I didn't think that anything could slow my enthusiasm for an Obama candidacy, but a George Will endorsement qualifies.

Will is a patriot...

However, Milhouse does provide some good data against the Clintonites, Edwardians and Clarks:

The nonpartisan National Journal gave him an 82.5 liberalism rating, making him more liberal than Clinton (79.8).

I don't wish to be rude, but pundits on the political horse race are a dime a dozen. If we want to talk about the record or political views of any of the potential candidates even this early, fine. Otherwise, I'd rather have our taking a higher journalistic ground than the mass media, for whom politics is all horse race, lest we fall again into a badly scripted campaign when the time comes.

FWIW, however, sure, I think Obama has a decent chance. If nothing else, his very good speeches (and Kerry's clumsy ones and Clinton's evasions of public pronouncements period) get covered, whereas Gore's great ones and Edwards's very good ones don't.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

To Pickabone:
The two Roosevelts were fifth cousins; their common ancestor lived in the 17th century. They were neither married to each other nor father and son.

Hillary is dynastic because her ascent is a direct result of a family connection. Bill, however, is definitely bootstrap. (Chelsea, like Hillary, is not).

That doesn't disqualify Hillary by any means. But, yeah, I do get a warm feeling from the idea of coming up from nothing to greatness.

George Will clearly has a shred of shame and conscience which nearly all other conservatives do not. His column was incisive and trenchant - with some highbrow 25cent words thrown in (Execrate).

I initially opposed W Bush pretty much only because of the dynasty factor. I think Josh Marshall has said this before but...

Bush. Clinton. Clinton. Bush. Bush. Clinton. Clinton.

Do we really want that?

It is playing 'horserace' but against cranky McCain, I think people will take BO any day. Hillary is a savvy power player - and not just since getting her Senate seat - but what's to like about imperious, scheming Hillary in comparison to I-deserve-honor McCranky?

McCain is locking in the Krischun kingmakers and Gulianni doesn't have a 'prayer' without them. McCranky's played ball with Bush, despite hating his guts, and I think it's his nomination to lose.

nonpartisan National Journal? Wasn't that founded by William F. Buckley? Well-respected, maybe, but I'm not sure nonpartisan would apply.

Yeah, but the bloom will be off the rose in four years, let alone eight. Half of his appeal is that he's brand spankin' new. By the end of his term in the Senate, he will have made some compromise or other with hell. The fact that he has a slim voting record is actually a benefit to him now.

Correction--Reagan was from Dixon, Illinois. He was born in Tampico, and only went to college at Eureka College.

George has been quite willing on many occasions to put party loyalty above country.
Even to the extent of covering up illegal actions.

That, to me, disqualifies him as a patriot.
Well, that and the stupid bowtie.

I stand corrected.

Obama has given a few good speeches but he has yet to do very much. He may turn out to be a great Senator but it very early to get to carried away with any Democrat. Since the Democrats tend to eat their leaders right now I would want to be one of the hopefuls with only single digits in the polls.

A question of curiosity. Obama is not a tradition African-American. He is a second generation immigrant, his father is from Kenya. Thus his family were never slaves in America. He is like Colin Powell in this respect. I am curious if people think this will matter pro or con for him?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

An interesting new LA Times poll has Obama with surprisingly little support among Democrats, many saying they don't know enough about him. Edwards does much better. Democratic voters particularly like Gore as well. (Clinton does poorly against McCain in the electorate but is popular among Democratic voters alone.)

That just goes to show that Washington pundits and the media play to one another's truisms. I guess running for president or vice president does grant name recognition. More Democrats were nominally sentient in 2000 and 2004 than insiders give them credit for.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

To JM Haber:
I think those polls are meaningless. Joe Lieberman was the clear choice of Democrats at this point in '02. It's all name recognition.
Obama does not have it yet. But he will.

Most everyone I know voted for the Democrats this last election and are all taken aback by the Obama hype. Its not vitriol or rightwing blowhards. Its people saying WTF??? Its people being serious about holding onto a Democratic majority in Congress. We're in such a mess because the current occupant didn't have the experience to be president and now they want to stick us with another one? Hasn't anyone learned anything, like, this is serious and important and not just somebody's ego trip because he can get media hype?

Obama hype is 100% because he's black. Who do they think they're fooling with this nonsense? The Republicans showcase any black Republican they can find at their convention and everyone knows they're going to do that so the Democrats have to give a black politician a big spot like the keynote address. Theres no "merit" attached to it.

Hopefully, it'll go away and we won't have to watch this character doing the Jesse Jackson playbook from the 80's, registering black voters in the South and winning primaries in the South where Democrats have no chance of winning in November. And then the eventual nominee has to kowtow to Obama like Dukakis kowtowed to Jackson. We know what happened that time: a 17 point lead evaporated into hopelessness by the fall.

I don't think Obama got more coverage in the past than Gore or Edwards. Post-election he might have, but that's b/c there's a lot of buzz behind his potential candidacy. Nothing wrong with covering that; it's a story.

Edwards was on Hardball last night. I've seen lots of Gore speeches covered on TV, even the ones critical of the president, esp. around the time of his Dean endorsement in '04.

I think it will be irrelevant. He will just be seen as an African-American by those who pay attention to such things (and those who really care won't vote for him). He might be able to bring up being an immigrant, but I don't know that that will cut either way.

I agree that being the front-runner is an impossible weight, but I believe Barack can bear it.

Besides, isn't Hillary leading in the polls right now?

And what are those nefarious motives?

The GOP has plenty of time to go to work on whoever wins the Dem nomination. It doesn't matter what Will says in 2006. A Dem pundit could say that McCain or Huckabee would be better than Brownback or Romney. So what?

my nefarious comment comes from what I read above:

On December 14, 2006 - 3:00pm Karen444 said:

George Will is trying to set us up.

God willing, Democrats are not that dumb.....

Yes. Based on what? What's your reasoning?

Obama hype is 100% because he's black. Who do they think they're fooling with this nonsense? The Republicans showcase any black Republican they can find at their convention and everyone knows they're going to do that so the Democrats have to give a black politician a big spot like the keynote address. Theres no "merit" attached to it.

See, this is where you lose me. It may be true to say that he's an as yet empty canvass upon which people project their wishes, but given the Bush disasters and the ungodly mess we're in, a little wishing for better leadership is understandable..

If may be true that race has something to do with him, but I read it differently. He's mixed race, but not from the American African American vicinity, which, I think, relieves us all of the amost automatic, subliminal guilt and prejudice we breath with the air. His heritage and story allows us to see color in a fresh context, one that essentially takes race out of the picture in the traditional way we've always dealt with it in this country.

Liberals don't have to "like" him because he's black, because he's not decended from slaves, and so no more liberal guilt.

Moderates can breath a sigh of relief and look at him as an individual on his own merits, and not fear having to deal with the old landmines of racial stereotyping in this country, and make common cause with liberals.

And conservatives, those who make a religion of achievement by merit, anyway, can find things to admire in him, as well.

I think you're misreading the whole race thing, frankly. In this case, we may have a new breed and generation, one that can finally 'turn the page' on all of the horrendous divisive stuff that's haunted us since the civil rights struggles and Viet Nam.

Or, at least, allow us to start the conversation anew.

Having grown up during the former and latter, I find this change refreshing and.... hopeful. It's a new feeling. I haven't felt this way since 1960, and certainly not since November of 1963.

What's wrong with that?

Oh how ridiculous.

We went through this with Dukakis. He had a 17 point lead in June; then came the Democratic convention and Dukakis bowing and scraping to Jackson and the entire Jackson family and by September it was hopeless. Thats a fact.

What kind of Obama totalitarian are you actually saying you think someone should leave the Democratic Party because she thinks Barack Obama-hype hurts the Democratic Party? Your support of the Democratic Party is so shallow that it just comes down to Barack Obama.

To be in the Democratic Party we ALL have to kowtow to BARACK OBAMA, not just the politicians and eventual nominee. I can just see the pompous full-of-himself Obama in the primary debates and all of the other candidates smiling at him and pandering to him, because he is black.

Hopefully, hopefully we'll be saved from it all. Maybe Tony Rezko will dish some dirt on Obama to Fitzgerald and get himself a plea deal and it'll all go away quietly.

I don't know your age so you may not remember 1988's Democratic convention. I remember it very well; there was even a segment of Dukakis acceptance speech where he paid homage to JACKIE Jackson, Jesse Jackson's 12 year old daughter and how great she was! I voted for Dukakis but do I know how bad, how groveling that came across to many, many people?

And the proof is in the pudding: 17 point lead in June vanishes and Dukakis was a hopeless candidate by Labor Day.

Hard to rate Kennedy since he was president such a short time and there is that open question about his intentions in Vietnam.

JFK definitely escalated US involvement in Vietnam. Eisenhower had only 700 advisors in there and I believe JFK increased the number to almost 20,000. Whether he would have pulled out (the theory of Oliver Stone's movie) or continued escalating like Johnson is always the big question about JFK, I guess. I believe the CIA is considered responsible for the coup against President Diem in November '63 - a coup that turned into an assassination of Diem and his brother. That put us in a position of political responsibility for Vietnam just as we're stuck being responsible for Iraq to have a stable government after regime-changing their existing government.

JFK owned up to the Bay of Pigs mess with a direct conversation with the American public. He took full responsibility--something we've seen little of since then.

He also managed the Cuban Missile Crisis ably and kept Americans informed throughout the mess.

JFK's legacy includes sending advisors to Vietnam but we can thank LBJ for the full war effort and it's disastrous casualties--including those vets still suffering today.

He was photogenic, articulate, and charismatic. I know folks personally who heard him speak briefly only once and that was enough. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King had the same sort of effect. It is a very rare gift. Obama also has it.

Jeremiah J, read Obama's autobiography. And even if you don't, imagine what a black man has to overcome in America (a poor black man, no less) to get where he is today.
Reagan had his precious white skin, as has every other major candidate for President including Clinton, of course.
No, you have to go back to Lincoln and even he was white.
As for Karen's vitriol, it is some scarey shit. Really, K, you are a white Republican. The post-LBJ Democratic party is not for you.

Last point: Obama's tough race in '04 was not against doofus, Alan Keyes. It was the primary.
As for JFK, good-looking man. Inspirational speaker. And everything was handed to him on a gold platter.

WOW.

"Some pompous politician thinks the world of himself" sounds AWFULLY close to "uppity negro" in the context of your comments.

You have taken my breath away with your analysis which is significantly more revealing than it is insightful.

Stunning. And stomach-churning.

Well, since no one has to show ID to get in here, she could be anyone. 

 Karl? Is that you, buddy? :-)

Just to be clear: His talent was in oratory more than policy? MLK led marches and boycots which led to results. Are you saying that Kennedy's nice rhetorical gifts led to similar advancements?

I'm genuinely curious about this. I'm reading over and over amongst blog posters how important it is to communicate if you want to be president. And as the original post seems to imply, that's more important than specific policy ideas and experience. I'd just like a little clarification on where we are these days when it comes to electing a president.

Not that I care about tough races, but Obama benefited from a "mishap" of the leading primary opponent in '04. I remember him being in a much closer race against the original GOP opponent until he had to drop out for another "mishap".

If a feel good story is so important, than Edwards and Clark deserve some credit as well. Don't get me wrong, I've seen poverty enough--and close enough--to be inspired by those who can escape it and be successful. But I want to know what a presidential candidate is going to do to make it more likely that anyone can succeed. Saying you want something goo to happen won't make it so. That's my query. Role models are all well and good, but I want to know how to make these so-called role models ubiquitous.

If Dubya's Presidency doesn't cure us of dynasties, nothing will.

Quite frankly, I think its time for an Amendment.

-Dave Adams-

What if I'm right and you're wrong and Obama-hype ALIENATES huge numbers of voters from the Democratic party? I look back at the last 6 years and I can't believe how cavalier people are about throwing away the Congress because some pompous politician thinks the world of himself.

So why is "Obama-hype" any more offensive to voters than say "McCain-Hype", "Rudy-Hype", "Romney-hype" or "any-other-Presidential-hopeful-hype"? If we actually like Obama, why does this put the Democratic Majority in any more danger than any other candidate would?

-Dave Adams-

I think Dukakis had a lot more difficulty dealing with the Willie Horton ads than he did with some putative "Jackson Groveling" backlash.

And your argument makes no sense on its face. You're saying that Obama would be a bad Presidential Candiate because some white guy Candidate would be seen as groveling towards him. Huh? So Obama would be groveling toward himself??? So how come Bush's Convention groveling and pandering didn't hurt him all that much, anyway? Could it be that most voters don't pay a lot of attention so such minutia?

Obama hasn't even declared yet, and you're telling us that voters will reject him for doing what all other candidates do as a matter of course.

So why is Obama doing any of those things more objectionable?

-Dave Adams-

Obama hype is 100% because he's black. Who do they think they're fooling with this nonsense? The Republicans showcase any black Republican they can find at their convention and everyone knows they're going to do that so the Democrats have to give a black politician a big spot like the keynote address. Theres no "merit" attached to it.

Hmmm, OK. If we follow your analysis then why is Harold Ford not the one with the hype because he is 100% black? Help me understand your reasoning. Show me it's merit.

 After all, Harold was the keynote speaker at the 2000 DNC, he has served over 10 years in Congress, he is a son of the south, like Gore (sense we need those dixie votes), he is also a  blue dog Democrat and member of the DLC,  has a educational bkgrd comparable to Obama...Ivy undergrad degree  (UPenn)and a JD from The Univ. of MI (Harvard of the midwest) ...and to top it all off...he comes from a political dynastic family(no Dem candidate went through TN without first eating at his momma's table).  So, why do we not see all the hype for him, instead...you know..given that it is all about being 100% black?

Harold Ford got a ton of hype. Did you miss the hype for Harold Ford? He was on Newsweek's cover

Excuse me....where is the NATIONAL hype for him to be PRESIDENT based on him being 100% black AND having been a keynote DNC speaker...that is your argument...show how it has merit, why are folks not hyping FORD for PRESIDENT???.

He lost the election, right? They can't hype someone who lost the election.

We don't need popularity, we need leadership. Leadership means taking a position.

Does it? Perhaps, it is one aspect of leadership generally as part of the decision making process but it is not necessarily what it means to be a leader.

A leader generally has to only convince others that he has their same common interest. Leadership is not about staking out your own positions and expecting folks to line up and follow where you want to go. Leadership is more about finding out where folks what to go and telling them how you will lead them where they already want to go.

I see NO ONE picked up on the Rezko line, just more proof that no one wants to deal in facts.

Give me one GOOD reason why a US Senator would reach out to someone KNOWN to be under federal investigation and involve that person in a house deal.

Thats your Barack Obama. And he doesn't have a good reason. He's "not clear" about the details of a house deal LAST YEAR.

I don't expect to see any answers for why Obama would contact someone known to be under federal investigation. I do expect more bad comment ratings because nobody like any facts to get in the way.

He lost the election, right? They can't hype someone who lost the election.

Obama lost his first election for the state senate so yes, they can. Especially if, we use your criteria, that all  you need to be is '100% black ' (whatever that is) and a keynote speaker at the DNC. That was the essence of your argument.

Why are you having such a difficult time demonstrating the merits of your reasoning?. Either those two things are why Obama is being 'hyped' or your reasoning is seriously flawed. Based on Ford not being touted as a President and having those exact same criteria you need to reassess and evaluate the reasons for this 'hype' for Obama. 

Bottomline, challenge your critical thinking skills, what are the other possibilities here? What else other than being '100%black' could account for this 'hype'?

Obama, somewhat to his own surprise, has tapped into the national mood to move past the 1960's Vietnam War and civil rights (and that doesn't bode well for McCain or Kerry) as well as the Bush/Clinton saga (and that doesn't bode well for Senator Clinton) and has exposed the fiction of the Blue State/Red State divide. This matters.

I very much agree. Even bigger I think is that he has tapped into the despair and hoplessness of the politics of fear that Bush has promulgated. Folks are tired of being scared and having these endless color coded security alerts and fear of travel. That is the crux fof the power of his message ..hope. Edwards has the same message, he lacks the same powerful delivery though.

BTW, I think  the national mood may have been the wind at LBJ's back for the Civil Rights legislation, but it was his expertise as a former Senator, his southern heirtage and his political knowledge  of where the skeletons were buried that forced through the legislation. A good book is LBJ: Master of the Senate.

But the Diem coup (assassination) was on Kennedy's watch and that WAS the fateful event.

=== I have a different take. Leadership as President means realizing that good governance and good policy requires that you cannot cater totally to those who voted for you. (Bush has done this and he is a very bad leader in my book.) You cannot--nor should you--ignore those who are Americans who perhaps did not vote for you. ===

W Bush and his supporters have had an unchecked 6 year reign that amounts to a virtual dictatorship, and have gotten 90% of what they set out to achieve in 1999. I greatly dislike the man and am horrified by what he and his backers have done to our Nation, but by any measure they have been incredibly "successful". Just to name one example, the federal regulatory agencies that they have dismantled (e.g. the FAA) will _never_ be rebuilt - which puts their accomplishments on par with FDR/Hopkins and far above Reagan.

sPh

LBJ was one complex guy. I've read Master of the Senate and found it a fascinating insight. I still wonder, though, what the mess of reasons were that propelled LBJ into his powerful thrust to get civil rights legislation passed. He had certainly participated in blocking such legislation in the past. I concluded that LBJ was a pragmatist who concluded that the timing was right for a major thrust forward. He was right on target in saying that it would push the Democratic Party downward--the rush of Southern Democrats to the GOP was the result.

I sense that tide is turning, unless Democratic Party leaders make a misstep in the new Congress. I also believe that Speaker-Elect Pelosi knows what she's about and we should succeed with good legislation and rule changes. Since I walked the canvassing trail here in St. Louis for our newly-elected Democratic Senatorial winner, I talked to a lot of conservative folks in the precincts that have been voting Republican for some years. That significantly changed in the midterms. The national mood has shifted.

Thats your Barack Obama. And he doesn't have a good reason. He's "not clear" about the details of a house deal LAST YEAR.

Calling bullshit.

Here's a Slate article on the Rezko story. It doesn't seem like a big deal, he's not hiding it at all, he's already apologized and admitted the mistake:

To defuse the issue, the junior senator has done a good John McCain imitation: swamping critics with apologies, admissions, and candor. "This is the first time this has happened and I don't like the feeling," Obama said at a press conference in November. "It's frustrating to me, and I'm kicking myself about it." He told the Associated Press: "Purchasing a piece of property from somebody who has been a supporter of yours I think is a bad idea. It's an example of where every once in a while you're going to make a mistake and hopefully you learn from it." He told the Chicago Sun-Times that he made a mistake and, "I regret it. ... One of the things you purchase in public life is that there are going to be a different set of standards, I'm going to make sure from this point that I don't even come close to the line."

If this is the worst the Right has against Obama, I think we're in pretty good shape.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I'd like to think that the United States has progressed, at least in terms of racial politics, in the last twenty years.

Oh, and thanks for the slate link. Interesting that its picked up there over a month after it broke in the Chicago Papers. I wrote the guy at Slate because he sure is leaving out important factual parts of the story like Obama's absolutely weaselly - lame weaselly - answers:

"I don't recall exactly what our conversations were or where I first learned, and I am not clear what the circumstances were where he made a decision that he was interested in the property," Obama said.

"I may have mentioned to him the name of [a developer and] he may at that point have contacted that person. I'm not clear about that," Obama said.

THIS WAS HIS OWN HOUSE DEAL IN 2005!!!

I put some comments here about Edwards, too. I think media hype for Edwards is the GOP's other ticket back into the game with his "poverty" message. Thats a terrible message for voters in the Northeast where state and local taxes are so high. Edwards could put the Republicans back in the game for House seats in Northeastern states. No one running for governor in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut lectures the voters about poverty. (Hillary Clinton probably would cost a lot of down ballot seats, too.)

Why would one not think like that? We've got the factual evidence of Bill Clinton singlehandedly costing the Democrats control of both houses of Congress in 1994. And Bush cost the Republicans control of Congress in 2006.

Thank you John! Back to what we should want to talk about. 

I remember the '88 race pretty well. Dukakis was hurt by the convention.

I disagree- he was damaged by the Willie Horton meme. Show some sources supporting your contention that the Convention hurt him.

I don't know how to make the point clearer, being the only one here using FACTUAL evidence (the 1988 race) that broad swathes of voters every where in the country will react to Obama hype and it will hurt the Democratic Party.

One way to make your point clear would be to answer my question, which is why Obama would hurt Democratic chances moreso than other candidates. Which "broad swaths" of the country are going to react negatively to an Obama candiacy, and what, precisely are his negatives?

You know, if someone organized discussions about affirmative action at any state university in the country you would find the white students overwhelmingly opposed to it. I feel confident predicting that.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Are you saying that its all about race? Yes or no.

You don't like it. Thats an emotional reaction on your part. Its surprising to me that any Democrat wouldn't feel after the past 6 years there is too damned much at stake for this stuff. (The media is driving the hype and the motive is to bring the Republicans back into the game. If/when this one falls apart, mark my words, expect to see them hyping John Edwards and his "poverty" message. That one would even put the Republicans back in the game in the Northeast.)

Well, I'm afraid you're about 40 years too late arguing that the Democrats should not be embracing, you know, Civil Rights.

-Dave Adams-

On what? Surely it would not be for 1 term Presidents?

No; I wouldn't change the two-term rule. I would add an amendment that no person can serve as President if a direct family member (spouse, parent, sibling, -child?) had served within the previous 50 years. Divorced spouses wouldn't serve either.

Hey, I'm no Constitutional scholar...

-Dave Adams-

You should provide links for quotes.

Again, what's the big deal here? I still don't get it.

It's fine if you don't support Obama, but it's going to take a lot more than that issue (and the fact that he's black, which apparently you have a problem with...) to stop him.

Like I said before, if that's the worst of it, he's in a lot better shape than many. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Why won't you answer the question?

Whats a GOOD reason for a US Senator to reach out to someone KNOWN to be under federal investigation and involve that person in a real estate deal?

Try to come up with a good reason.

The article is about Obama, right? I'm not following the Republicans and haven't thought about whether and who hurts the Republican party. I did say that I think Edwards with the poverty rants and Hillary Clinton with everything would also hurt the Democratic Party.
My opinion has always been that Hillary Clinton cost Al Gore the presidency with her carpetbagging Senate run. Its a shame she hasn't been held accountable for that because it was very selfish. She soaked up money and she antagonized and motivated people against the Democratic Party all across the country.

That is the way people vote, like it or not.

I'll volunteer that there is probably no GOOD reason. So?

Lack of a GOOD reason does not guarantee there is a BAD reason.

Show me someone that carefully, rationally considers all decisions and I'll show you an autistic.

I'm not partisan FOR any of them. But my hunch is that Kerry actually stands the best chance of being nominated. Sounds crazy, yeah, but it looks like logic to me: Kerry is the proven vote getter, getting more votes than any Democratic presidential candidate ever; the essential state, Ohio, is looking good for any Democrat and there certainly won't be the 4 hour waits in urban areas; Kerry holds NH - if Gore had won it he would have needed FL; name recognition alone is a big asset; the only people who are against Kerry are Democrats who will vote for any Democrat and Republicans who won't vote for any Democrat.

Maybe theres a better case for someone else but I don't see it.

Kerry is your benchmark of electability? Every other Dem in the race easily carries every state Kerry did, and each of them has several other states they bring into play.

I'd reconsider your comments on Clark supporters. In the '04 primary he had by far the most position papers, including specific proposals for health care and tax reform. But he had also been talking more months about getting Iraq right so that we could get out. That's what his supporters liked.

As for Kerry, I don't know why progressives didn't like him. He had a proven record that was more progressive than Dean and, based on respective careers, even Kucinich (who was quite conservative for a large part of his tenure).

I don't think I've focused on electability per se. I've been asking whether or not I can trust someone like Obama who's been untested (not electorally) and hasn't given me any specifics. I've also been trying to inquire about how important oratory skills are. It looks like some say that is at least as important as experience and concrete ideas, if not more so. I disagree.

Hillary Clinton siphoned off resources that would have gone to Gore and her carpetbagging was a national issue all year long. People all over the country had opinions about it. Of course, there were people in Florida, Tennessee, wherever who were angry about it and it antagonized them against the Democratic Party. That is how people make voting decisions, isn't it? They don't read position papers.

No offense,

but my query was about your strong belief in hyperbolic statements 2 years ago being credible  relative to your categorization of the hype about Obama being solely due to race and thus lacking in merit.

Would  you please answer those questions?. Why was that hype credible, despite having been proven false? Why do you value  blatantly false hyperbolic commentary to even have the temerity, two years later, to refer to it as a rationale to bolster your errant political analysis?

Help me understand your reasoning, here.

Your remarks on Edwards and Clinton are a tangent...please re-focus.   

Whats a GOOD reason for a US Senator to reach out to someone KNOWN to be under federal investigation and involve that person in a real estate deal?

Was it known? Was it public knowledge?  Is it not a fact, that it was not publically known as the indictments were sealed?

I dunno, Karen... I held my nose and voted for Kerry once. I wouldn't do that again. Despite his achievments in 2004, he's been tarred a loser. His gaffe during the midterms just made me wish he'd shut up and go away. I think a lot of people feel that way about him. Kerry's finished.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Why not a full term plus one reelection as Governor of Illinois? Take on a flawed-but-tough opponent in the primary, oust him for the good of the people of Illinois? Actually execute some executive responsibility? That sort of thing? Try for the Presidency around age 55, which is probably a more approprate time anyway?

sPh

I don't think you need a governor in there or a 55 year old either. Obama will be 48 when he's sworn in: older than Clinton, JFK or TR. Most of the intelligent, political people I know -- which means Democratic staff people on the Hill or in the previous administration -- would all make good Presidents, better than most we've elected. This experience thing is bogus. We choose Presidents from a particular class: Senators and Governors. Most of them are doofuses. The Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA is 26. His main experience is high school and college football. He's doing a good job. Now foreign policy is tough. Governors know nothing about foreign policy. But, if they are smart like Clinton or FDR, they learn as they go along. If they have good people, they will do fine. Enough white 55 year old men. Give me brilliance, grit, charisma and leadership and be self-made. That's Obama. (Although I will contradict myself. I think Al Gore would be an absolutely great President. His kid says he isn't running. So there's Obama. And he'd be great...if he could win which, reading some of the comments here, I question.

These are legitimate questions to ask, and your skepticism is appreciated. Time will tell, and now we're starting to get into the time of testing.

I won't refer you to Obama's own writings, or his podcast, should you want to do more research. I did find the following Rosa Brooks column from the LA Times article an interesting argument, (free registration required) though:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-brooks15dec15,1,1247814.column

...At the end of the day, good presidents need the judgment and common sense necessary to make tough decisions. But to get there, they need to know how to listen and how to nurture, rather than crush, dissenting voices.

In his two years in the Senate, Obama has already earned a reputation for doing just that. Like every good leader, he knows what he doesn't know — and reaches out to those who do, whatever their party affiliation. He's worked with Republican senators such as Sam Brownback on Darfur and Congo, sought out military leaders such as Maj. Gen Scott Gration and Gen. Jim Jones, and consulted with foreign policy veterans such as Tony Lake and Jim Steinberg.

And many of the experienced Washington hands who've seen Obama in action are as impressed as the New Hampshirites who thronged his book signings. Former Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice, who's been consulted by any number of prospective candidates over the last few years, was blunt: "I've been around long enough not to waste my time trying to talk to politicians who just aren't educable. Obama's different. He has judgment and intelligence, but he knows how to listen and take on insights from other people too."

So why not Obama? Contrary to what his detractors suggest, he can offer prose as well as poetry, and this country desperately needs both.

In the end, when it comes to the question of his relative inexperience, Obama himself offers the best retort: "Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have an awful lot of experience." 'Nuff said.

It's not clear whether JFK was preparing to reduce US involvement in Vietnam, but ther have long been assertions and suspicions that he was planning to do just that had he not been killed. According this site, http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm, there were plans to pull out of Vietnam that were forever scuttled by the assassination. Call me a tinfoil-hat-wearer if you like, but I've always had dark suspicions about the timing of the killing of the president in Dallas. Whatever. No way to prove anything now.

See: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/vietnam/KennedyVietnam1971/KennedyVietnam1971.htm, a 30-year-old essay by Peter Dale Scott in 1971 from which the following is taken:

With respect to events in November 1963, the bias and deception of the original Pentagon documents are considerably reinforced in the Pentagon studies commissioned by Robert McNamara. Nowhere is this deception more apparent than in the careful editing and censorship of the Report of a Honolulu Conference on November 20, 1963, and of National Security Action Memorandum 273, which was approved four days later. Study after study is carefully edited so as to create a false illusion of continuity between the last two days of President Kennedy’s presidency and the first two days of President Johnson’s. The narrow division of the studies into topics, as well as periods, allows some studies to focus on the “optimism”[1] which led to plans for withdrawal on November 20 and 24, 1963; and others on the “deterioration” and “gravity”[2] which at the same meetings led to plans for carrying the war north. These incompatible pictures of continuous “optimism” or “deterioration” are supported generally by selective censorship, and occasionally by downright misrepresentation.

Once again you ducked my question, which is why do you think an Obama candidacy would be destructive for the Democratic party. Suppose he wins the nomination? Why is that such a bad prospect?

-Dave Adams-

I for one am about to start rating you as a troll because you don't answer questions. I answer your questions- you ignore mine. Thats trollish.

-Dave Adams-

A Hillary campaign would be tragic, but you would probably see the rise of a semi-viable third party, which would be interesting, though probably tragic.

Obama, is a centrist Democrat who appeals to leftist Democrats like me because he's Black and charismatic, and Edwards is a leftist Democrat (because of his stated focus on poverty) who appeals to centrist Democrats because he's sober, southern, and charismatic.

I feel about the same about the both of them, and I think they would both be great candidates. I think Edwards/Obama is a better ticket, but whatever.

If someone can suggest a better candidate I would love it, but it doesn't seem likely.

As for bluebell's comment about Obama's lack of forthright purpose, I agree. (There was a great article in last month's Harper's about that.) Kucinich is a real fighter and very ethical, but Americans just aren't very receptive to real political or ethical arguments. Like it or not, politics in the 21st century is a battle of imagery and salesmanship.

If somebody can figure out how to sell Dennis Kucinich to people whose conception of history unfolding is the circus on CNN, I'll be overjoyed.

.> This experience thing is bogus.

Have you ever seen what happens in a technical organization when one or more Dilberts gets promoted to Pointy-Haired Boss? They have spent 15 years as non-executive individual contributors railing about how stupid "the boss" is and how much better a job they could do as manager while pinning up Dilbert cartoons to the walls of their cubicles.

About 1 in 5 makes it as a manager; the rest fail. Some spectacularly.

I can't agree with you that a requirement for some demonstrated executive experience is "bogus". A state such as Illinois, where the Governor must respond to substantial liberal and conservative constitutancies regardless of which party he comes from would be an excellent training ground for actually making and implementing tough decisions rather than just talking about them.

sPh