Obama '08?

I've gone on the record more than a few times saying that I don't think Barack Obama should or would run for President in 2008. But maybe I've been wrong. Over at The New Republic (subscription only), Ryan Lizza makes the case for Obama, giving voice to some thoughts I've had over the past few months.

The main objection to an Obama run is his obvious lack of experience. He needs at least a full Senate term before he is taken seriously, the argument goes. On the one hand, each day spent in the Senate gives Obama more experience and stature for his inevitable presidential campaign. But each day also brings with it an accumulation of tough votes, the temptations of bad compromises, potentially perilous interactions with lobbyists, and all the other behaviors necessary to operate as a successful senator. At some unknowable date in the future, remaining in the Senate will reach a point of diminishing returns for Obama. The experience gained by being a good senator will start to be outweighed by the staleness acquired by staying in Washington.

Essentially, by running for President in 2008, Obama could overcome the traditional disadvantage of a long career in the Senate. As we all saw in the 2004 election, John Kerry's decades of votes were easily manipulated and misrepresented by the Republicans.

As Lizza points out, Obama's been working pretty hard to prove he's no lightweight. Specifically, he references Obama's work with foreign policy heavyweight Sen. Dick Lugar on nuclear proliferation issues and his leadership on avian flu preparedness.

One interesting thing about the idea that Obama's too inexperienced to run for President -- and Lizza doesn't mention it -- is that, by 2008, Obama will have a longer political resume than John Edwards did in 2004. Though Edwards had over five years in the Senate under his belt to Obama's four, that was the sum total of Edwards' career in elected office. (Similarly, another likely 2008 candidate, Virginia Governor Mark Warner, spent only four years in elected office.) By contrast, Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate prior to moving up to the U.S. Senate. That will be twelve years in elected office before a possible Presidential run in 2008. Suddenly, it doesn't seem too early for Obama at all.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)



Let's go with one that
can start tomorrow on the job and get it right. That's Al Gore over all else.
by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-06 07:59PM | 0 recs
Before anyone stops by
to claim "Gore is not running", here is Gore's paraphrased full statement:

Speaking at an economic forum in Stockholm, Sweden in October 2005, Gore again stated that he has no intention of ever running for president again in response to questions from reporters. However, Gore said he could not rule the possiblity out completely saying, "I do not completely rule out some future interest, but I do not expect to have that."

That's leaving the door ajar to most people (excepting those that would like to see him go away).

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-06 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Before anyone stops by
You're right, it's not a definite no. It's a probably no.

If you include everyone who 'probably' won't run in 2008, you've got about 30 or 40 significant candidates on both sides.

by zt155 2005-12-06 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Before anyone stops by
Oh, I think Gore will run, soon as we, his supporters, show him that we will stand up and fight with him through thick and thin.

As for 30 or 40 other significant candidates, hardly anyone can match the fact that Gore would almost certainly win a non-freeped multi-candidate poll across the blogosphere (Feingold gained some ground recently, but he has been getting good coverage and generous help from the blog "establishment"), and he is generally coming second in most field polls with little exposure in the media:

Three Nov. polls:

12. Who is your first choice for the Democratic nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)
Hillary Clinton 34%
Al Gore 13%
John Edwards 10%

22. For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)
Hillary Clinton 35%
Al Gore 14%
Jhn Edwards 10%

15. Who is your first choice for the Democratic nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)
Hillary Clinton 40%
Al Gore 12%
John Kerry 10%

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-06 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
Here we go again!!!! hehe.
by Liberal 2005-12-06 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that

Seriously, tell me who else will make a better president starting tomorrow, and why.

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-06 08:33PM | 0 recs
Yeah, Let's Go with the Retread
That's the ticket. We should renominate the charisma-challenged ex-VP. It could be a rerun of 2000. Maybe he can bring back Shrum. Another wonderful festival of punch-pulling.

Why would we want to go with one of the smartest, most inspiring people in the party today? That would be out of character.

Maybe we should bring back Mondale or Dukakis, or Kerry.

by Mister Go 2005-12-07 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, Let's Go with the Retread
"smartest, most inspiring people in the party today"

Yes, one of them would Al Gore, and he has credentials to boot!


by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, Let's Go with the Retread
or how about we field our fabulous former-governor from Massachussettes? Michael Dukakis? Who ran better in many Republican Strongholds than Kerry/Gore or even Clinton? Lets do it!


by KainIIIC 2005-12-07 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, Let's Go with the Retread
snarks aside, whoever is viable (which Dukakis isn't) should consider running.
by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, Let's Go with the Retread
how come Dukakis isn't viable?
by KainIIIC 2005-12-07 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, Let's Go with the Retread
poll him
by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, Let's Go with the Retread
alright, next poll we should put Dukakis on there and we should make a big following for it.

But give me reasons why he isn't viable but Al Gore is.

by KainIIIC 2005-12-07 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, Let's Go with the Retread
More relevant question: if you can appoint a president tomorrow, whom would you pick?

I take it you'll go with Feingold.

Then why would Feingold be a better president  than Gore?

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
What does this post have to do with Al Gore?  I didn't see his name mentioned anywhere?  Obviously you support him.  That much is evident.  

But seriously, he isn't going to get the nomination, and because I like the man so much, I pray he decides to do the smart thing and not run.  I'd bet $1,000 right now he wouldn't even make it past New Hampshire and Iowa.    

by Eric11 2005-12-06 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
Well, my point is that while Obama would be a stellar VP choice, why on earth woudl we pass someone with outstanding and complete credentials for a relative rookie?

"I'd bet $1,000 right now he wouldn't even make it past New Hampshire and Iowa."

Go ahead. I'll bet that you'll be better off investing that money in your current or future kid's college fund.

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-06 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
I really wish the American public would accept Al Gore back and elect him president, but I am not so sure they will. I had a politcal conversation today at lunch and the subject of Gore came up. Now out of the 5 other people at the table, there were 4 moderate-liberals and one staunch-libertarian/conservative. All four of them ganged up on me about how Al Gore exaggerates and spouting all of the un-founded negativity heard in 2000.

My only rebuttal is that Obama would at least be a fresh face, and therefore the negativity would not already be there. However it turns out let's hope a Democrat ends up in the White House.

by Paranoid Humanoid 2005-12-07 04:59AM | 0 recs
Wishing Don't Make it So
I wish I could fly. The people are not going to embrace Gore.
by Mister Go 2005-12-07 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
"spouting all of the un-founded negativity"

Kinda like "Mister Go" here, I presume?

Fight back with facts (and word for word, as would be suitable with our friend here), until the spins and smears are put to rest.

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
Please don't get me wrong. I love Obama, and would want him to be our president someday not that far. Just that in terms of experience, it's too early for him to be in the picture for 2008.

Also, if you can send me a list of those smears and (gists of) negative attacks by email (you can find my email on my user page), I'd be glad to send you comprehensive links and facts to help you rebut them.


by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
Yeah I am aware of the facts and rebutes for the arguments listed, but is it possible to get the American public to buy into them. People form opinions and tend to stick with them. This is why I think Gore would have trouble getting to the presidency. I support him dearly if he tries. This diary is about Obama, not Gore, and I think there are many positive things about the junior Senator from Illinois.
by Paranoid Humanoid 2005-12-07 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
"People form opinions and tend to stick with them."

I know from experience that they can be debunked. facts can be made to trump fiction at the end of the day.

I take my hat off to Sen. Obama for what he is and what he is evolving to be. I think that he will be a major political force for years to come, bringing a powerful combination of intelligence, oratorial skills, thoughtfulness, moderation in manners, capacity fo unite people of various backgrounds, and dignity, to the table.

I support him in the strongest possible terms, but not for a 2008 run (atleast not until people better qualified for it are out of the race).

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's go with one that
As things stand, I'd support Obama for 2008 over these guys:
Joe Biden
John Edwards
John Kerry
Tom Vilsack
from the Kos/Bowers slate for 2008.
by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 01:46PM | 0 recs
I like Obama generally
but I don't see how state legislative experience qualifies you for president.  It's like put your high school drama club on your resume.  In terms of experience, I don't see a lot of difference between Edwards and Obama -- Edwards has also served on a lot of wonkish foreign policy panels that nobody cares about.  They're both smart, inspirational guys (and wouldn't be horrible presidents), but they're easy to caricature as lightweights.

That said, I don't think voters judge just by "experience."  Having a clear, forceful message on foreign matters would go at least as far at dealing with "newbieness."

by berns19 2005-12-06 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Obama generally
Ask Jimmy Carter. One four-year term as Governor after several years in the state legislature didn't hurt him too much in '76.
by zt155 2005-12-06 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Obama generally
Unquestionably, he has more experience than Mark Warner, plus he's right on the issues, plus it's time we had a minority in the White House.  And people can't shut up about how much they love Mark Warner.  I think I agree that Obama doesn't quite have enough experience yet, but he's leaps and bounds ahead of Warner, who really just sucks.
by lorax 2005-12-06 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Obama generally
It's also a proven fact that Senators that move directly to the White House from the senate, don't spend much time in the senate first.  Harding and Kennedy are the only two sitting senators elected to the White House and both spent only a few years in the senate.  I think Obama has the potential to be a contender for the presidency... and we need him on '08.  
by sandzen 2005-12-07 06:51AM | 0 recs
More experience than Bush
Obama is going to have more electoral experience in 2008 than Bush did in 2000.

Except for that repeatedly being bailed out by Dad's friends thing. Obama doesn't have that kind of experience.

by Mister Go 2005-12-07 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: More experience than Bush
But not the name rec advantage that Bush got himself by having the same name as a former president.  
by Valatan 2005-12-07 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I like Obama generally
And ya, I don't think that the general voter really looks at experience at all.  As soon as the press dubs a candidate as 'legitimate' then it seems to mostly come down to speaking skills and the ability to handle the media.  

People are obsessing about the senator thing when they should be obsessing about the poor communicator that can't wow the media thing.

Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale all lost

Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy and Ike all won

Nixon got two softball elections against a badly vietnam-damaged humphrey and the press anti-darling McGovern.  Aside from that, the more likeable candidate won every time, regardless of issues or anything.  

I'm beginning to think that it was based on likeability, and had little or nothing to do with experience, ability to govern, or even the issues, really.  

In that light, I think Obama might be an excellent choice, if I saw some evidence that he would be good at actually being President.

by Valatan 2005-12-07 06:21AM | 0 recs
i like him but
He needs seasoning. Personally, I'd like to see him spend very little time in DC. Maybe he ought to run for Gov. of IL when Blago leaves. Either way, he hasn't paid his dues yet, and we need to see how he holds up in the Senate. If we need a good VP who can bring in voters on the fence, though, he's our man.
by bluenc 2005-12-06 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: i like him but
I don't think he needs seasoning. You don't become a keynote speaker at a convention if you're a lightweight in terms of speaking skills. I saw him on Oprah a few months ago, those women ate it up. Either you got it or you don't. He's got it. Period.
by zt155 2005-12-06 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: i like him but
Obama would rather do federal work than state work, and the Democrats already have an all-star candidate for 2010 and that's state attorney general Lisa Madigan.
by AC4508 2005-12-06 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: i like him but
I can't stand Madigan.  She's just too darn weak.  
by Eric11 2005-12-07 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: i like him but
The finest cut of meat needs no seasoning.

Seriously though, I understand. Ideally 2012 and 2016 seem like a better fit, but the environment may change and the battle may be more difficult.

If he runs now he may end up the VP candidate, and that is a good place to get this 'seasoning' you speak of. Wouldn't 8 years as VP then taking the reigns himself for another 8 sound nice?

by Paranoid Humanoid 2005-12-07 05:05AM | 0 recs
Did Lincoln Need Seasoning?
Lincoln was a one-term congressman, and failed Senate candidate in 1860.
by Mister Go 2005-12-07 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: i like him but
Blago may not even be around in 2007.  He is going to be in an absolute dog fight next year with Topinka.  He's having trouble here in Chicago.  Imagine the constituents he will have to confront downstate (conservative).  
by Eric11 2005-12-07 10:20AM | 0 recs
Two Points
  1. The turnout for Obama will be astonishing. Think South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, even (gasp!) Texas. People who never vote--who never feel represnted--will turn out in droves.

  2. Since 1932, four Democrats have won their way into the White House (excluding Gore). Average age: 47.75, with Carter at 52 the oldest. (Truman and LBJ were older, but inherited office.)

Average age of Dem losers during the same period?  54.75. (Excluding Gore, the Avg Age is 55.1.) McGovern was the youngest loser at 50.

Barack's age during 2008 campaign? 47. Perfect.

The age of all other likely Dem candidates in 2008? Mark Warner, at 54, will be the only other Dem under 55.

Remember: Dem's usually win as the "change candidate". And America will be starving for a "change candidate" in 2008. Aside from Obama and Warner, all other likely Dem's are the Status Quo, overexposed types.

Barack Obama in 2008! Finally, a hero for President!

by fruddle 2005-12-07 07:14PM | 0 recs
All good points
But I don't think he'll run for the simple reason that there's so many big names already commited.

Maybe he can ditch the Senate for the governor's mansion in 2010?

by zt155 2005-12-06 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: All good points
As an Illinois resident, I hope he ditches the Senate and run for governor this election!  Ofcourse, that would never happen, but one can dream, can't they.

Obama has a lot of potential.  The key word being potential.  We all know he is an excellent speaker, but he still just a rookie.  Although I'm certain he's matured since he won last year, if you saw his debate with Alan Keyes, you would know what I'm talking about.  It was not a great performance.  

To be honest, I'm not certain why he ever ran for Senator in the first place.  The governor race was wide open in 2002, and he could have capitalized.  Perhaps the Illinois Democratic political machine got in the way.  I've always believed that was poor judgment on this part.  

Obama will be ready in due time.  However, based on my own personal observations as an IL resident, 2008 is not that time.  He has a world of potential but is not ready for prime-time, yet.  

by Eric11 2005-12-06 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: All good points
Harry Reid is a good senator. McCain,whether you agree with him or not, handles the senate well.

Obama is still a pup in way too many ways.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-12-07 12:21AM | 0 recs
Re: All good points
For Obama to ever have a good shot at the presidency, he needs to become Governor in Illinois.  I suspect he will do just that within the next decade.

It is much easier for governors to win the Presidency than it is for senators.  "I voted for it before i voted against it," anyone?  The empirical data backs this up, and since this was such a hot topic in recent years I don't feel compelled to rehash the arguments.

That is why Warner (and not Hillary) is probably the soundest bet if you're putting money down in Vegas, even though he will have only 4 years of experience holding office.

by rapid response 2005-12-07 09:24AM | 0 recs
Experience won';t matter
Give him the right running mate (Clark)-

The black vote turnout would destroy every election model. ESPECIALLY down-ticket- we may not win Alabama's EVs, but there would be some R Congresscritters goin down.  

by jgkojak 2005-12-06 08:57PM | 0 recs
its a good start but i'd like to see someone further to the left


by goplies 2005-12-06 09:03PM | 0 recs
I think experience counts, to some degree. Obama needs to stay in his current office for at least one full term, I think.  Then maybe he can run for governor is he likes, or go for the brass ring when the chance comes up.  And I'm really not buying that "diminishing returns" line,not after only 4 years.  After 3 or 4 terms, I could see it.
 As for Edwards, I thought he was too inexperienced in '04, and I also think he's an empty suit. He won't be getting my support in the primaries.
Obama is smart and charismatic, and he doesn't really need to run in '08.  He's got a very bright future ahead of him.
by Digital DJ 2005-12-06 10:03PM | 0 recs
Obama v. Edwards v. Warner
As regards the presidential qualifications of the gentleman named above: let's not disregard what they did before they got into politics.

Edwards was a personal injury lawyer and, by all accounts, wasn't even much interested in politics before he decided to run for senate following a sort of mid-life crisis.

Mark Warner had some experience working on capital hill back in the 70s but other than that he was a business man until he ran for governor.

Now compare Obama.  He was a successful community organizer, civil rights lawyer and law professor at University of Chicago.  His whole life has been spent involved in public affairs of one sort or another.  He's also lived abroad - which isn't nothing in an age when it seems like our leaders have forgotten how to relate to the rest of the world.

I think this is a great post.  Maybe the "he's too green" conventional wisdom really is wrong.

by MarkTBlair 2005-12-06 10:05PM | 0 recs
He's a political genius
and I hope he runs. Whether in 2008 or later I don't know.
by Populism2008 2005-12-07 12:43AM | 0 recs
what has he done?
The guy has immense political capital, and doesn't use it.  That's not cool.
by Matt Stoller 2005-12-07 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: what has he done?
I think he is building it as we speak (for example helping Kaine out in VA, and other dems in 2004). On the PR side of the "political capital", he is going really strong.

But the ultimate susbstantive political capital will have to come from his own legislative work in the senate, and he has much to build and show on that front (hopefully with a democratic senate come 2007, he'll have a better prospect of that; as you know, it's possible, but may not be very likely), IMO.

by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 04:48AM | 0 recs
A Uniter
The reason why Senator Obama would be a great choice right away is that he focuses on shared, common values instead of antagonizing political opponents.  Particularly in this political environment, that would be an invaluable quality in a national leader.

I think that Senator Obama is young for President by recent standards, experience aside, and that may be unsettling to voters.  It certainly would not bother voters if he were on the ballot for vice-president, and I would be very surprised if he is not on every nominee's short list should he take a pass on the top job this time.

by billfrick 2005-12-07 03:45AM | 0 recs
Do not dismiss Obama too soon!
I am suprised with the initial negativity this diary has brought. While Obama may not be the ideal candidate for every person (personally he is one of the top few on my list) the article brings up some good points. In terms of his political experience this may be too early than he would want to run, but this may be the best chance he has. It is much easier to become president with no incumbent to oust (be it Democrat or Republican) and 2016 may be too far away.

Obama is such a good speaker that one speech can make lasting impressions. The candidates supported in above comments would make excellent presidents, however they have to get elected first. What I see from Obama is a person, that if given a chance, could connect with middle America. If he decides to run and is not selected, he might get VP out of it (its also an off-election year for his senate seat). If the country runs with him, I think we would have an excellent president for 8 solid years.

So instead of dismissing him right away for his relative youth, lets look at the positives should he run. We should be ready to support whoever makes it out of the convention. Not many people will get their ideal candidate, let's leave the criticisms for the Republican party.

by Paranoid Humanoid 2005-12-07 04:30AM | 0 recs
Individual qualifications
I think that things like experience governing don't really matter.  What really matters is how he can spin his bad qualities and his good qualities.  

He is a good political campaigner, and I think that that is the quality that matters if you want to win.

by sterra 2005-12-07 04:55AM | 0 recs
Raw potential
Let's remember we haven't seen a lot out of Obama. He's run one major campaign, and that was against a right-wing wacko in a blue state. He hasn't had to withstand the slings and arrows of the GOP attack machine in a national race. Look at John Kerry: did okay in the primaries, but once he got in the ring with Rove and his thugs, he was in way over his head. Obama is a natural at this stuff, but he hasn't had a lot of experience in doing the things you need to do to win a presidential race. And if you think they tagged Kerry as a liberal, wait until they get ahold of Obama's record...
by bluenc 2005-12-07 08:08AM | 0 recs
Obama's time is ASAP
Obama is a great candidate who can win and who has something inside him that no one else in the Democratic party has, an idealistic spirit and the ability to get things done. He is inspiring, don't listen to the jargon that he needs more experience. America wants real inspirational leadership now, Obama can provide it. Go Barack, run in 2008!
by ahf8 2005-12-07 08:18AM | 0 recs
Run in '08, Barack!
I completely agree with ahf8. I think a young, idealistic outsider could have huge appeal around the country, especially while the national mood is so sour. He's a modern-times Bobby Kennedy. Bobby was a one-term senator with less elected experience than Obama.

Another point: Why is it that Democrats insist that their candidates must be QUALIFIED to hold office, whereas Republicans understand that qualifications aren't as important as appeal to the electorate? We have to drop the kid gloves right away. Both Kerry and Gore are 100 times more competent than W as visionaries and administrators, but neither of them had the personality or appeal to beat such a nincompoop. If we continue to nominate the most "qualified" and "experienced" candidates, then we will never win another election.

by nstrauss 2005-12-07 09:51AM | 0 recs

This isn't 1860, or even 1960.  Experience matters enormously, especially in times of international instability and terrorist threats (manipulated or otherwise).  Obama is young as well as inexperienced in terms of national electoral politics and international politics.  And you may have noticed that he's black.  
That will be an issue for a sufficient number of possible swing voters.  Black and a seasoned hand (Colin Powell) is one thing.  Black and female (Rice) or yopung/inexperienced is another.

How could Obama be as assuring in terms of international relations as Clark, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Richardson, even Biden (for God's sake), or Feingold?   Never mind McCain, Hagel, Guiliani, Allen, etc.?  It's just really weird and netrootsy to think that a majority of American voters would vote for Obama over a more experienced candidate.  Not gonna happen.

VP?  Absolutely.  2012?  Let's hope it's not necessary.  2016?  After two terms in the Senate--absolutely.

by Thaddeus 2005-12-07 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama
I completely agree that Obama's race is a big unknown. But I don't think that it can be "offset" with experience. Some people will be concerned about Obama's race no matter how experienced he is. Experience is not a necessity by any means. It certainly wasn't needed by W in '00 or '04. And in '04, when people were surely feeling more unsafe than they will be in '08, experience didn't help Kerry much at all.

At the end of the day, most people will not be "assured in terms of international relations" by a candidate's resume. Very few people outside of the Beltway know or even care that Clark has a huge amount of military and foreign affairs experience. What they care about is how the candidate talks. Reagan and Clinton talked in a positive way that got people to trust and like them viscerally. W did that to some extent, too. Gore and Kerry just don't have that quality. But Obama does. Support someone like Obama for president, and let him appoint someone like Clark as Secretary of Defense.

by nstrauss 2005-12-07 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama
Couldn't agree more. Whoever follows the classless act we have in the White House now is going to be facing MAJOR problems. We have mountains of debt, global warming issues, limited future oil supplies, etc., etc. I don't envy whoever has the job next, because Bush has screwed up just about everything it is possible to screw up.
Obama is my senator, and I think he's doing an okay job so far, although I also think that Durbin is light years ahead of Obama as a senator. My personal choice for janitor in 2008 is Gore. He knows how to get things done. He knows who the smart and savvy players are to put into managerial slots, and he truly espouses the ideals of Democrats.
by grayslady 2005-12-07 11:08AM | 0 recs
The Race Issue Will Be a Factor, Sure...
...and we will lose some swing voters b/c of it. But the turnout of new voters who have never voted before will more than make up for it.

Yes, the Race Issue is a big unknown. Which, i think is a good thing. We already know that Northeasterners can't win, that we have no solid Midwesterners outside Obama, and that Southerners aren't liberal enough for our base to be a safe bet (though they're our best bet these days).

So? What are we left with? Let's try something new! Even if Obama loses, we'll have learned a lot. All we learned from Kerry was that Dukakis can't win.

As for experience:
Gore had more political experience than Bush II.
Dole had more political experience than Clinton.
Bush I had more political experience than Clinton.
While Bush I had more than Dukakis, Reagan ran against 2 very experienced Dem's and won twice.

Experience can be faked. Youth and charisma can't.

by fruddle 2005-12-07 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Illinois is a hotbed...
He's actually pretty clean.  That won't be a problem.  The political corruption here in Illinois is probably why he left for Washington in the first place.  It's too bad.  
by Eric11 2005-12-07 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Illinois is a hotbed...
Not an unusual situation when dealing with political machines.  The clean ones try to seperate themselves by going away or joining the other party, thank goodness we got to keep Obama.
I think he could definitely be a contender in 2008.  As stated here and elsewhere, his positioning in certain situations and the people he is helping (i.e. Byrd and Kaine) would certainly be gold in a presidential election campaign.  
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-12-07 12:00PM | 0 recs
Obama '16
After 2 terms of the Feingold Presidency. He'll just have to beat Clark for the nomination if he decides to run, otherwise Obama will have amassed a 2-term Senate record and probably win handily following a popular and influential two-term presidency.
by KainIIIC 2005-12-07 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama '16
Feingold presidency is not gonna happen till 2016 :)


by NeuvoLiberal 2005-12-07 04:14PM | 0 recs
Sheesh, Obama!
I think to be a good President you have to have an overwhelming amount of experience in government. Look how well Bush is doing.

I cannot understand why people continue to overlook a really good Democratic candidate for President in favor of unkowns, really face up to it, like Obama.

Al Gore is the guy for 2008.

And by the way I'd sure like to see how he'd do in a MdDD straw pole.

If yer can put Vilsak in a poll....

You can certainly see how Al would do.

Really pathetic.

by Pericles 2005-12-07 08:48PM | 0 recs
Presidents who were elected President through an
election- and their occupation while they were a Presidential Candidate.
1)George Washington-VA-1788- former Commander in Chief of the Continental Army(military General)
2)John Adams-MA-1796- current Vice President
3)Thomas Jefferson-VA-1800-current Vice President
4)James Madison-VA-1808-current Secretary of State
5)James Monroe-VA-1816-former Secretary of War
6)John Quincy Adams-MA-1824-current Secretary of State.
7)Andrew Jackson-SC-1828-former Military General-former 1824 Presidential Candidate.(Democrat)1 1
8)Martin Van Buren-NY-1836-current Vice President(Democrat)2 1 1
9)William Henry Harrison-OH-1840-former US Senator-former Presidential Candidate
11)Jame K Polk-TN-1844-Former US Congressman(Democrat)3 2 1
12)Zachary Taylor-VA-1848-Former Military General
14)Franklin Pierce-NH-1852-Former US Senator(Democrat)4 2 1
15)James Buchanan-PA-1856- Current US Ambassodor to UK.(Democrat)5 3 1
16)Abraham Lincoln-IL-1860-Former US Congressman- Former US Senate Candidate.
18)Ullyses S. Grant-OH-1868-Former Military General.
19)Rutherford B Hayes-OH-1876-current Governor
20)James Garfield-OH-1880-current US Congressman
22)Grover Cleveland-NY-1884-current Governor(Democrat)6 4 1
23)Benjamin Harrison-IN-1888-former US Senator
24)Grover Cleveland-NY-1892-former President
25)William McKinley-OH-1896-current Governor
27)William Howard Taft-OH-1908-former Secretary of War.
28)Woodrow Wilson-NJ-1912-Current Governor(Democrat)7 5 2
29)Warren G. Harding-OH-1920-Current US Senator
31)Herbert Hoover-IA-1928-Current Secretary of Commerce.
32)Franklin Delano Roosevelt-NY-1932-current Governor-(Democrat)8 6 3
34)Dwight David Eisenhower-TX-1952-former NATO Supreme Commader(Military General)
35)John F Kennedy-MA-1960-current US Senator(Democrat)9 7 1
37)Richard Nixon-CA-1968-former Vice President
39)Jimmy Carter-GA-1976-former Governor(Democrat)10 3 4
40)Ronald Reagan-CA-1980-former Governor
41)George Bush-TX-1988-current Vice President
42)Bill Clinton-AR-1992-current Governor(Democrat)11 4 5
43)George W Bush-TX-2000-current Governor

11Democratic Presidents became President through an election.
Van Buren

Four were Southerners-

Seven were NorthEasterners
Van Buren

Five were current or Former Governors

Two were Current or Former US Senators
Franklin Pierce
John F Kennedy

Military General-Andrew Jackson
Vice President-Martin Van Buren
US Congressman-James Polk
Ambassador-James Buchanan

Because Majority of the Democratic Presidential Candidates who were elected President were Governors from the NorthEast-

I'd Say that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell- should be the Democratic Nominee for the 2008 Presidential Election.

by CMBurns 2005-12-08 09:25AM | 0 recs
Edwards sunk the ticket
Had Kerry picked an old hand (like Cheney to Bush) he would have one.  Gephardt would have been perfect.  The best run Kerry had was right after the first debate- when he crushed GWB.  But Cheney had his way with Edwards in the VP debate, and thats when the 'mo came off.  

VP selections are more important than ever, now that co-emporer Cheney has shown the way


by bluelaser2 2005-12-08 09:53AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads