You make a very reasonable argument, rimmy... I just don't like hearing it! Besides, you could be wrong about his chances, although he has a far better chance to run in the VP slot. I just can't see anyone nearly as appealing to me right now to head the ticket in '08. I want Obama. Keep D&D Civil.
I concur with most of what has been posted thus far. Obama seems like one of those guys that connects to people from all walks of life. I, for one, think that his race would be a benfit for the party simply because that would galvanize an entire sector of America in his corner. I could actually see a Clinton/Obama ticket playing pretty well here in the South simply because of her gender and his race (although I am personally rooting for Biden at the top).
It's a great idea, but probably won't happen. Should a Rep. win in 2008, look for Obama to run on his own in 2012. I don't think he's going to run in 2008 or accept VP on any ticket. He strikes me as a person who will go where he believes he can do the most good. VP isn't it. He could stick in the Senate until it's his time, possibly becoming the Majority Leader (or Minority Leader) at some point. He should be in the Dem leadership regardless of expierence. I do believe he will be our first black President. Just not until 2012 or 2016.
I think Obama makes a lot more sense on the top of the ticket than in the VP slot. Anyone higher on the ticket looks silly next to him, as he is such a better candidate. See Bentsen next to Dukakis. My money is on him running for the top spot in 08 and winning. His time is now. There is no way he stays this hot for ten years, as a Senator or as a Vice President. I also do not think his color or funny name is as much of a roadblock as people think. He is non-threatening, inspiring, brilliant and the type of liberal (and man of color for that matter) that conservatives like. My inlaws are evangelical right wing Republicans and they would vote for him. To quote my mother, "He's magic, isn't he?"
I think that Barak Obama has the charisma, and communication abilty to break through the color barrier. I could be wrong, but I think he has it in spades. I agree that he would be better at the top of a ticket as opposed to a VP candidate. I would feel insulted if he were the VP candidate.
Well, if you're insulted, so am I! The idea that he would have no interest in the VP slot makes a lot of sense, considering what I've seen of the man. He really wants to make a difference, and being VP is definitely not the best place to do it. Cheney, who's had a catastrophic impact on the Bush Presidency (IMO), is the rare exception as far as VP influence on foreign and domestic policy. Gore was seen as, "breaking the mold," as VP, but I don't think he had that much influence on the Clinton White House. If Obama were to be elected as VP, he would be in his mid-50s when he could run for President, if he were VP for 2 terms. Why should he wait? I hope he goes for it. Keep D&D Civil.
unfortunately, rimbaud is right. i think the main problem with liberals (i say that with respect of course) is that they want to save the world without looking at the big picture. while the intentions are there, they don't see the complacency of americans and seem to under-estimate the natural tendency to resist change as a whole. as soon as they understand that it's not what they believe that's important, but rather it's the PROCESS of acheiving what they believe (hopefully that makes sense), they'll be in much better shape. sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil for the greater good. my point? obama's not going to get elected for all the reason rimbaud stated. the sad thing is that facts and reason don't win votes in america (actually, it has little revelence in most of history's politics) and liberals don't understand that. it's about emotions and perception. send enough fake junk emails out and the it becomes fact to the ordinary person. btw... i'm not registered as either dem or rep. my views are towards liberterians but if i had to choose, i'd choose and voted for the dems.
i guess is should elaborate. right now... the democrats got something going for them which is iraq and NK (i not talking from a moral prospective). if i were a dem. party leader, i would of course denounce iraq... which seems to be working, but i was also say that we should ATTACK NK right now and that bush is weak for not doing so, heck throw in iran. keep on repeating the idea that weak bush should immediately invade NK before they develope nukes that can fry our children. of course (or hopefully) no one in their right mind would do that at the moment, but you're playing on the emotions of nationalism. no one said politics was pretty but the public is relatively naive (just watch the show Street Smart) and not taking advantage of that is foolish if you're a politician no matter what your intentions.
I agree to a large extent with what you are saying. That is why I think Obama can win. He has a way of connecting with people's feelings and having a positive effect on their perceptions. He communicates his ideas so clearly and straightforward that people confident in his leadership and ideas.
Color me naive, but I don't think Obama's ever going to lose another race again. I think his entrance into the 08 primaries would change the entire dynamic of the race such that it would be his to lose and I think he's too savvy to lose it. Not only that, I think he's too savvy to let the GOP define him and I think he would make them look like assholes in the process if they tried. Virtually every imaginable modern candidate has had knocks against them before they overcame them or didn't. Bush was too dumb to be president, Clinton too scandal-ridden, Reagan too nuts, Nixon too washed up. If anyone can overcome the superficial knocks with substance it's Obama. As for this Biden love, you fellas are out of your minds. Any successful Dem candidate needs smart and steady opposition to this insanely stupid and insanely unpopular war for contrast against a GOP nom that supported it. That ain't Biden. Add to that his bizzarely racist comments re: Indian-Americans recently, the old and unrefuted charges of plagiarism that sank his 88 bid, his long-windedness and - not for nothing - his baldness, and get yourself another horse. This one won't run. Or rather, he will but he'll lose and badly. Bank that. I hope Obama runs. If he doesn't, I hope Gore does. If they both don't, I'm riding Feingold as far as he goes (I doubt it would be to the nomination but I'd love to be wrong) and then probably jumping over to Edwards, whose war oppo and apparently heartfelt mea culpa for his previous, disastrously wrong prior vote to authorize the use of force. I am glad he's in this race, if only to push the oft ignored, crucially important issue of poverty in this country. Regardless of how far he goes in the race, he does a great service by being in it.
Interesting post. Of course, I disagree with you. Actually, I've been fairly consistent with my own views for a very long time. I voted for George McGovern in '72, when many here hadn't even been born. (yes, that makes me feel like crap!) I was looking at the Big Picture in '72, when Democrats had yet another in a multitude of uninspiring Presidential candidates. The Big Picture I was looking at was Watergate. I had no doubt that Nixon was involved up to his nose in it, and had committed impeachable acts. I also knew that McGovern had no chance to win, because the general public hadn't, "bought into," Watergate... yet. History shows us that my, "Big Picture," was in focus. I would posit you this- every so often this nation makes a fundamental change, politically. It can be Lincoln in 1860, FDR in '32, Jack Kennedy in '60, Reagan in '80. Whether the change is good or bad for the country can be open to debate, but sea-changes they were. The electorate, in my opinion, is a bit like a rubber band, the rubber band representing how they tend to vote. It can stretch and stretch, but keep voting the same way. Then, during one crucial election, the rubber band breaks, and we're presented with a new rubber band, and a new sea-change in American electoral politics. I think Obama could break the rubber band, and heaven knows the nation needs it. Maybe not a good metaphor, but I have a splitting headache, so it's the best I can come up with at the moment. I'm sure I'll think of another one, after it's too late for me to edit this. So you could say that I disagree with you. I think that conservatives, as represented by the current White House, Congress, and Republican leadership, are out of touch with the underlying political feelings of the American electorate. These aren't the conservatives of the days of Everett Dirksen, for example, or even Ronald Reagan. The current group, with their grip on power, have twisted even Reagan's conservatism so out of shape as to be damned near unrecognizable. I hear that said, perhaps not quite the same way, by Republicans I meet in day-to-day life, here in the state capitol. They are dismayed at the direction their party has taken. Hey, I'm often dismayed at my own party, especially the people chosen (not by me!) to run for President. I understand why you might feel that liberals and, a term I really like, and one Obama uses, progressives have been out of touch with reality regarding politics at the national level. I would say that you should consider just how much the, "lens," through which progressives have been viewed is distorted by those who have captured our government, and their supporters in the media. Your average Democrat, in my opinion, is far more pragmatic than that distorted lens would have you see, or that several of our Democratic candidates for President might indicate. Some thoughts through my own strange lens, suffering from a really bad sinus headache. Keep D&D Civil.
The futures contract for the Democratic nomination show us who is currently favored to get the nomination. Yeah, it's a long way off but still fun to look at: Clinton 43.6 Warner 20.6 Gore 17.4 Edwards 8.0 Kerry 3.6 Feingold 2.2 Bayh 1.8 Biden 1.5 Obama 1.2 These can roughly be interpreted as the percentage chance that each candidate will win the Democratic nomination. So if you bought Obama for 1.2, the contract would expire at 100 if he won. That means that if you put down $1,000 on him, you'd win $99,000. Some of you ought to put your money where your mouth is.
For those of you in this thread that are Republicans or Independants and those of you who are Dems and forgot why, I present you with the most concise and persuasive rationale behind my personal political persuasion (and hopefully that of MANY other fellow Democrats). Enjoy. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cuomo1984dnc.htm
I agree with this statement. I would expect the Republicans to trot out a minority VP canidate in one of the next three elections, but I expect him/her to be hispanic and catholic.
Bingo. I've said it before- I like Obama, but he's not going to be elected president in the next 10 years. This country is no where near ready for a liberal black president. As for Biden- Please no. He is one of the smarmiest politicians out there and he totally beholden to the credit industry. Plus the Republicans will eat him alive with the plaigarism issue. If I had to chose right now I would go with either Gore, who's been very impressive since his loss to Bush, or Warner, for electability as a southern governor.
that is the end of the argument Obama's . . . atypical back ground makes him more acceptable than other black candidates . . . but it still will not be enough Rocket River
I guess there is no way to know definitively unless he does run, but I believe that those that think his race will keep him from winning are underestimating the guy's appeal. I think he has more than enough leadership, charisma, and skill at communications to break that barrier. A lot of people who might be uneasy by a black candidate will be made to feel at ease by Barak's non-threatening style, intelligence, and ability to make his stance on issues sound heartfelt, and like they are common sense plain and simple. In a campaign it will give him time to dispell a lot of voter's preconceived ideas about him. I agree with batman the usual GOP tactics and mudslinging will only backfire and make them look like jerks against Obama. I feel he is the best possible candidate for the Dems. To put him as VP would waste his talents, and reek of tokenism since he would be an infinitely better candidate and leader than other dems in the field.
