Nathan writes: "Part of my decision on whether I'm supporting Obama is deciding whether he is in fact accomplishing that later goal, since what's clear to me is that Clinton can probably pull off a win next year, she won't change the status quo partisan division much. Obama, on the other hand, has the potential to upend the gameboard and pull some new constituencies into the progressive column. Again, whether he will do so or can do so is still up in the air, but I think it's a real possibility."

Brilliant! Because that is the question. Any of the frontrunners (and Biden, Richardson and Dodd) would be solid Democratic Presidents. But only Obama offers the possibility of a radical break with same-old same-old politics. The last Democratic President to "upend the gameboard" was FDR. Could Obama do it? I don't know for sure. But I do know that he is the only one of the candidates who aspires to. And that is worth plenty. Surely without even the aspiration, it won't happen. The gameboard needs upending and the game, the board, and the table on which they are set all need to be tossed in the trash.

Look, Jerome just doesn't like Obama. None of the MyDD guys like him. Because he doesn't pander exclusively to the netroots. Which is good on Obama, the Netroots should already know to have his back unless he himself does something actually wrong. Which excludes the silly fake 'scandals' of his campaign (myspace, have Kos say he 'sold out to Bush - all such childish BS its surprising they got anywhere at all...) I mean real, actual missteps. The race is always the person with most name recognition's to lose, whatever race it is. Standing around and whining about how Obama isn't doing exactly what I want or what anyone else wants is just a bunch of useless blather. Who cares whether Obama's campaign "looks like" a "movement" to this guy or not? I'd say when you've gotten that many people to donate to your cause, there is a movement of some kind, the numbers just speak for themselves on that one. Arguing against it because of your own personal proclivities is just childish.

i,am a 56 year old male from south jersey,surrouded by republicans,thy say their not scared of Hillary,but pretty well petrified of Barack ,beleiving he can truly energize all pogresives across the country.And unify the people like FDR!!!!!!!

For the last 12 years I've made a full-time living as a mediator. I've been given better than a front row seat to around a thousand conflicts (complex negotiations) frequently involving extremely combative people. I also have been an elected official.

From my perspective, there is nothing weak about smart negotiating.

"Consensus building" is about building coalitions for action, which is hugely important when it comes to achieving legislative majorities. Consensus building activity need not involve ANY compromise. Constructive interaction embodied in consensus building is like air to combustion. It creates opportunity space for constructive creativity, and it helps immunize against destructive activity.

Authoritarian leadership styles thrive only in darkness and oppression.

In our political system requiring legislative majorities, partisan dominance arrives as the fruit of coalition building. It's human nature.

Giuliani gravitates to a Bush-style caricature of "being strong." "Stupid strong," is what it looks like to me. In contrast from my perspective, so far Obama is proving an intelligent balance of portraying himself as strong and sober, and ready with quick, effective response to challenges of the moment.

I agree with Nathan Newman's observations, here; more than Jerome's. From my perspective, Obama's movement building is smart, and has great potential.

--
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast? (video clip: 8.5 min)

.> From my perspective, there is nothing
> weak about smart negotiating.

The best negotiating tactic in the world is to put your opponent in a situation where simply by sitting down at the negotiating table he concedes 100% of your goals. The Radical Right is very, very good at pushing the Democrats into this position (with help from the traditional media).

You are assuming that the Radical Right is willing to engage in a good-faith Pareto-maximizing win-win process. They are not; they are more than willing to settle for only 51% of their inititally-stated goals if doing so results in the Democrats getting zero of theirs - they can always take the other 49% later. As the W Bush Administration has shown quite clearly.

sPh

Actually, the best negotiating /strategy/ is to get your opponent settled in to the negotiating table, surround the venue with your troops, and then massacre your opponent's entire force. See Grover "All Democrats should be castrated and drowned in a bathtub" Norquist for details.

Although FDR's proposed policies in the 1932 election were very modest as well.

Modest? What an incredible understatement.

FDR promised to save money when people were hurting bad. He advised them not to worry. Of course he didn't need to worry about keeping the wolf from the door himself.

I agree, however, that one needs to look at the candidate rather than just his proposals as best exemplified by FDR.

Best, Terry

I don't know. I was just over at dailykos And one of the blogs was talking about a "Walk for Change" he's organizing.

For Change?

Is that the best he can do?

About the best anyone can do.

Obama has mobilized an army of volunteers to work the streets. He is not relying on MSM. Good on him and good on the volunteers.

Now perhaps you mean that Obama is not screming foul about Iraq?

I agree with that if that's what you mean. Possible all the volunteer work will go for naught if Obama does not take a stand that all can understand instead of just slinging mud at Edwards.

Best, Terry

People keep saying that Obama's not the usual politician but I just don't see it.

He speaks well about it but I can't get past the whiff of feel-good Oprahism. I know some people think it's really shallow of me to say this but the guy's kinda cheesy.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I like how it's incumbent on Obama to somehow convince skeptics in the netroots that he's not the same old politician.

1) He vocally opposed the Iraq War from go.

2) He rolled to victory in a major state flipping a Red Senate seat to Blue

3) He's written two autobiographical books that provide a pretty fair clue about how he ticks

4) He delivered the best speech of the '04 cycle

5) He's got a longer legislative record than either Edwards or Clinton

If you don't know about Obama it's because you are too lazy to do your homework. If you did your homework and still don't like him then it's a free country and more power too you.

BUT if you are sitting back and saying 'I need to see more, I need to see more' and HAVEN'T done any due diligence then you are picking based on superficial criteria (as is any voter's right) and no amount Obama policies or background is going to convince you. You are a 'gut' voter just offering up your version of 'gut' as superior to other people's 'gut'. Want more Obama?

Here is a record of bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama during his time as State Senator in the IL General Assembly. Democrats took control of the IL Senate in Jan '03 and Obama went from serving in the minority to the serving in the majority and chairing the Health and Human Services Committee.

IL State Sen. bio for Barack Obama http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=747&GA=93

90th IL General Assembly - bills sponsored http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/sponsor/OBAMA.html

91st IL General Assembly - bills sponsored http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/sponsor/OBAMA.html

92nd IL General Assembly - bills sponsored http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sponsor/OBAMA.html

93rd IL General Assembly - bills sponsored http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?MemberID=747&GA=93

Obama resigned from the IL State Senate two days after he won election to the US Senate on 11/2/04.

Need more? Vote for somebody else. But it's silly to say Obama hasn't shown enough. He's got a long, open record for any citizen interested enough to look. If we're too lazy to look as citizens then we have a lot bigger problems then whether Obama can build a movement.

See him in person, Destor.  I've seen him hold a room of seasoned politicos from the left side of the spectrum absolutley spellbound.  I'll see him in person again next week at Take Back America.  If there's any cheese around, I'll tell you about it, cross my heart.  :-)

aMike

People like to talk about this grand plan of Obama, but it seems to me that he is just winging it based on his personality and the fact that he projects himself as "new" and against "cynicism" and the special interests in Washington.

He is just two years removed from being a state senator. He has one contested primary election under his belt. He has not, according to my knowledge, ever had a real crisis or adversity which required or allowed him to show his steel.

Yet he is compared to JFK, FDR, Lincoln!

Are we so lacking in our own confidence that we must impute greatness to this relatively unproven man? I think that, by itself, shows what a sorry state we are in.

I wish Obama was more partisan. He need not carry a flamethower. However, I get a sense his approach will fail. The mediator above spoke to the power of consensus, but a basic rule of mediation is that both sides are committed to the process.

Obama is about personality at this stage. Until Obama can build a movement around issues besides the amorphous concept of change itself, I don't believe that he will have the backing of people who must guess what change means, or the attention of Republicans that are committed to their causes and unlikely to reach consensus just because he believes in it as a way to accomplish things.

I'm never sure what people mean when they say the "usual" politician, because politicians employ such a wide variety of strategies to sell themselves. I'd say what I like about Obama, whom I've all but decided to throw my support (such as it is) behind, is that a) he's GOOD at being a politician, and b) he supports the right positions.

I wonder if what Jerome is looking for (and MyDD is down at the moment, so I can't read his piece) is a Howard Dean-type movement builder. Dean's motivation of the activist set, which I think encapsulates a lot of the "netroots," was a thing to behold, but what looked like a tidal wave going into Iowa didn't have nearly the power we thought it did.

One of the things that I think draws me most to Obama is his pedigree in Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. IAF has started up an organization in Durham recently called Durham CAN, and if you're not watching closely, it frequently looks like they're doing nothing at all, when in reality, they're marshalling some pretty impressive levels of support behind the scenes. When they do decide to move on an issue, it's not so much an uprising of activists as the political ground shaking under your feet. To me, that looks like what Obama is doing now, and I think it's exactly what the Democratic party needs.

"Although FDR's proposed policies in the 1932 election were very modest as well." But Nathan, that's either irrelevant, illogical, or an example fo the projecting onto image I'm talking about. Yes, FDR delivered more than he promised. (And yes, the Depression either enabled him to promise and deliver more, or it radicalized him, or both.) But it doesn't by itself make a case for a candidate who doesn't seem to offer much. Sure, lots of underachievers blossom, but it isn't evidence in support of accepting any particular C student into the college of your choice.

As I say, I'm fond of Obama, too, but there's no excuse for these fantasies of how he'll change everything. Unless, that is, you can present evidence of it. Otherwise, why can't I come back to you and tell you that Giuliani and McCain will bring in the communist revolution. Hey, FDR didn't promise the New Deal either.

As for who will handle an unexpected crisis on the scale of the Depression, that's quite a different issue that hadn't been raised before. I'm focused myself on some goals we have for now, in our present crisis. No doubt a lot of you know what will hit the fan, thanks to Bush, when Bush leaves office. I'm not sure that's an opportunity for leadership or, as I've often said, a recipe for damning the Democrats a la Carter whoever assumes office. But again, is it relevant to your hopes and mine? 

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

I don't think partisan bickering is Obama's problem so much as various special interests on the left and right, because he's a pragmatist.

Obama's won't be loved by special interests accustomed to the pandering candidates they feel they've already bought. Not that anyone in labor, or black civil rights, or other left issues should be against him if they have a realistic set of goals. But so often they don't. Take Al Sharpton's beef with Obama for example. There are going to be plenty of wingers on both sides like Al Sharpton, wanting to sabotage him but fearing for them self if they do.

On the other side, take simplistic Republican notions of capitalism, markets, deregulation, environmentalists as hippies, etc. They fought CAFE standards along with any and all regulation for decades, and always backed the most ideological candidate, like Reagan or GWBush, who they could count on without a second (or first) thought on the matter. Look at where they are now. They "won" on deregulation, CAFE and crash safety standards have been stagnant, so they could make pickups and SUV for decades often at huge profits. Now they're totally FUBAR'ed for it. Complete incompetence and lack of foresight. But go back even just to 2000, and all these special interest ideologies were passionately against Gore for his environmentalism among other things. Fools.

Actually, if people feel that they don't know enough about Obama then that is Obama's responsibility. I'm not asking him to vote for me.

Though I do agree that it'd be nice if people took a greater interest in matters like these.

Can't say I think that his experiences in a sate legislature are all that relevant to the presidency, though.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I agree. When more than 80% of Americans believe we are going in the wrong direction, they aren't looking for consensus, they're looking for change and they're looking for someone strong enough to be a change agent, i.e., leader.

I don't trust Hillary and I figure she'd be 100% devoted to her reelection from day 1 should she win in 2008 but she has demonstrated in the debates that she can generate the kind of "Presidential" aura/arrogance that neither Obama or Edwards have so far demonstrated. She might be more effective than I would have expected against a too fuzzy wuzzy Thompson or a hyper Guiliani.

Now, if she only really wanted to change the system....

Your experience is obviously anecdotal, but I do think there's something to it. I think Obama scared the hell out of the Republicans when he spoke at the DNC, and they haven't gotten over that.

The problem is, where's that Obama been?

These debates don't seem to be the best forum for his style, although I expected him to be better at it, as he seems to be a sharp thinker. 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

I am saying that very few of our Presidents have revealed their greatness before entering the office.

Ah, but times have changed.

Lincoln had the "luxury" of 4 hour debates. Today, what? "A show of hands, please..." 

I think the 24/7 news cycle hyper-mediated political environment today actually *requires* someone to reveal some of their "greatness" before entering office. By that, I mean, we need to have more of a sense of the person, want to have a beer with him (or her), maybe, before we'll vote for him or her.

(Not suggesting this is a good thing, by the way...) 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

So far as I know, were people comparing Lincoln to Washington or Jefferson before he was elected, or FDR to Lincoln, etc? Yet that is what many proclaim about Obama.

Once again, Obama has not, to my knowledge ever faced down any crisis or overcome any real adversity, to give us an idea of his mettle. You cite many instances where Lincoln grew before he became President.

That, to me, is significant.

You know, I think Obama will make the tax cuts for the rich permanent, privatize social security, invade Iran, ban abortion, eliminate affirmative action, insist on faith-based governemnt, etc., etc.  Sure, he hasn't said this, but FDR didn't announce the New Deal either.  

Ok, I don't think that.  But can we get beyond projections of our own desires?  If you think it helps Obama, think of all the people you've just sanctioned who project their hatred onto Clinton regardless of her record or statements.  And I say that preferring, vastly and unequivocably, Obama (or Edwards) to Clinton. 

For goodness sake.  I though the end of Bush might mean returning t othe reaality based community.  Guess not.   

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

It's only June. He's got 7 months before it actually matters for real how well people know him. Right now it's all about fundraising and building an organization.

He can define himself to the public at large in the span of a couple of months. Why the rush?

Same MSM talking points, Naderite, and Swiftboat BS as usual.

As the facts point out, anyone looking into Obama can find plenty of policy information and major differences with him and the competition.

So far as I know, were people comparing Lincoln to Washington or Jefferson before he was elected, or FDR to Lincoln, etc? Yet that is what many proclaim about Obama.

In Lincoln's case, they weren't.  He was compared to a lot of other things prior to his election..."That Black Ape, Lincoln," for example.  His supporters wouldn't have compared him to Washington or Jefferson:  he was the "railsplitter" not the planter aristocrat.  Even during the war, Lincoln got more bad press than good.  The Gettysburg Address was largely ignored:  Lincoln wasn't even the principal speaker.  Edward Everett was, and he delivered a multi-hour address. 

The deification of Lincoln didn't begin until after he was martyred.  Then the country realized what it lost, and it was Poets especially, like Walt Whitman in the 19th century and Carl Sandburg in the 20th who ensured him a mythic place in the American pantheon.

The 20th century isn't my specialty, but I've not heard that FDR was compared to Lincoln before he served as President.  As several others have commented, he ran as a fiscal conservative against the "spendthrift" and hapless Hoover:

Roosevelt denounced Hoover's failures to restore prosperity or even halt the downward slide, and he ridiculed Hoover's huge deficits. Roosevelt campaigned on the Democratic platform advocating "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures," "abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating bureaus and eliminating extravagances reductions in bureaucracy," and for a "sound currency to be maintained at all hazards."  

In 1932 I suspect Moe, Larry, or Curly could have been elected on the Democratic ticket.  And, perhaps in 2008 the same situation may apply.  The point I'm trying to make is that in terms of the criticisms leveled against Obama--his inexperience, his superficiality, his Oprahness...the same claims could be made against Lincoln before the Office claimed him.  Obama's Memoir indicates he had plenty of "growth experiences" as a child in a multi-racial family, raised largely by his mother in a world where racism was more overt than it is today.

aMike

That made terribly little sense.

One irony I associate with our neo-cons, is that they have been so forthright in sharing their world views and deceits.

Geeze, shovel horse shit much?

First of all, the notion that the neocons are relatively honest, is laughable. Yes, political junkies were just aware enough of their intents and movements to be alarmed, but the general public was completly unaware, deliberately on their part.

It was deliberately kept secret through the 2000 election the extent which they had already swayed Bush's circle and would certainly play an influence during his presidency. The fact is he wanted to go to war in Iraq from day one of his presidency, and years before, on the neocons advice, and with the blessing of the Republican party leadership who were equally swayed by them and like-minded uber hawkish think tanks, and continue to be.

In fact, Kristol and other prominent neo-cons used every false pretense they could think of during the runup to the war, didn't often self identify as neocons on news and talk shows until they were outed by others, and didn't really admit their ideological support for the war without figleafs of WMD and such, until again they were outed by others and started seeing defections in their own ranks.

As far as Obama's qualifications on technical issues, he's the smartest person running and the smartest/wonkiest candidate on technical matters in a long time, even with Gore and Edwards, and Hillary close behind. I'm quite sure Republicans need to attack his intellect though.

The mediator above spoke to the power of consensus, but a basic rule of mediation is that both sides are committed to the process.

Mostly true, I'd say. I consider voluntary participation a basic rule for mediation to proceed. Parties in serious conflict, however, often engage in mediation feeling quite skeptical about on-going participation (not committed) and skeptical about prospects for "success."

As an aside, "mediation" as it happens in other cultures can be quite different.

Consensus-building, inviting alignments, and creating a movement, however, requires no delineated process like mediation. It's great for creating legislative majorities and forging new leadership initiatives, though.

--
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast? (video clip: 8.5 min)

If you inferred by forthright, "honest," I understand. I meant something like "obvious," which would have been a better word.

The character of this administration became increasingly obvious to many of us from early on. To me it seems ironic they have been so obvious in their deceits as they have been.

I agree with your observations.

Figuratively speaking, I shovel horse shit for a living. Pig shit, too. It smells worse and lingers as insults tend to do. [tit-for-tat]

think of all the people you've just sanctioned who project their hatred onto Clinton regardless of her record or statements.

Think of all the truthtellers you have dismissed despite Hillary Clinton's record, deeds and words.

The record is there for all to see who will.

Hillary Clinton is corrupt. Her cattle futures trading began with a crooked broker who had to have assigned profits from other customers accouts to Hillary's on the very first day. There is no imaginable way it could have been otherwise. The Clintons escaped the long arm of the law in Whitewater but that does not make the scheme honest and true. While John Edwards admits openly taking money from a hedge fund, Hillary praised these vultures as bulwarks of capitalism rather than the destroyers they are.

Hillary Clinton's original health plan was more a case of gross incompetence than corruption IMO but it gave a bad name to "socialized medicine," while the cost to America as well as the sick and dying has been enormous. The plan was to deal in the insurance companies but those left out done it in. The frankenstein monster that was laughably to be paid for with a cigarette tax was rightfully killed.

Hillary Clinton still says she done right in authorizing George Bush to go to war because she didn't think he would. Amybody that believes that will believe most anything. In any case she is still not a fan of ending the atrocity.

Hillary Clinton is yet a DLC'er at heart. The upper crust "middle class" is the source of her funding and the object of her primary concern.

For sure Hillary is most fortunate in the abominable enemies on the right. Even she can look good compared to some of the other wingers.

Spewing talk of hate and lies and rightwing talking points from liberals not overly enchanted with a candidate who should be arrested for impersonating a Democrat may not be conducive to fruitful discussion.

All this is particularly poignant because Obama may be facing his own macaca moment. There is a very disturbing tale going round about a very sleazy attack on Hillary as (D-Punjab). If Obama cannot explain himself and his campaign coherently he may have just crashed and burned. I personally think that would be a huge tragedy because of the threat posed by Hillary Clinton.

Best, Terry

What kind of Orwellian nonsense is that? And "obvious" is just as stupid a choice of words.

Accurate descriptions for the neocons would be duplicitous, Machiavellian, con men, or as some are actually on record as referring to themselves rather enjoyably, as a "cabal."

For example, the neocons including Cheney created the Office of Special Plans (OSP) at the Pentagon, staffed by civilian neocons. They cherry picked intel and stove-piped it straight to Bush, manipulating him like the finger puppet he is. They cooked intel and fixed it around longheld neocon goals to invade Iraq and other crazy policies they come up with in think tanks funded from companies like Halliburton and military contractors who have a tremendous profit incentive for war.

They created the lies about the WMD along with the leadership of the Republican party who are defacto neocons for their continual support of neocon policy. They insinuated in the media Saddam had ties to Al Qeda and 9/11.

Forthright? Get a clue.

Good grief, kozmik. Your indignant and insulting tone directed at me seems laughable, domineering, and out of proportion. Somehow I seem to have inspired your antagonism. Sorry about that.

I made a comparison of the neo-cons with unspecific practitioners of "thick face-black heart" ethic. That you so easily harness widespread knowledge (to me as well as to you, and others) of the neo-cons' ongoing deceit reinforces my observation. The neo-cons have been relative amateurs.

Yes. "Obvious." The neo-cons have been relatively obvious in their deceits, forthright as in outspoken in a myriad stupid claims highly likely to be revealed false. That's ironic because it is likely to be their undoing -- barring major discontinuities like another 9-11/Iran invasion.

I'm out. You can have the last post on this thread, kozmik.

Kozmik, I don't think that's totally fair. I'm certainly looking at Obama pretty seriously--in fact, seriously enough to give money to his campaign. And I love his inspirational style and what I know of his past record. I too, though, would like to hear him talk a bit more about what he plans to do in the future. Edwards has a very strong message on domestic policy right now. I'd like to see Obama get the policy side of his message just as strong. So the criticism isn't meant to tear him down--rather the opposite: to get him to continue to improve. I want Obama to be the strongest possible candidate, and any criticism at this early stage of the campaign should be taken as a suggestion to strengthen his position, not an attack.

ABC--Anybody But Clinton

LOL! Thanks. I agree that candidates, in the this casde Obama, represent projections of our own values and desires. This is why we'll be sorely disappointed later when they are in office.

I try being reality-based, and all the dreamers call me a cynic.

/c

In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.

Corvid

A walk for change is about the best one could expect from Obama. Please, please go to beachwoodreporter.com, a well-respected Chicago blog, and check out the Obama items there--many of which refer to articles in both Chicago newspapers. Or just go to the Web sites of the Chicago Tribune or Sun-Times. The article in Thursday's NY Times about his extensive links to a corrupt Chicago property developer is just the tip of the iceberg. This man is contrived and is a product of thoroughly rotten Chicago and Illinois machine politics.
.
I can understand that this is hard to believe, but there it is. What can I say? I would urge Nathan and others here to do just a little due diligence and check it out for yourselves. By the way, don't believe all that you read in his autobio about his community organizing. There's a fair amount of fantasy in that book, as the Chicago Tribune (which, incidentally, is very starstruck by Obama) found out.

talking about a "Walk for Change" he's organizing.

For Change?

Is that the best he can do?

Not for peace, not for keeping out of Iran, not for better housing, not for daycare, for Change?

Does he think we're idiots? Oooh, change. Sounds good

If you think globally the lack of specificty is brilliant. Why narrow it to a specific issue? The point is to bring in all individuals who want change with the status quo, not to divide people based on what the issue is they want to change. Rather, it is to create a critical mass of people who support change.  You may want to change fiscal policy, another may want to change healthcare, still another may want change of the energy policy and others still may have the war as their driving issue for change.

When you focus on what people have in common CHANGE you are able to amass people who all want to move in the same direction and by doing so they generate energy and drive for the entire campaign to achieve their goals.

Only an idiot hears the word change and is dissatisfied witht he current politics and  thinks "change what" rather than engaging in self-awareness of knowing what it is they would like to see change. And be motivated to work for the change they want. No one is being excluded so whatever your issue is you can work to change it.

A Walk for Change is just that A Walk that opposes the status quo in our national and domestic policies.

Don't go blaming Obama because you don't know what it is YOU want to change. Tens of thousands of volunteers don't have your vapid issue.

Obama has just "crashed and burned" according to a Rt Wing rumor you heard.

You are a real delight - a true fount of misinformation and spew.

The "rightwing" purveyor of hateful rumormongering I first read was the owner of Talk Left.

Not take umbrage at being called "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)? I'd take umbrage at that if I were either Hillary or Punjabi.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/6/15/0634/74618

You do seem to have a frightful problem distinguishing right from left, fact from rumor, truth from fiction, prejudice from reason.

I don't suppose there is any help to be had but you might seek some.

Obama needs to address this blatant bigotry now or it's likely to bite hard. Republicans can usually get away with this stuff. Democrats can't.

Best, Terry

Get your facts straight. Obama won his first race for state senate when he used tactics to eliminate his primary competition before the election. Otherwise, he may not have even won that. Lincoln lost several times, as a comment above shows, and did not live a life of relative ease.

This thread is about Obama, not Clinton. No one is comparing her to Lincoln. So what great defining moment exists for Obama? At least Clinton has had to deal with adversity so we can see her mettle. Do we really have anything close to a clue of how Obama would fare in a crisis? If som I am all ears.

unless your point is that the whole package is a con-job, which part of "self-improvement" seems undesirable, or is it the "book" bit? I mean wouldn't some people bookmark/tag the Bible under "self-improvement" as compared to "fiction" or "wishful_thinking."

Actually, if people feel that they don't know enough about Obama then that is Obama's responsibility. I'm not asking him to vote for me.

Obama's responsibility? OK, you're not asking for his vote, but what, are you asking for polititians to smack people up-side the head with a two-by-four, get in their face and beat some sense into them? I am, but...

Though I do agree that it'd be nice if people took a greater interest in matters like these.

I find this to be negligent fluff. The "so what, who cares, let somebody else worry about it" additude is a growing malignancy in our society, perpetuated by the powerful, rich, and corporate landlords. None the less, a serious ailment that needs to be addressed.

While 71 million of our fellow U.S. citizens age 18 or over in 2004 did not vote, 16 million of those no shows were registered, the rest couldn't even bother to do that. (The curious will note at the bottom of the linked page Census Bureau's estimates differ from the "official" turnout by 3.4 million, helping to explain the current catastrophy, carrying over from the 2000 debacle; but that issue is irrelevent to this thread, though certianly a worthy endeavor to ink in the history books.)

Like the health care crises confronting America, seemingly drastic measures could help remedy this vexing situation. Along with 19 other countries that have some form of compulsory voting the Australian solution could be a worthy objective. Where a mandated enrollment became effective in 1911, the first compulsory elections were introduced in 1924, resulting in 91% of the electorate casting a vote.

An ABC poll conducted in 2004 found that 72 % of those surveyed pooh-poohed the idea, surmising that Americans viewed voting as a right, not a responsibility. This may seem a pipe dream to the meandering many, I believe it's not only as opportunity, but an obligation as a member of the human race. Until people like us get off our backside, ain't nothin' gonna happen.

Again, this diary is about Obama. But dealing with any crisis provides a window to the way a person will deal with another crisis. You keep talking about Clinton, but I never raised her name. In all that, you have not said what has tested Obama's mettle. I raised this issue in my first comment, and you have deflected it to dump on Clinton. Perhaps it's because there is no adversity or crisis to give us a clue about Obama under pressure.

That's the problem here. I say something about Obama and the response is about something else.

When Obama is compared to JFK or FDR or Lincoln, I object. Plain and simple.

As for the first Obama campaign, see this:

Obama forced opponents from race in first campaign by David Jackson and Ray Long Chicago Tribune (MCT) 4 April 2007

. . .

A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/32738/obama-forced-opponents-from-race-in-first-campaign/

But dealing with any crisis provides a window to the way a person will deal with another crisis.

Yet, you provide no such crisis for Hillary. How then can she be a serious candidate. In contrast, My error, I wrote State Senate instead of first US Congressional seat.. Barack has had political setbacks:

Obama's first attempt to reach beyond the state Capitol was a disaster. In 1999, he decided to challenge four-term Representative Bobby Rush for his congressional seat. But Rush, a former Black Panther and community activist, enjoyed a stature in the South Side's heavily black first district that made him nearly impossible to dislodge. It didn't help that, throughout the race, Rush's campaign painted Obama as an overeducated technocrat from Harvard, where he'd earned a law degree. Obama's campaign naturally interpreted these jabs as cynical nods to black ambivalence about educational achievement. But the damage from intimations that Obama wasn't "black enough"--that he "[hadn't] been around the first congressional district long enough to really see what's going on," as Rush charged--was difficult to contain. "It was a delineation that was effective," says one Obama aide. Obama lost by a two-to-one margin.

You keep talking about Clinton, but I never raised her name. In all that, you have not said what has tested Obama's mettle. I raised this issue in my first comment, and you have deflected it to dump on Clinton. Perhaps it's because there is no adversity or crisis to give us a clue about Obama under

To call it deflection is one way to look at it. Another is, to call your bluff, and ask you to show how other candidates measure up when placed under the same 'defining' microscope you are asserting.  What do you see based on your issue when you look at the other candidates?. I simply took your assertion and applied it to another candidate and lo and behold the other candidate doesn't measure up anywhere near as well Obama. So, my point is having used your criteria to look at other candidates, how valid, on your part, is it in deflecting Obama being compared to JFK and Lincoln? 

I want to know what you think  is the adversity  HRC or any other candidate has faced that is relevant to the Presidency, if 'being tested' is so important to you.

You have not said what tested HRC's mettle.

 Obama has dealt with political adversity and lost. He has also dealth with the personal challenges of being a minority in America. Both of these are significant and relevant to the type of individual he is.

HRC can't be compared to former Presidents because she lacks the political stature for such comparison. Bottomline, if Lincoln and JFK are not relevant then compare him to HRC the frontrunner using your criteria of adversity and crisis. 

It is absolutely important to read this article, but not just the part quoted here.  Read the whole thing.  It is far more balanced picture of Obama than the paragraph (number six) chosen from it.  It is a fascinating piece.  In it we learn a number of things about Obama in this instance.

• He was recruited to run for the legislature by the principal opponent whose petitions he challenged.  She was yielding her legislative seat to run for Congress.  Obama agreed to run only after she assured him she was giving up her seat.
• She decided to re-enter the race for the legislature only after losing her race for Congress, by which time Obama had put together a formidable campaign.
• Obama was uneasy about the tactic of challenging voter signatures and went ahead with it reluctantly.  The tactic itself was fair, and the article in no way suggests he used inappropriate means to knock opponents off the ballot.
• On of the opponents admitted paying democratic precinct workers $5.00 a sheet for nomination signatures.  He admitted to the authors of the article that he "now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers between themselves to forge the signatures."  This was the same candidate whom the authors quote as critics of of Obama's sense of honor.
• Obama, it seems alone of the candidates, used the most recent voter lists.  The others used outmoded ones.   

Anyhow, go read the whole thing.  It's an introduction to bare-knuckle Chicago-style politics, and should put the lie to the idea that all Obama knows is feel-good Oprah-ism.  I think the article proves the contrary.  He's tough enough to play by the rules and ethical enough to play within the rules, and competitive enough to work his hardest to win, and smart enough to do good work once he does.

aMike

Thanks Mike. I had read the article but didn't want to shift focus from having Drak provide information that shows how any candidate has measured up to his criteria of  'adversity' and crisis. That seems to be a trait he believes is essential to the Presidency yet he cannot name a candidate who has measured up moreso than Obama. Especially, when we look at the present field of candidates. So how vaild can his challenge be regarding JFK and Lincoln is the real point.

I don't even support Clinton, yet you assume I do.
So that is yet another mistake you seem to have made.

If you want to redirect, fine. No one can force you to answer. The deflection tells me a lot. It's like asking someone a simple question and, rather than provide an answer, he/she answer with a question.

The fact is that, as to Obama, we have not seen him perform under pressure and have a true crisis in his life that gives any indication of how he will perform.

You, being a rt winger, as your many posts demonstrate, will continue to cite various Naderites and fringe kooks and claim they represent legitmate left views.

You are a rt winger, a troll, and a pathological liar.

You're also stupid enough to use your same login in energy investor fora as you do here, and stupid enough to think you're fooling anyone. Keep knocking yourself out.

TH is a stealth Republican who openly advocates votign Republican if Hillary gets the Dem nomination, supposedly becasue he's too liberal to compromise. He is just trying to swiftboat dems and supress enthusiasm and turnout.

His typical MO is to say something vaguely "liberal" sounding and then slip in a rt wing talking point, a lie, and a poison pill.

For example, in the post above TH sounds vaguely pro-Obama and anti-MSM. Then comes the poison pill lie, that Obama has doesn't have any clear policies, which is a MSM and Rt Wing talking point and a lie, and has yet to do anything more than "sling mud at Edwards" which is just completely detached from reality and designed to swiftboat Obama.

Watch out for these stealth wingers.