"great charisma", "good man", WHO CARES.

What does Barak Obama stand for ? He's the African-American male version of Hillary Clinton. I couldn't be less impressed quite franky.

I also feel, as Adam expressed a few weeks ago, that Barack is the country's brightest hope since RFK. Intensely moral, articulate, able to garner support from both sides of the aisle, because what he says is right-on, I think these are all fine qualities for a president that is currently lacking in the current administration. As far as foriegn policy experience, he's right now in Kenya encouraging people to get tested for HIV. He'll win over our enemies as well as our friends, and we can happily eat French Fries again because we won't be mad at each other any more.

I e-mailed Barack about 6 months ago asking him to run. He did not respond to my e-mail, but maybe if someone more articulate and knowledgeable than I could do it too, it may put a bug in his ear.

I see Mr. Obama in South Africa, visiting Mandela's cell; in Ukraine, dealing with Uranium; in Kenya, visiting his father's village... I don't think it is speculation for me to say that these are the travels of a man who is dealing with big, philisophical questions in his mind... the kind of questions that the democratic party needs to be dealing with before it puts together a platform for 2008. The kind of questions that lend themselves to elegant elocution, etc., e.g. bill clinton, hell, even Reagan.

I fully support this man. In terms of cold wheeling and dealing, how is four years in the senate any less experience than two terms in the texas governorship? Fresh.

I have stopped looking to old-time politics to run America. I think that's why people are excited about who will be running in 08. Being from Michigan I can say that I am open to all candidates. My opinion is that Bayh/Obama would be a good ticket. Bayh, a senator and former governor is from a red state and could swing other midwest red states and Obama is a strong, youthful, upcoming senator that shows promise and a VP seat in 08 could catapult him to president in 2012 or 2016. Both are relatively young, photogentic, from neighboring states, smart, and could bring a new prespective to our government.

BAYH/OBAMA 2008

Obama could very well be the first black president (after Bill Clinton, of course!)... There is no way the republicans could fork out the first black president, as mentioned above... I mean, their support from the black voters is around 10%! If you visit easily accessable sites such as BET.com, even there you will find that support for republicans, or a possible black republican president nominee (Condi) - the support is VERY minimal. I say, OBAMA 2008!

I forgot to mention that question I told you to ask yourself after you sit alone and ask GOD for a sign to help you.

"What is Michael Steele doing these days in Maryland and are you going to the ball park with your real brother?"

Chicago is in town this weekend in Baltimore. Embrace him, his friends and his vision.

I forgot to mention that question I told you to ask yourself after you sit alone and ask GOD for a sign to help you.

"What is Michael Steele doing these days in Maryland and are you going to the ball park with your real brother?"

Chicago is in town this weekend in Baltimore. Embrace him, his friends and his vision.

I forgot to mention that question I told you to ask yourself after you sit alone and ask GOD for a sign to help you.

"What is Michael Steele doing these days in Maryland and are you going to the ball park with your real brother?"

Chicago is in town this weekend in Baltimore. Embrace him, his friends and his vision.

Thanks for pulling my comment.

I guess I hit the nail right on the head.

Obama should join the GOP and be appreciated, supported, embraced and ultimately placed before the podium.

He is a cadillac for sale on a lot full of late model fords.

Obama, as I know you are screening this blog, do not be afraid to call E. Dole and ask her for a horse to mount on the GOP platform. From your friend Lightning.

I believe Senator Obama is our best hope for retaking the White House in the first open election - no sitting president or VP running - we've had in many election cycles. His consistent anti-Iraq war message differentiates Sen. Obama and will energize an underutilized anti-war movement in our party and country. I believe he inspires average Americans like no other living political leader.

If you believe in Sen. Obama as I do, I encourage you 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.

Sorry Bhoomes, but I am a citizen- born here, if that matters in your small dark little mind. Oh, and yes, I vote. Always. And not for anyone in the Ass-Clown Christian Taliban Republican Party.

And, for the record, I'm a registered Democrat.

Sigh. I wasn't questioning the statistics themselves. I was questioning your reduction of the eligible black electorate.

Say blacks are 13% of the population, as you suggested. And say we have a population of 100 people. That's 13 blacks in our population.

We'll use the middle of your 3%-5% figure for non-voting age blacks. So 4% of our population is too young to vote. Four percent of 13 people is 0.52 people, so 12.48 blacks are of voting age. We're still at 12.48% of our population, not 8%-10%, as you suggested.

Then we'll use your figure of 4% of blacks having been through the criminal justice system. We'll even say that all of them went through as adults as opposed to as juveniles, were convicted of felonies, and have not regained their right to vote through the courts; that's pretty presumptuous. If we lose 4% of our voting age population of 12.48, that brings us to 11.9808 people. Of our original black population of 13 people, 92.16% can still vote. And almost 12% of our total population are blacks that can vote - not the 6%-9% you suggested.

That's what I meant by sketchy math.

Get some numbers from Florida and then we'll work with those.

Adam T - right on! An Edwards-Obama ticket has great potential for the Dems to take back the White House. Each man has the intelligence and the spiritual strength to act on behalf of all Americans rather than only those with fat wallets and family connections. Edwards-Obama 2008 gets my vote!

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 resume 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!

There is racism everywhere. But it's different in the south. Some in the south have never gotten over the LBJ's Voting Rights Act of 1964. It's not just a hostility towards Blacks, but also of any northern Democrat who runs for national office. Yankees will vote for a southernor, i.e. Bill Clinton, Al Gore. But many whites in the south will only vote for the party of LBJ if the nominee has a southern accent. John Edwards is just as liberal as John Kerry, yet he talks with a southern accent and is therefore considered a much stronger candidate in the south than John Kerry. If it was just an issue of voting for people who reminded them of their own heritage, white southern Republicans would also only vote for candidates with a southern accent. But the Republican party has never had that problem in the south, because they are not "blamed" for empowering Black southernors with the Voting Rights Act of 1964. My original point was that Democrats can win the White House without the south; therefore, Democrats shouldn't renounce their core values - or eliminate otherwise qualified yankee candidates - just to appease the irrational decades old hostilities of some red states whites.

Extreme racism in the South? really? Huh. Ever been to Boston, NYC, Philly?

I never said RFK was killed in the south. He was shot walking through a hotel kitchen in Los Angelos. But nor was he a Black male. There are enlightened whites in the south. But it's still a very racist place, overall, with extreme segregation. Black political leaders in the south rely on turn out by Black voters. It's not like in Seattle, an overwhelmingly white city, that elects a very popular mayor who happens to be Black (Norm Rice). I went to graduate school in the south and watched Black/white relations very closely. xxxxxxxx I don't think some people fully appreciate the significance of Senator Obama. You have to experience him in person to fully appreciate him. This type of born leader comes along only once in a lifetime. I wholeheartedly agree with those who say he is the JFK, RFK and MLK of our lifetime - of the 21st century. I've followed politics closely since I was a child, and I've never encountered anyone like Senator Obama before. And no other political figure in this country inspires the type of following that Senator Obama does from average Americans.

Well Peter, feel free to correct me. Are 4% of black males not incarcerated per the 2000 Census? Or are the 0-17 year population numbers not accurate? What are the Republican numbers? Black men only make up let's say .5% of the prison population? Help me understand what makes these numbers sketchy. I'm sure you know the correct numbers Peter. So please enlighten me. I have no clue what I'm talking about, right? Lay it on me. Just please site your source. You better hope my numbers are right if you want the GOP (KKK) to stay in office man. And those Black's in New orleans should have known better too...But atleast GW finally spoke to the NAACP (with Condi Rice at his side)...She felt more out of place then he did...But there is no need for the NAACP because Jim Crow and slavery didn't really exist and us poor black people are extremely lazy....GET AT ME PLEASE...I will DESTROY anything you have w/ substantiated facts.

That's some sketchy math.

Let me get this straight. Black people make up roughly 12-13% of the population. 4% of black men are incarcerated and or have been through the criminal justice system (means they can't vote if they have had served time felonies.) So we'll take that to 8-10%. Another 3-5% of that are of non voting age. So let's take that to 6-9%. Then there's Florida. Can't forget Florida. Look, I like many people don't care if the person running for president is pruplr, but there is one problem...there are no purple people! There are no green people! There are no blue people. I don't understand why people don't acknowledge that this country is not politically made for minority people. I believe in Sue's comment she said we are all immigrants and etc. Sure we are, and we even built this country. But who did we build it for. Who paid us to build it? How much were we paid? When the middle class was established, who created it? Who are the Bush's, the Weyerhouses, The Morgan's, The Pillsbury's, the Stanton's, the Chaffee's, and etc? They are the ones who politically and economically have a stronghold on this country. Make no mistake, I wish Barak and any other person of color the best in a political election. Really I do, but to say we are one America and We Shall Overcome, and we can beat them at the polls is immature and unrealistic. The Fix is in in on political power in this country and Billy C (YLS) would have gotten his doors blown off if the Republicans could have ran someone better than Grandpa w/ one arm.

I think Obama would do better with the "Bubba" vote than people realize. I remember reading an article about Obama's senate campaign which covered a campaign event he held in southern Illinois. Obama was the only black person there and all the folks who attended were middled aged conservative white farmers and the like. The reporter was struck by the site of seeing all these "Bubbas" wearing big "Obama" buttons.

The people who wouldn't vote for someone because they are black would probably never vote for a Democrat anyway. And black voters would turn out in historic numbers.

I believe people are wrong when viewing Obama and his running as inexperienced, look what we have now!!! I believe Obama is well spoken, thoughful and genuine, I am afraid though that if he wants to run it should be in 08 while he is still "green", because let's face it after a few years in the "money pit" we call our capitol if your not skewed and corrupt your well on your way! Maybe what this country needs is someone fresh and NON-Washington. Worked for Lincoln, Washington etc., and look what they achieved! I personally don't care if the guys skin color is purple, if he is smart and gives the American people the attention THEY deserve, then I would be willing to vote for him, I have told many people I believe and Ideal ticket would be an Obama/Clark ticket or the other way around. General Clark is a fine man and his military experience would help this country get back to where our standing needs to be. I haven't read yet about either one of them beholding to the Oil companies or big corporations so that's already a +. We need fresh blood, new ideas and someone who cares about AMERICA. People better get over their fears of a black brown or yellow President, because the last time I looked this country was pretty much a rainbow and if our borders continue to be ungarded pretty soon we will have SPANISH as our national language and Vincente Fox will be running the commerce department. Please that's not a slander of hispanics, it's simply a fact. We were all from immigrants at one time or another,and as long as they are here LEGALLY, I have no problem voting for them either. I am sick to death of the same faces running Washington and this country, were going down the toilet americans and Bush/Cheney/Rove have their hands on the handle! Let us move together as a nation and throw all of the bums out, either side and get some new faces in there, if they screw up then vote them out of office after one term. The only thing these guys understand is REELECTION! I hope come November they get the message loud and clear, unless we have all those "hanging chads" afterwards, then our slanted supreme court will decide again, God help us! Thanks Fed up in Idaho

To Robert in Seattle,

RFK was killed in Los Angeles. (Of course that is in Southern California.)

I am mightily weary of the white southern stereotype, i.e. a racist jerk. Just one fact about the south, in Mississippi, there are more elected black officials (mayors, aldermen, legislators and even a former congressman and current US congressman) than any other state in the union.

After talking with my YLS (that's Yale Law School) friend and having him examine my intial remarks, there is no place where I had lamented that Black people shouldn't run for "high office." All I have said, is that in U.S. History, there hasn't and will never be a Black president. EVER! If you can dispute that, then let's have a debate. But if you cannot, please don't try and throw Douglas Wilder in my face. Why don't you just throw Jackie Robinson in my face? And can you and your community college degree having self, clarify what exactly deems "high office?" I know I've made a few spelling errors here and there, due to the small keys on my BlackBerry, but gramatical errors aside, what exactly is "high office?" Is the Gov. the bench mark for high office? Or is the Senate? Maybe County Dog Catcher? Seriously, my friend and I are trying to find out what is high office and since he may be president of this country one day (a skull and white guy), he would also like to know what exactly is "high office." You knoe Nor'Easter, you're as bright as they come...Watch out Anderson Cooper....Chris C, Nor'Easter is coming for you. He has an interview with your editor next week and he's breaking out the suit from TJ Maxx... Back to the subject at hand (my man Snoop Dogg--he's a rapper for all you Republicans) Blacks or African Americans should run for high office (there's got to be a better term out there than that), rap, entertain white folks on the athletic field, run American Express, run BET, go to jail and or prison in droves, even become Secretary of State (twice)...but I never said this country was over run w/ racists...just idiots, who misconstrue ones initial remarks and twist them to quantify their idiotic statements. So Run Barak Run....who knows, you might just make it to the Primary! And if not, then there's obviosly some alternative "high office" that Blacks are winning in droves that I am obviously unware of (that's me miscontruing what you said genius)

Malik T.
Sarcasm Extrodinaire
Yale '08

I know, I did make some excellent points...
Thanks for the concession! I love Republicans

Point proven!

Well, I guess nobody who is black should ever run for high office, given that this country is so populated with racists.

Mayor Wilder, will you please return all of those achievements of your's as Governor of Virginia.

I feel sorry for Malik T. (Yale '08) above, he's sitting on a gold mine with his Ivy League education, but has already bought into the victimization B.S.

This is what Nor'Easter said....
Gov. of Va versus president of United States...Gee let me think....Not even in the same ballpark...Not even in the same Game....I guess Nor'Easter is the guy who has "black friends" or better yet the classic one "my best friends are black"...Yale is a Goldmine and deep down I know you wish you could get some...Victimization? Look here jack, all I'm doing is listing facts....There has been Obama, Moseley-Braun, Gov. Wilder and who else? Who else has seeked and won "high office?" And Congress doesn't count...And there are only like 50 or so Black Representatives of Congress out of 600 or so....You're a joke and I'd dance you around the Quad here in New Haven on political facts...I guess Augusta National doesn't have racist undertones and connotations due to the fact that Ken Chernault is a member and they let Tiger Woods play on their course once a year...But I get it, Black people who recognize ill will and racism and blatant political inequality are playing the Victim Card, adn should all have the predisposition of Frederick Douglas or MLK....I'm sure we would all like to, but some of us have to work three jobs to get by...I feel sorry for Nor'Easter if he ever is in Harlem or around any black people and tries to hang 400 years of political history on the Honorable L. Douglas Wilder....Come get some....

Why is a freshman Senator even discussed as a national candidate? Because he has captured the imagination of a significant number of people.

The process of electing a President isn't about comparing résumés. If it were, Senator Henry Jackson would have easily beaten back the candidacy of a small-town peanut farmer thirty years ago. If it were, a Governor of Arkansas not have defeated an incumbent President just 14 years ago. Vice Presidents aren't selected for their résumés either, necessarily. When G. W. H. Bush was foisting Dan Quayle on the American people in 1988, he could just as easily have chosen the other Republican Senator from Indiana, Richard Lugar, whose résumé was clearly heavier.

Obama's race may not be as big a factor against him as might appear at first blush. Many whites are terribly weary of the racial conversation, skimpy though it has been. Once a black is elected President, those people will use that to shoot down, shut down and shout down all claims of racial injustice. So, the election of a black as our President could conceivably HURT the cause of racial justice and slow progress on all the work that still needs to be done on that front. If whites realize that intuitively, many will vote for a nice, polite, smart, young black fellow--for all the wrong reasons. Of course, as JimD mentions, fewer will vote for a black candidate than will promise they will or did.

Finally, a comment on the Cuomo non-run in '88. Just two years earlier, Mario Cuomo had hand-picked Stan Lundeen as his Lt. Governor, in effect pronouncing Lundeen capable of taking over the Governorship if something icky happened to the Governor. Only two years thereafter, he announced he couldn't run for President because he had to lead the New York State budget negotiations, in effect pronouncing Lundeen incapable of performing that bit of governance. Every generation produces several politicians in both parties who would rather let people think about how terrific they might have been than go through the process of convincing voters of it. Colin Powell is another example of the same phenomenon. Like Cuomo, he just didn't have the belly for it.

It seems to me that anyone with any kind of moral fiber feels the power of this man's words, including a great many conservatives and the msm. He has a very clear way of speaking and thinking and a rationale that is very morally principled to everyday folks. You cant fake that kind of thing. It is also exceedingly hard to knock someone that is clearly THAT capable. 2008 may be too soon for a Presidential run, but he is definitely ready for the national stage. The people who are saying, he cant this... they never will that... etc etc, I dont think any of that stuff holds water. I think if he runs, he will win.

"There is no fool like an old fool...you just can't beat experience!" 5 yrs or 50 yrs experience doing the wrong things for America do not qualify anyone for anything. I would gladly trade all that experience for a brilliant, ethical leader who has shown himself confident enough to surround himself with the brightest and best that America has to offer. I have often made the statement that regaining the USA's standing in the world can never happen in my lifetime. If we had the wisdom to elect Obama, I would take that statement back. Imagine the reaction of a world that has come to see us a arogant, ignorant rich old white men who seek to dominate the world for our own edification. Overnight, the image would change. Here in America, when have we had a leader who can look the ghetto raised teenager in the eye and say "look where I came from, and look where I am at. What is your excuse going to be?"
My dream ticket....Obama/Richardson. Richardson has the national experience, is a good man doing a good job in NM. Beyond that, we are looking at a swing-stater who would invigorate and capture the Hispanic vote. I do not see this ticket losing in any state that Kerry carried....and I do see them runnning much stronger in a few that Kerry did not carry. I do not think that Obama wants to run in 08. I think it might not be his safest route to the presidency. BUT, this is a man who loves his country and it's people...and it is our obligation to let him know that we need him....NOW.

There is no one in American politics at the same level as Barak Obama. No one has his combination of intellect and charisma. If he runs, I'm absolutely certain he'll win. My only fear for him is what happened to RFK and MLK, especially if he travels in the south. xxxxxx No matter who Democrats nominate - Obama, Warner, Rush Limbaugh - the Republican party will attack them as being more liberal than Senator Edward Kennedy. If you haven't noticed, they have a script they recycle every four years. Why be so reactionary and worry about how Republicans will portray our nominee? Obama talks a great deal about Americans needing to be self reliant. Just b/c Republicans label all Democrats as too liberal doesn't make it so. xxxxxx Despite all his rhetoric about being a straight talker and an outsider, John McCain is a very conservative beltway insider from a deeply red state. Someone as articulate as Obama will be able to contrast their positions nicely. xxxxx More governors have recently been elected president than senators, b/c senators are handicapped by long voting records that can be used against them, often out of context. Obama doesn't yet have a long voting record that can be used against him. XXXXXX Why do some people worry so much about picking up southern states? Kerry and Gore, despite running pretty very sad campaigns, came very close to winning without picking up red states. And both were Senators. Some in the south will never forgive the party of LBJ for enacting the Voting Rights Act of (1964?). That doesn't mean Democrats should be held hostage to the losing side of the Civil War. If the party runs too far to the center, to appeal to suburban and red state voters, we'll lose urban voters in swing states who will just stay home rather than vote for another Joe Lieberman.

Obama is the most likely person from either party to defend the constitution. Constitutional Law is his forte. He is frank, clean spoken, and his demeanor engenders a sense of trust. He comes across as a competent, capable, genuinely altruistic servant of the people. For my money, he is exactly what this country most needs. The downside is that neither party is all that interested in empowering such a lose canon. He has been involved in leadership and political positions as long as GW was prior to his running for president. He hasn't been around long enough to be tainted by a horde hidden agendas or manipulated into being someone else's voice. This would set corruption back a hundred years! Senator Obama... if you run, We WILL VOTE! If you choose not to run for president, look for Edwards or whoever seems to be the best complement. Election after election has been won with mudslinging. I think we're ready for someone who is charismatic enough to hold a political revival. He can do it. Conservative vs Liberal? Most of us are centrists. Go line for line on his "style" and you'll see that he chooses his decisions on a "per topic" basis, looking for what is best for the country--not the party or for a small group of investors at the expense of the people. He offers a unique opportunity to unify our citizens. Could he reach older, wiser Americans who are educated? I'm college educated and in my fifties. My group is tired of empty promises and being overridden by powerful people behind closed doors. Most folks in the baby boomer generation would be inclined to think that he pulled back from the election because the DNC is more willing to back a "Predictable (controllable) Candidate"--Hillary. If he'd push it and we'd back him, the small group of decision makers in the DNC would have to bend. Black vs White? I'm white and wouldn't vote for anyone because they are black. I'd vote for the person I believe is the best suited for the position. I'd vote for him based on the content of his character. I'd go door to door campaigning for Senator Obama.

My two cents:

Obama is promising because of of his charisma and obviously sharp mind.
He is scary because of his youth.

Clinton is promising because she has more wisdom, brains, and connections in politics than anyone one.
She is scary because because of her lack of charisma and her obviously scheming mind.

The obvious thought is to combine her wisdom at President, and his charm at VP, all the while grooming him for the future.. .

He's such a boy scout, he could make the battle against corruption his campaign theme. Not only will he make this an open government once again - telling you what the country has been doing since 2000. But he will he will ensure that his President maintains the highest level of integrity.

McCain is now toeing the line of the radical fundamentalists who want to start WWIII to bring on the Rapture. Is that what people in this country really want-- to die?

Will: I agree that conservative Republicans are very afraid of Obama because they know he appeals to many moderate Republicans. I watched Obama's speech to the Democratic Convention on PBS and afterwards Jim Lehrer turned to Shields and Brooks for commentary and David Brooks was extremely impressed and won over by Barak. The next day I read conservative Andrew Sullivan's blog and he said of Obama -- and this is an exact quote -- "He's our only hope."

But even if Obama won the Democratic nomination, if he had to run against McCain I think he would lose. McCain appeals to a number of centrist and conservative Democrats the way Obama does with moderate Republicans. McCain has enough personal charisma to go toe-to-toe with Obama and he has a lifetime of experience that Barak couldn't compete with.

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

the WH is not happening for Ford, ever.

I think the unbeatable ticket would have to be an Edwards/Obama ticket and Clinton and Kerry need to endorse this. If all of this occurs I think you can have a very stong group to contend with if not a Clinton anything or Kerry anything will flop in the 08'.

Experience and insight go beyond a professional resume. What we need is a great leader to pull us out of the domestic and international divisions that have now threatened our place in the world. Obama's a great leader who could bridge the divide.

Obama-Webb 2006 !!!

Well, I guess nobody who is black should ever run for high office, given that this country is so populated with racists.

Mayor Wilder, will you please return all of those achievements of your's as Governor of Virginia.

I feel sorry for Malik T. (Yale '08) above, he's sitting on a gold mine with his Ivy League education, but has already bought into the victimization B.S.

Somehing about Obama scares right-wing elitists. Conservatives who are not parrots seem to like him. He's certainly charismatic and very centrist. He's done a good job of uniting people. The wingers, however are already starting with the 'out-of-touch' lines and the 'liberal Obama' tag, which he clearly is not. Next it'll be how he 'hates Americas troops' and wants to 'tax you into poverty'.

They must be pretty scared.

Obama is phony as the day is long. Typically Clintonesque in that he espouses a "moderate" line; yet when he finally does speak he's somewhere to the left of Chuck Shumer. Phony. Phony. Phony. Of course with the Democratic Party looking something akin to picnic day at Haight Ashbury, I suppose anyone who even sounds "moderate" is attractive to the media. One caveat: look what the Dems did to Lieberman when he had the audacity to leave the far left plantation - they turned on him.

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.

Tell me in detail how Dems will lose. You mean all the polls are wrong again? I am glad that you admit you are a liberal though. FDR JFK Truman and Johnson would be proud of you. All that borrowing and spending big government tax cuts in time of war government in our private lives must sure piss you off. Glad to have you on our side

One thing we're all gingerly stepping around.

Obama is not white. Whether we want to admit it or not, when people step into that poll booth, far from the 'truth' of polls and public comment, many just won't vote for a black man.

Same with Condi. And don't forget, she's a woman (actually, an oddly hot one when she's wearing the dominatrix boots, but I digress). So, like it or not, she loses votes on two counts (but perhaps she picks up the dominatrix fetish voters).

Another very real strike against Condi - she was not only an architect of the Iraq policy, she was it's very public face. Her appearances on various talk shows talking hype about Saddam's mushroom cloud and such will surely come back to haunt her, even amongst those in her own party.

Interesting point. I guess that's why the GOP was once the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves. And now the Republcans hate black people.

Larry-

The left hijacked the word Liberal. A classical liberal (our founding fathers) is essentially what amounts to a conservative today.

And Al Gore, like Kerry, LOST. Just take your meds and wait until 2008.

I'm mean, you'll lose again but...

All of you don't know sh*t, including Cillizza. The press got W. elected in 2000 because they gave him a pass on everything, never pressing him on all the pablum Herr ROve and Frau Hughes were dishing out.

Could Obama make a run? Absolutely. He's got the charisma, no doubt. He's got that Clinton-like ability to connect with voters. He also knows what he belives, unlike Hillary. His opposition to the war is based on firmly held principle.

This alone is a novel concept in American politics right now: a candidate who believes in something and is willing to say it. There is no doubt in my mind that voters will see this, and even when they diagree with him on a few things, they will respect his point of view. And if they agree with him on enough things, they'll vote for him.

His thin resume is a major liability -- this is where Cillizza is a bonehead. He will get eaten alive for a lack of experience. And citing the Kennedy example is stupid. No one has been able to get elected from the Seante since Kennedy, so why should Obama be any different?

The proof in the pudding is if he is willing to fight back or not. When the GOP starts attacking him, will he hunker down the way Kerry did with the Swiftees, or will he fire back and hsow that same passion and emotion that she howed on stage in Boston during the '04 convention?

That's what this will all be about.

Of course a neocon gets it wrong. The founding fathers were the liberals of their time. America was founded on liberal principles or we would have stayed the colonies. Lincoln was a liberal pres freeing the slaves Wilson was a liberal winning WW1 and FDR was a liberal for 4 terms winning WW2. What part of neocon fantasy land do you live in? Al Gore a LIBERAL was chosen by American people by 600000 votes over Bush. The congress was run by LIBERALS for most of the 20th century. Republicans have not won the pres election honestly since 1988. Just because you want your nonsense to be true does not make it true.

Oh, and Clinton picked up Southern states not only because he was a Southerner, but probably more importantly because Perot split the vote. Kerry and Gore were to the ideological left of Clinton and it's no surprise they didn't do terribly well in the South. Though your point about Kerry not sounding like a Southerner withstands, I doubt the South would turn on Romney if he were to run, and he hasn't a drop of Southern blood in him.

Edwards' greenness hurt the Kerry/Edwards ticket. His inexperienced showed in the VP debate, and it didn't look good.

Fred, actually that's cheney. Rove is merely evil, much like goebbels. Steals a lot of material from him, too.

But what i speak of goes back much further, to the creation of the rightwing communications apparatus begun during the Goldwater era. It took a long time to build, but with vast infusions of cash from Gilded Age heirs like the Olins and Bradley and Mellon-Scaife family, it grew into the sophisticated global media empire it now represents. Some of the largest PR agencies in the world are part of it. Fox and [and Rove] are just the tip of the iceberg.

If you understand that just 6 men, all of whom attest to voting repubican, own every major news outlet in this country, it kind of gives you a clue as to why so many people in this country have their own brand of reality.

Obama is NOT that liberal. He has stated in the past that we should keep military options wide open for Iran, he has not (to my knowledge) insisted on a date for Iraq withdrawal, he is openly Christian as stated in his magnificent and eloquent speech at the Sojouner's convention, he doesn't demonize large corporations (like it or not, large corporations drive America's economy -- and they are not going to go away just because you don't like them...) and he smokes.
Seems like the right guy to me...

Some good points, Navy Yard. Colin Powell had a lot more political baggage than GWB, though. See Vietnam. Additionally, he is generally less conservative.

Black candidates have run for president, of course, but I'm not aware of any that have made serious bids lately. Sharpton ran less to become president and more to pull civil rights into the campaign. Keyes has run numerous times in order to pull conservative religious values into the fray. Whether the party establishments want to risk it or not, they can't stop candidates from entering the primaries.

At this point I think either party would be justifiably proud in nominating the country's first major-party black candidate.

America has racist elements that you are right to address. But don't think they can't be eroded further. I think a successful Obama presidency would do worlds toward that end and would additionally inspire disadvantaged racial minorities to participate more fully in the political process. It doesn't have to be in 2008; personally I am of the opinion that Obama probably shouldn't run yet. But my reasoning for that has nothing to do with his race.

I resent Mike B's comment, "Bubba's" - the same sort of brainless, tobacco chewing, gun V8 pickup driving..."

I drive a V-10

For all those saying Obama's too green, how is his record all that different from John Edwards? Sure, Edwards didn't win the nomination, but he came in second, and by the time the general election rolled around a lot of primary voters wished they had a do-over. It will be interesting to see how Iowa and New Hampshire react if given a similar choice: the tried and true "safe" pick (Clinton), or the young upstart (Obama). The voters might just take into consideration past mistakes.

With all that I've said, I do believe Obama could be an excellent president. However, realistically, although most educated Americans would not vote based on race, Let's not discount the hordes of UNEDUCATED Americans vote based on people that "look" like presidents.
People, EVERY southern state voted for Bush! Clinton won several southern states during his run. Clinton presided over the greatest econominc expansion period in American History. 4 years later, they all suddenly switch to Bush because he was that much better than the democratic candidate? No, Kerry didn't "reach" the southern states. He didn't look nor sound like them. This is the American voter.

Fred: yes.

Y'all Demos sure fear Rove. Is he the anti-Christ or something?

You forget mike, that a lot of people of the republican persuasion really don't like civil rights, or the new deal. I presume they'd rather that old people eat cat food.

'they will always play second fiddle to the more attractive and practical conservative candidates]

I mean, look at that comment. After 6 years of being ruled by the most demented crazies who ever escaped a violent asylum ward, there's still people out there who think 'conservatives' are 'practical'. The forces of propaganda are legion--and effective.

Opposing an Obama candidacy on the grounds that there are racists in this country ultimately has the same end as opposing an Obama candidacy on the grounds that one feels blacks should not be elected. Ultimately, both parties decline to support the candidacy solely on the grounds of Obama's race.

Admittedly a glib interpretation, but something to think about.

Peter,
I actually don't define myself by race. I have one parent who is considered "white", and one parent who is considered "black". I have lighter skin than most "black" people, but since I do have color to my skin, most Americans probably look at me as "black".

Anyway you say this :
"Who was the last president to campaign successfully on the merits of his race?"
You're right, no one has ever successfully campaigned on the merits of his race. The reason why? It was never needed to be done. Why hasn't it ever been done? Because, no other "race" has gotten that far to be a serious candidate. Out of all the highly qualified, intelligent people of a "non-white" background, not one has ever been considered a serious presidential candidate. That should tell you something, Peter. "White" americans DO see race as important.

I do agree with you that Class is becoming more important than race by middle and upper class people. Midde/Upper class Americans, in general, are comfortable with other Middle/Upper class people, regardless of race. However, we aren't talking about being comfortable with a Middle/Upper class "black" man. We are talking about making this "black" man the leader of the free world. Sorry, most Americans ("white"), will not be comfortable doing that.

You also say:
"The steady stream of white presidents is ceraintly rooted in history, but how many black candidates have seriously run for president recently?"
The reason there haven't been any recently is because their respective parties don't want to risk it. Colin Powell had was 10 times more qualified than George Bush to be president, yet, he didn't run. Think about this: If Colin Powell was "white" and George Bush was "black", do you really think George Bush would be president now?

I think Obama could be the next Kennedy. Here's why I believe this: We live in California, but our daughter goes to college in Illinois. While home on break I heard her and her friends talk about Obama with the same excited, almost reverential terms that my generation talked about Kennedy.

I think there is a very good chance that Obama could ignite a "movement" that would go way beyond a "candidacy."

Navy Yard - I read your previous posts. I choose to ignore the fact that race would factor into an election because it is an useless reason to vote for or against a candidate. I don't care if he is "electable," based upon race, credentials, or whatever John Kerry was supposed to have. He is a great candidate and I would hope America would be able to see that. To push aside his candidacy due to an expectation of a racist turnout is irresponsible.

John - Obama is not Hugo Chavez. He is neither extreme, nor even out of the range of the majority of Americans (To be honest, I think its ridiculous to box a person into such a label). And just for the record, some of the greatest and longlasting progressive movements in America were the result of liberal government. The New Deal. Civil Rights. Conservative, progressive movements have mostly tended to fail. Supply side economics. Eisenhower Doctrine.

For too long people blindly vote based on party lines, not who has the best attributes to be our President. Those attributes are a person with a clear vision of America's current and future role in the world and an understanding of our current and future problems. He/she must be able to lead America to a secure future by appointing Cabinet Secretaries who are willing and able to help him implement his/her vision for a better America.

Barrack Obama has articulated the most clear vision of any politician. He is honest. He admits he doesn't have all the answers. He is willing to listen. His bi-racial background, his life experiences, his work as a community organizer have given him an understanding of the world and the human condition as it affects everyone. He is able to brings both sides together to discuss issues and reach consensus. This is what a great leader is about. Having a vision that benefits everyone - not just the haves and have nots and getting people to work together to implement that vision. He has my vote in 2008!!!!!

But Navy Yard - who was the last president to campaign successfully on the merits of his race? Or for that matter, the last candidate for any significant office?

Most white people are more comfortable around other white people. That's a no-brainer. But currently I think that has less to do with race than it has to do with social and cultural realities. The average middle-income, suburban family man is most likely to associate with other middle-income, suburban family men. But what is the race of most middle-income family men? These men (and women) may be uncomfortable on an urban street because they are surrounded more commonly by lower-income urban people, who commonly happen to be black. But I doubt most of these middle-income white people would be uncomfortable around their black suburban neighbors merely on account of their race.

You said the following:

"Peter, isn't it amazing how NO ONE ever calls Obama "white"?... The only reason they don't see him as white is because he has dark skin."

It would seem to me that that question would answer itself. People call Obama black as opposed to white because he LOOKS black. Genetically speaking, you're absolutely right; he's just as white as he is black. But I'd wager most people don't know his mother is white, and judging solely by his appearance, it's no wonder people call him black.

Regarding the issue of identity, I still contend that race is not an important factor for whites, at least in identifying themselves. Do you feel a comrauderie with strangers just because they are white? (I am assuming you are white, and I hope I am not a racist for it). Black men, especially, report a strong feeling of identity with other black men, according to that special feature the Post ran a few weeks ago.

Regardless of how most people feel about the company they keep, I think Americans in general wouldn't be unwilling to vote for a black presidential candidate solely on account of his race. The steady stream of white presidents is ceraintly rooted in history, but how many black candidates have seriously run for president recently?

Obama might be a brilliant and charismatic person, but he would make a terrible candidate. Just think about it, if John Kerry cannot get elected after suppressing his leftist credentials and promoting his purported "war hero" persona, how can an unapologetic liberal like Obama ever stand a chance? As history has so elequently taughts, liberalism is a minority view in the United States. Until the Democratic party fully thinks about (and acts upon) what this means, they will always play second fiddle to the more attractive and practical conservative candidates.

CC -- you forgot another factor in his favor. Have you people seen his smile? He has the best set of teeth I've ever seen? W looks like a monkey when he smiles. Kerry's botox shows off when he grins. Cheney isn't sure how to smile (or his heart attack left him unable to smile straight...). Hillary looks disingenuous when she smiles.
Obama literally lights up the room, or as I've only seen him, the TV. I think America would fall in love with that.
Hey -- we're a superficial country...

Mike W,
Please listen.... There is no way Obama will ever be elected President of the United States. Look at my previous posts for the reasons why.

Senator Obama is a brilliant and charismatic person. Why do we need to temper this with such subjective things as a political resume?

The democratic party put up the two most "electable" candidates the last two times around. How did that work out?

It's time we stop trying to mold our politicians into the "perfect" candidate and actually try and find a great one. Senator Obama is a great candidate. I hope he runs.

For any posters who think Obama is being inconsistent on civil rights issues by only supporting civil unions, I would suggest that you take a look at the splits within the Congressional Black Caucus more generally on this issue. There are an awful lot of generally progressive voters and politicians, especially within the black community, who simply don't think that gay marriage is right. I disagree with that view, but that's simply a fact.

Edwards has raised $6.5 million for Democrats in the 2006 cycle (Hillary is at $7.5, so not much of a difference really).

According to NJ article due out soon.

Edwards has his donor base in tact from 2004 (plus, more lawyers will come on board since he isn't a longshot this time around) and he's got solid netroots support to get money from there as well.

Gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, just like heterosexuals. I don't know Obama's position on this, but I'm certain he's not to the political right of the Democratic field on this. But I understand why almost every major political figure in the Democratic party supports civil unions but not gay marriage. It's yet another wedge issue used by Republicans to divide the left. And every poll shows there is very little support for gay marriage, even among rank and file Democrats. That's unfortunate and wrong, but we have to pick our battles. The Republicans' political platform coincides with the self interest of only multinational corporations and the top 1-5% wealthiest Americans. So they create these social wedge issues to divide the country. Unfortunately, it's been very effective.

Peter,
You dove too far into it. My point was for people to realize that most humans judge perople based on how they look. Peter, isn't it amazing how NO ONE ever calls Obama "white"? Even though he has a white mother, most americans won't vote for him, because they don't seem him as "white". The only reason they don't see him as white is because he has dark skin. Also, you say that, in general, "white" americans don't think about race in their identity. This couldn't be further from the truth. That is the only reason why every US president has been a "white" male. There hasn't been one Asian, Latino, East Indian, Black president. There hasn't been a President that even has had a somewhat "ethnic" look to him. This is not a coincidence. "White" America has only been comfortable with a Commander in Chief who looks truly "white".

Hey John. What part of Bill Clinton surplus do you not understand?

Thirty years of massive financing of 'conservative' thinktanks, propaganda, talk radio and TV and media aquisition have really done their job. There is so much hysterical and baseless hatred of Democrats. Sometimes the ferocity of it [not to mention the calls for assinations, murders, and executions] really makes me wonder what american values are -- I mean, if we have any.

It's my understanding that biracial individuals, at least in the case of those with a black parent and a white parent, more often consider themselves black than they do white or biracial. Given the history of the United States, a white person is pretty unlikely to consider race an important part of his or her identity. A black person, however, is much more likely to do so.

Ethnicity is another matter. Whites in the U.S. may not tout their race, but they will proudly identify themselves as Irish, Italian, Dutch, etc. Americans of Anglo-Saxon decent are probably less likely to identify themselves according to their ethnicity, however, because one might call them the "whitest" of the white race in the United States because of their past position as the country's dominant ethnic group.

Blacks in the U.S., however, often have little means of tracing their ethnicity due to the way many of their families came to this country and the conditions they lived in thereafter. Consequently they are content to call themselves blacks or African-Americans. It is similarly true that Americans of Asian descent are likely to identify themselves simply as Asian, perhaps because most Americans are not typically perceptive of the differences among Chinese groups, Japenese, Koreans, Vietnemese, Laotians, etc. In Africa or Asia, respectively, these people would identify themselves ethnically as opposed to racially for the same reason whites identify themselves ethnically in a majority white part of the world.

But that's a huge digression. People call Obama black because there is a strong sense of identity to the black race in this country. I think it reflects history more than it does some current undertone of racism.

Yes, money is not substance. And evaluating candidates by the quality of speeches written by somebody else hardly demonstrates substance. I too must also ask: Has anyone done their homework? Far too many gutless Democrats talk about "equality" and "civil rights" but just can't walk their talk. Empty words and vapid bumper-sticker slogans are the most courage they can muster. On THE most important civil rights issue of the new millennium the Democrats have cowered like whipped dogs licking their self-inflicted wounds.

In a recent speech Obama urged us to not shy away from debate but when he was debating Alan Keyes, during the Illinois senatorial race, Keyes was getting the better of Obama in pointing out Obama's hypocrisies. Obama's solution? He stopped the debates even though Keyes wanted to continue. Oh yes, by all means, let us not shy away from the debate senator! John is also right on the marriage issue. Obama's statements on civil rights and marriage are simply so off-the-wall that any second year law student would deservedly flunk Obama's own course on equal protection if they gave his answers to such questions. The Republicans continue to hold office in part because the Democrats are viewed as gutless cowards who pander to majority tyranny and herd mentality. Yes indeed, "the best argument against democracy..." And, yes, Obama's position on marriage equality is at odds with virtually every old guard black civil rights leader. Instead of marriage equality he -- as a special and Liberal favor to gays of course - wants to give gays the 'separate but [not] equal' seat in the back of the bus --- civil unions. Gee wiz senator, a special place just for gays, it's just like having our very own water fountain. Gee thanks. How very white of you!

If we claimed a pure "democracy" in which the majority decides we all know where that would leave Senator Obama and his parents! To use the senator's own words from his autobiography ("Dreams From My Father") the laws he would propose for gays are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, "to keep us on the outside looking in."

Merely being sick of the demented religiosity of the Republican right will hardly suffice to induce many of us to vote for gutless Democrats who run from adversity on the field of battle. But who needs substance when money will suffice? Americans' consent can be engineered easy enough .... "the best argument against democracy"?

It's amazing how "thick" liberals are continuing to think that far-left candidates have a chance at getting elected nationally. What part of "only two Democratic president's getting elected in almost 40 years" do they not understand? A liberal Democrat -- like Obama is turning out to be -- has no chance in hell of getting elected in the good old USA--this has not, is not, and will not ever be a liberal nation! The only chance the Democratic party has of winning an election in the modern era is to present a moderate candidate and hope for special circumstances in the national mood or climate. (e.g., 1976-first post-Watergate election and 1992-very strong third party candidate. For all the problems the Republicans are alleged to be having, this alone will not be enough to get a Democrat elected.

Well, RMill, considering some of the comments I've read here [although, granted, they are a minority] I'm not so sure about that. There are a lot of people out there who are perhaps not stupid, but who nonetheless are so monumentally simple and credulous that they will believe even the most absurd and nonesensical crap that FOX and rove and limbaugh dish out.

Cal Gal

It is not the intelligence of the American electorate but the engagement, faith in the system and attention span that is lacking.

Everyone, let's be realistic here. As someone said earlier, the presidential election is a "beauty contest". It's a "beauty contest" in the sense that people vote for people that they can relate to. People who they could see themselves comfortable with in a social setting. That is the ONLY reason why EVERY southern state voted for Bush. Bush looks and sounds like those people, so they think "hey, he's a great guy"! This is not the case for all voters, but the majority of American voters vote in this way. With this being true, there is no way American would EVER vote for a man with dark skin. It doesn't matter how intelligent and how well qualified he may be. If George Bush was the SAME EXACT person, but looked like Jesse Jackson, he would NOT be president now. Point Blank!

Obama didn't have an easy primary in Illinois. He beat out a crowded field of locally well known Democrats by a wide margin. xxxxx Obama is known for more than one good speech. He was an extremely accomplished state legislator. He was a law professor at one of the top 5 law schools in the country. He's hugely popular throughout the country. Here in Seattle, his recent speech at Garfield High School sold out in 1 1/2 hours. After his Seattle speech, all we could talk about was how amazed we were that he could maintain such an extremely high caliber of speaking even at our low stakes event in a small corner of the country. Afterwards, all we could talk about was how presidential he seemed. You have to hear him speak in person to understand he is in a completely different league than the rest of the field. xxxxxx I just find it interesting how many people consider him qualified to be VP for a long list of presidential candidates, including some truly mediocre ones - Joseph Biden??? Or they would have Obama run as VP for candidates who are just as "inexperieced", yet immediately rule him out for the top position. Even in a racist country, truly gifted people are seen as transcending race. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods come to mind. xxxxxx Obama is half white. But it's interesting how his other half is what defines his racial identity to everyone else.

Why do people continue to evoke the founding fathers, like they were some great people? The founding fathers along with more than half of the US Presidents were men who allowed their own citizens to be mistreated for about 200 years (1776 - 1966). People talk about Saddam Hussen gassing his own people, ok, let's talking about the majority of US presidents who enslaved and disenfranchised its own people for almost 200 years.

Watch out Maria--criticize republicans and the resident dittohead/ foxparrot Boobs will viciously and personally attack you.

I would rather Harold Ford. Like Bush, Obama hears the voice of god talking to him. This is not a quality I want in my elected leaders. I strongly believe that state should be definitively separated from church, just like the founding fathers did.

"When do we start taking the presidency a little more seriously than a beauty pageant?"

Sorry, but you're overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate. It's a beauty contest and has been since at least 1960. Bush is the candidate people want to "have a beer with" and he wins, first gov. of Texas (which fools people outside Texas into thinking he must have some executive experience), then POTUS.

Obama is the Dems beauty contest winner and therefore should be their candidate.

Personally, I would like to see him serve first as governor of Illinois, but that's probably not going to happen.

In a country this big, where next to nobody actually sees the candidate in person any more, mediagenics is what it's all about.

Jim from Rockford's comment "I live in Illinois and did not vote for Obama. He is tooo liberal and socialistic for me." is a hoot. Sounds like any Democrat is too socialistic for Jim. Forget about people like him. He's part of the 30% who still think Bush is doing a good job.

Why does everyone on here refer to Obama as "black". If I'm not mistaken, his mother is "white". If his mother is "white" and his father is "black", then that means he is as much "black" as he is "white". However, no one ever refers to him as "white" Why is that you ask? Because this country still goes by the "one drop of blood" theory. Everyone who understands that theory needs to recognize how racist this country can be.

Bobby the Independent-

Governor Bill Richardson (NM) former Energy Secretary and UN Ambassador fits that bill as well.

Obama looks good because he IS good. If you study his own words, he's a healer and a uniter with generally moderate instincts -- and an eloquent communicator. All this matters more than his skin color (Black), his party (Democrat), his home base (Illinois -- Upper Midwest), his tall height, or even his present job (U.S. Senator).

I've heard two superb A+ major-party keynote speeches in my lifetime -- Obama's for the Democrats in 2004, and Dan Evans for the Republicans several decades ago before the Republican Party was hijacked by the American Christian-Right Taliban. Obama is not merely a breath of fresh air -- he's a fresh wind of change.

Taking a big picture view, politics in America has degenerated into a Hatfields and McCoys situation with no real problem solving, just name calling and recriminations. The main argument you get for voting one way or another is that things will go to hell if you vote for the other guy. Political orientation is probably a bell shaped continuum with the majority of voters being a mix of liberal and conservative values i.e. "socially liberal fiscally conservative republicans". Obama strikes me as the guy who can mobilize that huge number of people in the center who are completely turned off by the product served up by both parties.

The next president would need to pay the national debt, too.

A large part of the reason Obama looks so good right now is that he hasn't really been tested. His election to the Senate ended up being a walkover--and as such, he didn't have to do anything which might make him look bad--to anyone. All we've gotten from him has been 100% positive.

Hello,

I think the best president would be a popular governor with an executive experience or a former vp.

He would need to be willing to fight the real war on terror ( not Iraq), global warming, the dependance on oil, poverty, lobbyist, outsourcing and corruption. God Knows hom many legislations are influenced by coorporate lobbyst. It's disgusting. Forget about all those senators who want to be president. In my mind, nominating Hillary means losing in landslide (remember 1972, 1984), the best candidates are either Mark Warner or Al Gore for the dems.

Don't misunderestimate republican extremism, they can nominate another right wing wacko.

I know, it looks promising for John McCain but he can be defeated and he's another senator with no executive experience. A senator is ok for the vp nomination, think Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey not the presidential nomination.

Nominating a politician with executive experience (not from the North East)is the simple formula to win.

Bob The Independant

If the last two elections have proven anything, it's that experience and substance stand for squat. I have never been moved by a political speech as I was by Obama's address at the convention. He can speak to all Americans like none of the current professionals on either side. We can't afford another four years under another party hack from either side. What the president needs is a spine, a brain, and the ability to distinguish fact and reasoned argument from smoke being blown up tour a**. Bush is 1 for 3 in that department. I bet Obama bats 1.000.

One of my mentors once told me: "It takes two fools to put a preacher on a pedestal-- one who will put him up there, and one
who is willling to be put."

dbucks, Obama is not Swahili for "messiah." There's only been One, and look what we did to him.

And for those of you who think religion and politics should never meet, it is

Separation OF church and state, not
separation FROM church and state.

Jefferson's Wall of Separation correctly understood is this:

A free church living in a free state.

1. A free church means no state sponsored
church.
2. A free state means no church-dictated
belief system.

Ideally, the church provides a moral climate that moves people toward, as Lincoln said, "their better angels." The State provides the security for liberty of conscience--to believe or not believe whatever you want.

This is why The Baptist Joint Committee On Public Affairs years ago filed an amicus curiae with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of a group practicing Santeria in a city in Florida. The city tried to shut this religious group down because it objected to their ritualistic sacrifice of chickens in their "worship" service. (The court correctly ruled in favor of the Santeria group.)

You won't find any dead chickens in any Baptist church I know of, but any Baptist who knows his own church's history will affirm absolute religious liberty and "soul-competency" of the individual believer (or non-believer).

What we have witnessed in Washington for the last six years is not biblical religion. It is fear-animated fundamentalism of right wing people who are devoid of biblical ethics. It has been a terroristic religious hostage-taking of "Christian" faith that is neither Christ like nor faith based.

Biblical faith(BF) cares for the widows and orphans. BF feeds the poor, houses the homeless, clothes the naked, visits the sick and the imprisoned. BF understands simple phrases like: Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness (lie), thou shalt not kill, Honor your father and mother (and don't rob their Social Security), Have no other gods (Wall Street, "bottom line," instantaneous gratification, the greedy before the needy, etc.) before Me.

For six years we have witnessed all talk and no walk. Biblical faith is all about walk and talk that holds people accountable for what they DO.

As my father used to say: TALK IS CHEAP. And as my Brother said: "Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter my kingdom, but he who DOES my Father's will."

One of the reasons I like Obama so much is more than just the force of his personality, but I feel like he has political savvy and a unique understanding of message politics. I think he's well-suited to beat McCain in 2008, but I agree with CC that I doubt he will run.

http://boldlyblue.blogspot.com

Yes, money can buy anything! It can even manufacture consent. Come on folks! Get real. Has anyone done their homework here? Barack Obama is a mixed race Harvard educated civil rights lawyer (so called) who's mother and father were deemed felons in 17 states the day they were married. They remained criminals as a matter of law in those states until the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia which pronounced marriage a fundamental right. In spite of this Obama has said that he does not believe marriage is even a civil right let alone a "fundamental" right! (Just Google it!) This from a Harvard educated lawyer! Affirmative action! Oh well, win some loose some I guess.

To make matters worse the said that (with all due respect for the doctrine of separation of church and state) that the term 'marriage' has "religious connotations" and because of those "religious connotations" gays should not be allowed to marry but instead be granted separate but not equal civil unions. This was in spite of the fact that his own minister (the Rev. Wright of the UCC Trinity Church in Chicago) is listed at the National Black Justice Coalition's web site as favoring full marriage equality and in spite of the fact that his own religious denomination (the UCC) did then and does now perform same-sex unions in their churches while making absolutely no distinction between same-sex and marriage and opposite sex marriage -- so much for the so called "religious connotations" of marriage. Gimmie a break! On the issue of marriage equality it is clear that most old guard African American leaders are not aligned with Obama. (See http://www.nbjcoalition.org/about/supporters.html) 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 ways 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 it leadership? When Winston Churchill said, "the best argument against Democracy is a ten minute conversation with the average voter" this is the sort of thing he meant.

Has the rare gifts of Lincoln, Kennedy and Martin Luther King. I bet even Obama didn't know he was so gifted. You sound like you may be in love CBS. Hate to break your fantasy, but he is human like the rest of us, which means he has plenty of foibles.

On Obama's liberalism:

It's a little telling that criticisms of Obama's policy preferences only surfaced after a long discussion of his experience. That's good for liberal voters, I think, because it means that Obama's politics aren't yet the subject of much scrutiny. He is a liberal, to be sure, but he has an undeniably articulate, rational air about him. An earlier poster pointed out that Americans by and large were not as conservative as Reagan (or Bush, for that matter), but elected him anyway because he was a very effective communicator. Voters, it would seem, are far more receptive to candidates who know how to talk to them. Bush is obviously far less articulate than Obama is or Reagan was, but in his element he knows how to speak to a crowd.

Ultimately, an Obama campaign could potentially produce a race in which the Democrat's liberal politics are largely not a liability.

On the race issue:

While undoubtedly there are those in this country who would vote against a candidate because of his race, there exists also a large pool of non-voters that consists of very significant numbers of racial minorities. This population would probably be much more motivated to vote for a black candidate. The existing black vote would probably be even more Democratic because it would appear that the party is finally trying to earn the black vote again.

Analyzing the situation unscientifically, I would think an Obama candidacy would motivate more people to vote FOR the black candidate than against him - all other factors held constant at least.

Obama would make a great Veep on a Gore/Obama ticket.

Larry with all due respect, probably you should let it go and move on. We republicans had a strong case we were cheated out of the governship in Washington, but that is now in the past, we will make sure we get it next time.

Don't get me wrong, I like Mr. Obama and I would certainly vote for him, but this country is overpopulated by racist "Bubba's" - the same sort of brainless, tobacco chewing, gun V8 pickup driving, Neanderthal's that voted for Bush. I just don't think Mr. Obama could win with these racists composing about 1/3 of the voters and I don't want him nominated just to prove a point. I am concerned about winning and rolling back everything Bush has done. We need a national health insurance program. We need to unwind Bush's insane tax breaks for wealthy families and investors. We need a sane foreign policy. We either end outsourcing and guest worker programs or this country wont exist in 10 years. We need rational, sane people with the interests of this country at heart in charge of science, economic, and pother policies. I do not think, heck I am certsain, we cannot survive even four more years of even allowing the damage Bush has done to stand, let alone electing another scumbag like him. So, the Democrats need to nominate a centrist candidate that can actually win.

I read some of Obama's recent speeches that are posted on his senate website and was completely blown away. I urge others to read these speeches. Obama is just operating on a completely different plane than any other politician today. His soaring intellect is grounded in the wisdom of the heart, and taps into the highest aspirations of the human spirit. He has the rare gifts of Lincoln, Kennedy and Martin Luther King (whose images he has in his Senate office, along with Gandhi).

And his speeches so effectively eviscerate the Republican's record that it's hard to understand why every Democrat in the country isn't using them to come up with their campaign strategy. For example, he says the problem with the Republican approach to governing isn't that it hasn't been working the way it's supposed to, it's that it has been working EXACLTY the way it's supposed to. He then proceeds to completely rip to shreds the idea that the country is better off when every man and woman is left to fend for themselves. The fact that Obama conveys these messages in a distinctly nonpartisan, common sense way makes them even more effective.

Before reading these speeches, I strongly believed Obama shouldn't run yet because of his lack of experience. I was also concerned about him running against Hillary because I didn't want the Clinton's to go after him. But reading his speeches stirs something deep within the soul and you realize that he represents our hope for the future and that he has the capacity to heal this country. He talks about 'the politics of hope' replacing 'the politics of fear.' Not coincidentally, he has a new book coming out in October entitled "The Audacity of Hope." I'm very curious to see what happens when this book comes out. When the time is ripe for a new movement there is nothing that can stop it. I don't know if it's his time yet and he probably doesn't either, but movements tend to happen spontaneously and sometimes quite suddenly, although they are usually years in the making. I believe the politics of hope is a powerful notion and that eventually Americans are going to get tired of the politics of fear. Whether that will be in 2008 remains to be seen.

How is letting felons and ilegal aliens vote the only way we can win? Again Gore received almost 600000 more votes than Bush and in 2004 Dem congressional candidates got 54% of the vote. It seems like it is Reps who need more voters. The leaders of the Republican party realized after the 2 Clinton landslides that they no longer had enough voters to win nationally. Plan B was to cheat and commit voter fraud. Even with the voter fraud Gore won pop vote. Bush would not be pres ecept for cheating in Ohio. Cant you be a real american and read the facts about voter fraud in this country?

Remember, The Fix is making the case for why Obama should run, not whether or not he should be president. Hence, the factors mentioned were superficial and related only to the "horse race" aspect of presidential politics. He has celebrity, charisma, and can raise money, and these three things are self-reinforcing.

No question GWB had his political career handed to him -- though defeating Ann Richards in 1994 was no shoe-in. But Obama is currently having a lot handed to him as well. Few politicians have received as much hype as he for just showing up. I think that he is introspective enough to realize that he is not ready to be president, and that the country would sense that he is not ready (as with 2004's other freshman senator wonderboy, John Edwards). Let's take a little bit more measure of the man and resist the cult of personality that has enveloped him.

Not sure two "blue state" Democrats, Clinton and Obama, are the answer. And Obama, on the very left side of the liberals, has an unexamined state senate voting record in Springfield, Illinois, that might work against him. Plus, he's never had a tough election (except for getting stomped by U.S. Rep. Bobby