Skip to main content

His name reverberates around Washington like a part of royalty. He was on the cover of Time magazine last week. Chris Matthews got all gushy about him last week on his show.

Who am I talking about? Barak Obama. The man who Oprah Winfrey wants to see as the country's next president. The man is who is being talked about as the next best thing for the Democrats. The man, fresh out of Illinois who is turning heads in a way like this country hasn't see since Bill Clinton, and the man who should NOT run for president in 2008.

I have no doubt that Obama is a rising star in the party. He is very charasmatic, a great speaker, and one day, might make a great president, but today, we need a leader with expierence, who is willing to take on the tough issues like Iraq, the war on terror, plus a whole load of domestic problems like health care, and the environment.

Barak Obama has only been in the Senate for two years. He needs to learn the ropes, and see how the Washington game is played. Granted, there have been lots of people who have run for president with the kind of resume that Obama has, and while some have succeded, many others have failed simply because people didn't trust the fact that they had the expierence to take on the world.

 Obama is a young man, and waitng until 2012, or better yet 2016 would put him in a prime position to make his run. Running right now, as he might, would only serve to make his youth and inexpierence a target for the Republicans to chew him up and spit him out.

Please Barak, stay in the Senate, and don't run for president. You can best help the party as an up and coming leader. Grow some and gain the knowledge that is vital for running for president. Your like a freshman in high school. Wait until your a bit older and a bit wiser, then, and only then will you be ready to take on the most important job in the world.

Originally posted to demswin06 on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:53 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't really feel one way (7+ / 0-)

    or another about Obama.  I just think he should stay out of the headlines unless he is actively campaigning with a 2006 candidate until after the election.  

  •  a lot of things like this (14+ / 0-)

    Obama is a young man, and waitng until 2012, or better yet 2016 would put him in a prime position to make his run. Running right now, as he might, would only serve to make his youth and inexpierence a target for the Republicans to chew him up and spit him out.

    were said about jack kennedy... and that was even a more conservative day than today.

    i think every counsel you've given for why he should are also counsels for why he should run.

    we need youth, we need fresh faces, we need people who are naive to the way "the game is played" because the game, quite simply, isn't worth playing any longer.

    indeed, what we need is far less rigor and much more vigor.

    i hope obama runs, not because i believe he is the best there is, but because i believe that he'll increase the likelihood that new ideas are finally addressed.

  •  one school of thought is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pb, redlami, ChiGirl88

    that Obama will never be more popular than he is at the moment and therefore he should act now, while he is hot.

    Here is a take by some people who know him well:

    http://peoriapundit.com/...

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:58:37 PM PDT

  •  And W had what experience exactly... (10+ / 0-)

    to qualify him as POTUS?

    In the beginning there was nothing...which exploded.

    by lucysdad on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:59:22 PM PDT

    •  and look how well that turned out! (13+ / 0-)

      not that I think obama would be similar, but I'm not sure this argument is a road we want to take..!

    •  Bush's experience as TX governor (6+ / 0-)

      One of the biggest mistakes among many by the Gore campaign was when the candidate was asked if he questioned Bush's qualifications to be President. The answer to that HAD to be YES.  As in, "Yes, I agree with Senator McCain; he's not ready for prime time.  The position of Governor of Texas is mostly a figurehead, a cheerleader.  And Governor Bush does have experience as a cheerleader....etc."

      Of course, we know what Gore said.  And everone except those who later worked on the Kerry campaign should have learned in 2000 that nice guys finish last.

      The governor here is largely a cheerleader, but he does have veto power.  Bush vetoed the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights when he was governor, then claimed credit for it while running for President in 2000; the "liberal media" did not notice this outright lie.  

      Then when the Texas law was challenged by insurance companies in federal court after Bush became President, guess which side his administration took?

      •  TX governor really is a "cheerleader" (0+ / 0-)

        Just in case anyone doubts that the Governor here really is more of a figurehead and "cheerleader", take a look at the Fort Worth paper's endorsement of Bell below.  Don't get me wrong; it's still an important position as a "bully pulpit", but it hardly prepares someone for the Presidency of the U.S.

        http://www.dfw.com/...

    •  The Machine to Put Him There-- (0+ / 0-)

      That's how our system works.

      It'd take an article-level rewrite to give us a system that selected for anything better.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:01:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama for President! (4+ / 0-)

    C'mon!  Get on the bandwagon!

    (I feel an "Obama for President" satiric diary coming on...)

    WOMAN: My cat's in the tree! MY FATHER (a fireman): He'll come down. WOMAN: No he won't! MY FATHER: Have you ever seen a cat skeleton in a tree?

    by Bob Johnson on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 06:59:37 PM PDT

  •  yeah, too soon and too new. (3+ / 0-)

    but that's me!

  •  I'd prefer he wait... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    decafdyke, lezlie, gkn

    ...and KEEP the promise he made before he was elected Senator.

    Nonetheless, it's his decision, and crap or not, people discussing it here isn't really likely to enter into that decision.

  •  Fresh faces are nice but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lezlie, hopscotch1997

    We need someone who has the knowlwdge, leadership, and expierence to move this country forward, and take it out of the hands of the murderous thug named Bush.

  •  its already been decided anyway! (3+ / 0-)

    YELL LOUDER!!!! ........ Hey, what's NION?

    by buhdydharma on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:01:51 PM PDT

  •  These diaries crack me up. (12+ / 0-)

    Big ole giant green lights with STOP written on them. Quit it some more.

  •  I have no opinion on Obama running (13+ / 0-)

    for President but boy, there's a lot of silly stuff in this diary!

    we need a leader with expierence, who is willing to take on the tough issues like Iraq, the war on terror, plus a whole load of domestic problems like health care, and the environment.

    The experience part might be an issue, but "willing to take on the tough issues"?  "Domestic problems"?  Why don't you think Obama's "willing" to take those on.  And while he may not have direct foreign policy experience, in terms of domestic issues he has a strong background.  Most Presidents have little or no foreign policy experience when they enter the office.

    He needs to learn the ropes, and see how the Washington game is played.

    Since every single Presidential candidate is going to be trying to convince voters that they can't even locate Washington D.C. on a map, let alone ever having visited there, I hardly see how more time as a Washington insider will help Obama.  Indeed, a long legislative record is the kiss of death when it comes to Presidential politics.  If he wants to run for President at some future date he'd be best advised to run, not walk, away from Washington as quickly as possible and find some place that needs a new Governor.

    Running right now, as he might, would only serve to make his youth and inexpierence a target for the Republicans to chew him up and spit him out.

    Yeah, let's hope they don't give him more of what they hit him with in the Senate race!  He might not survive another beating like that.

    He said "he's thinking about it".  There's probably fifty to seventy-five people thinking about it.  If he does run, the more likely outcome (given his youth) is that he would wind up as the VP candidate on the ticket with someone else (Edwards?  Clark?) and position himself for a run four or eight years later.

    Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:02:40 PM PDT

    •  Right. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mary Mike, chicago jeff

      good take.

      Edwards/Obama might makes sense as a winning ticket.

      in spite of what cheney does now as VP (which is jack shit) the VP of the U.S. is supposed to act as an ambassador of sorts.. attending other nation's high profile meetings and events-- Obama would be great in such a position and could undo some of the major damage done by the moronic bu$hco.

      "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

      by Superpole on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:08:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not silly stuff, important stuff (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rgdurst

    I think I made some good points.

  •  He's got everything but experience (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary Mike

    I've not seen someone with the tools he's got in a very long time. He's articulate, charismatic, compassionate.

    Jumping out front too early will make him a target for all kinds of savage Repub thuggery.

    Don't blame me, I voted for Bill and Opus.

    by Trim Your Bush on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:05:36 PM PDT

  •  I'll wager... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole

    ...that we'll now have more "Obama for President" diaries just to spite this one.

    We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

    by DH from MD on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:05:54 PM PDT

  •  I don't think he should (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    decafdyke, ChiGirl88

    go for it in 2008...however, he might make a very attractive running mate for whichever democrat ends up with the nomination.  Maybe that's what he's positioning himself for.

    •  I think that's exactly it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tjb22, djm4america, chicago jeff

      Think about it.  2008 is the best time for him to dip his toe in the water.  There's no incumbent.

      If he waits until 2012, he'd be running against an incumbent, either of his own party (and when was the last time that happened successfully?) or of the other party (god forbid).  

      But if he makes a run in 2008, and has a decent showing in the primaries (as I think he would), then he positions himself as the natural choice for VP no matter who is on the top of the ticket.  

      In 2016, he'll have been in the Senate too long.  And I honestly don't see him running for Governor of Illinois, I think Lisa Madigan will be the next Dem candidate for governor.

      "Spoken like a true smartass."

      by ChiGirl88 on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:22:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I worry about two things ... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, lezlie, tjb22, gkn

      What in the name of heaven does he stand for these days besides flogging his book all over TV and posing in glossy mags?

      Yeah, there was his Big Speech in '04, but not much else other than specious votes. (Alito? For godsake, what was he thinking?) His talk is pretty cheap when you look at his voting record.

      And if he should articulate his stand and carry through, I worry whether he'll tank in the South. Below the Mason-Dixon line it isn't all Charlotte and Atlanta and Baltimore.

      However, a good four to eight year stint as someone's Veep will get the nation  used to seeing a black man in the WH. Anyone who doesn't think that is a mighty scary image to a whole lot of folks is kidding himself.

      No matter what the hopefuls say about him being part white and part black ... below a certain latitude in this country, the white part usually vanishes.

      And, since Clinton had the good sense to groom his VP for the run for President rather than keep him in the basement, we've become used to VPs with power. (Let's not talk about Cheney, no one know what he really is besides a Cautionary Tale.) If Obama spends time doing good work on the national scene as an active, powerful VP that can only be to the good.

      Run, Barack, run. But not until you figure out what you're about and then show the voters that you'll carry through -- and for President just yet.

      •  OK, I mean ... (0+ / 0-)

        and NOT for President just yet.

        Low blood sugar levels ... time for supper. ;-)

      •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

        He's given one amazing speech, and he's young and attractive.

        Personally, I think reasons for voting are as stupid as "I'd like to have a beer with him, but not with the other guy" and "I like/don't like his wife."

        You HAVE to prove yourself if you're going to hold the most powerful position (well, it was once) in the world.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by gkn on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:41:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Frank Rich had an interesting take on Obama ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary Mike, chicago jeff

    in today's NY Times Week In Review section.

    It's worth a read. But of course it's behind that damnable NY Times firewall. After raking the senate Democrats over the coals for being too weak-kneed to stand up and question Bush's "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq and then signing on to the disasterous war powers bill, Rich says that he sees no reason for Obama not to run.

    Rich pointed out that Obama has the same level of qualifications and a slightly less skimpy resume than the chimp did in 2000. And he fears that if Obama sits for four more years in the Senate, he'll catch the same degenerative disease of the spine plaguing most Democratic Senators (my words not his).

    It's an interesting take on Obama and the Democrats in the Senate. I'm not sure I agree. But if you can get your hands on the op ed piece without having to fork over some bucks, it's a very thoughtful read, as always, from the always thought-provoking Frank Rich.

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:09:19 PM PDT

  •  I Want Barack Obama To Run (5+ / 0-)


    Out of all of the potential candidates, he's the only I've seen give a speech and connect with people. Almost as good as President Clinton at connecting with an audience.

  •  Obama may be a 'star' but (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, apdva, greenskeeper, gkn

    ..we don't really know who he is. There's an article about him in the current Harpers.  Interesting.  Seems Barack is a veritable money magnet; he's up to his ears in donations from big corporations.  And while his rhetoric sounds kind of nice and uplifting in a sort of liberal way, he is frugal with actual policy proposals.  Perhaps we do not wish to irritate our patrons?

    He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles.jbs haldane on being asked what his study of biology had taught him about the Creator.

    by bodiddley on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:10:41 PM PDT

  •  I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR OBAMA!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rimjob, cedelson

    DAMN RIGHT !!

    he's not on the ballot this year

    Lightin' up Francis

    Personally, I just started a Draft Nader site. As the saying goes, "Fourth Time is the Charm"

    "ma ca ca - yo pee pee"

    by Al Rodgers on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:10:53 PM PDT

  •  I've moved on to 2012, anyway. (3+ / 0-)

    Anyone want to hear how I see 2006, 2008, 2010 play out and hear who I think will run and how I handicap the races?  

    Anyone?  

    Bueller?

  •  Can't imagine I'd vote for him. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dianna

    Not sure why. But he doesn't resonate with me.

    My order is: 1) Feingold.
    1. Gore.
    1. Kerry.
    1. Everyone else.

    Russ Feingold for President!

    by Basil on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:13:18 PM PDT

  •  Obama is not doing it for me. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xanthe, Basil, retired, ohcanada, chicago jeff

    Obama has true charisma and is a statesman, but I want someone who will stand up tall to the forces of darkness that have befallen this country.  I want them to address it explicitly.

    Right now, for me, the only one that can carry that mantle is Al Gore.

    But I think Obama is definitely in the future.

  •  I couldn't disagree more (3+ / 0-)

    There is no other politician out there who has what he has, in terms of charisma, speaking ability, and ability to work with those on the other side of the aisle in a reasonable way (I'm not talking about his dealings with John Media Whore McCain.)
    If he waits, he will simply compile a voting record that will be used against him.  Mark my words on that.   He is incredibly fortunate, with regard to his political fortune (going up against Alan Keyes???  Please...) but I definitely think that the guy can hold his own.  I would love to listen to him in a debate; he could eviscerate any opponent, at least that's my feeling.  Smart guy.

  •  The Conven Trolls are out in full force (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apdva, Grannus, Mary Mike

    If you don't want to see Obama run in 2008, that's your prerogative. I'm sure you've a candidate in mind, but others are going to dismiss him or her just like you're doing now.

    It's a zero sum game here. There are Hillary-haters, Feingold-haters, Kerry-haters, Clark-haters, Vilsack-haters, Richardson-haters, Dodd-haters, the list goes on.

    So stop whining about '08, focus on '06 now.

    The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of crisis, remain neutral.

    by ten10 on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:14:40 PM PDT

    •  Feingold-haters? (3+ / 0-)

      Where are they!

      I WILL TEAR THEM APART! :)

      Russ Feingold for President!

      by Basil on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:16:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hate Feingold's chances of winning the general (2+ / 0-)
      •  See! (0+ / 0-)

        You're a Feingold-hater-hater.

        Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

        by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:21:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ha, I'm one of them (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KeithCPA

        I'm running for cover!! Now!!

        Seriously though, Feingold is the best of the lot. But can he win?

        Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

        by blueday on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:22:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course he can. (0+ / 0-)

          If he can win in a moderate state like Wisconsis THREE times, he can win the generals.

          Russ Feingold for President!

          by Basil on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:23:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is no way America will elect Feingold (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gkn

          Unless the GOP nominates Allen or Brownback or Frist.

          Otherwise -- sorry, it's just not there. Single, intelligent, Jewish senators from the Midwest (or northeast) don't get elected president.

          They don't necessarily win all the Kerry states oh, plus Ohio and Florida.

          Dean would have had a better chance in 04 against Bush than Feingold in 08. I could be wrong. But I don't see him having a better chance than even Hillary. And that's saying something.

          •  You obviously haven't read his history, (0+ / 0-)

            Feingold first became a senator after all the favorite contenders sliced and diced each other and he was left standing using humor and on a shoe string.

            He uses his strenghts to the maximum with limited resources.

            Too much of the right wing narative has seeped into your brain.

            He definitely should be part of the primary process and I would not be surprised if he is not the last man standing.

            What's that smell coming from Fox News, I think Bubba pissed in the corner and made it his territory.

            by KeithCPA on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:59:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Worse than single. (0+ / 0-)

            Single after two divorces.  A viable democratic candidate can't have multiple divorces.  Only republicans.  Like Nixon going to china, or Reagan being the first elected divorced president with a child conceived out of wedlock, or Bush I the only figure who kept a mistress publically but discretely, it will take a nomination of Gingrich for muliple divorced men to win the presidency.  Multiple divorced women, welll, probably never.

      •  I don't hate Feingold.. (0+ / 0-)

        I actually think he's one of our best senators, he one of the few who has a REAL backbone in washington.

        I just don't think he could win the primaries, let alone the general.

        In a perfect world maybe.

        Don't tear me apart! I was honest!!!

        "I have not yet begun to fight" --John Paul Jones, Father of The United States Navy

        by djm4america on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:58:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Experience vs. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gkn
    Who he would select for all the cabinet posts, CoS, VP, etc. I don't think half as many people would have voted for Bush had they known they were putting Nixon's staff back into the White House.

    That hardly ever gets the attention it needs before selecting a nominee, and I think it's one of the most critical pieces of the presidency. In Obama's case, what relationships has he established that would help round out his cabinet with loyal, trustworthy, qualified, honest people?

  •  two thousand and six (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Al Rodgers, DH from MD, begone, buddabelly

    2006

    2006

    2006

    2006

    2006!

    focus, people. seriously. this stuff can wait.

    TWO THOUSAND AND SIX!

    "joke about the rapture here"

    send NYBri to the NY state senate!

    by lipris on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:15:42 PM PDT

  •  He's coming to Washington State next Thursday (0+ / 0-)

    and I am going to se him.  

    demswin06 - Don't know what you are talking about - he is very gifted as a speaker and highly intelligent.  Obama is very qualified to run our country now and/or in 2012 or 2016.  We don't see too many people like him so if he runs I will back him.  

    Whatever happens I will be doing everything possible to get the Dem nominee elected.  

    The extreme right is the greatest threat America has ever faced

    by BeRad43 on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:18:18 PM PDT

  •  Presidential Candidates have 10 year shelf life (0+ / 0-)

    I saw a study once suggesting that, with very rare exceptions, Presidential candidates that win have usually been on the national stage less than a decade; those who have been around longer often run, but almost never win.  (Sorry Hillary and Al.  Well, not really.)

    Depending on your definition of national stage, it seems to fit reasonably well at least back to the 1910s (where I start getting hazy -- how long was Wilson well known before his election?  TR?

    So Obama, an unusually prominent senator, might be stale by 2012...

    And the McCain tiff did seem designed to try and create some baggage to distort in the future, so Republicans seem to fear him...

    Anybody seen my owl?

    by Minerva on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:18:20 PM PDT

    •  Some Candidates' Appeal Grew Over Decades (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gkn

      Ronald Reagan-- First ran for President in 1968 and 3rd at GOP convention. Ran again in 1976 and 2nd in GOP primaries. Elected 1980.

      George H.W. Bush--Lost Senate race in 1970. GOP Chairman, UN Ambassador, CIA Director during 1970s.  2nd in GOP primaries in 1980. Chosen as VP in 1980. Elected President 1988.  

      Richard Nixon-- Elected VP in 1952.  Nearly dropped from ticket before 1956. GOP candidate and lost to JFK in 1960. Retired from politics in 1962 after losing CA Governor race. Elected President in 1968 comeback.

      Franklin Roosevelt-- 1920 Dem nominee for Vice President.  Elected President in 1932.

  •  My Dream Administration: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hoof32, gkn

    President: Feingold
    Vice President: Kerry
    Sec of State: Gore
    Sec of Defense: Murtha
    Attorney General: Ron Paul
    Ambassador to UN: George W Bush
    Ambassador to France: Dick Cheney

    Russ Feingold for President!

    by Basil on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:19:01 PM PDT

    •  No. (5+ / 0-)

      I have a recurring day dream in which the next Democrat President appoints Bush Ambassador to Iraq so he can clear up the few minor issues still remaining in that healthy Democracy, and also receive the warm reception from the liberated Iraqi people that he so richly deserves.  And then has him immediately escorted onto a plane by a group of reservist MPs and flown to Baghdad.

      Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

      by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:24:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush to the UN? (0+ / 0-)

      I think Dubya would be taking a lot of timeouts for bathroom breaks.

      Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

      by blueday on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:26:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Biden SecState (0+ / 0-)

      Whatever you think of his domestic politics, he's a master when it comes to FR and the kind of guy who could talk Europe into helping us clean up some of our messes.

    •  MY DREAM ADMIN!!! (0+ / 0-)

      Prez- Wes Clark
      VP- Barack Obama

      Agriculture Sec- Tom Vilsack
      Commerce Sec - Frederick W. Smith
      Defense Sec - Toni Zinni
      Education Sec - Christine Gregoire
      Energy Sec - Bill Richardson
      Health & Human Services - Howard Dean
      Homeland Security - Richard A. Clarke
      Housing Sec -Jesse Jackson, Jr.
      Interior - Gary Locke
      Atty General - John Edwards
      Labor- Antonio Villaraigosa
      Sec of State - Joe Biden
      Transportation - Tim Kaine
      Treasury - Gary Gensler
      Veterans Affairs- Claudia Kennedy
      EPA - Albert Gore Jr
      Ambassador to the United Nations - Richard Holbrooke

      "I have not yet begun to fight" --John Paul Jones, Father of The United States Navy

      by djm4america on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 04:03:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Look for a free-for-all if Hillary says no to '08 (0+ / 0-)

    Folks, stop wasting your time on '08 candidates this early in the game. Its getting bizzare. I mean, who even thought Mark Warner was going to drop out of the race???

    Nothing is predictable at this point.

    Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

    by blueday on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:19:48 PM PDT

  •  look, we already know he's the next nominee (0+ / 0-)

    the real question is, who will the veep nominee be?  

    And when will we start seeing the diaries about "STOP Talking about [Possibility #Umpteen] for Veep!" diaries."

    For the first, may I propose:

    "Please STOP the Mark Warner for Veep Crap."

  •  My 2 cents. (0+ / 0-)

    When I heard the Republican pundits promoting Obama in 2008, I figured they must consider him a sure looser. Rove at work.

  •  he will run and he will win (7+ / 0-)

    Why write him off?  He's the real deal.  If he runs in 2008, he will cruise to victory and make history.  If he waits until 2012 or 2016, he will only have become more of a creature of Washington -- plus we'll have lost our most charismatic candidate for 2008.

    Yes, I'd prefer an Al Gore or a Russ Feingold from a strictly policy point of view.  But those guys don't set a room on fire the way Obama does.  Obama is a rock star, the media adores him, and nothing - certainly not a washed-up crankpot like John McCain - is gonna stop him.

    My dream ticket might be Obama/Schweitzer or Obama/RFK Jr.  Or how about Obama/Gore.  Gore is known to be a fantastic VP.  But forget about putting Obama in the VP slot - he will completely overshadow whoever is supposed to be on the ticket above him.

    A group of friends and I saw Obama speak last week at a fundraiser for Sheldon Whitehouse.  The man brings a whole new frame of reference to political speechmaking.  He can tell a story, he works in anecdotes - he knows his history and thinks broadly and creatively, that's clear.  He interacts with the crowd as dynamically and easily as the Big Dawg ever did.  At the end of the evening, there wasn't a single one of us in the group who wasn't sold on him as a candidate for `08.

    As far as the race issue, the number of hard-core racists who wouldn't vote for a black guy is probably way smaller than the number of minority citizens who would go out of their way to vote for him to make history.

    Run Obama run.

    Use your green to turn New England blue! Donate here.

    by jab on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:24:21 PM PDT

  •  What about Eliot Spitzer? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997

    I'm noncommital about Obama...he still seems wet behind the ears to me.
    I adore Feingold (but have been told endlessly that he'd never win)...
    also like Gore, Possibly Edwards..(NOT Kerry or Hilary)...but I'm beginning to wonder about Eliot Spitzer. Will he win the Governorship? Would he be president material?

    Just asking...

    •  Spitzer'll definitely win Governor (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gkn

      He might have ambitions on 2016 (or 2012 but I'm hoping we're backing an incumbent in that one).  But he's not going to skip from AG to Gov to an immediate race for President.  If nothing else it'd be too tiring and he doesn't yet have any executive experience.  But I could definitely see him as a VP or even a Pres candidate in the future.

      "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

      by Mike McL on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:12:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As far as the experience thing is concerned... (4+ / 0-)

    It's one thing to consider, but it's not everything.

    Experience does count, but I think a more important quality for a president is intellect, and a willingness to consider new ideas and different perspectives.  That's what George Bush lacks as a president, and I think it's what someone like Barak Obama would bring to the presidency.

    In 2008, Obama will have been in the United States Senate for four years.  That's the exact amount of time Robert Kennedy spent in the U.S. Senate before he ran for President in 1968.  And there's no doubt in my mind that he'd have made a great president.  And Abraham Lincoln had only served a few terms in Congress when he was elected president, and he was a great president.

    I don't know whether or not Obama should be our nominee.  We have a lot of great people who might run, people like Wes Clark and John Edwards.  But I do think that we shouldn't dismiss Obama out of hand.  We should wait until we've had the chance to see him along side all of our other potential nominees, and make our decision based on how he stacks up.

    •  Lincoln served two years in the House (0+ / 0-)

      That's the extent of his time in national political office.  He didn't run for re-election, because it was clear that his strident opposition to the popular Mexican-American War would have made it impossible for him to win.  He then ran for Senate against Stephen Douglas and lost.  That's the sum total of his experience in national politics before he ran for President.  

      Other than that, he had served 4 terms (which at the time meant 8 years) in the Illinois State House of Representatives.  At the time of his election to the Senate, Obama had also served 8 years in the Illinois state legislature (in his case, the State Senate).  So in 2008, Obama will actually have served 2 more years in elective office than Lincoln had when he was elected President.

      Obama isn't my personal favorite candidate (that's Wes Clark), but he isn't as ridiculously inexperienced as many of his detractors claim.  And not only did he SERVE in the Illinois State Senate, he was a LEADER in it, serving as chairman of the Public Health and Welfare Committee, and actually getting some important legislation enacted.

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

      by leevank on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:54:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  he lost me.. (0+ / 0-)

    ...with the poo-pooing of faith based groups in schools, which is a slap at the establishment clause of the constitution because equal access to these groups are limited by the requirement to have a sponsor for your religion's group.

    what teacher (usual sponsors) will sponsor a muslim group in an alabama school mr. obama?  what about the wiccans?  whatever it takes to get elected...

    Obama has been serving the DLC kool-aid word for word for awhile now...

    •  Your standards --- every corner, every detail (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leevank, blueday, Mike McL

      must be covered, accounted for or else: I CAST THEE OUT!

      it's so funny here in kos-ville. The dogmatic. The purists. Who is good enough for you? Does winning a goddamn election even matter? It's so silly here. Let's all join hands and feel good about the purist of the pure and jump off the bridge together.

      That seems to be what so many here would prefer.
      Rather than sacrifice a couple of issues here and there for the much greater good.

      It's a fuzzy, ever changing line for all of us. But after so much darkness -- I'd expect a little more common sense and will to win in kos-ville than I've seen lately (Only referring to '08 that is).

      Hope most of these folks come around. Then again, we may not need you. I hear Nader may run again.

      •  The purists don't even want to talk about faith (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leevank, joemcginnissjr, ChiGirl88

        Like its some kind of disease. There are certainly some fringe elements here on dkos.

        Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

        by blueday on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:39:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Man (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a gnostic, lemming22

        Are you this sanctimonious in real life or did you save it all up for this diary?

        (And several people have stated that Feingold is good enough for them, but apparently you've read the tea leaves and determined he has no chance, so I guess he doesn't count).

        •  saved it up ... but really, this Obama hate is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike McL

          unsettling to say the least.

          And the purists here -- oh god, are there that many so willing to piss away elections?

          I did, sincerely, ask how Feingold might win and no one can come up with a way. It strikes me as self-defeating and juvenile -- people's attitudes about Obama and candidates who offer some optimism and the potential for building a winning coalition.

          What is that all about if not dogmatism? It certainly doesn't seem very wise.

          •  Uh (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a gnostic

            Since one of Feingold's stengths is that he's respected by libertarians as some one who will really to go all out in defense of the constitution and he is on relatively good terms with the NRA (for a Dem,; he does very well way north of Madison in rural Wisconsin too), I don't see how Feingold can be attacked as a liberal "purist," or whatever it is you're all in a lather about.

            The fact that he was one of the few Dems who had the cojones to stand up to Bush before it was popular doesn't make him a purist, it makes him half-way intelligent and braver than most of his peers.

            I don't see why his ability to garner votes in rural Wisconsin can't be exported to, say, Montana, Ohio, and Colorado.

            And what's Obama offered up? He's won one election against a joke candidate. Slayer of Illinois temp-resident Alan Keyes. Wow, how impressive.

            •  now, now...come on, you know he's got more going (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mike McL

              on than beating keyes. Please. If we're going to disagree lets at least stick to the facts.

              Feingold -- good man, great senator -- and your opinion is that he represents the best chance the Dems have at winning the general election in 2008.

              Fair enough. I disagree 100%. I think Russ Feingold loses 30-40 states.

              Obama's personal story is compelling. And that matters in campaigns. Biography counts. So does intelligence. Harvard Law Review. Civil rights attorney. Community organizer. The man came from very little economically and knows what it means to struggle, to work hard, to overcome pretty long odds.

              And people dig him. He wins people over. At least take a look at the guy's story before you write him off because he hasn't been in Washington long enough.

            •  Obama offers hope, promise (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joemcginnissjr

              He's JFK.  Who would've thought a Catholic kid could've won the 1960 presidential election?  Kennedy didn't have a crapload of experience.  And most of what he did have was bought with his father's money.  So what that Obama's race for Senate was against a clown?  He was an Illinois state politician before that.  Kinda like Abe Lincoln, except Lincoln lost in his race for US Senate.

              Feingold is an insider.  Not in the sense of a "beltway insider" but in the sense that only people who follow politics or live in or really close to his state know who he is.  That's not a deteriment, e.g. Bill Clinton, but it takes a hell of a candidacy and a hell of a dynamic and magnetic candidate to pull that off.  I just don't see Feingold as being good enough at connecting with and charming the pants off of people (outside those who already in his fan club).  Feingold's also been in the Senate too long and thus speaks like and has the record of a Senator.  Obama is already starting to develop that and needs to jump out of the Senate (perhaps to Governor if not President) soon before he completely gets trapped in that Senate aura of badness.

              I've got a darkhorse proposal for you, though.  Schweitzer.  Yeah, the governor of Montana.  He's a solid Democrat but also a bit of a libertarian.  He's got a very good handle on the energy problems this country faces and is actually working on solutions for them.  He's got great credentials as far as balancing the budget.  He's personable.  He's got executive experience.  And heck, he's a rancher.  Who can't like a rancher?

              Anyway, I think you dismiss Obama too quickly and ignore Feingold's faults too easily.  Everyone (rightly) admires and loves Feingold for standing up to the DLC insiders and giving them the finger.  He did the same thing to Bush with his early votes after September 11.  But I don't know how much of that is brilliance and how much of that is just pure, ruthless principle.  I think a lot of it is the latter and that's why I don't think Feingold would make a great president.  Great senator, definitely, but I just don't know about him as a president.

              "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

              by Mike McL on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:58:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  thanks for that.. (0+ / 0-)

          ...standing on principle rather than propagating political expediency like that other person isn't always popular.

          thanks again.

    •  The Senator is correct on that one (0+ / 0-)

      There's more to the Constitution than the establishment clause.  For instance, there's also, in the very same amendment, another clause that applies equally as much.  Here's the text of the First Amendment, just as a refresher:

       

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      I'm sorry, there're actually two rights implicated.  The establishment clause itself is also an argument in favor of Obama's position.  

      "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" and "Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people peaceably to assemble."  Add those two together and you get the right for groups of any nature, religious or otherwise, to assemble in schools.  The only way they could deny religion-based groups would be to deny all groups.  Otherwise they are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  The Sup. Ct. has been quite clear that once the government opens up a forum (such as a school) for a purpose (such as allowing groups of students to convene after school hours), they cannot make content-based restrictions (outside of preventing obscenity, etc.) as to which groups they will and won't allow.

      They can however (and even have a responsibility to) set reasonable restrictions on groups that meet in the school such as "there must be a responsible adult present during the meeting of the group".  An Imam or other adult Muslim would serve that purpose adequately in the case of a Muslim group.  Just about anybody who doesn't have a criminal record would suffice for a Wiccan group (given the openness and lack of hierarchical structure in Wicca).  You say that nobody will serve.  I think people would.  Your assumption, I'm guessing, is that they'd be harrassed, perhaps threatened, slightly possibly even harmed.  Well the Civil Rights movement only came about because everyday people stood up and said 'fuck it, I'm tired of this shit and I don't care what you say or do or threaten.'  I think there are still people like that out there.  And I think that if they are needed, they'll come out of the woodwork.  Maybe I'm an idealist.  Maybe the country has all gone to shit and we are a crumbling empire.  But I'd rather think that the best America has to give the world is still in the future.  So shoot me.

      "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

      by Mike McL on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:36:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, Wes Clark... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Grand Poobah, gkn, Montague

    I should have mentioned Wes Clark in my previous post. I supported his campaign the last time around, & would do it again. My only thought is that maybe he'd make a better sec'y of state...He's a terrific human being, tho.

    •  He would make a better president than anyone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gkn

      Since that's a more important position than secretary of state, I want Clark to run for president and I'll support him again in a heartbeat.  But Clark himself will not discuss the presidency right now.  He knows that the only thing that matters right now is getting Democrats elected in November.  That's one of the many things I like about him.

  •  let the process run its course (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChiGirl88, chicago jeff

    If Obama really is too inexeprienced to be president in 2008 (and I'm undecided about that point), the 2008 primary cycle will weed him out early.

    Let the process run its course. We're already looking at a huge primary field, with tons of other names being tossed around as potential candidates. For starters, there are (in alphabetical order) Bayh, Biden, Clark, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Edwards, Feingold, Kerry, Richardson, Vilsack, not to mention a few elder statesmen like Gore who might get into the race.

    The point being, if Obama's not ready for prime time, it will be painfully apparent in the primaries.

    •  Sure, There's Plenty of Potential (0+ / 0-)

      candidates out there-- but most (Biden, Bayh, Kerry, Clark, etc.) aren't worth a crap and have no hope of generating the kind of BUZZ and momentum the dems clearly need.

      again, it's simply not enough that the repugs are crashing and burning to the ground-- voters expect that to some degree ("what's that? the repugs are corrupt criminals? heh-- what else is new?"). you still have to motivate people to vote, particularly in key states.

      HRC is simply too controversial, too much baggage.. too easy to effectively attack by Herr Rove (or whomever his clone replacement will be).

      Feingold's Jewish, so he's out.

      that leaves Edwards..

      "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

      by Superpole on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:40:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you miss my point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Superpole

        I have no idea at this point who the nominee should be or would be. But I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of the candidates.

        As I alluded to in my above comment (which I think you miss the point of), the primary process is there for a reason. If Democrats at-large aren't ready for a nominee who is (a) controversial, (b) too inexperienced, or © of a particular background, they will have a chance to make those concerns known by voting in the primaries. I'm not going to try to second-guess how people vote.

        BTW, I refuse to diss potential candidates because of their religious background. As progressives, we should be way past that at this point. There's got to be first time for everything.

        •  To Clarify: (0+ / 0-)

          I'm a realist-- not a dreamer.

          I highly respect and admire Russ Feingold. even tho' I do not live in his district, I've written him several times over the years and thanked him for his work on certain issues.

          I personally would support a Feingold POTUS candidacy, however, I'm a liberal-- millions of Americans are not and they are not going to vote for Feingold.

          re: disagreeing with my assessment of candidates-- that's fine.. no problem.

          but here's my record:

          1.) I correctly predicted Gore would lose to Bush in 2000-- in spite of the fact hundreds of people at Salon's website insisted Gore would win by a landslide.

          2.) In 2004 I correctly predicted the dinosaurs in Iowa and the rest of the crucial primary states would choose Kerry over Dean (a true progressive) and I further predicted Kerry would pick Edwards as his running mate.

          3.) I correctly predicted Kerry/Edwards would lose to Bush/Cheney.

          my record speaks for itself. I've been observing our system for over thirty years now-- I know what I'm talking about.

          as far as "the people" picking the candidates in the primaries-- you're wrong. the actual decision point  is WHO picks the candidates who run in the primaries?

          certain decisions have already been made prior to the voters voting in the primaries.

          "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

          by Superpole on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:35:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Superpole

            walking on realist ground and reading any poll during 1999-2000  would have predicted a "landslide" for Gore at any time during that period. Look for yourself: Trend, 1999.

            •  Hey, I Agree (0+ / 0-)

              I'm just stating the facts--

              I was over on Salon's website for a good eighteen months prior to the 2000 election.

              every single person there in the public discussion room insisted Gore was going to win, they were laughing at bush, many predicted a landslide victory for Gore-- and so did pundits outside of the Salon.

              if you're saying these people were not realists, you're correct. unfortunately many of the same sort of people are here now-- making the same sort of baseless assumptions and predictions, asking for Gore to run again, etc.

              "Peace is not the absence of war; it is a virtue; a state of mind; a disposition for benevolence; confidence; and justice." Spinoza

              by Superpole on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 05:34:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Dodd and Vilsack (0+ / 0-)

      are absolutely doing it to jockey for potential cabinet positions.  The same may well be true of a few more, like Daschle, because there ain't no freaking way he could win.

      I do wish some of these people would butt out.  I believe in democracy and all, but it just waters down the amount of money we Dems can donate to campaigns, causes the candidates to beat each other up and partly do the Rethugs' job for them, wastes time in debates because there are too many people and not enough time.

      Kerry had his chance and messed up.  Goodbye.

      Feingold is a great senator.  I think he is too liberal to get elected nationwide, but I remain open on that question and willing to see what happens.

      Biden - jeez, dude, how many times are you going to do this?  It's boring, like you.

      Bayh - yawn.  Go away.

      Clinton - no more hereditary presidencies, please.  And the rightwing would rise up to fight her like nothing we've ever seen.  Can't win.

  •  Obama for VP? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pb

    I think Obama would make a great 2008 VP candidate. I dont think i'd like him for the top of the ticket. But the VP slot would be good.

    Real beauty is seldom appreciated by popular culture

    by Mikesco on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:33:44 PM PDT

  •  I'm pissed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997, apdva, gkn

    because Obama's quasi announcement right now is shiny distractive stuff. If we fuck up in 2006, there will be no 2008.

    I've been unimpressed by him and this latest hints at presidential aspirations just doesn't rock my boat. I can't even understand why anyone is talking about 2008 right now

  •  I'm not for him now, and here's why (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997, gkn

    Here's a great orator. No question. An asset to whatever cause he takes. But he hasn't asserted himself as a leader. More or less, he's been eloquently sniping from the sidelines. The religion thing is the number one example. He sees a problem with how Dems handle religion. So how does he respond. Help turn the Dem caucus onto a path he finds more reasonable? Deliver a paradigm-shifting oration on just how much Dems do respect the Christian faith? Nah. He gives a speech saying "I have a problem with how Dems handle religion." It accomplishes absolutely nothing except to keep his name in the news.

    Obama's got to step up and prove his intent and his abilities before I'll hand him the keys to the nation.

    -4.75, -5.08 Be yourself. Imitation is suicide. -Andre Gide

    by ripzaw on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:36:32 PM PDT

  •  A good FUTURE candidate (2+ / 0-)

    I agree that Obama has GREAT potential. He needs more experience, though. The only thing that bothers me is that I do not think the Writ of Habeas Corpus should be suspended AT ALL. Didn't Barak Obama side with McCain to amend to accept the proposal but with a 5-year "sunshine" rule -- that they look at it again in 5 years?

    If I understood that correctly, I disagree. That was one issue that should not have been compromised on. The Writ of Habeas Corpus should not have been suspended AT ALL. Looking at it again in 5 years does not erase the disaster that suspending it is.

  •  just a reminder--chill (0+ / 0-)

    Folks, it's fun to speculate about 2008. There's some fun discussion in this diary, but I also see some unintended (or at least unthoughtful) nastiness.

    This is just to take Granny Doc's excellent advice from earlier today: Chill

  •  You couldnt be more wrong! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leevank, ChiGirl88, ohcanada, chicago jeff

    Obama's time is now.  He is not like a rare red wine that will only improve with age after thousands of senate votes, mistakes, and compromises.

    Obama is everything Bush is not.  He is one of the best public speakers on either side if not THE best.  He comes off as a man of principle who stands for what he believes in.  He has that rare ability to reel of quotable sound bites to any attack or challenge, making the attacker just look like an asshole for daring to attack him.  He for the most part stands for what Democrats believe in and has the leadership quality to carry out those ideas.  As president he will be liked.  And more then likely he will have to function for some of his term with a split congress or (hopefully not) a fully Republican congress.  THey will fight and resist Obama's agenda at their own peril.

    In a perfect world Al Gore would be president and we would all applaud as he passed his Carbon tax to raise gas prices to $6 per gallon.  We all know this is not saleable to this country with a Gore presidency.  I would say the only way this happens is if there is another catastrophic attack.  That moment could be used as a call to sacrifice short term for the longterm good of being less oil dependant.

    Its so simple.  We are an oil consuming nation and all the countries that are causing us problems are the producers.  Lets use our technology to use less oil.  Lets never forget that element of commmon cause for our Dear Leader's war on terror.  Everything is about power and money for them including this.  Those are not Republican values.  Those are Rethug values and a good Dem leader like Obama could expose that and sell that to the public.  Maybe even Sean Hannity's Escalade collection will become a point of question.

    Maybe Obama could hire Gore into his cabinate.  Gore is a good man, a man with experience, but not presidential material.  A good leader surrounds himself with good people.  Bush has been a shocking failure in this respect has he seems to have found the worst people to help him and fired everyone that was competant (ie Powel, Clark, god knows who else).

    How wise have other seasoned leaders become like perpetually rising start Joe Biden?

    As a final note your diary sounds like something you transribed from Rethug talking points.  You dont sound like a Kossack or someone that understands what presidential material is.  SOrry for the rant, infact i almost regret adding yet another comment to this stupid diary.  

    This is my first Daily kos post btw.  I love this site.  Im from the PA-06 and working hard to sweep the red out of the suburbs here.  I think we will do it.  My only worry is Murphy/Fitzpatrick.

  •  I agree and in addition (0+ / 0-)

    I think he should run for Governor or be VP first.

  •  how about he run for iL gov? (0+ / 0-)

    Let him earn some executive cred while cleaning up the sludge in the ill state party. given the whole bipartisan shitck, he can clean up both sides.

    pull THAT off and add the grimy nuts and bolts work of being a cheif executive to the more high-minded senatorial exp, and I'd be inclined to vote for him.

  •  I think he should run.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chicago jeff

    if he wants to.  I think experience in washington makes almost no difference in terms of elections and even less in terms of how well a person will do.  Good people with real messages are hard to come by..... if the Democrats have anyone with mass appeal that wants the gig he should be supported.

  •  Obama's a subversive out to demolish the right. (0+ / 0-)

    He's like a therapist, building rapport and trust -- not fake, but skillfully and fully aware of what he's doing -- and before you know it, those people who dislike US and would never vote for US are thinking maybe we're not so bad after all and maybe I need to grow a bit.

    Then the new MAINSTREAM is progressive, not regressive.

    Healthcare, civil rights, peacemaking before war, fairer distribution of wealth, etc. become the status quo.

    Sneaky, isn't it?

  •  Until the midterms are over (0+ / 0-)

    it is very unseemly for any Democrat to hint at an interest in the presidency.  And by that, yes, I mean HRC and Kerry should immediately hand over at least 30% of their cash-on-hand to other Democrats who are running tight races for Congressional seats.  And Obama should say nothing beyond, "I want Democrats to get control of the House and the Senate in the election and nothing else matters right now."

  •  They say stripes make you look thinner, no ? (2+ / 1-)

    "ma ca ca - yo pee pee"

    by Al Rodgers on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 07:57:44 PM PDT

    •  Why is this here? Really. WHY is this here? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Al Rodgers

      Left. Because it's right.

      by 4thepeople on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:14:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mr. Rodgers, this is offensive. (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Al Rodgers
      Hidden by:
      Sam Spencer for County Commissioner

      It really is. I wish TUs would TR this off.  It contributes nothing to the discussion on this site, and it is, frankly, insulting to the people who come to this site for intelligent conversation ...or even clever snark.  But this is just sexist bs.

      Left. Because it's right.

      by 4thepeople on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:19:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You Red Sox fans have no sense of humor nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rimjob

        "ma ca ca - yo pee pee"

        by Al Rodgers on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:21:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not gonna get into a flame war with you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Al Rodgers

          I've got a sense of humor (although I'm a Yankees fan); it's that these pictures go too far.  It's really sexist.  If you can't or don't see why this is offensive, then there's really nothing I can say.

          Left. Because it's right.

          by 4thepeople on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:36:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know why you're so threatened by women (0+ / 0-)

            thats my conclusion based on your intense reaction here and your lack of reaction to the the beefcake pix (also in this thread).

            Frankly I'm STUNNED!

            I had no idea John Ashcroft was Yankee fan and posting to this site under an assumed name..  

            John, I thought you were busy veiling clay breasts.

            you're a real BOOB, john.

            "ma ca ca - yo pee pee"

            by Al Rodgers on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:54:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry you feel the need to insult me (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Al Rodgers, gkn

              I've been careful not to insult you, and I'm sticking to my promise not to get into a flame war; you're egging, I'm not taking the bait.  

              I still think these pictures are sexist and inappropriate to this site, but I do take to heart Granny Doc's diary, up now, that advises us all to "Chill."  So, I'll chill.

              Please, though, consider how pictures like these might be offensive, and consider saving them for some other venue.

              Left. Because it's right.

              by 4thepeople on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 09:16:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you're so funny. (0+ / 0-)

                DAMN IT

                if only bush hadn't impeded stem cell research.  perhaps by now, they would have found a way to transplant a funny bone.

                Oh, Oh!  the cops are knocking on my door.

                digya hear that, they said "toss out the erica jong poetry and come out with hands up, fully clothed !"

                Crikey!

                "ma ca ca - yo pee pee"

                by Al Rodgers on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 09:27:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  What's more offensive... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Al Rodgers

            those pics or pics of women wearing burkas?  If the woman in the pictures was forced into dressing a certain way against her will then they'd be offensive.  I don't see any signs of coercion.  I can't imagine any coercion in this case.  What's sexist and offensive is the fundamentalist crap going on around the world in countries we actually support and/or have troops in.  If a woman wants to wear a bikini, fine.  If a woman wants to wear a burka, fine.  But if a woman is forced to dress a certain way then it's not fine.  Society imposing a certain dress code on a specific gender is sexist, no matter what the dress code.  Granted I'm not going to argue for nudists on the subways, but if a bunch of adults want to go somewhere private and leave their clothes behind, that's their business.  Just like if this woman wants to be in a magazine wearing a bikini it's her business.

            I see these pics as a social commentary on the nature of this diary and I happen to agree with it.  The diarist's main point is that we shouldn't discuss or consider Obama as a presidential candidate because he or she doesn't think Obama should be the candidate (or would be able to win the nomination (or whatever)).  In any event, the diary is an ineffective attempt to rule by fiat or an effective attempt to get attention.  Either way, the diary itself seems pretty pointless.  As pointless as posting pictures of a nice looking woman in clothing that accentuates her physical beauty as a response to it.  Hence the social commentary.

            "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

            by Mike McL on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 09:14:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  B-A-R-A-C-K (0+ / 0-)

    There's a C in there.

    If you can't even be bothered to spell the man's name correctly, why should we care about anythiing you say? This inattention to detail doesn't speak to a well-researched / reasoned opinion.

    In fact, this diary has the vague scent of "concern troll" about it.

  •  For the next 15 days at a minimum ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock

    ... Obama should hold onto the possibility of running.

    It draws more people when he speaks at rallies for candidates running NOW and draws more people to fundraisers for candidates running NOW ...

    ... and until November 8, I am setting to one side the ongoing speculation about 2008.

    Now is about Now, and right Now the cachet of being a possible Presidential candidate is useful to the fight for a Democratic Majority.

    I am sure that if Jim Webb barely squeaks and it turns out to be because of stronger than hoped for black turnout, nobody will mind the Presidential speculation that raised the profile of Obama campaigning for Webb.

    ... and ditto if Webb loses but the money he caused the Replicants to shift out of Ohio was just enough for Jennifer Brunner to carry the Secretary of State race in Ohio ... and remember, the Republicans have never once taken the White House without Ohio.

    George: Torture is for the weak, the scared, and the cruel. Which are you?

    by BruceMcF on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:05:40 PM PDT

  •  Evidently Nobody's Listening to His Words-- (0+ / 0-)

    He's been speaking on a number of topics that typically are important to this community.

    I get the feeling people are rating him, like Reagan, mostly on delivery.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:08:08 PM PDT

  •  I have an Obama diary addiction. (0+ / 0-)
    More please.
  •  Please stop with the anti-Dem diaries (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cooley, ChiGirl88, 4thepeople

    Obama isn't my personal top choice for President in 2008, but I think he's a lot more viable a candidate (and a lot BETTER potential candidate and potential President) than his detractors seem to think.

    There'll be plenty of time for this internecine back-biting AFTER the upcoming elections on November 7.  Obama is traveling all over this country campaigning for other Democrats and raising funds for other Democrats.  THAT'S what's important right now, and it's what we should ALL be concentrating on.

    This is at least the third or fourth diary I've seen today (and there may have been some I missed, since I've been away much of the day) that is either attacking Obama, or suggesting that he's not remotely ready for prime time.  Well, maybe so and maybe not, but right now, IT'S NOT WHAT'S IMPORTANT!

    Let's concentrate on 2006 at least until November 8 (and after the inevitable recounts are done), and wait to worry about 2008 until at least December 2006.  We've had diaries and comments attacking Obama, comments calling Wes Clark a "douchebag," comments attacking Hillary Clinton, and on, and on.  FOLKS, THERE'S TIME FOR THAT CRAP LATER!  PLEASE, let's concentrate on winning the House and Senate right now.

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

    by leevank on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:09:58 PM PDT

    •  Reagan's 11th Commandment Should Apply Here Too (0+ / 0-)

      Thou shalt not speak ill of any Democrat.

      I don't understand why people want to bash Dems so much on this board.  All it does is reinforce the notion that all Kossacks are intolerant and think alike.  Obviously one can disagree with a particular candidate, but I'd prefer discussions that emphasize the positives of other candidates, rather than the negatives of any particular candidate.

  •  The conventional wisdom is ... (0+ / 0-)

    The conventional wisdom is that Obama should wait, gain more 'experience' in the Senate, and run in, maybe, 2012 or some other time.  I have to say, though, that the longer he stays in the Senate, the more ammunition there is against him if he does, eventually, run.  Having less of a Senate history may, in fact, help him, in the same way that not having much of a paper trail can help a Supreme Court nominee.  So I'm not one of the people saying Obama should stay in the Senate for a minute longer than necessary.

    Left. Because it's right.

    by 4thepeople on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 08:12:37 PM PDT

  •  ATTENTION KOSVILLE: Please Limit Attractive 08 (0+ / 0-)

    candidates to Russ Feingold and Wes Clark.

    And even that may be one too many.

    We must not let others think we're cooking up anything too crafty or savvy in these parts. Keep it cool. We've been doing great thus far. No one yet thinks we care about winning or have the slightest clue how to win a general election so please -- do not clue them in.

    No more Obamas or Edwards. No more optimistic, blue-collar, working class intelligent, attractive, slick-talking, popular, warm-blooded winners.

    You'll blow everything if you let them near this place. Then what?

  •  It's a little over two weeks until the election. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joemcginnissjr, kittania

    Can we table this talk until then?

    PLEASE.

    -C.

    I write at GovernorPhil.com, a site helping elect Phil Angelides the next Governor of the great state of California.

    by Neutron on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 09:03:10 PM PDT

  •  Okay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joemcginnissjr

    I'm reading this diary, and trying really really hard to understand why it's worth anyone's time.

    Because, apart from misspelling the man's name, demonstrating little or no familiarity with the man or his achievements, and suggesting that someone without extensive Washington experience is underqualified to be President, I don't see what this adds to the discussion.

    Other than starting some flames on a Sunday night.

    And I notice that, despite being corrected, the name is still misspelled in the body of the diary. It's that kind of disrespect that makes this really a pointless rant.

    Obama's qualifications for whatever he chooses to do will become clear in time. His viability in terms of organization and message will be debated ad nauseum. And he will be attacked every day from now until 08 by diarists like this who simply don't like him, and by those on the right who are probably terrified of him.

    But thanks for putting me to sleep. It was getting late anyway.

    "...." -- Harpo Marx

    by BobzCat on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 09:03:46 PM PDT

  •  He's ticked me off a few times by being a wimp (0+ / 0-)

    on key votes, but here's my acid test for any potential candidate:

    Will you support impeachment proceedings in January '07?

    Here's a new mantra for all of us:

    "We can't wait for 2008."

    Chant with me brothers and sisters!!!

    "We can't wait
    for 2008."

    ""We can't wait
    for 2008."

    "We can't wait
    for 2008."

    "We can't wait
    for 2008."

    I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

    by gabbardd on Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 09:34:03 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site