Probably too late to get into this discussion in full, but what the hey....

4 years as a Senator is just not enough proven experience. I sincerely hope Obama serves out his term through 2010, gets re-elected, then runs in the next Illinois governor's race. (Whenever that would be.) In fact, I'd like ALL of our Senators running for the Presidency without ever having been head of an executive to go do that.

Show us that you're more than a talking head in Washington. Show us that your home state voters trust you to fix the roads and balance the budget. That, quite simply, speaks volumes more than any damned 5-point plan put out about some obscure issue.

My dream team-Edwards for Prez, Obama for VP. As much as I'd like to see a woman for President, I just don't think HRC could win a presidental election. Among the general population, she appears to have too much baggage. And if you're a Democrat, it's all about picking a winner after so long a dry spell. I don't think I can weather any more Republicans.

I just tried to secure the web address obamaforpresident2008.com. But it's already taken!! I wonder by whom!! ;-)

Correction:

"I would gladly volunteer for an Obama campaign - something I haven't done since I was 15 years old."

should have read . . .

I would gladly volunteer hundreds of hours for an Obama presidential campaign - something I haven't done since I was 15 years old. (Just in 2004, I volunteered time and/or gave money to several Democrats.)

Talk is cheap. Everyone who's sitting on their couches right now, typing their praises for Sen. Obama, please contact his office and urge him to run for president in 2008. Take responsibility for making your democracy work! It's time for you - us - to draft Sen. Obama for president. If not you, then who?

I've read every opinion on this blog. And I still see no downside to Sen. Obama running in 2008.

None of the other Democratic contenders are capable of beating him into the ground; for some reason, Democratic nominees can barely keep up with the likes of W in a presidential debate.

Being able to stand up to the slander of Republican attack dogs has nothing to do with having 20 years of experience as a senator or governor; it sure didn't help Gore and Kerry stand up to W.

In contrast, Clinton's war room did quite well despite a relative lack of experience. It's about being quick on your feet, not being afraid to fight, trusting your instincts, and surrounding yourself with the best and brightest staff.

Regardless of whether he wins the nomination, surely, no open-minded person doubts that Sen. Obama would dazzle millions along the way. Win or lose in 2008, he will leave a very strong, lasting, favorable impression. If he loses, he will have developed the grassroots organization and donor lists necessary for an even stronger national campaign.

It's also a great way to audition for VP.

As Ron Speegle from Georgia noted, Sen. Obama is the first political leader in two generations who evokes rock star excitement. No other candidate generates 1/5 the excitement Sen. Obama does.

In primaries, voters vote with their heads. But in general elections, voters vote with their hearts; it's a more visceral decision.

Millions of general election voters will "heart" Sen. Obama - truly, the political equivalent of the Beattles and Elvis. He excites young and old, rich and poor. He excites apathetic voters who would likely vote blue. Imagine what that would do for independent voter turn out in swing states!

Why am I so certain Sen. Obama will sweep the election the way he completely blew away a crowded Democratic primary in Illinois? Since Watergate, cynical voters have assumed that all politicians are liars and crooks. In this environment, it's unheard of that SO MANY people speak so reverentially about one man. He even makes cynics believe in politics and politicans.

Sen. Obama is special. We haven't seen someone with his ability in decades. That's a frequently made description of Sen. Obama. How often is that description given to any other candidate?

I would gladly volunteer for an Obama campaign - something I haven't done since I was 15 years old.

Name one other living political leader who commands a comparable level of excitement and admiration.

Hats off to John in N.C. And here I am, another Southern white liberal middle class male in Georgia who thinks the Party needs to nominate someone who can win, not Clinton.

I would love to see Obama run. It would create excitement we haven't seen since the Kennedys in the Sixties. Run, Obama!

Don't forget Senator Mike Gravel

I am going to guess from my own contacts, who are largely professionals or tech-ies, that many Americans see the two parties as, respectively, a curse and an affliction. My friends will be looking for competent, clear, and moderate candidates, not angry ideologues. I think my "crowd" would favor Edwards and Obama and Biden among the Democrats. They respect Feingold, but not, by way of contrast, Pelosi; seeing the Senator as "liberal" but not stuck in party rhetoric and bashing. Most of us would prefer Hagel, or Guiliani, or McCain to any other Republican. I think Lindsay Graham is universally respected in my "crowd" but Dick Cheney is seen as the essence of blind partisanship. All of us voted for GWB for Governor in 1998, after he had served four years in harmony with a Democratic Lieutenant Governor, but fewer than half of us supported him for President in 2000 and his support eroded further in 2004.

I am extrapolating from about a dozen couples, most of whom have advanced degrees and most of whom have a long history of ticket splitting, and who are 50-60 years of age. Few of the men would support HRC against a competent moderate Republican; several of the women are very much in her corner. We all think she is competent, but the Republicans need only run excerpts from the Front Line episode called "Once Upon A Time in Arkansas" to beat her. Rove would love that particular irony, don't you think?

I agree that he is one of the more inspiring Democrats that we have seen in a while, but The Fix has it right - Obama needs to wait until at least 2012. He is still green, and he will be beaten to the ground by other more experienced Democrats and the Republican candidate.

Please. He is an empty suit. His only claims to fame are: (1) Good-looking, (2) Youngish, (3) Mixed-race, (4) Muslim background/though Christian now (not a plus in many circles). If a person with his background and resume were a plain-looking 65 year-old white Christian he couldn't get elected dog catcher. Jeez. This isn't the Academy Awards or Vogue magazine. It's the presidency of the United States!

I am no supporter of the Senator, but the man was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review and is generally seen as a brilliant person, both intellectually and politically. The Sky is the limit for him.

Please. He is an empty suit. His only claims to fame are: (1) Good-looking, (2) Youngish, (3) Mixed-race, (4) Muslim background/though Christian now (not a plus in many circles). If a person with his background and resume were a plain-looking 65 year-old white Christian he couldn't get elected dog catcher. Jeez. This isn't the Academy Awards or Vogue magazine. It's the presidency of the United States!

I am not fan of the Senator, but the guy was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review and is generally seen as a brilliant man, both intellectually and politically. Skies the limit for him.

Obama is the real deal and should be the next President of the United States of America. We have already been given the worst President so now it is time to elect a fresh face with a brain.

Obama 2008
for President of the United States of America

Obama is the first politician since Bill Clinton who truly *inspires* me. His speeches give me chills. And I don't think I'm the only one.

What other politician can do that?

True enough. Let's say the increased minority turnout and swaying enough independents gets him elected. Dems have just missed in the last two elections. He will get the same votes and more.

In addition, Americans are going to be looking for a change. And he's a big change.

RA - Isn't the "minority vote" already included in the Democrat half which he should get by default? He has to get votes from the Independents to get the numbers he needs to win.

He's got the goods. Charisma is what gets a man elected President. He's got it.

Obama vs McCain.

Young versus old, excitment vs boredom.

As the Dem, he automatically gets half the vote and then brings out the minority vote to add a little more.

I think he will outcompete anyone he runs against, be it Hilary or McCain or whoever else the Republicans try to run. It's a weak field.

What if Obama ran for VP alongside of Sen Feingold, who would make a terrific President. He's one of the few frank, candid,honest, hard-working,unintimidated people that are serving our nation at this time.
Another excellent choice would be John Edwards.

Winning a debate during a Presidential election does not always help; sometimes voters sympathize with the less articulate candidate who appears to be getting beaten up. Bill Clinton's genius was that he knew how and when to conceal his intelligence. Should have kept some other things concealed, too...

I forgot Fran summized her attack with

"How ridiculous and pathetic"

Well to that I say to her Jerry Springer/ Bill O'Reilly life,

"How mundane and obvious"

Now back to the issues...........

And please, spare us the advertisements about your "Ivy League" education. No one cares where you go to school, which country clubs your parents belong to, what they do for a living, how many trust funds you have, where you go on vacation, or what kind of car you drive. How ridiculous and pathetic.

Touche Fran,
Conversely, no one cares about your uneducated opinion. Nor do we care about the Wal-Mart you steal from, your cheating husband, your dentures, your mini van, and your chidlren's crummy grades. We just care about the issues. If you'd like to debate them, I'd love to BBQ any thoughts you may think you know about U.S. Policy and Politics. Have fun getting your car detailed at Maaco this weekend.

(These were jokes that my roommate told me to write. He's really a snob)...

I think this whole focus on accomplishment and/or experience is ridiculous. You have to be (a) from a rich family (or marry rich - Kerry, Brownback ...), (b) go to the right schools (but don't sweat, it's unseemly and takes time away from secret societies and binge drinking, not to speak of cheerleading), (c) get experience in entrepreneurial skills by having family friends `help' you and (d) network, network, network. Who needs that `vision' thing? And anyhow, a preppie without vision (Bush 41) is much better than a preppie with vision (Bush 43). These people have atrophied brains so their visions, such as they are, are unfettered by reality, knowledge or skill. You slobs who work for a living and had to get good grades to get into elite schools etc. just don't get it. Claiming to read the Bible helps (though you don't have the skill set to actually `read') and thinking from your gut is about the only thing you can do since the main location of neural activity is more or less vestigial.

The American public is long overdue for a President who picks the topics based on what he belives is best for the public rather than supporting a "straight party line." We need someone who will defend the constitution and our rights. We need someone who will re-unite a public split down the middle after the last two elections. We need someone who won't be so liberal racking up our national debt. I think that waiting till 2016 will put us in a real mess. We need change now. Obama looks like the best chance for that. For those of you who are concerned about his age, the longer you stay in office, the more likely someone will get their hooks in you. He has the strength and the charisma to do it now... and he hasn't had 10 more years of Special Interest Groups trying to soften him up. Now is the best time for him to run and for us to see real service. Ten more years of this kind of financial management and no president will be able to do anyting but emergency "patching" rather than curing or prevention. I'd say, "Elect him now and ask him if he'd like to run after he's been elected."

Chris, It could be a very refreshing experience for we the voters to have a candidate with vision and ideas expound on the future of America, even an unelectable candidate. Domestic and foreign affairs could be thoroughly thrashed over by such a candidate, one who would insist upon determining the subjects of political debate. Do you think there are any potential candidates strong enough to withstand the expected onslaught of vicious and unscrupulous personal attacks capable of steering the debate to meaningful subjects? Who amoung those being discussed by we-the-talking-heads can we look to for a display of real leadership? Which of them has a vision for America and which are just more of the same?

If Obama is any kind of worthy candidate, he'll be able to run in the future campaigning on some contemporary issue. If public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war is what it would take to get him elected, that's fine, but there's clearly much more to him than a war position.

Patience is a virtue.

I encourage everyone who believes in Senator Obama to email his campaign, and urge him to run in 2008.

http://obama.senate.gov/contact/index.php

On his website, I would probably check mark "position on an issue" and then check "other" for the subject.

If Senator Obama waits 8 years to run, he will lose a major advantage he has in 2008. He has been a consistent and vocal opponent to the war in Iraq. This issue won't be relevant in 8 years. Right now, there's a very large anti-war movement in the Democratic party that is waiting for a candidate to rally around. Polls show that most Americans now believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Most poll results no longer have a favorable view of W or beltway Republicans.

2008 is a very rare opportunity for Obama for another reason. This is the first time in many election cycles when he will not have to run against a sitting president or vice president from either party. Who knows how many more election cycles it will be before Obama - or any Democrat - has the chance to run against a wide open field. It only happens once every 40-50 years.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton will be exposed to the glare of the media lights, front and center. She will not have the advantage of her personable husband to fall behind, as she will be the candidate who must sell herself and her campaign to the voters across America. Not just left-leaning New York State, but the red states as well.

Hillary has a frigid personality, forced smile and a speaking tone which is off-putting. She is a tough brawler who is good at fighting behind the scenes to gain advantages. Many of the voters of America will reject her not only on her record, but on their perceptions of the personal inner hostility she seems to nearly exude.

Nixon had similar qualities - more bordering on psychopathology, but he won because the silent majority was scarred by the trauma of the spring/summer of 1968.

I believe if the Democrats are to win, they will have to run someone more moderate - such as Mark Warner, who can attract red state voters with their moderate positions.

John -- You keep saying the same things in your posts buddy. We get it - you think he should be for gay marriage. On a personal level I agree, but are you really in favor of tossing the guy overboard when he DOES support civil unions?

The demographics are on progressives' side when it comes to gay marriage. If a politician is willing to support civil unions in the mean time, personally I think that ought not be a disqualifying position. Regardless, there's really no answer to your post. You think he should support them, he doesn't feel that way. Not really much else to say on that one.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton will be exposed to the glare of the media lights, front and center. She will not have the advantage of her personable husband to fall behind, as she will be the candidate who must sell herself and her campaign to the voters across America. Not just left-leaning New York State, but the red states as well.

Hillary has a frigid personality, forced smile and a speaking tone which is off-putting. She is a tough brawler who is good at fighting behind the scenes to gain advantages. Many of the voters of America will reject her not only on her record, but on their perceptions of the personal inner hostility she seems to nearly exude.

Nixon had similar qualities - more bordering on psychopathology, but he won because the silent majority was scarred by the trauma of the spring/summer of 1968.

I believe if the Democrats are to win, they will have to run someone more moderate - such as Mark Warner, who can attract red state voters with their moderate positions.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton will be exposed to the glare of the media lights, front and center. She will not have the advantage of her personable husband to fall behind, as she will be the candidate who must sell herself and her campaign to the voters across America. Not just left-leaning New York State, but the red states as well.

Hillary has a frigid personality, forced smile and a speaking tone which is off-putting. She is a tough brawler who is good at fighting behind the scenes to gain advantages. Many of the voters of America will reject her not only on her record, but on their perceptions of the personal inner hostility she seems to nearly exude.

Nixon had similar qualities - more bordering on psychopathology, but he won because the silent majority was scarred by the trauma of the spring/summer of 1968.

I believe if the Democrats are to win, they will have to run someone more moderate - such as Mark Warner, who can attract red state voters with their moderate positions.

the great majority of the reasons for Obama not to run in 08 are politically valid. It might not be in his interest to run at this time. However, if that is his consideration, then he should not run. We are in no need of just another politician. I believe that the question Obama needs to deal with is what is best for his country, and I personally think that means he is our candidate!

Is anyone doing their homework?! What hypocrisy! Obama first come out in favor of full marriage equality for same-sex couples but then (with just a little pressure from fundamentalists) he betrayed that position to evangelize his "faith" and knuckle under to homophobic African-American Christian fundamentalists. He then denied his original position and not so magnanimously (but very patronizingly) casually tossed over the insult of the 'separate but [not] equal' civil union seat in the back of the bus. (Just google "The black-vote schism")

We test our "friends" (and politicians) the same way we test any metal -- under stress and under pressure. It's easy to be courtly when one has a cleverly prepared propaganda speech and a wheel-barrow full of public relations clap trap; but the only way to really test one's metal is under pressure. Since it is admitted that Obama had no real opponent in the Illinois race, since the outcome was never really in doubt, and since he won by a whopping 70% margin (he was always at least 65% ahead of his opponents), it was therefore entirely unnecessary (and utterly lacking in courage) for Obama to claim that the only reason gays should be denied marriage is because of the "religious connotations" which he must adhere to as a Christian -- so much for his respect for separation of church and state! (And he openly states this hypocrisy even though his own religious denomination (the UCC) performs same-sex marriage ceremonies while making distinction to heterosexual marriages. What hypocrisy!!!)

As a Harvard educated civil rights lawyer (so called) Obama knew the right thing to do but when he didn't even have to make a compromise he sold-out on the most important civil rights issue of the day and knuckled under to homophobic black Christian fundamentalists when it was entirely unnecessary! Hypocrisy!!! Hypocrisy!!! Hypocrisy!!! Obama's official position on marriage equality is at odds with virtually every black civil rights leader in America today. (See "Our Supporters" at the National Black Justice coalition). Indeed, Nobel Peace Prize winner Bishop Desmond Tutu has called this civil union exclusion from marriage nothing less than "apartheid" -- what an interesting choice of words! But Obama just holds his finger to the wind to see which way it blows.

When he says he's not in favor of marriage equality he's about as believable as Lincoln who consistently maintained that he was not in favor of abolition of slavery! Such politicking with civil rights may be politics but is this leadership? We understand the well-intended cynical manipulation at play here but are such people really worthy of trust? This illusion and cynical sophistry for sale are precisely what Socrates and Plato railed against! Heaven forbid the young should be corrupted by the truth and the wool lifted from their eyes. Obama, with all his illusions and sophistry for sale, has made some totally absurd statements with regard to civil rights and religion. Now watch as the chickens come home to roost!

I'm pretty sure that CC is not suggesting Obama has ethical problems like those of Joe Biden (stop being so defensive Obama supporters!)

Biden is an example of how running and not winning, for whatever reason, can hurt your long term prospects. That comparison is not meant to be an attack on Obama.

Look around our nation and our world. WE don't have time to wait for Barack Obama's perfect political window. The people are in desperate need of someone who can inspire us to be greater than we have been lately.

The thought of four or even eight more years before we can start to see where Mr. Obama starts to take us is not something I want to consider very much.

What's going on here?I noticed that some people made negative statements unsupported by evidence (citation or link to authority) and those are posted; but when we submitted critical statements supported by links to authority those were not posted. Ergo, if people make unsupported hearsay statements let them stand but exclude statements that actually provide evidence supporting those facts stated? Ergo, hearsay is okay but Hemlock to those who corrupt the youth by pulling the wool from their eyes?

Look around our nation and our world. WE don't have time to wait for Barack Obama's perfect political window. The people are in desperate need of someone who can inspire us to be greater than we have been lately.

The thought of four or even eight more years before we can start to see where Mr. Obama starts to take us is not something I want to think about it.

jeff

There is more than one poor richard but Ben Franklin who was the other one has long passed. So I use lower case out of respect.

I'd like to point out that there are two or three Jeffs or variations thereon posting in this thread and on this board in general. I didn't realize this until today. I've signed 'Jeff' to my posts thus far but will switch to Jeff in North Carolina, so there's a little less chance for confusion.

If Obama does not run in 2008, there may not BE a 2012.

Just reading lines in this post from his 2004 speech brought tears to my eyes. He is, indeed, the "real thing" and it's time people stop worrying about how "attractive" he might be, or how inexperienced he is in foreign policy (this is so amusing, really, think about that. Should we vote Rummy in?)

Obama is a man for all people. A black person or a woman can't win the presidency? How many people have suggestetd that Oprah could win the Presidency? She certainly won the "hearts and minds" or americans to the point of becomming a billionaire for it. AND with good intentions. I Obama as our only hope. Otherwise, the sky might as well fall - in fact, as the ice caps melt and war is the common practice of problem solving, I would say it has already fallen.

poor richard,

Great refutation of Jeff that you posted at 3:53. But then again, these are the people who think Democrats are Anti-American for protesting their government's actions.

Still, what else can we do but speak truth to power and hope the electorate comes around?

Off-topic, but ExxonMobil made $1,318 per SECOND in the last fiscal quarter. Apparently, that's enough dough to buy enough gasoline, even at the current $3 a gallon national average, to drive a Hummer H3 between Los Angeles and New York three times.

If I were a bread-basket midwest conservative Id be pissed that Bush hasnt gone full-bore with renewables. But maybe that's just me.

Obama will be this country's next FDR. He has the vision, he has the charisma, and he has the ideas. I truly believe that, in my heart of hearts, and I hope and pray that he decides to run, not just for the country's sake, but also for the Democratic Party's sake as well. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination I just don't know what I would do (I may either vote McCain or not vote at all - as painful as that is to admit!). Let it be known that I'm a life-long, hard core Yellow Dog Democrat, however, as every new day passes I just become more and more distrustful of and disgusted at everything that is Hillary. Everything about her, every move she makes, every vote she casts, every word she utters is so focus group-market tested, bland - often aggravating, always uninspiring - robotic, disingenuous, talking-point bullsh*t. Even if she were to somehow win and become president, she is so polarizing, and so unlikable that she would not be able to get anything through congress, therefore getting nothing done for the country except exacerbating the already extreme polarization! She will be booted out within four years, and her legacy will be much the same as Jimmy Carters; Got nothing done, damaged the already tainted image of our Party as a Party that can lead, and usher in another age of right-wing administrations. I could go on forever on this topic, but this is an Obama article, and my basic point is Obama is the antithesis of everything that Hillary is, and he is the only candidate with enough charisma, inspiration, and bi-partisan support to heal and lead the broken and demoralized post-Bush era to come.

jacketpotato

Last and only president from Illinois- Saint Ronald Reagan.

The great Rail Splitter was from Kentucky. I know he had an uneventful presidency, but we adopted him anyway.

You know, I think the writer is just looking for things to discredit Barack Obama. To even bring up the charges of plagiarism against Joe Biden as the kind of thing that might derail Obama is totally ridiculous considering that -- at least at this time -- there is certainly no reason to believe that such a thing will happen with Obama. And when we talk about age, I personally don't want another president who is teeter-tottering on the line of senility, or someone who has been involved in the political arena for so long as to be "cynical" about it. If you want to bring up some real concerns, then do it. But don't try to create issues that just aren't there. In the meantime, just face it: Barack Obama is a real contender.

jacketpotato

Does you logic rule out Hillary? She's from Des Plaines Illinois

So a Hillary/Barack ticket would never work!!!

Jeff

That is a very strong attribution of why an sitting president eeked out an election victory with a spread measured in several numbers to the right of the decimal point. Those margins really don't look like broad acclamation of his talents...just the desperate efforts of alot of special interest groups who know they have him in their pocket.

One might be more precise in attributing the victory more to better partisan control of the election process in Ohio.

The risk is staying in the Senate. In recent memory, only JFK came from the Senate to win the Presidency. That was only with questionable shenanigans perpetrated by his Dad.

The President from Illinois routine is dead. He could be a great Illinois Senator, raise money for the party and leave it at that. Governor's seat in Illinois and the mayor of Chicago are both dead ends. BTW, when was the last President from Illinois?

This is fun. The regulars know I'm from Illinois.

Couple of idle thoughts

Jeffb-Why in the world would Obama want to be Illinois's governor? We have a fine tradition of non-partisan scoundrelship in that office. The US Attorney has a permanent office in Springfield. Why would we spoil that tradition with an honest man?!?! The only place our governors go to when they are done is Club Fed (I know, Jim Edgar is being considered by Junior for Transportation. But he had soon to be jail bird Governor Ryan as his assistant governor doing the dirty work!)

Lightning-What is wrong with a democrat who can read, write, and speak. Are you Republicans so used to the current bunch of complacent democrats who heard, saw and spoke no evil until Junior's incomeptance got him in Dutch in the polls and they could pile on? Maybe if they did speak up we wouldn't have the mess we have in the middle east.

And drindl-You are often the voice of reason. I generalized a bit. The neocons and the religious right overlap alot (remember those Venn Diagrams we sat through in high school)because are tied at the hip with the Israel lobby-maybe a reason that the moderates would think twice of jettisoning the far right sorts. Money makes the world go Round.

The neocons are pretty much gone already. (They all ran to the World Bank!) Jettisoned before Bush 2004.

Religious right goes in 06 if the houses are in jeopardy.

Here here, B2O. People see strength on national security as strength of character, willingness to face a challenge, perseverance, etc. Foreign policy experience, military service, all that jazz - it's nice, and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. That's why the voters ultimately chose Bush and not Kerry - because on a visceral level, Bush was the one who they trusted as tough.

"Republicans whisper that a wealth of negative information exists about Obama that has never received any real airing in the national media"

Oh great, another "he wasn't wounded nearly enough after volunteering for service, while our candidate was dodging it and getting drunk in Houston" Swift Boat campaign. I wonder what they'll dream up, and the media will give free, uncritical airtime for, about Obama?

"Think about it, would you trust someone to handle terrorism, Iraq, and world events with this little experience? "

As long as he's a "regular guy", doesn't care about knowing anything or listening to anyone, but talks vaguely about having "values", millions of Republicans will eagerly vote for him.

So, was Reagan a "has-been" in 1980 because he had tried and failed to get the GOP nomination over Ford in 1976?

LOL. One good tautological line...

"The New York senator is an overwhelming favorite for the nomination in 2008"

... deserves a repeat of this satirical post:

Cillizza Stands by Clinton Assertion

Washington (AP) - Washington Post political commentator Chris Cillizza, widely seen by some of his readers as a transparent spokesman for the establishment political machine, again today declared Senator Hillary Clinton as the 'frontrunner' in a Democratic nomination process that is not scheduled to begin for many months.

When asked about his continued practice, Mr. Cillizza's staff, rumored to consist of a summer intern and a dessicated Chia Pet, refused to comment. In the past Cillizza has responded to requests for support of his claim with vague references to "many party watchers" and a little-known Washington think tank registered under the name "They".

Despite a demonstrable history that early public opinion polls such as those finding Mrs. Clinton ahead test primarily name recognition and not the eventual winner, Mr. Cillizza stands by his assertion. Detractors have noted other surveys which show a majority of American voters resolved not to vote for the Senator should she receive the party's nomination. Cillizza has dismissed this objection as "irreconcilable with the known fact that she is widely seen as the party's frontrunner", and therefore irrelevant.

When pressed, Cillizza later added He and Himself to the list of observers widely seeing Mrs. Clinton as the frontrunner. The writer also named a colleague who, upon being contacted by this reporter, confessed he had "heard that a political blogger over at the Post considered Mrs. Clinton the favorite".

Yesterday, Cillizza was spotted walking into the Washington restaurant Hawk and Dove with two close associates, tentatively identified by a bartender as Me and Myself. Both men have gone on record that Senator Clinton "all but has the nomination wrapped up".

The real question is not "Who can win?" It's "Who should win?" And the answer to that depends on what the person stands for. Do we really know what Obama or any of the other Democratic candidates stand for? Democrats tend to lose elections when people don't know what they stand for. Kerry would have won in a landslide if people had any idea. The world is complex, but a candidate has to be able to express his positions clearly.

If a candidate really supports social values and the social responsibility of government, he will win. That is what voters really admire even though being handsome/pretty, appearing friendly and a person of the people, a good speaker all help.

Do the comparison of candidates.
Who stands for a good free universal medical health system?
Who stands for help to the poor and disabled?
Who stands for a decent minimum annual income?
Who stands for peace in the world?
Who stands for helping our friends, internationally?
Who stands for a clean environment?
Who stands for a booming economy?
Who stands for transparency in financial reporting?
Who stands for innovation?
Etc.

If you stand up for the desired ideals, then you also need character, experience, intelligence, charisma, etc (even good looks).

Who fits?

anyone pay attention to jon corzine? if you look at his resume he's an ideal candidate:
general:
- grew up on a farm
- was in the marine reserves
- high school quarterback and walked on to his bball team at illinois and was captain
- MBA from university of chicago
- rose from the bottom of goldman sachs as a bond trader to CEO. solely based on his financial wizardry and knowledge of markets

senate career:
- voted against war
- was on foreign relations, intelligence, and budget committee
- voted against all bush tax cuts for wealthy and proposed middle class tax packages in response that were ignored by republican leadership
- tried to pass an ammendment that required chemical companies to guard their facilities. failed because republicans are easy to bribe/donate to
- brought forth legislation to end genocide in darfur along with sam brownback.
- wrote much of sarbanes-oxley corporate accountability act
- great record on environment, alternative energy, homeland security, job creaton, worker protection

governor of nj:
- passed a budget where he cut spending $2bn and raised taxes $1.9bn. very painful but necessary budget that he shut down the government in order to get passed. came out with higher approval ratings than he started with and nj voters gave him credit for having conviction and standing up to his own party.
- budget was fiscally responsible, pro small business/job creation, helped the poor, cut government waste, pro union
- created extensive state homeland security department that is run by a security expert who he convinced to move from california to nj
- plans to reduce property taxes, fund stem-cell research, end pay to play.

he's a true progressive/liberal and isn't afraid to stand up for his beliefs. he knows a ton of rich people and would be able to raise enough money for a campaign. his best friend is chief fundraiser for the DNC. a lot of conservative wall street types like him a lot and he has a great rep on the street.

i think it might be a long shot for him to run in '08 but he's very ambitious, plans ahead, and is an expert in timing things right. stranger things have happened. a corzine/obama or corzine/warner ticket would be unbeatable.

certain groups overwhelmingly approve of and voted for him including african americans, women, seniors, latinos. enough conservative/moderate white males like his busines background/american dream story and the fact that he's a regular all-american midwest type. oh and to top it all off, he's sincerely religious and is comfortable like obama, to talk about his faith.

drawbacks: he's divorced, slightly balding and has a beard.

I am glad to read that someone argues for Senator Obama to get out of the Senate and run for Governor of Illinois. We all seem to be agreeing that the Senate is not a place to launch a presidential campaign but we fail to remember that the vice-presidency is not the place either. Looking back at history...other than President George H W Bush...we have to go back to President Martin Van Buren to find a vice president who won an election to succeed the president under whom they served. Other than President Nixon, who failed once before gaining the White House, vice presidents assume the office because of a national tragedy not from our desire to elect them to the higher office. Senator Obama needs to run in Illinois...just as Senator Clinton should have run for Governor of New York...in order to gain some executive experience. If we are certain that we want a woman to run the country, then let's look to some of the women serving as governors. Gov. Janet Napolitano and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius are two Democratic Governors in arguably red states (Kansas can't get more red). While neither candidate might be able to raise the money like Senator Clinton that Chris sees as the all important barometer for success, both would be a breath of fresh air, show that progressive politics can win in a conservative climate, and bring as much experience to the table as any nearly any other candidate being touted for chief executive.

'The problem is his own peers are controlling, offensive, liberal slanders that embrace wealth and mental, social and financial control over the poor'.

What a terrifying stupid comment. Sometimmes I wonder which planet I'm on. Is there intelligence on Earth? Very few signs of it, I'm afraid.

The repugs sure know how to control the mindless.

I have already written him and advised him to embrace the Republican leadership in DC by getting on board his real calling with the GOP. Obama is not a modern democrat, he is a harvard graduate and writes, speaks and reads well. The problem is his own peers are controlling, offensive, liberal slanders that embrace wealth and mental, social and financial control over the poor. Their shallow tactics leave him as a slave to their regime. He became a democrat because it seemed to be the right thing to do for his peers and votes. Yet it is a short wick for his candle. If he vowed to be a GOP asset, he would be embraced by many leaders like him in the GOP and quickly placed at the podium for a home in the White House. He is ripe today but sadly planted in a vineyard of weed, manure and darkness. For example, his ability to debate the issues with written authority only hold merit with literate voters. He is the lone cadillac for sale
on a lot full of late model fords.
There would be nothing wrong with him admitting that he has been fooled, taken advantage of and for granted by the incumbants and to ask for a real job at the GOP. GOD Bless.

I especially liked Chris's comparison of Obama to JFK in his previous post. I had a politcally unaware friend who switched her residensy from Ohio to Illinois in 2004 just to vote for Obama. He may be an "empty suit", but his ability to inspire voters like my friend will serve him well no matter if/when he runs for the presidency.

The first caucuses and primaries should reflect the diversity of our party and country. I'm sure the voters there are well intentioned, but I can't believe NH and Iowa are still among the first to vote. They have far too much say in selecting our nominee.

The fact that Obama draws so much interest on this blog compared to other blog subjects is yet another example of how much potential this senator has. He should run for president NOW. In 8 years, he could be competing against a sitting VP who is being endorsed by a popular democratic president. And if being VP this time is his goal, what better way to show what he can contribute to the ticket than to run in the primaries. He'll dazzle everyone in the primary debates, in stump speeches, fundraising, etc.

It isn't the evangelicals, everyman. It's the neocons that are out for Condi, the peoople who are still really in power. The cheney/iran contra crowd... richard perle primarily, but also newt and others. these are still the people who are actually running our foreign policy...

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Condi2.htm

The Vice Presidential candidate running with Adlai Stevenson in 1956 was Estes Kefauver, a senator from Tennessee. Stevenson was thought to favor Kennedy, but the convention didn't go along.

Must be some republican spin going on here.

Fletcher- Fact Check please. Obama is a christian educated in catholic schools. He father may have been muslim, but his mother was presbyterian. That does not make him an apostate, unless Rush Limbaugh (who I doubt could spell 'apostate' without a script writer) starts pushing it.

I am sick of the Obama/Osama spin they already started on a number of blogs.

Let's get the religious double-speak out of this discussion.

to nh dem, i agree with your assessment about kerry, although i think he does have life outside the senate...he would be a fantastic ambassador to france. good to know that nh is thinking that way about hillary.

fletcher, apostasy by some is considered a capital crime in Islam. back in the day, when islam was a nascent nation surrounded by hostile tribesman and two large military empires (byzantine and persia), leaving the faith was comparable to treason. in very specific cases, this treason could be punishable by death.

nowadays apostasy is considered by most legit muslim jurists to be an individual crime/sin btw that person and God. Islam very clearly states that 'There is no compulsion in religion' and people should be free to practice the faith how they want to.

since the nation does not exist as it did when Islam was born, the treason argument doesn't hold water. nowadays, and even in most cases back then, apostates were not to be punished as criminals because the idea is that a person has free will and God is the ultimate judge. additionally, if a person leaves the faith and comes back to a la born-again style, then alls well that ends well.

keep in mind that shariah law is based on the Quran but not mandated by the Quran. it's essentialy determined by lawyers/jurisprudence. recently the malaysian supreme court ruled that apostasy is not a punishable crime because of the above reasons. it's a question of how conservative/ideological the judges are. in saudi and other countries with super fundamentalists, you have activist judges making laws based on their own ignorance/hate/misogyny etc.

Steve, I voted for Gore, Kerry/Edwards, ok? But there's no way Obama could do worse than them in a presidential debate. It's not Obama's fault he hasn't dealt with a serious challenger. And if he's as good a senator as I expect him to be, he'll NEVER have a serious challenger until he runs for president. So does that mean he should never run for president? I don't see the logic. The Republican attack dogs at the national level are far worse than at the state level. Even if a Democrat has faced a tough fight at the state level, there's no way to tell how they'll deal with Karl Rove, et al, until they run for national office.

MH, thank you for the kind words.

I misstated earlier about JFK in 1956. Against his father's advice, JFK tried to be nominated VP at the 1956 Democratic National Convention, but lost out. Good thing, too, b/c the blues got crushed that year. It doesn't always pay to be the VP candidate.

Here's the problem with Senator Obama waiting 8 years to run for President: He could be competing against a sitting Democratic VP!! His chances are much better now, with no incumbant Democratic VP to run against.

Obama isn't experienced enough to run? Compared to whom? Years in office doing nothing does not equal experience.

Obama was raised in a Christian household and had little contact with his father. I suspect that some detractors emphasize Obama's father's religious background - if correct - for less than honorable reasons.

I agree that Obama/Clinton or Obama/Edwards would make a great ticket.

I watched Biden question a nominee for Supreme Court. Sorry, but he sounded as dumb as W.

I'm a grassroots Democrat and would vote for HRC.

I agree with Jeff, Tina. You are way off the mark. JFK did not run for President in 1956 and he was not the VP nominee either. What happened that year was as follows: Adlai Stevenson did not pick a nominee for VP, and he threw it up to the delegates to pick one for him. Three candidates emerged from the chaos, all of them Senators: Estes Kefuaver of Tennessee, John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Albert Gore, also of Tennessee. After the first vote, Kefauver was first, JFK was second, and Gore, Sr. was third, but neither candidate got a majority. Gore promised Kefuaver that he would do what he could to ensure that a Tennessee native would be the VP nominee, and after a few states (including the big Texas delegation) switched from Gore to Kennedy, Gore withdrew and threw his support behind Kefuaver, who quickly became the VP nominee. If you would like to learn about this event, Albert Gore discusses it in his memoirs, "Let the Glory Out: My South and Its Politics." (Later, JFK thanked Gore for throwing it to Kefauver because he knew that a Kefuaver loss would have forever doomed him because his Catholicism would have been blamed.)

However, the Obama supporters still can't answer the key question: How will he handle the scrutiny of a national campaign when he has never had a serious opponent once. No one who has won a Presidential election since Eisenhower has won without a significant electoral challenge, but I think that you could argue that the stress of handling the European theater toughened him up for the campaign trail. Excluding Ike, I can't think of anyone else who never had a serious challenge before the White House. Clinton actually lost a 1974 Congressional race and re-election in 1980, Bush (who lost in 2000) had to vanquish Ann Richards in 1994, Bush, Sr. lost Senate races to Lloyd Bentsen in 1964 and 1970, and ran for the Presidency in 1980, Reagan lost the nomination for President in 1968 and 1976 and had a tough race against Pat Brown for Governor in 1966, Carter had tough races for State Senate in 1962 and 1966 and Governor in 1970, Nixon had 1960 as a prep for 1968, Truman had a tough Senate race to get the job in the 1930's, FDR had the VP nod in 1920 that derailed his political career for years.

Without dealing with any tests, how do you know that Obama will be able to handle the spotlight? It's like Richard Jemmons said about Freddy Picker in "Primary Colors, "He's the golden boy. The press will start digging up dirt on him. The media giveth and the media taketh away." Give me a battle-tested candidate like Al Gore any day of the week.

His only claim to fame is one speech. Frankly, I want someone who is jumping up and down right now about the trampling of the Constitution. He knows he is too new to be very vocal even if he had the proclivity to do so.

I'd be very cautious in writing off Condi.

One has to believe that moderate republicans and cross-over democrats would over-ride the evangelicals if push came to shove.

Power and money are what is at stake and if it looks like the Republicans who have been comfortably feeding at the trough since 1994 fell their ship subsiding, the will push the conservatives overboard to keep their boat afloat.

It won't be pretty. But as we have learned from watching how the Republicans have manipulated the religious right and conservative catholics, and will put lots of air between each other when that most sacred of gods is put in jeopardy.

The almighty Dollar.

All of this Obama buzz simply reminds me that this countries citizens are too distracted by the NFL and celebratory gossip to demand more of their politicians than wearing the right suit and making the correct hand gesture (Remember Bill Clinton's imaginary pencil grip ?) because of this apathy of democracy we get highly polished empty suits like Obama and Edwards or overly calculating poll readers like Kerry and Hillary. When will people realize that you have to pay attention in a democracy or risk candidates that stress out more over their tie color than nuts and bolts policy. This struck me as well when Kurtz suggested on Monday that Gore is doomed to Vice presidential status because he's just too wonkish. It is such a shame that even as adults we continue to prefer style over substance long live the jockocracy !

Condi - she's quite the hottie. But let's not forget that she was one of the architects of the disastrous Iraq planning. Not only the decision to invade, but also the logistics that were so astonishingly poorly planned.

And she was the very public face to those decisions - going on talk shows ginning up fear about Saddam's mushroom cloud, which of course didn't exist.

That's hardly a track record to run on.

Well!, Obama certainly does get the chatter going now doesn't he?

Well!, Obama certainly does get the chatter going now doesn't he?

Wow, Malik T! I cannot believe that someone could ever be so arrogant to advertise that he goes to an ivy league school. Why would anybody care that you're going to graduate from Yale in two years? Ha.

Posted by: Alex | July 27, 2006 11:26 AM

Real quick, people briefly describe their walks off life all the time on this Blog. It's a Blog Alex. We have voting delegates, Blog writers, Republican's, klan members, Rovians, imbecile's (yes you), good guys and bad guys. Each person let's us know a little about him/her or shim each time they blog. So please pardom the Yale shout out Alex, didn't mean to make you feel inferior...I'm sure the guys @ the gym do a great job of that. That is if you own a gym membership. Now back to my message....

I'm sorry Alex....How's this?
Malik T.
Miami Dade Community College

And yes people do care that I'm graduating from college period. So if my school affiliation is offensive then good. Cause I'm going back to Harlem after I graduate and getting three more people to go to Yale. And they'll get 6 more people. And we'll all broadcast, that we went to the best school in America. Cause we don't have too much to advertise about on 118th Street. So sorry you're offended and mistaken my pride for arrogance. But do you have a beef with what I remarked about? No? I thought so....Cause if you did then I'd have to hammer you and get really arrogant on you. Just remember (and this is real arrogant) I've forgotten more about U.S. politics then you'll ever know!

Malik T.
Miami Dade Community College
(we have to make Amex feel good folks)

Barack Obama? For President? Of what? The Hair Club for Men?

The guy is totally unqualified. Look what happened the last time we elected someone who was unqualified to be President - it's what we have now. Obama has been in the Senate for about 18 months and people think he should be President? Maybe in another decade once he has done something other than address the Democratic National Convention and travel around to a bunch of fundraisers for candidates. Who cares? He is irrelevant. Try again in another ten years - maybe people will listen then. Oh, and try accomplishing something, too.

That's the whole problem with Edwards as well. I am sure he is a nice person, but what has he done? Nothing! He was a one-term Senator serving in the minority. Now I am sure he is a good speaker, but if that is the qualification, maybe we should elect Dr. Phil to be President - or Oprah! In fact, that probably doesn't sound like too bad of an idea to the "Entertainment Tonight" or "Hollywood Access" crowd that thinks Obama should be President.

And please, spare us the advertisements about your "Ivy League" education. No one cares where you go to school, which country clubs your parents belong to, what they do for a living, how many trust funds you have, where you go on vacation, or what kind of car you drive. How ridiculous and pathetic.

Oh, and Tina--you must not have got the memo. The neocons are in the process of trashing and eliminating condi. She isn't sufficiently warlike for them. By 2008, no one will remember who she is.

Tina, where do you get your information? JFK did not run for President in 1956, nor was he nominated in 1956 for Vice-President. Furthermore, had he been nominated, he would not have accepted, because he knew that when the Stevenson ticket lost, Kennedy's Catholicism would get the blame and his future Presidential ambitions would be shattered. Estes Kefauver was the Vice-Presidential nominee that year.

Furthermore, why the hell do you keep shilling for Condi Rice here? She's not running, and that's hardly the topic at hand.

Agree with Will on ACLU--they aren't perfect but who else is doing anything at all to defend the Constitution from the attack against it by bush, etal? NOBODY. So unless you can do better, stop knocking them.

And Jason, I think you're correct also. Hillary isn't my first choice but i will vote and campaign for her if she's nominated because the republican alternatives are terrifying.

In all seriousness, can anyone list for me what Hillary actually stands for and represents????

As for Obama, I could care less about his experience and his foreign policy ideas. You folks are giving most voters too much credit for really researching their candidates and reading blogs like this one. What matters about Obama is: Can he win, not what kind of winner can he be? Average voters will be impressed if they get a chance to hear him work a crowd. And anyway, no candidate has REAL foreign policy expertise anyway. They hire people with that kind of expertise...you know, degrees from Georgetown and years in Beruit and Africa and Europe working for the state department.

To Will in Seattle,
I'm a grassroots Democrat, and a progressive. Hillary stands a great chance of getting my vote in the primary. And I'm not alone.

However, I admit, it'd be a VERY tough choice if Obama was running as well.
Again, this is why I'm advocating for them to be on the same ticket.

Obama is muslim background, although Christian now? Doesn't that fall within the definition of the crime of apostacy in the Islamic Faith?

Better a President regarded as "of the Book" than an apostate, a crime most assuredly punishable by death throughout much of the Muslim world.

Here's one reason to keep New Hampshire the first primary in the nation:

Everyone here realizes that Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen.

She has no support here at all. We'd nominate her husband again in a second, though, if we could.

There are a number of good credible Democrats running who can take votes from Republicans. Hillary isn't one of them.

Neither is Kerry, by a long shot. If he can't beat Bush, with Bush's record, he can't beat anyone. He's fooling himself if he thinks he has a future anywhere outside the Senate.

And while Obama could probably step in to the Oval Office today and be one hell of a President, not enough people will believe that until 2012 or (I hope) 2016.

Picks for 2008: Warner, Edwards, Biden (yeah, Biden; he's no Obama, but he's no Kerry, and he's better than you think),

Worthy of consideration: Richardson, Vilsack.

Not: Feingold (unfortunately), Bayh, Clark, Clinton, or Kerry.

Anyone who wants my vote has to convince me that he knows how to campaign and win against Romney, McCain and Huckabee.

Poor Richard is onto something.

I for one, am very tired of the "fear advertising" that gets marched out everytime Junior needs a bump in the polls.

Anyone remember Ashcroft's terror thermometer?

We don't need imperial rulers who rule in secrecy by fear and whose policy is influenced by lobbies bent on military expansion. We got rid of a King George once before. We need to do it again.

Let's get some new blood in the White House-not from the usual suspects. Mixing a metaphor or two, you can't make spring lamb out of last night's mutton.

And yes. Obama does have a gleam in his eye.

Will, I think you're comment on Sen. Hillary Clinton is incorrect. I am one of many grass-roots Democrats who would vote for her. I think you would have been on safer ground if you had written that you don't know of any Democrats whose first choice is Sen. Clinton.

Bobby-

Opinions are fine, but stop pimping your own blog and stop putting a signature on the end of every post slamming the ACLU. You want to slam the ACLU, do it when it's relevant. Simply putting a tagline at the bottom of your post is meaningless and offensive.

Hillary? I don't know any grassroots Dems who actually will vote for HRC, but there's a lot who would vote for Obama. Money doesn't always equal support.

Note to John Hogue: We have a former governor in teh WH now. how's that going for the country?

What you also don't find out about with Governors is their voting record - something that is public knowledge with any Senator or Representative. Legislators are involved in issues with national relevance, but are responsible for the representation of their constituents. Governors may have a state of their own, but their focus is far more localized.

Part of the Bush strategy - against McCain as well as Kerry - was to use the voting record against them. The reasons a Senator would vote against a bill that may be rife with pork belly provisions take a lot more effort to explain away than they do to "point out".

Amazing the level of yadda here. Grossly over-analyzing of detail, qualifications and baloney age issues. (C'mon guys we all know that the Republican and otherwise conservative contributors above have their tail feathers up because he is...umm...well...I don't know a politically correct, non Dixiecrat way of saying 'not one of them')

This Old Republic is in desparate need of an inspiring leader...someone who can work with diverse opinions. Qualifications? Heck. Elect war horses like Dick Cheney or Dick Nixon (not much difference except one is allegedly alive even though we never see him.

The good folks of the Republic need an uplifting Leader to get the nation out of its attitudinal quagmire (Karen Hughes struck that from the press vocabulary sometime last year. Conservatives can substitute 'doldrums' here if they like) of spirit of the past six years.

That's where Barack comes in. He is everything his detractors say- smiling, attractive, media savvy and maybe a bit short on the administrative side.

That's not the critical issue here and now. He is smart, articulate, enthusiastic and has a gleam in his eye. Smart, and enthusiasm make up for a multitude of sins.

The next election is about resurrecting what is left of the national spirit. Remembering what is good about us and building on it-not harping on how evil and biblically incorrect many Americans are- and writing punitive laws to punish the other 50.000000000000001% before they burn in eternal fires whenever the end of times arrives.

Let's get this train back on tradck. I already have my Barack Obamba/President 2008 bumper sticker.

I am an Obama fan, and I think he's more than ready/capable of making a good run in '08. I'd rather, though, see him on the ticket WITH Hillary Clinton. Just imagine what a powerful duo they'd be, the first woman president, the first African-American vice president, both articulate, both capapble of raising loads of money. Clinton's tough/"get down to business" attitude, Obama's smooth/"pulse of the people" attitude--it's a perfect fit. Not to mention, then Obama is set to run for President in 2016.

Say it with me, "Clinton/Obama, '08"

That's silly. Running and not getting a nomination is fine, and a good test run cutting his teeth campaigning. The only way this could be bad is if he runs, gets a nominiation, and loses. Right now a democratic win looks strong. It is of course best to look at water when the dust settles from midterms, but yours is a silly argument. If he doesn't get a nominiation, few people who did know about him already will know about, and democrats are bound to continue to love him for all the reasons they love him now.

Wow. Looney toones today. Obama an "empty suit"? Bland? Not experienced in foreign policy? (unlike Bush who had only even been outside the country, what once, twice in his entire life before becoming President?).

Just... wow.

Coincidentally...... it was two years ago TONIGHT that Senator Obama gave his now-famous address at the DNC.

7/27/04

"""If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child.

If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent.

If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work.

It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: "E pluribus unum," out of many, one.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America.

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."""

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html

Yeah. Empty suit. Bland. Too inexperienced. Hahahahaha. He is the real deal.

JFK also ran for president in 1956, more of a testing the water effort. I think he got nominated as VP for his efforts, but being attached to Adlai Stevenson, the ticket lost.

Am I right? JFK was the VP nominee in 1956?

Also, as stated, JFK has 6 years in the House and 8 in the Senate. The 1956 presidential campaign gave JFK a chance to travel by plane (paid for by Kennedy funds) and it built up strong support for his 1960 race for the White House.

On the subject of a woman president, by far, Condi is more like Margaret Thatcher than Hillary since Thatcher was from the conservative party and also held Cabinet posts to help create policy for England.

On any poll which includes Condi's name, she has been consistently highly favored. That is a fact as seen by the Marist polls and other polling data for the past 2 years.

The recent Gallup poll for June 2006 shows Condi is an acceptable candidate at 69% when over 400 Republicans were asked to consider her. Only 29% said no.

Condi is a player for 2008, and Americans for Dr. Rice is one of the strongest and best organized groups pounding the pavement across the nation to promote her. There are state groups in Texas, California, Florida, and support for Condi in Iowa and New Hampshire. Again, this is a fact to be considered.

obama knows that he needs to add to his resume before he can mount a real campaign for president. he's ridiculously smart and his political instincts are clinton-esque (bill). my guess is that in 07 he will attempt (i think successfully) to pass some big time legislation with his name on it in order to pad his resume and lessen the impact of the 'only 4 years as a senator' argument.

he brought forth an idea of an auto industry bailout, where the govt would take over the auto health care liabilities in exchange for auto industry investment in alternative fuels/vehicles. not sure if this idea is what he'll focus on, but i think he'll go for a kill multiple birds with one stone idea that aims to please many interests.

he's very wonkish and skilled at policy and rhetoric that reaches out to the left, right and center. best part is that he's truly liberal/progressive and is particularly skilled at standing up for that core belief with backbone and credibility, unlike most idiot democrats.

his lack of foreign policy experience is overrated. he vocally opposed the iraq war when he was a state senator, and he's very well versed on geopolitics and can make his own statements and opinions, rather than regurgitating what some advisor told him to say.

so if he is successful in the next year and a half, i think he'll flirt with the idea of running just enough to get him into VP conversations. i think he'll ultimately decide that '08 is too soon, and the better role for him to play will be kingmaker or maybe VP.

while there is still the experience issue, people don't vote for a VP they vote for a president. remember, we've had inexperienced idiots in high places before...dan quayle was our VP and our current pres almost was taken down by a pretzel.

i don't think he's a lock to be VP of the ticket, but he is an ideal VP in many ways: great campaigner, would be an awesome cheerleader, appeals to black voters (the last two dems who won had huge support from black voters, particularly in teh south), also appeals to left right and center. only knock is that he may overshadow the nominee, especially if it's someone who's not super charismatic like warner.

not sure what his path would be if he's not picked as vp...if anyone could be elected as a sitting senator, i think obama could do it.

We need to break this cycle of just two families running the nation for the past 20 years! George Bush, then Bill Clinton, now GW Bush. Come on we don't need GW to be followed by HR Clinton. That's why we're in such a mess today! We need new blood in the White House and Barrack Obama is the man!!!

Barrack Obama's foreign policy experience is derived from his experience living in today's world. Read his book Dreams from My Father and you will learn as a child he lived in Indonesia for over three years, attending an Indonesian school. His mother taught him to disdain the blend of ignorance and arrogance that characterized Americans abroad - this is what he brings to the table on foreign policy! Those who hate America, hate us because they feel we are arrogant and ignorant. He has learned from his experience growing up, and working as a community organizer. He understands the world and the problems faced by the have nots, and he is able to work with the haves. He is exactly what this country needs at this time and place in our history. We need a young and fresh perspective. There are too many people in politics that hold on to the old world perspective - many are from old political families (a big problem). Today we live in a new world and need someone who can lead the way and establish America's place in today's world.

Barrack Obama doesn't come from money like JFK or GHB or GWB, but then neither did Bill Clinton. Aside from his indiscretions Bill Clinton was a very good president, he got rid of the budget deficit, building a large federal reserve -which his successor immediately proceeded to empty!

Barrack Obama is extremely intelligent,charismatic, sees the problems here and abroad, and is a man who can bring people together to heal wounds and solve problems. He will be the next great President of the United States of America!!!!

Obama was never a muslim. His dad, who was away for most of his life and passed away when the Senator was 21, was Muslim. But there's nothing to suggest that the son was ever muslim.
His time is now. he is a candidate that evangelicals could support (or at least tolerate) and progressives would love.

This is what I found from the Al Gore Timeline on PBS:

"june 12, 1969. Al graduates from Harvard with honors. He spent much of his senior year debating whether he should serve in Vietnam. While he opposed the war he knew that his service could help his father's reelection campaign in Tennessee."

Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/gore/cron.html

If you read that in Harper's, then you read wrong. Gore did initially get low grades, but it was when he switched majors from Enlgish to Government that his grades pcked up. It is true that he did drop out of divinity school after a year, but he said all along that his goal was never to become a minister anyway, and he dropped out of law school to run for Congress.

Populist Democrat: "Kerry did better than Gore in the rural areas, but lost in even stronger numbers in urban to small city areas."

Al Gore and John Kerry both won every single city with a population of over 500,000. If I'm not mistaken, Kerry did worse than Gore in the suburbs and exurbs, not the big cities.

Still, the only way that you can know how someone handles the pressure of a run for President is how they have handled political pressure before, and Obama is completely untested. He can't just rely on his charisma to spook Republicans out of the race like he did in Illinois in 2004. Give me someone who knows the big show because that person has been there before anyday.

Your reasons for Obama to wait until he has spent more time in the Senate (and hopefully can point to lots of good legislation with his name on it) are excellent. It is the progressive wing of the party (including myself) who feel desperate enought to want Obama to run. Hillary, with her war votes and corporate cronyism, has become a major disappointment. We progressive Democrats no longer want her. We like Feingold, but we fear that he is not a strong enough personality to win. We'd love to have someone with Obama's charisma and Feingold's solid progressive record. Know where we could find someone like that? Oh, and it wouldn't hurt if the candidate were female, Africa-American and/Latino.

Why is it that I get so depressed every time some media pundit like you tells me that Hillary is "destined" to be the '08 frontrunner?

I don't get the Biden/plagiarism comparison. I thought your argument against Obama was his inexperience, not that he has some skeleton in his closet. I thought this point confused the issue and weakened your argument--and for the record, I too would like to see Obama gain more experience before he runs for anything else.

I think Obama would be terrific as a VP to Hillary or Gore. And I think Gore would fight harder this time because he understands the stakes now a lot better than he did back then; I don't think anybody had a clue in 2000 what an ideological, incompetent nightmare bush would turn out to be.

I take your points against Obama running. Sensible advice and insight. otoh, if you recall the election cycles since Truman came into office after FDR's death, we have seen almost like clockwork eight years for the Dems followed by eight for the Republicans. If Obama passes on 08, he may have to wait not until 16 but 2024 for a successful go. (And if he tries in 16 and fails, he'll be damaged goods.)

What about an alternate scenario? What if he is chosen as the v.p. nominee in 08, whether by Hillary or Gore or whomever? That might at least position him for a later run, a possible ascendancy if the president dies, and perhaps a better shot at '16, in the footsteps of G. H. W. Bush inheriting Reagan's legacy.

The biggest reason why he shouldn't run: He should be on the Supreme Court instead, when the opportunity arises

I think Obama will really help Democrats pull the urban to small city vote as well. Contrary to what most people believe, Kerry did better than Gore in the rural areas, but lost in even stronger numbers in urban to small city areas. Bush did 10% points better in urban areas than he did in 2000. He also increased his numbers in suburban areas by 3%. Kerry did better than Gore did in rural areas perhaps due to having rural vote getter John Edwards on the ticket. Obama appeals to more urban, big city voters and can win back those voters in those areas that Bush picked up. If you have John Edwards as the nominee he would do better than Kerry in rural areas too. If you have a Edwards/Obama ticket their appeal would broaden to more moderate, independents and Clinton Republicans and retake Democrats who lost their way. No matter what, the urban and suburban vote are the biggest areas with the most votes for Democrats to muster and make ground if we win them back we can take back this country. If we keep having the positive and increase our numbers in rural areas which Kerry had done then we will be in good shape. All more reason to have a Edwards/Obama ticket which is best of both worlds.

Nor-Easter, Rove was spotted on jury duty working on a piece called 'Guiliani, the Candidate'. So he's their man. Best way to bring up 9/11, too, right? Perfect. Whole election will be 9/11, 9/11, 9/11--WWIII, WWIII, WWIII. It's already started. [See Newt and Kristol].

So the repugs intend to run on endless war and Hillary, at least, knows this. We have to figure this in when we talk about potential candidates. How will each one look in the face of the likely widespread Mideast war we will be facing then?

Btw, when you look at the potential repug presidential lineup, doesn't it look like a meeting of the Serial Adulterers Club?

I would like to point out that in recent history, candidates have not been elected directly out of the senate to the presidency because of voting records. Pundits complain now of Senator Obama's inexperience on a national stage as well as his lack of foriegn policy experience (though I'd like to point out: what governor has real foriegn policy experience?), however if he were to wait surely the complaints would turn into complaints of being part of the establishment and interpretations of his voting record.
Also, Senator Clinton is running for only her second senate term this fall. Just because she is percieved to be the front runner does not mean she really will be the front runner. With all due respect for Senator Clinton, she is a divider and does not truly provide something new from the Democrats despite her gender. It is not guaranteed that Senator Clinton could run against a formidable Republican in 2008's general. Senator Obama is a new face to the national scene and something different, which could be a good thing. With general political approval ratings as low as they are, someone like Senator Obama, could provide Democrats with the change of face needed.
Lastly, at the College Democrat of America's convention last weekend, an AP report found that students most frequently mentioned Senator Obama or former Virginia governor Mark Warner when asked about 2008. Senator Clinton was not mentioned by the students and the reporter had to prompt students to get opinions of her.
In the end, we should wait to see who officially declares for 2008 rather than speculate and condemn. As it stands today there is a more pressing electoral concern facing us, and that is of the November Midterm Elections this year. When we see, after Midterms, candidates begin to declare their presidential candidacy we should not base our opinions on rumors and media snippits, but take genuine looks at the issues and how each campaign is run.

I think the VP position for Obama is the best of both worlds. He get's further experience in governance and at the end of 8 years is still young enough to run for president on his own.

Intriguing is Grunwald's argument in the Sunday Outlook Section of Gore running as VP to Obama (or Edwards) given Gore's competence at governance and Obama's and Edwards' likeability and articulateness. Warner, who was also mentioned, does not have the political skills of either Obama or Edwards and therefore I see him more as a VP to a more experienced candidate.

It seems that things seem to be falling into place for Edwards (particularly if he receives Gore's support) to become the major challenger to Hillary. His likeability numbers among Democrats is at 71%, the primary season which puts some of his best prospects up front, (Iowa, South Carolina etc). More problematic is running Edwards with Obama. The negative side is the lack of experience, the positive side is the political skills of the actors (something the party has lacked at the top since Bill).

Also they represent two core Democratic values-- Edwards Equality and Obama Anti-Authoritarianism.

The religious outreach to Evangelists of the latter is more important I would argue to the political center than the Evangelicals Obama addresses. For every vote from an Evangelical that his outreach reaches, I would guess there were several that the party garners from the center who share some of the Evangelical's religious convictions, but few of their obsessions like "The End of Time" arguments on Israel.

Obama's being mentored by Lieberman o