Good News Everyone!
Huzzah!
It doesn’t guarantee he’s getting in, but I think he is, because Obama looked really thin on Meet the Press. If a politician is known to be considering a run, they often drop weight.
Anywho, he’s going to announce on my Birthday, Feb. 10th!
UPDATE: Here’s one reason I’m all about Obama - his speech at the Humphrey Dinner last year:
Barack Obama Speech @ 2006 DFL Humphrey Dinner
One of the best delivered, best composed, and inspirational speeches I’ve heard - the friend I brought got tears in her eyes…
Jon-David,
I take it that you like Obama, and you say he seems to be a serious contender because he lost some weight.
Lets go a little deeper, shall we?
We are in a war that has gone on longer than WWII and killed more Americans than 9-11 (not to mention over a half-million Iraqis). It will cost more than Vietnam fairly soon, with direct and indirect costs somewhere between one and two trillion. Afghanistan gets worse. South America hates us. We are poking Iran, and will attack them as soon as they say ouch.
Money-wise, Americans have spend their third mortgages buying trinkets from China, who now officially owns our entire country. Armadillos are moving into norther Kansas and the polar bears are endangered. The gas will be running out pretty soon (or Asians will be spending it all), but hybreds are a novelty and people don’t even change their furnace filters, much less pay for high-efficiency.
This rogue president has set us on a direct course over a very high cliff.
I could go on but…what did you say about the slim Sen. Obama?
I want to hear a little bit about policy here. I want to hear how the Democratic president will be taking us out of war and into energy independence. I want to know the next charasmatic politician is going to do to rally us to make our environment cleaner and our children healthier.
Please skip the beauty contest. Please don’t give me another empty image. I want to know how this or any other candidate will do to help us redirect the handbasket we’re in, which seems to be sliding faster and faster.
I know this probably sounds angry, but we have all been down this road before, and we can’t afford it any more.
Charley,
This may not satisfy you completely, but this is what Barack said in October of 2002:
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income
Sounds to me like he had quite a bit of foresight, and understood the consequences of this mess we are now in, and it’s effect on other pressing domestic issues. I am not yet decided either, but this did impress me greatly.
Fair enough. But we are already IN a dumb war (two if you count Afghanistan, more if you count coups or attempted coups in places like Haiti and Venezuela, and a LOT more if we include Iran in the need future).
So…any ideas about getting out of the dumb ones we are in or avoiding any future dumb ones?
Bush is easy to criticize. A kindergartner could do it. I am looking, however, for an alternative. I am looking for a positive vision here.
How about you, Ag? Could you give me a little more about where Obama WOULD take us?
JD and Matt,
Please write something kind about Dennis Kucinich so that Charley will stop kicking around our candidates that could actually win.
I know it will be tough to try and make DK sound viable but, you two are talented writers and I’ve got faith in you.
Thank You,
American Voter
They drop weight? Why?
I think Charley has a fair point and it has helped me finally articulate why I’m not jumping on the Obama Bandwagon, even though I like the guy. It comes down to something entirely simple. We want someone who can win the presidency and can also be an effective president, obviously. Obama is charismatic, no doubt, and that is a qualification for winning the presidency. However, charisma is not a qualification for being a good president. I’m open and willing to be converted to an Obama supporter, be he’s going to have to earn it with a lot more than a good rhetoric and a passionate speech.
I have the same exact problem with John Edwards. I don’t want to be drawn in by fluff politicians. We had the exact opposite in John Kerry. He had no charisma but I believe he would have been a decent to good president. We’re so hungry for a charismatic candidate after our experiences with Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. We can’t let the hunger blind us.
I’ll give Obama a chance, but he has a lot to prove and that should never be forgotten.
Because they’re going to gain it all back and more eating cheeseburgers from bars on the campaign trail. They need to be underweight when they start - but it’s usually pretty obvious. Just check out pictures from 04. Dems got pretty.
Sadly for Edwards, he got a little Nicole Ritchie on all of us.
Good points Willy, although I would say he went more Olson Twin [MaryKate] than Nicole Ritchie, but I digress.
Look Charley, this wasn’t a post articulating why I really like Obama. But rest assured, we’ll be writing about his positions on all the issues you mentioned. I appreciate you holding us to that standard, because voters should definitely evaluate candidates on issues as well as his/her ability to inspire hope, unite people, and perhaps most importantly - develop and capably implement real solutions for normal folks.
Thanks for commenting everyone!
Jon-David
Isn’t the purpose of the primary to help voters learn about canidates positions? I’m sure if you payed closer attention you’d be able to figure out his policy positions. But we’ll learn a lot over the next year about Obama’s plan for Iraq. And what’s the point in attacking somebody and not offering up an alternative?
The points Archer Dem raises is exactly why I have not yet decided. They will be tested, and I am looking forward to learning about them all.
Two comments from me:
1) As JD said, this was not supposed to be a “this is why we love Obama” post, just a “huzzah, he might run” post.
2) DJZ: I’m really sorry, because I do actually like the guy quite a bit, but Kucinich will never be President.
Rumor has it that people should tune into oprah today…obama might be dropping by to make an announcement or something. sorry if i have bad info, we will find out by 5pm.
DJZ is critical. He says he is for candidates who will actually win.
Didn’t we all go down that path with Kerry a couple of years ago? Some wiseguy figured that the guy who participated in the Winter Soldier hearings wasn’t electable, so they recast him as a cardboard prop-up war candidate. It didn’t work.
Look, I have nothing at all against Obama. His mom and I are from the same state (Kansas). His dad and my oldest two children were born in the same continent (Africa). I was sitting just a few feet from him at the Boston convention when he gave one of the best stump speeches I have ever heard. The only problem was, he didn’t really say anything.
Do I like Dennis Kucinich’s personality better than Obama’s. No. Why would anyone particularly favor a short white guy over a taller skinny tan guy? I would be happy to have dinner and a nice talk with either of them, but I am not picking out my next friend here. I am looking for a president who will at least slow the decline of an entire civizilation. Nice won’t do that. We will need some policy.
There are two huge problems with keeping candidates bland enough so they can be “electable.” One is that those guys just don’t get elected. The second is that, even if they do, it doesn’t make any difference to anyone, because they have no purpose beyond what they can buy from some empty-suit consultant or pollster.
Okay Charley, what policy proposals do you want to hear, and why. And then explain how those policy examples can lead to a Democrat winning the Presidency.
I am not picking on you, I’m serious. I know you are a smart guy and I am interested in what you think we need to look for. And since Kucinich has said that he is not intending on winning, just adding to the debate, how can we keep that debate constructive without damaging our candidates that do have a chance and want to win? It may be very healthy to have that debate, but we have to know the rules so we don’t eat each other up in the process.
Ag, your questions are entirely reasonable, and I will do my best with them. It is certainlly NOT my intention to tear apart Democrats. It is rather to challenge Democrats to be true to some principles, so that it actuallly makes a difference who we vote for. I suspect that a certain bitterness comes through in what I write. I am sick to death of the mainstream media viewing every election as a horserace where the main index on who is ahead is how much money they have in their campaign coffers. I am completely weary at defending Democrats against the charge that they are the same as Republicans, both parties being merely corporate. I am beside myself at the accusation that Democrats produce a Kucinich (or McGovern or Eugene McCarthy or whatever) for the simple purpose of recruiting lefties, then betray them with a Kerry-type switch. I want my party to stand for something, damn it. And I want it to stand for something different than the Republicans.
But I will try to contain any bitterness and I will try to respond with the same generousity of spirit that you show with your questions.
First, I have a very different take on what Kucinich said about winning. My take has to do with degrees of victory. I think Kucinich would be delighted to win and I actually think that he would make a truly excellent president in a number of specific ways. None of us controls all outcomes, however, and he may or may not get the nomination and the office. What I heard him say is that it would be entirely worth his time, even if he didn’t win, if he could actually influence policy to a greater extent. He would be happy to control the debate, even if he didn’t personally get the nod. Sounds reasonable to me. In fact, it sounds pretty smart.
As to the current situation of Democrats, it actually looks very bleak, since Bush holds all the important cards in the game. Just look at our current situation. November was a referendum on the war (and corruption, I should add for honesty) and the war lost. Bush gets the results, describes himself as “whooped,” gets his old pall Baker to give him a face-saving out, and what does he do? Announces another escalation. Not only that, but he kidnaps his fourth Iranian diplomat in a fortnight and announces from the White House library that he is going to bomb the Ho Chi Min trail all the way back to Tehran. As of Monday, the first wave of the escalation is already on their way to kick in a few more doors in Sadr City.
The Democrats COULD read him the section of the 1973 War Powers Resolution that says he has to get Congressional approval before an escalation. They COULD impeach him on the basis of that one actiion alone. They COULD impeach him for any number of other high crimes and misdemeaners. Or they COULD write a clause in the next funding bill that requires that the money ONLY be spent on getting the hell out of there.
They probably won’t, of course. They are really afraid of appearing weak on defense or anti-troops or something. So in March Bush asks for another $100 billion to pay for the troops he has already sent in, and the Democrats cave in again. They were for the war before they were against it before they were for it before they were against it.
The solution? Stop funding the whole thing! Go with the 70% of Americans who now believe that we should get out right away. Fund the withdrawal. Fund the rehabilitation for the troops. Hire thousands of therapists and shrinks to help them try to forget the hell we put them through so Bush could demonstrate he needed a bigger codpiece than anyone.
The sad truth is that Bush has messed this up so bad that none of is have any other choice now. As to the “winability” of a true antiwar candidate, I can make you no promises. I can promise you that the Republicans already own the war brand. I can show you that with dozens of polls that most people now realize that the war is crap. Most of all, I can promise you that nothing will change until Democrats become a peace party.
I don’t care if it’s Dennis Kucinich or the man in the moon. I only know that Democrats will continue to lose as long as we try to play it safe by being a wannabe war party. It just won’t work. We will continue to lose. Better take a little risk, I say, so we have a chance at having a little money left for education, healthcare (and maybe my own retirement), before Bush blows us all up with his expensive hobby of continuous war. I really think that the risk is worth it, and it might actually make a positive difference.
I hope that Obama doesn’t run, for two main reasons. First off, he has little to no foreign policy experience…actually, little national political experience at all. Remember, he was barely even challenged in his Senate election two years ago. I think he’d be better off hanging around the Senate building credibility for a later run for President. Second, I don’t think he’ll win. If he runs, I doubt he’ll win the endorsement, but if he does, I don’t think he has a chance in the general. I really like Obama, and I think he has a bright future in the Democratic party, but now is most definitely not the time for him to run for President.
Everytime a presidential nomination process comes around and you have a slate of candidates fo rthe job, a select few get hammered for lack of foreign policy experience, i.e. Howard Dean and John Edwards in 2004, and Obama and Edwards in 2006(thus far). Experience? Let us define what that means to people who claim to have it. Does that mean having got us into a war with the planet? Or does it mean going to countries and conflicts far away as a Senator or Representative and pretending like your going to do something about it? Either way it doesn’t matter. This country is at its peak when Democrats without foreign policy credentials are in charge of the White House, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Truman, and FDR. When democrats choose candidates that we feel have that experience they get walked all over by the opposition. I frankly am tired of campaigning for candidates because they aren’t the other guy. I am tired of trying to defend my candidate’s weak ass position on issues because he or she does not want to piss anyone off or step on anyones toes. Electability? What is that word? It makes me want to puke. Who’s to say one person cannot be president and another cannot, not I, not you,
THE VOTERS DO!
Lets have a real discussion of ideas, not tearing others ideas down, but outlining our own views, our own concerns, and then find a way to compromise or come across the aisle. I am a prgressive voter, this will be my second presidential election and nominating process, and damn it lets try and get through it without tearing each other to ribbons and try to encourage all of OUR candidates to run. Going back to experience, I think it is a strong strength not having the foreign policy experience of Washington right now.
Side Note* I think it would be sweet and exciting to go into the 2008 DNC convention without a nominee, no solid delegate count, just a thought. What do you guys think the chances of that happening? A West Wing recurrance, a three-way battle at the convention between Edwards, Clinon and Obama, Sweet No?
Comment for Devon Holstad.
In 1992, the Governor of Arkansas had little to no foreign policy experience.
Very true, but 1992 is a whole different time than 2008. In the past 16 years the world has changed dramatically, and in the state the world is in today, foreign policy should be a key factor in determining the next president. In regards to Clinton, his lack of experience led him into major problems, most notably Somalia, which Clinton later called “the biggest mistake of my presidency.” Basically, Clinton’s presidency was full of examples of what not to do when president in regards to foreign policy (here’s a good article summing up everything http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200406290933.asp ).
Now, do I think that foreign policy is the single factor in electing a president? Absolutely not. Clinton had numerous redeeming qualities, which made him a very successful president, and one which I look very highly upon. However, I think Obama’s inexperience (again, not only in foreign policy but in everything) is just one of the reasons why I don’t believe he should be president.