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

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.    

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

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.

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?

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.)

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!

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gore'08!