silly season?  draft movements?  how about a movement to EXHUME?

http://exhumegoldwater.wordpress.com/

There will be investigations, relevations and I think the political landscape will be transformed in the next six months, maybe even less. Iraq will go from unpopular to radioactive.

How that will play out in the Presidential contest I could not guess.

First, I think this is silly.  The draft Clark movement in my sense was people realizing that there was a great guy out there, and the way to get him to run was to show him he was wanted, he would have money, and he would have supporters.

The point of the Draft Obama movement seems to be to get publicity.

The "drafts" aside:

My basic sense with Obama is that this is where bloggers separate themselves from not only the rest of the grassroots, but the rest of the netroots (for example MoveOn members).  

While a Kos poll puts Obama at even with Edwards and Clark, I am guessing that a Moveon Poll would put him far, far ahead.  

I had this daydream today that Gore comes in late, stomps out the field, and within 1 month is ahead in money and the polls (OK, maybe close in money, not ahead); and on his first day of announcing, says Obama will be his VP.  They crush everyone in sight, and the primary is over before the first vote is cast.

On a personal level, by the way, he has been annoying the living shit out of me for the past two years, by doing basically nothing.  I myself would prefer Clark or Edwards.  At this point, probably Edwards.  

But, anyway, Matt, my rambling basically leads me to this conclusion:  His support is not as shallow as you think, because he represents something that a lot of people instinctively go for.  He has positioned himself, while sounding really corny, as American, in a sense that a lot of people want to think about us:  nice, smart, hopeful, integrated, etc.  Especially for our generation (you and I), I think Obama will be unstoppable if he runs.  And frankly, I think Obama could cement out generation as permanent Democrats.  

Unless, of course, Albert comes back.  Then things change.

My guess is that Congress won't have the Balls to cut war funding completely (as this would play out badly for us) and can't force Bush to bring the troops home.  Bush will ignore any timetable legislation.  Dems should pass a bill that gives congress the power to recall troops and end the war (probably unconstitutional, but not the point) and force Bush to veto the Bill in late 2007, after several time table bills calling for 6 months, 1 year and 2 years pullout (progressively going from 6 months to 2 years).  This shows that we are trying to end the war and Bush and everyone who voted against these bills are in favor of staying forever in Iraq.  Make BRINGING OUR BOYS HOME the centerpiece of congress and the General election campaign (along with Minimum Raise hike, middle class tax relief and healthcare.  If McCain becomes the nom, you ignore his war hero status and hit his refusual to bring our boys home and his support of Bush incompetence in the war.  Every Anti-McCain ad should end with McCain morphing into Bush, or Bush in the background, or a hug with Bush or whatever... same with Any other GOPer.

Bring our Boys home is a winner in 2008.

Here's what Obama ACTUALLY said about the report.

"The Iraq Study Group report is a critical step toward changing course in Iraq.

"In presenting a realistic view of how far the situation has deteriorated, the report avoids the partisan rhetoric that has characterized too much of this debate and offers a unique chance to forge a bipartisan consensus about how to move forward in Iraq.

"I agree with the Study Group's call for a significant redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. As I said a few weeks ago, there are no good options left in Iraq, but I believe a redeployment is the best way to finally reach a political agreement between the warring factions.

"I am also pleased by their call for a regional summit that would include both Iran and Syria, an enhanced Iraqi training program, and their proposal to condition further assistance to progress in Iraq.

"In the coming weeks, I hope the White House will change direction in Iraq by seriously considering the ideas put forward by the Study Group."

So, removing all the triangulating b.s., we have the following:

1. I agree with the criticism of the report about how FUBAR Iraq has gotten.

2. I like sounding "bi-partisan" and am for "consensus" --whatever that means.

3. I support a "significant redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq". The "redeployment" presumably means shifting troops around so fewer of them will be killed and relying more on air-power.

Shades of John Paul Vann (who used B-52s to stop the North Vietnamese offensive in 1972).

4. I support diplomacy with Iran and Syria.

5. I hope that Bush listens to these recommendations.

Well, Bush isn't going to listen to this anymore than he ever listens to anything else. He's not going to suddenly start listening now, when he's never been willing to listen ever before!

All the hype and comments "will Bush listen" are just nonsense! Of COURSE he won't!

He' cherry-pick various "recommendations" from the report, claim that he was doing this stuff all the time, and ignore the parts he doesn't want to hear.

Obama has cleverly staged himself to be the opposite of McCain.

McCain's strategy is to say "If only Bush had listened to me and provided 20,000 more troops we'd have won!"

Obama's strategy is "If only Bush had listened to me and followed the Baker report, we'd have gotten out of Iraq by now!"

I think the worse Iraq looks, the cleaner the campaigning will look from the Democrat. Iraq will be ugly enough for politics and policy and an anti-war Dem will win in a romp (Gore, Obama, Clark, etc.).

If Iraq somehow stabilizes (I give this a 10% chance) then HRC might grind thru on the basis of her machine and a split primary field. HRC vs. anyone will be a very bitter campaign, worse than '04.

I spend a lot of time at the IL State Legislature website reading legislation that Obama introduced - the guy is no triangulating Third Way darling. His language may sound a bit like triangulation but Pastordan at Street Prophets made a pretty compelling case that Obama's language is more about healing then any hitting hot buttons like a list of words authored  by Gingrich. If you don't microanalyze politics then Obama is a superstar. If you do microanalyze politics from a Dem perspective you're going to find warts on any candidate and still vote for them anyway - which is ultimately the point.

http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/ 2006/12/6/121036/367

Note: Zephyr Teachout cast a lot of aspersions about the ethics of some people after the '04 elections without much evidence. I think that sucked.

He was elected in 2004, so he doesn't have his hands dirty in the war authorization vote, but has he said we have to get out? No, he has some vague "let's redeploy so we can find the ponies."

Obama may be coming on strong, but instead of strong my word would be fast. I don't see his strength yet, like you say it is hard to find. I think he is the media's answer, he is easy to get to, jumps at the photo op moments.

But where is his real substance?

 When Howard Dean first emerged as a serious Democratic presidential candidate in 2003, I remember how energized and inspired I felt by his speaking, and how genuine it resonated with me. No triagulation, no apologizing for being a Democrat, no running away from Democratic values, no reluctance to criticize Republicans, no shying away from speaking some very uncomfortable truths. And while Dean had his occasional clumsy incidents, I never doubted that he was one of the few political figures in twenty-first-century America whom one could say was a genuinely admirable man. And that's where his popularity came from -- the rockstar stuff (which has always embarrassed me a bit) developed AFTER he'd established himself as a strong presidential contender and a rare man of integrity in a national political cesspool.

 With Obama, the process seems to be happening backwards. He's FIRST being anointed as a rockstar despite precious little of substance coming out of his rhetoric or his performance as a public official so far. His admirers are nuts about him -- but why? What has be DONE? His speeches, flowery as they are, are in essence still the warmed-over triangulation that the Beltway establishment swoons over but isn't known to do much for real people. With Obama, there's always that little sliver of calculatedness and of careerism that wasn't there with Howard Dean. Dean didn't care about pleasing everyone (and, by God, he certainly was successful in that regard); Obama seems to be TOO eager to please everyone, and that's a thin scaffold indeed for a presidential contender.

  Consider his pet subject, religion. If he wants the Democrats to talk more about religion, it's not like he's lacked for opportunities to LEAD in that regard. He could have taken a strong, principled stand against torture -- and have been happily flanked by fifty national religious leaders as he did so. He could have taken a stong stand against the concept of the Iraq war (not just the execution) -- and had the support of no less formidable a force than the Vatican. He does better on poverty and social injustice, but still appears too reluctant to frame THOSE social issues in a religious context. And that is a colossal waste. The Democrats could OWN religious discourse with the proper messaging, Obama is the perfect vehicle for that messaging -- and he instead lapses into we-need-to-be-nice-to-wingnuts platitudes.

  I want to like Obama, but all this enthusiasm about him just doesn't seem EARNED. It doesn't seem real. It seems like a movement in search of a bandwagon to jump upon. It felt like the complete opposite with Howard Dean.

   Maybe Obama is the real deal. But he's still got to show me.

sigh. i'm so tired of hearing about obama.

the man who tells people like me (atheist, queer) that i have to "make nice" with the fundies or progressives will never have power. ooops, guess that was totally wrong, cf election 06. remind me again: what has he done that warrants  the office of president?

sure, we elect actors and know-nothings all the time to office. but obama has surely fooled a goodly number of "progressives," people who wouldn't give him the time of day, based on his record, but are totally swept away by his race.

i know the man. was at school when he was, know his wife. he's nice, but he's not ready to represent my or the progressive movement's interests in the highest office. believe otherwise at your own risk. i watched how quickly he shed actual progressives from his staff during his initial campaign, and all i can say to his fans here: he'll dump you in a NY minute if he thinks you'll play poorly in peroria.

Barack Obama is a solid, very smart, extremely appealing guy. He is a little less liberal than you might think, and maybe not yet as good a politician as he needs to be. (Disclaimer: he lives in my neighborhood, and long ago I did some volunteer work with his wife. I do not know him personally.)

If he tries a presidential run, he will unfortunately lose, because there is still a great deal of covert (and not so covert) racism in this country. (In the final analysis, I think it was racism that cost Harold Ford his bid for Senator, but that's another story.)

I think he would be a simply wonderful VP, and after four or eight years on that job would be well and truly ready for the presidency. I agree with many posters that Gore/Obama '08 would be a dream ticket.

I'm very concerned that the next election will have several 'celebrity' candidates that will drown-out the voices of the lesser knowns and as a result, we may lose out on an opportunity to elect the best person for the job.  I welcome another '03 primary where a nobody took everyone by storm and so many new and old voters knew something about most of the candidates running as opposed to one familiar name.  

I haven't dug too deep, but so far I like what Tom Vilsack is saying.  And for that matter, he is the only one saying anything at all, the rest is just fluff!  I hope that we'll all take the time to listen to each candidate and hold them accountable for having positions and solutions as opposed to a recognizeable name or a charm school degree.

Nicole S. - Howard Dean Class of '04

With labor on his side (which backed Gephardt last time), Edwards is likely to build on his 2004 support in Iowa. Take Edwards' 32%, add Gephardt's 11%, you get 43%, which is about what I'm estimating.

2004 Iowa Caucus results

All for it...

Draft him, stick him in a uniform, and ship him off to Iraq. That way at least one (Obama IS super-human after all) innocent National Guard Soldier can come home.

Obama has already set-up an unofficial exploratory committee, so he is way past needing to be persuaded to run.  Right now he is doing what every candidate who has not yet announced is doing -- assessing his resources.

It sounds to me like draftobama.org is more interested in positioning itself as the Obama '08 Campaign's inet wing.

"It's not clear to me who his people are - women, labor, youth?  I don't know."

______

Perhaps it's just plain people, not limiting categories, that support Obama.

I'm a little surprised at this Obama thing. But I shouldn't be. He gave one of the best speeches at a Democratic convention in my lifetime.

My biases show, though, when discussing this guy.

I get very nervous when people, in particular Democrats, begin to question the secular foundations of this nation. And in my mind, Obama has done that. I do not question his beliefs and his attempts to articulate a strong religious foundation of his political positions. But his hints that he believes those that aren't faithful to a religion may not have any moral grounding is problematic, at best.

This really strikes at the heart of this nation and its founding. And to be a truly visionary leader a person should be able to articulate their goals in ways that match the vision of the founders of this nation. I still hold the founders of this nation in high regard, despite their serious problems.

Most of our political leadership seem to have lost that understanding of the motivations and the strong intellectual and morally consistent grounding of our Constitution.

Obama has said some things that seem almost retrograde in that respect.

Having said that, I do realize that visionary is not necessarily something that people want out of their political leadership in this country anymore. They may have never wanted that. That's tough to figure out.

Certainly Obama would make a good president. But his attempts (along with the conventional wisdom pushing him in that manner) to position himself as a visionary fall far short. I would, of course, vote for him in a general election.

It is encouraging that the conventional wisdom has accepted that Obama, a black man, and Hillary Clinton, a woman, are listed as possible frontrunners in a presidential election, finally. But the apparent compromises and obvious misrepresentations of what this country is about that get them there are troubling. Obama discounts secularism (a founding principle of this country) in a seemingly crass manner and Clinton chose to vote for a war that most informed people knew would be a mistake.

That's a pretty sad situation for this country to be in. The United States has more promise than that. The Founders of this country, I think, would be disappointed.

phat

Obama actually said, "partisan rhetoric has characterized too much of this debate" about Iraq.

Are you shitting me?  There has been a LACK of truly partisan debate because the Democrats were too lacking in courage to challenge this bullshit war from the beginning.  My God, Obama is the biggest blowbag imaginable and has had his finger in the air since before he got to the Senate.  

Count me as one progressive who CANNOT STAND OBAMA.