governor (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Roosevelt,  Wilson) or Vice President (Bush the elder, Nixon, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, TR) Exceptions of course for Eisenhower who followed the hero D-Day route to the White House; Taft who was Secretary of War, and Hoover, who was Secretary of Commerce after having lead the effort to feed Europe during and after WWI.   Thus, the Senate is probably not the best launching pad.   Not that it can't be done but it is not easy. 

Thus, I tend to agree that Gov. (when and if it opens up) and/or VP might be a good place to go next.  Ultimately it all comes back to let him pick the right time - and if he is half as good as I think he is he will know when it is (remember Bill Clinton saw the moment in '92 even when the other heavy hitters saw Bush as unbeatable and stayed out of the race).