Obama may run for president

[sportschick]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/0/25EFD9037C46C9FA8625721000101786?OpenDocument

Release the hounds?

 

[DyePack]

I think he should wait.

 

[Ledbetter]

I think he should wait.

He probably should, from an experience standpoint, but he's got a good shot at winning now. That's got to be hard to turn down.

 

[Chi City 81]

I think he should wait.

Agreed. I'll still vote for him, though, until he gives me a reason otherwise.

 

[Oz]

I would vote for him right now, without any more knowledge on the issues, because he just seems to get things done. He would make a far better candidate than Hillary -- because of who she is, she wouldn't receive X amount of votes before she even speaks about the issues.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

He can't wait much longer, he's accumulated as much political capital as he'll ever have.

 

[DyePack]

I would probably vote for him. But he should wait. Even if he should get past the Clinton political machine in the primaries and defeat the GOP opponent, he'll have a lot of problems to deal with when he gets into office.

 

[spnited]

The more I read about him and of him, the more I see thngs to like. I question the expereince factor but I would vote for him.

My bigger question: Is a minority, and bi-racial at that, electible in this country at this time?

 

[Double J]

I like this bit from this story:

NBC’s Tim Russert also asked Obama about an excerpt in his new book in which he describes a White House visit and President Bush’s “messianic certainty.”

“I think that the president has come to approach the problems we face in very ideological, absolutist terms, and I think that’s, to a large degree, characterized how the Republicans who’ve been controlling Congress have operated over the last several years,” Obama said. “And I think that has been a mistake.”

Obama said he thought that “certainty” has precluded Bush from “looking at issues based on facts as opposed to based on ideology.

“And I, you know, I quote in the book one of my favorite stories from the Senate when Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York is in an argument with a colleague on the floor, and the colleague’s probably not doing too well in that argument, Pat Moynihan was a pretty smart guy, and at some point, the other senator gets frustrated and says, ‘Well, you know what, Pat? You’re just entitled to your own opinion and I’m entitled to mine.’

“And, and Moynihan frostily, I—I’m sure, says, ‘You are entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.’

“And I think this administration has, has not always understood that distinction. And that’s part of the reason why we’ve had problems in Iraq and that’s part of the reason why we’ve had problems with our, with our budget. There’s been an unwillingness to look squarely at the facts in making decisions.”

Great point. If Obama runs, he's got my vote.

 

[DyePack]

Now all he has to do is provide the facts that are being overlooked and come up with the solutions that are being missed.

 

[Killick]

Guys, I like Obama a ton. He may be the real deal. But... not quite yet. Not for the presidency. I'm just a little skittish on his lack of executive experience. Maybe he's on the ticket as the veep? Groom him for 2012? I dunno. Still, would be tough to vote for someone else if he ran in 2008.

If you get a chance read one of his books. Very intelligent guy, hasn't made a political misstep yet. Astute. Erudite. A moderate, really. Just wish he'd have a least a complete Senate term under his belt.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

In a perfect world, Obama would get executive experience and wait. But we don't live in a perfect world. Obama will never have a better chance. His national image is pristine, the rank-and-file Dems don't like their front-runner and this is a period when Americans will be open to reconciliation and someone with an internationalist perspective. Who knows what that this world will be like in 2012 or 2016. Also, right now Dems find Obama's lecturing to be refreshing. In 8 years, they might consider him to be Chicago's answer to Pat Moynihan: a whip-smart Senator who spends more time lecturing liberals than conservatives. Being VP would be murder for his political career: his appeal has always been his political independence. If he becomes VP, he has to defend the administration line. Always and forever. And then he becomes just another politician.

That said, if I was running a campaign against him, I would attack him like Mondale did Hart in 84: point out that Obama says many wonderful things, but with little substance. I watched Obama on MTP this morning and he was eloquent and did a good job parrying Russert's thrusts and feints. He is the best orator on the national scene since Mario Cuomo. Russert found a quote of Obama's about how Dems need to realize that not all government programs work and they shouldn't reflexively defend government programs that need to be eliminated (that is a very rough paraphrase, but I got the basic gist right). Russert asked Obama to name the programs and Obama talked about how Medicare/Medicaid still uses paper billing. That's a nice little government inefficiency that should be corrected, but it isn't a government program that needs elimination. Right now, Obama is popular as a symbol of what he represents: the hope for that perfect politician. The national press has revered Obama, but once he starts running, they will grill him. I wonder how well his image can hold up in a national campaign.

Lets also remember that he is in a similar position to Colin Powell and Condi Rice. All of them are incredibly bright people with great personal stories that Americans love. Because we don't view them as typical politicians, we can imagine where they stand on the issues to make them into the candidate we want. Even though he is a Senator, Obama has rarely been put in a corner to come out with definitive views. He has never had a real race: Alan Keyes was the Indiana State to Obama's Notre Dame in the Senate race: Keyes just ran around being his nutty self and Obama said his platitudes and everyone liked him. But as soon as Obama begins campaigning, everyone is going to try to nail his views down. The labor unions are going to want his exact position on free trade, NARAL will want to judge his commitment to abortion rights, centrist business leaders and environmentalists are going to want to know where he stands on environmental protection, etc. And once he is forced into concrete stands, he will **** someone off and his popularity goes downward.

 

[PeteyPirate]

Guys, I like Obama a ton. He may be the real deal. But... not quite yet. Not for the presidency. I'm just a little skittish on his lack of executive experience. Maybe he's on the ticket as the veep? Groom him for 2012? I dunno. Still, would be tough to vote for someone else if he ran in 2008.

If you get a chance read one of his books. Very intelligent guy, hasn't made a political misstep yet. Astute. Erudite. A moderate, really. Just wish he'd have a least a complete Senate term under his belt.

If he doesn't run in 2008 and the Democrat wins, then Obama is out until at least 2016. Then he has to count on whoever won not having ****ed it up so the country wants another change.

 

[Oz]

My bigger question: Is a minority, and bi-racial at that, electible in this country at this time?

If Americans aren't ready for a switch from the norm in the West Wing now, they might never be. If anything, it's an asset because he can relate to a variety of groups, not just one, based on race and their experiences with race.

Besides, he could start by hitting up Tiger Woods and Mariah Carey for campaign donations.

 

[Boomer7]

Lets also remember that he is in a similar position to Colin Powell and Condi Rice. All of them are incredibly bright people with great personal stories that Americans love. Because we don't view them as typical politicians, we can imagine where they stand on the issues to make them into the candidate we want.

Fantastic point. I felt the same way about Wes Clark after seeing him on "Meet the Press" during 2003. His domestic policy was beside the point; here was a military man speaking sensibly and realistically about foreign policy/the war in Iraq, who also was aligning himself with the Democrats. It seemed too good to be true. Which, of course, it was. He was a one-trick pony.

 

[Cadet]

My bigger question: Is a minority, and bi-racial at that, electible in this country at this time?

Bill Richardson is how this country will to sneak a minority into office.

 

[Killick]

That was another beautiful part of the MTP appearance Sunday -- he basically said the issues that have decided the last few presidential races were stuff that was pretty much decided in the 1960's. Aw, ****. Now I gotta look up the transcript to get it right.
...
...
...
"MR. RUSSERT: You do write this, and it’s a very interesting observation, “When you watch Clinton vs. Gingrich or Gore vs. Bush or Kerry vs. Bush”—so that’s ‘98, 2000, 2004--“you feel like these are fights that were taking place back in dorm rooms in the sixties. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution, the role of government - all that stuff has just been playing itself out, and I think people sort of feel like, Okay, let’s not re-litigate the sixties 40 years later.” Are you suggesting that those political players are, are the past and you represent a new generation that won’t get caught or bogged down in those kinds of debates?

SEN. OBAMA: I think, I think the categories we’ve been using were forged in the ‘60s. You know, I think the arguments about big government vs. small government, the arguments about, you know, the sexual revolution, military vs. nonmilitary solutions to problems. I think, in each and every instance, a lot of what we think about is shaped by the ‘60s, and partly, you know, the baby boomers is—are a big demographic. I write about the fact that, whether it’s the market for Viagra or how many cup holders are going to be in, in a car, a lot of it’s determined by what the baby boomers want. Our politics isn’t that different, and my suggestion is that—take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now."

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

That was another beautiful part of the MTP appearance Sunday -- he basically said the issues that have decided the last few presidential races were stuff that was pretty much decided in the 1960's. Aw, ****. Now I gotta look up the transcript to get it right.
...
...
...
"MR. RUSSERT: You do write this, and it’s a very interesting observation, “When you watch Clinton vs. Gingrich or Gore vs. Bush or Kerry vs. Bush”—so that’s ‘98, 2000, 2004--“you feel like these are fights that were taking place back in dorm rooms in the sixties. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution, the role of government - all that stuff has just been playing itself out, and I think people sort of feel like, Okay, let’s not re-litigate the sixties 40 years later.” Are you suggesting that those political players are, are the past and you represent a new generation that won’t get caught or bogged down in those kinds of debates?

SEN. OBAMA: I think, I think the categories we’ve been using were forged in the ‘60s. You know, I think the arguments about big government vs. small government, the arguments about, you know, the sexual revolution, military vs. nonmilitary solutions to problems. I think, in each and every instance, a lot of what we think about is shaped by the ‘60s, and partly, you know, the baby boomers is—are a big demographic. I write about the fact that, whether it’s the market for Viagra or how many cup holders are going to be in, in a car, a lot of it’s determined by what the baby boomers want. Our politics isn’t that different, and my suggestion is that—take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now."

Killick, that all sounds wonderful, especially the part that I bolded. But in concrete policy terms, can you tell me what that means? You can't because Obama can't even tell me what that means in concrete policy terms. Obama's opponents and the national press aren't going to let him get away with that in a national campaign.

 

[Chi City 81]

Look at it the other way, though, PDB. He doesn't have a career full of votes and statements with which the national media can hang him. He's young enough in his career that he isn't beholden to God knows how many special interest groups. His statements don't sound like they've been vetted through a press office to sound as unoffending as humanly possible.

He's an idealist, and I don't think that's so bad given the direction this country has taken politically in the past 20-plus years. If he can prove he has some substance on a national stage, I think he's very electable.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Look at it the other way, though, PDB. He doesn't have a career full of votes and statements with which the national media can hang him. He's young enough in his career that he isn't beholden to God knows how many special interest groups. His statements don't sound like they've been vetted through a press office to sound as unoffending as humanly possible.

He's an idealist, and I don't think that's so bad given the direction this country has taken politically in the past 20-plus years. If he can prove he has some substance on a national stage, I think he's very electable.

You're right that all of those things are pluses. But in the end, ideals and platitudes alone don't work in a presidential campaign. The same quality that makes Obama a contender and that he desperately wants to keep is the notion that we can all see what we want in him. But he is going to have to come out with concrete ideas and policies or else be seen as a dilettante candidate.