Obama Is Going To Go For It

[Bullet1987]

Chicago Sun-Times

Bottom line: I think Sen. Barack Obama, who is seriously considering a run for president, is going to jump into the 2008 race. I predict the freshman Illinois Democrat will announce near the end of this year or the beginning of 2007, sometime after he returns from a holiday break in his native Hawaii. Here's what's on Obama's to-do list:

Build a national political organization, probably based in Chicago.

Obama's inner circle will grow and diversify. He will need to develop a cohesive and efficient staff. Chief potential rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has a deep bench of battle-tested loyalists. Clinton, a veteran of her husband's 1992 and 1996 presidential contests has vast experience running national campaigns.

The core Obama players -- all experienced in national political strategy -- are Chicago media consultant David Axelrod and, in Washington, David Plouffe, an Axelrod partner; communications chief Robert Gibbs; chief of staff Pete Rouse, and Hopefund political director Alyssa Mastromonaco.

Obama's team has talked to potential staffers but has made no offers, Axelrod told me. They have plenty of time to put together a good campaign, even though others have a head start.

Raise money, money, money.

Obama will need to raise tens of millions of dollars in the first quarter of 2007. Even though he will have ambitious plans to cull small donors via the Internet, to get that type of money means cultivating the nation's top Democratic money people. He will need to lock up the Democratic fund-raising elite, some of whom are now conflicted because of longtime ties to Clinton. The Bill and Hillary money networks are legendary.


---------------------------------------

As per the Chicago Sun-Times. I'm beginning to think Obama is just stalling and will run. But I don't think he's going to announce it until either the end of this month or the very beginning of 2007. I mean, why would he drag people on just to tell them he decided not to run? If he didn't want to run he'd say so. He's also going around to all these caucus states like New Hampshire on the 10th where he's supposed to give one of the main speeches.

Barack Obama is running for President. Period.

[Redstone]

1. I'll vote for him.

Redstone

[mike_c]

2. I hope he does-- I don't know whether I'll support his candidacy yet...

...but most of the other "frontrunner" types are anathema to me, so at best Obama will give us an alternative and at worst he'll focus attention on their shortcomings during the primary, especially Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, all bets are off if Gore runs. The nation NEEDS Al Gore.

[wtmusic]

5. Hear hear

and he's already proven he can win!

[Labors of Hercules]

6. hear hear HERE...

Gore/Obama would win in a WALk... not that I'm biased or anything...

[wtmusic]

9. Gore/Obama is the strongest ticket we could offer

and would offer Obama a few years to get his political sea legs.

Welcome to DU!!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[AtomicKitten]

12. Yes indeed.

[Labors of Hercules]

15. thanx!

[Ken Burch]

3. Obama needs to distinuguish himself from Hillary by his relationship with activists.

If Obama will reach out to them, rather than spurn them and treat them with contempt, as the Junior Senator from New York does, his chances will grow dramatically. Obama's best hope is to establish himself as the anti-triangulation candidate.

The other alternative is to try and imitate the Harold Ford campaign, which would lead to identical results.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I predict he will be formidable contender.

[TwentyFive]

7. No chance against Hillary Clinton.

Obama is wasting his time. He's too inexperienced. This is not his time. He should run for governor, or use this time to make his mark in the Senate.

He's much better off supporting Hillary in 2008. She is the only viable democrat for president in 2008. Remember, Clinton is the only Democrat since Roosevelt to serve 2 full terms. Why not go with a proven winning family?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. "A proven winning family"?

:puke:

Excuse me, but why are we encouraging dynasties? Sorry, but there has to be a better reason for electing Hillary than that she's married to Bill. And I really can't think of any. No way in hell is she the only viable Democrat for '08. I can think of several; Obama may be one. Gore, Clark, and Edwards are at least as viable and electable as Hillary, and they aren't DLCers.

[TwentyFive]

19. Best reason to elect Hillary? She will move the country slowly, sensibly & progressively Leftward.

As for the candidates you mentioned, I like them all, but the GOP dirty tricks team will bury them.

GORE? The reason * is president - nuff said. Why didn't he run on Bill's record? Dumb.
CLARK? Never elected to anything. Not inspirational enough. Maybe a cabinet post?
EDWARDS? Only 6 years in the Senate. Get real. Voters said he tied Cheney in a debate - scary!
OBAMA? Too young. Needs 8 years to get some accomplishments & national exposure.

Some activists may not like Hillary's voting record. Others may fear her supposed high negatives. But 80% of the country misses the days of saying...President Clinton. When Bill was President, many people thought she was the co-President. The election in 2008 will be a 3rd Clinton terms...with a great economy, increasing tolerance for minorities, and budget surpluses.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. ...

:puke:

[IndianaGreen]

31. Hillary has been so right about the war, Bush's gulag, loss of liberties

She is also "evolving" on same sex marriage. Gee, I can't hardly wait for her "leadership" to truly manisfest itself.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[hughee99]

34. It sounds like what you're saying...

is the best reason to elect Hillary is her husband.

[TwentyFive]

37. Hillary can win because she learned from Bill.

Hillary knows how to beat republicans. Bill taught her the fine art of winning national elections. I can't think of any other Democrat who knows how to win the WH.

At the very least, Hillary should make a good president. Most of the people she chooses will come from the center or left. She will make good choices for the environment, judges, and health care. Will she be a purist? No. But then, she and a democratic congress will move things in the right direction...slowly. This beats things going in the wrong direction fast.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Hillary was an enabler of Bill's indiscretions

just as she was an enabler of Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors.

[hughee99]

42. Some things you can't teach...

IMHO, one of the most important things Bill had going for him was his ability to speak directly to the American people, to convince them that his plan (on whatever issue) is the right plan. This was a major factor in Bill winning both his elections and in his ability to effectively deal with the repukes in congress. I have yet to see Hillary demonstrate this ability. The fine art of winning national elections starts with the right candidate. Bill was that candidate. I'm not convinced Hillary is.

[TwentyFive]

47. I agree with you. But, Hillary took 67% of the vote in NY.

Yes, Bill is part of the reason I want Hillary to win. But only because our problems are so huge, Bill and Hill are the only team who can dig us out.

Consider....our country is so badly broken. We're bankrupt. The entire world hates us. Healthcare, energy policy, education, environment, dissappearing middle class, erosion of liberties...on and on....are all a mess. So maybe Hillary will dispatch Bill around the world to start healing the broken relations. Meanwhile, she can delve into policy...finding a way out of the huge deficits...reversing some of the worst republican abuses.

Whoever wins in 2008, is going to have a huge mess on their hands.

[Blue_In_AK]

44. I respectfully disagree, Twenty-five

[Clark2008]

68. For someone you think is "not inspirational enough" Clark sure

does have a lot of supporters on this board: in fact, he wins or comes in second in ever "who would you like to be president" poll on DU... and The Daily Kos... and MyDD... and so on...

Clinton, eh... not so much.

[Vincardog]

14. She is the only viable democrat for president in 2008. GOP SPIN

The best way to insure a gop win in 2008 is to run Hill. Win or loose the corporatist interests will be served.

[TwentyFive]

51. The far right hates her. But 67% of New Yorkers voted for Hillary.

Thinking an anti-corporate president will win in 2008 is delusional. Corporations own America. The best we can hope for is somebody who has an uneasy truce with them.

If there is a severe recession/depression, maybe a real progressive will win. Other than that, forget it. Progressives must view the presidental election as an exercise in damage control. Hillary is our best option.

[NYCGirl]

59. It's ridiculous to compare a NY race with a national race. NT

[libneo]

61. Don't mess with New York!

[Vincardog]

65. If there is a severe recession/depression? Have you seen what the dollar is doing?

The far right hates her. TRUE and the LEft is divided. So that shows the the GOP will turn out in droves to vote against her and on the left we have the "Moderate Centrists" 25% voting for her.

I do not believe we need at best an uneasy truce with the parasitic corporations that are trying to own American Politics. I believe we need to expose them and their fascist agenda for what they are and send them slithering back under the rock they came from.

This congress needs to propose and pass
1) TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS
2) Public Financing of those transparent Elections.
3) DEath to the illegitimate concept of Corporate Person Hood.

[jefferson_dem]

18. You forgot to include that rainy "sarcasm" thingy after your comment.

n/t

[PADemD]

25. She voted for this damn war. She won't get my vote.

[IndianaGreen]

36. "Why not go with a proven winning family?" Because Hillary is NOT Bill.

Many people voted for George W. Bush thinking that he would be like his father, and believing his claims that he was "a uniter, not a divider." What did they get instead?

Now we find some people wanting Hillary because they long for Big Dog. Guess what? She is not Big Dog, and she will be a divider, not a uniter.

[ripple]

46. Hillary doesn't stand a chance in 2008

No amount of money and influence in the world will overcome the hatrd so many feel for her.

I'd like to see Hillary stay where she is and eventually become the first woman majority leader in the senate. That would rock.

[TwentyFive]

49. Did you forget? Hillary got 67% of the vote in NY.

Don't let the Hillary haters mislead you. She is VERY electable.

[NYCGirl]

60. It's ridiculous to compare a NY race with a national race. NT

[kevsand]

8. "why would he drag people on..."

"...just to tell them he decided not to run?"

One legitimate reason would be that he hasn't made up his mind, yet. I.e., he hasn't actually decided to run, because he's still giving it serious thought. He may very well ultimately decide not to do it.

"If he didn't want to run he'd say so."

That's perfectly true, but it is much easier to decide not to run than it is to decide to run. He clearly wants to run enough to think about it critically, but I'm guessing that he honestly hasn't made a final decision yet. In fact, given the relatively young age of his daughters, I suspect that he will eventually decide not to go this time.

[ripple]

48. Oh, I think he's going for it

I was fully convinced when he presented a comprehensive plan for Iraq a couple of weeks ago at a speech in Chicago.

He's running. He just hasn't announced it, yet.

[Mist]

11. I think Obama should finish his first term as senator, then consider

what he wants to do after that. Interrupting his first senatorial term after only four years to run for President seems unbecoming. He needs more big league experience.

[scarletwoman]

13. I think he's a nice guy and all, but I really don't get what qualifies him to be president.

This whole Obama for prez thing strikes me as just more celebrity worship of the sort that saw Jesse Ventura elected governor of Minnesota and Arnold Schwartzenegger elected governor of California.

Don't get me wrong, I hold Obama in MUCH MUCH higher esteem than either of those two knuckleheads. It's just that I fear the dynamic behind pushing him into the '08 presidential race is nearly as superficial. It seems like it's as much about personality as it is about governing ability. He's NEW, he's COOL, he's DIFFERENT! Obama as a Democratic fashion statement!

I watched him on Jay Leno last night, and it's very true that he has an excellent presence and handles himself well. He's glib and good-humored and is verbally fast on his feet. He got HUGE applause and cheers -- like a rock star. But it really left me wondering, is this really a future "leader of the free world"?

I willingly acknowledge that I may be completely off base here, so feel free to tell me how wrong I am. I just have these niggling doubts about the wisdom pushing him for '08 -- does he REALLY have what it takes to be a president of the United States? Or is he just the fan fave flavor of the year?

sw

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. I've wondered the same thing.

I like Obama. He's smart and articulate and I think he has a bright future. But I wonder whether the media hasn't promoted him as the trendy new flavor of the month: he's new and different, so let's make him the "front-runner." I think they were (still are) doing it with Hillary, too. First female president? First black president? Hillary is a controversial former First Lady; Obama is a charismatic black Senator with an unusual name. Makes for more interesting news copy, especially if they compete with each other.

That's not to say Obama should butt out; but I want to learn a lot more about him before getting on his bandwagon. I don't want to see someone nominated just because the MSM thought they were intriguing and wanted to stir up an interesting contest.

[scarletwoman]

17. Actually, if he DOES decide to run, I'll wonder about his character.

Would he be running because he started believing his own hype? Or would he be running because he really truly believes he's qualified?

sw

[Blue_In_AK]

21. Scarlet Woman, you express my own concerns.

I'm still waiting to be convinced.

[scarletwoman]

23. Thanks. Now we know that neither of us is alone in our reservations.

:-)

(Btw, I'm always tickled to meet Alaskans on DU -- I'm an ex-Alaskan now, but my oldest son lives in Anchorage.)

sw
:hi:

[Blue_In_AK]

29. I live in Anchorage, too - since 1975.

Maybe we know each other. :)

[IndianaGreen]

33. Obama meets the qualifications for President set by the Framers of Constitution

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications of the Office of President, as all other potential Democratic candidates do. Unlike the current occupant of the Oval Office, Obama will keep the oath of office:

:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

The only thing that remains is up to the voters, and this is more of a subjective thing rather than a Constitutional. In other words, who we like best and who rouses our commitment and passion, is the one that each and everyone of us will support in the primaries, and hopefully, in the Fall.

[stevietheman]

35. We, the voters, are the interviewers and the deciders....

and I say Obama is far from being qualified to be President.

Nice guy? Yes. Smart? Yes. Has enough experience to run the executive branch? No way!

[IndianaGreen]

38. Washington and Jefferson had no prior experience in running Executive Branch

and they did rather well, I think.

As to political experience, let's look at Hillary's. She voted for the war in Iraq and has remained unrepentant about it, never once understanding that our invasion of Iraq was a violation of international laws and the UN Charter. During the nearly 4 years of carnage, Hillary has yet to say a word about the human tragedy in Iraq, a tragedy for which America bears full responsibility, instead Hillary babbles about Bush's management of the war, as if this was some kind of business takeover.

Hillary practically beat Lieberman in condemning Murtha's call for a troop withdrawal, and she voted against Kerry's troop withdrawal resolution in the Senate.

Hillary also opposed the Kerry/Feingold filibuster of the Alito nomination.

Hillary's best known experience is in triangulation and obfuscation. This is the sort of "experience" that we don't need in a Democratic nominee, much less in the White House.

[stevietheman]

41. I support neither Obama nor Hillary for the nomination

I'm totally for Gore, and if he doesn't run, then it's Clark.

Re: Washington and Jefferson, if you look at the size of the federal government in 1789 and 1801, when they respectively took office, it was basically nothing compared to now. Further, these men were directly and highly involved with the founding of the republic and both had executive experience, Washington as a general and Jefferson as a governor of Virginia. Where is Obama's executive experience? Heck, even the Chimp had executive experience (albeit not much) before becoming President.

[liberalpragmatist]

43. What was Lincoln's experience?

And I say this not as a comparison between Lincoln and Obama, but simply to note that while experience in government is a factor to consider, it's not the only thing.

Lincoln's entire political experience consisted of a FAILED senate run, a single term in the House in the early 1840s, and a couple of terms in the Illinois state legislature.

And yet, despite some clear abuses of power, Lincoln was our greatest president and lead the nation ably through the greatest crisis in American history.

On the other hand, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld sure were experienced. And James Buchanan, by many measures, the worst president in history (except maybe Bush :) ), was extraordinarily experienced - longtime Senator, longtime congressman, ambassador, secretary of state.

Plus, Obama has a long record of community activism and government service. IF he's elected in '08, he'll have 4 years in the Senate, 7 in the Illinois State Senate, plus service as a constitutional law professor, head of Harvard Law Review, and community organizer for several years.

[wtmusic]

52. Community activism as a qualification to become President??

If I get your logic, you're saying it doesn't always require lots of experience to make a great president.

You're right. It just *usually* requires lots of experience. So instead of rolling the dice and assuming he's another Lincoln, let's give Obama some experience in the Senate while nominating someone who is 200% qualified right now--Al Gore.

[beaconess]

54. Community activism is significant

it's certainly more meaningful than owning a baseball team . . . :-)

Seriously, community organizing is a tremendous experience - requiring leadership, commitment, diplomacy - it's not as lucrative as running a business, but it requires similar skills.

Don't knock it.

[wtmusic]

55. Community activism is wonderful

where would we be without it? Who's knocking it?

But no, as a qualification to be president it's almost entirely insignificant. Otherwise we would have thousands of Americans who are significantly qualified to be President.

[beaconess]

56. Your logic doesn't follow

Considering Obama's community organizing experience is significant toward considering his qualifications to be president does not mean that everyone who has any community organizing experience is similarly qualified. That would be like saying that because Senatorial experience is a significant qualification to be president, that means that everyone who has ever been a Senator is qualified to be commander-in-chief. Or that because Howard Dean's experience as a chief executive was considered important, every governor in the country is qualified to be president. Or that because his military experience is significant factor in considering whether Wes Clark is qualified to be president, every person in America with military experience is also qualifid to be president.

Everybody doesn't come up through the traditional route toward politics and the presidency. Some people gather their experience in ways that may be different than the typical politician. That, to me, is a good thing - we need people with different backgrounds and different experiences. And I would much rather have in office a man who spent part of his career in the community, working with people, making a difference - especially when he could have been making beaucoups bucks in a cushy corporate law firm - than someone who cooled their heels in the Senate doing nothing particularly interesting or meaningful for year after year.

Deciding whether someone is qualified to be president is a very subjective determination that varies from voter to voter. While you may not think community organizing experience is important, others may feel different. If you don't think it matters, by all means, don't factor it in. I, on the other hand, think it DOES matter and it makes him a much more attractive candidate to me.

[wtmusic]

58. We're getting off base here

In the syllogisms you offer as evidence my logic is faulty, what's missing is the word "significant": "everyone who has ever been a Senator is qualified to be commander-in-chief", "every governor in the country is qualified to be president", etc.

The point of my post is that not all qualifications you admire in a potential candidate can be significant, so when you assign significance to community service it is at the expense of other qualities. Though you obviously have the right to decide what is important to you and what isn't, that particular criterium is extremely common and thus most Americans would not agree on its importance in determining a candidate.

[Labors of Hercules]

63. Wouldn't the best way to boost Obama into the Presidency...

be a win as VP on the ticket for 08? Vet him out for 8 years in the Executive and then let him secure the Presidency in a walk...

[pnwmom]

69. Obama's given more hints that he's running than Al Gore has,

at least lately.

[LisaL]

57. I hope Gore runs too.

[scarletwoman]

40. Well, I thought it was obvious that I wasn't talking about his *technical* qualifications.

But just in case it wasn't: I wasn't talking about his technical qualifications, in regard to the Constitution.

sw

[salin]

64. I don't know that he yet has enough experience...

four years in the senate? He may have it in his future - just not sure that is so in 2008.

[scarletwoman]

66. Would he get eaten alive like Jimmy Carter did?

The thing is, our political system is so utterly corrupt. And no matter who becomes president, there is the whole "shadow government" to contend with. Would a relative political newcomer like Obama be able to face them down? Would he just end up co-opted in order to survive? Or would he just be chewed up and spit out?

I'd rather see the Democrats go after and start cleaning up the whole military-corporate complex for a few years and THEN run someone like Obama to steer the country on an entirely new course. But if the underlying corrupted system isn't dealt with first, there will be very little that a principled man or woman can do. He or she will simply be assassinated, either figuratively or literally.

sw

[elocs]

20. Obama may be in a dilemma, but in a no-lose situation about running.

If he waits, he may miss his time. If a Democrat is elected and reelected it will be 8 years down the road. If Obama loses the nomination, but gets picked as the VP candidate, he would be in a good position down the road. If Obama loses the nomination and the Democrats lose the 2008 election for the presidency, he is still in a good position in 2012. Even if Obama wins, but loses the election, he is still not in too bad a position, depending upon how close it is. Anyway you cut it, it is kind of a crap shoot to run or not.

Obama certainly has as much, if not more, experience or qualifications to run as Bush had in 2000. Gore had a wealth of experience and still "lost". Lost, inasmuch as he should have won by a margin so large that it wold have been impossible to steal the election. The 2000 election should not have even been close with Gore having a pseudo-incumbency, the economy doing well, and we were at peace.

[TwentyFive]

22. Gore "lost" because he ran away from Clinton's record.

Gore should have said, "Let's keep this thing going!" over and over. Keep the message simple & stupid. Remember, this is America.

[Bullet1987]

27. Gore lost because Diebold intervened...

Would he be running because he started believing his own hype? Or would he be running because he really truly believes he's qualified?

That's why he's giving it so much thought, and I don't care that celebrities like Ventura and Schwarzenegger are elected to political positions...just as long as they are good leaders. Ventura got reelected I think, and so did Schwarzenegger...so they must be doing something right. Seeing as how Arnold is a Republican governor in a largely liberal state.

[AtomicKitten]

28. the only thing Gore lost was a 5:4 Supreme Court decision

that was tantamount to a judicial coup d'etat

[elocs]

30. The 2000 election should never have been close enough for Diebold to intervene. n/t

[MasonJar]

26. I personally think that he should wait for 4 or 8 years but I am

totally committed to working hard for whomever the democrats choose.

[elocs]

32. It's a tricky business.

If a Democrat wins in 08, would Obama run against an incumbent? Then, in 2012, who knows whose star may be outshining Obama, especially if that person had been the VP. In an election when there is no clear Democratic consensus for any one candidate, it may be the right time for Obama to give it a try.

[Ninja Jordan]

45. Obama has to run NOW. The iron is hot...

The Senate isn't a place where polticians grow more and more popular over time. It is a crypt where white men grow older and amass vote after vote that could be used against them in an election. In 2012 Obama will be old news.

If Obama's in, Hillary's out.

[ripple]

50. Spot on, ninja.

If he waits, his senate record will be spun unbelievably. When it comes to senate experience for presidential candidates, less is more.

[Tactical Progressive]

53. No he won't. He's a smart guy.

It's not his time and he's not what the country needs right now. He's going to be a Senator first, and maybe a governor and/or a Secretarial leadership, or whatever he wants over the next ten years. That will be so much better for him and for all of us.

Now it's time for the Clintons - yes, that's 'two for the price of one' - to do the things they should have always been able to do for America unfettered by Newt's rancid right revolution and its ten years of backstabbing ugliness against Clinton and America. This time around there are alot more people who have their backs and who finally understand what the other side is all about. And aren't afraid to challenge the media through the internet too. The Clintons will be held, I believe, to progressive standards moreso that to conservative standards this time around. We'll see.

Barack is going to have quite a long run, and this isn't the start of the last chapter.

[libneo]

62. Can anyone tell what kind of hope does Obama offer?

To balck kids, white kids, Brown kids, or yellow kids?

[laureloak]

67. Sorry to hear that. It's waaay too soon. n/t