Daily Kos

Barack Obama to announce on MLK day?

by jkfp2004

Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:26:00 PM PDT

Thats the rumor spreading throughout DC.  This from Political Insider:

There is growing speculation in Democratic political circles that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) will announce his presidential intentions on Martin Luther King Day. That timing would certainly highlight the historic nature of his candidacy.

-- Helvidius

Of course I'm biased and a big Obama fan but I'd like to gage the support of fellow Kossacks.  I know a lot of people argue that he has little experience and hasn't really done much in Congress but if you look at his record, you'll find that's not the case at all.  In fact experience wise, Obama has roughly the same experience as Abraham Lincoln did when he became president.  Not to say he's like Lincoln but he is a tall, lanky, big eared lawyer from Illinois.

Poll

Do you support Obama in the nomination? (only go by candidates who have announced and Hillary)

33%83 votes
23%59 votes
13%34 votes
6%16 votes
1%3 votes
18%47 votes
2%7 votes

| 249 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 elections, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Martin Luther King Jr., rumor (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 112 comments

  •  You might add (11+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    RumsfeldResign, lirtydies, ourprez08, TheJohnny, Hardhat Democrat, NeuvoLiberal, aggieric, slksfca, 0wn, TomP, fbc21ca

    Would you support him as VP with Gore?

    LOL!

    by victoria2dc on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:23:05 PM PDT

  •  Of the candidates who've announced plus Hillary, (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ParaHammer, jj32, rapala, Nespolo, Ninepatch

    I'd probably support Obama.  But I'm keeping my powder dry (and my potential contributions in my bank account) until I see whether Clark or Richardson announce, because I'd definitely support either of them over Obama.  And in what I view as the extremely unlikely event that Gore runs, I met well support him in preference to Obama, as well.

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

    by leevank on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:27:15 PM PDT

    •  And by the way, this is no knock on Obama (0+ / 0-)

      I'm extremely impressed with him, but I think that in the unique times we're living in, and given the utter foreign policy mess that the next President will inherit, it's important to have a candidate with substantial foreign policy experience.  And it's difficult to imagine better foreign policy experience than that possessed by Clark and Richardson.

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

      by leevank on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:33:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lincoln comparison (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, pat208, aggieric

    I've read a few diaries and comments here that make the "Lincoln experience when he took office..." argument.

    While Abraham Lincoln did have a nation that would soon fall into civil war, and many major issues of the day to deal with, comparing his experience to a contemporary candidate for the presidency doesn't work.  

    The US is 300 million people, with an incredibly complex federal government, 50 states plus territories, and an active combat action taking place on foreign soil, among many, many other really large issues.

    I'd accept Obama as a VP, but he's not ready for the the presidency, IMO.  In these times I want someone who's got a few battlescars and knows what he/she is getting into.

    Believe little of what you see, and none of what you hear. Source it for yourself!

    by Ninepatch on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:28:54 PM PDT

    •  who is ready? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ourprez08, Ninepatch

      Gore? HRC? Richardson?

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:51:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ready for '08 (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ourprez08

        Personally, I'd love to see a Gore/Clark ticket - the statesman and the general, both equipped with big brass ones and not afraid to show'em.  

        I'm not all that certain that HRC is, besides which I think she'll be so tied up in GOP upchucking of anything they can find, including her preferred brand of underwear, that it will be impossible for her to get anything done.  I know, the baggage caveat has been argued pro and con, but, I'll admit it, it really does concern me.  

        I haven't looked at Richardson closely enough to give an opinion there.

        Edwards/Obama could work for me.

        Believe little of what you see, and none of what you hear. Source it for yourself!

        by Ninepatch on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:16:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards vs. Obama on experience (5+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          jab, kineticdissent, jkfp2004, Ninepatch, TomP

          I don't see how one can simultaneously argue Obama lacks the heft of experience to run but Edwards has it.

          If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

          by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:20:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd say neither have a whole lot, (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            turneresq, jj32, Ninepatch

            but Edwards has a little more.  That said, I think Obama has enough.  There's really no litmus test -- just whether folks will vote for you

            "The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08

            by TomP on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:25:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Donna Z, jab, Ramo, jkfp2004

              Edwards was busy campaigning most of 2003/2004. Giving him half partial credit, let's count his "experience" as 5 years in the US Sen, during which, the most significant contribution I see is his role in helping Bush invade Iraq.

              Obama has 8 years as a state senator, and he'd have about 3 years as US senator (if he maintains better attendance, could count for more). His record is strongly progressive in both IL Sen and US Sen. Plus his kick-ass "dumb war" anti-war speech.

              So:

              Edwards: 5 yrs as US senator (moderate voting record outside of the stongly pro-invasion war record)

              Vs

              Obama: 8 years IL Sen (strongly anti-invasion) + 3 yrs US Sen (progressive voting record)

              It should be clear why I'd support Obama in the HRC/JRE/Obama field, and the Gore/Obama ticket (after Gore/Dean).

              Wars of Reason, Wars of Principle - Setting the record straight

              That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

              I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

              I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

              Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

              by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:30:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Edwards Experience (0+ / 0-)

                In the Senate:

                1. Closing Argument for Not-Guilty in Impeachment.  

                McCain talked about how it was a big part of why he voted against impeachment.  Thus, Edwards played a huge role in stopping The Hyde Putsch.

                1. Patient Bill of Rights

                Co-Sponsor with McCain and Kennedy.  Passed the Senate.  Stalled in the House.  But, how is that JRE's fault.

                1. Campaign Finance Reform

                Co-Floor Leader.  Praised by Feingold and McCain.

                1. Wrote and Sponsored Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada.
                1.  Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination.
                1.  Wrote and Sponsored several Bills to raise minimum wage
                1.  Wrote and Sponsored bills on anti-spyware privacy.

                The 100 Days is basically a part of the Edwards Program

                Since 2004 when he came in second in the primaries and was the Party's vice presidential nominee:

                1.  Led the fight for the state ballots on raising the Minimum Wage in 2006, which helped us win the senate since it probably pushed Tester and McCaskill over the top (the initiatives outpolled them by 25%).

                Campaigned tirelessly for Democrats in federal and state-house races.

                1. Has made fighting poverty and defending middle-class working families based on Democratic values a core part the Party's program, thus helping us win in 2006, especially in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana and Virginia.
                1.  And He started a poverty center at UNC. He also started a "college for everyone" program in rural North Carolina, where he doled out over $350,000 to high school seniors so they could afford to go to state college. He did a tour with Hotel Workers Rising, to put pressure on big hotel chains like Hilton to pay better wages. He raised $9.5  million for Democratss in 2006. He also took 700 college kids to New Orleans to gut homes. He joined security workers in California to help them form their own union. He went to Uganda to shed light on the humanitarian crisis. He went to the UAE to encourage wealthy investors to invest in poor areas of the world. I'm sure there's a lot more.....

                West Michigan Rising the new blog for progressives to build our left coast -- now live

                by philgoblue on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:46:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Links? (0+ / 0-)

                  I'll repond to the parts I know of, but in the mean time, please provide links to the sources of your claims. We'll go over the full list after your do that.

                  Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:49:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  stop the pie fight! (0+ / 0-)

                    Neither Obama, nor Edwards, nor Hillary have the long resume of a Richardson or a Biden.  But they appear to have better political skills, hence their front-runner status at this stage of the game.  And they all have interesting life experiences that are at least as important as holding elected or appointed high office in terms of being able to make intelligent judgments and steer a large bureaucracy.

                    Obama's mixed heritage: part RFK, part MLK, part Clinton, part Dean. Read more

                    by jab on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:01:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Response (0+ / 0-)

                  1.  Closing Argument for Not-Guilty in Impeachment.

                  I know that he gave a closing argument. I give him credit for that, but I was wondering it there were more closing arguments on the Dem side. Were there?

                  McCain talked about how it was a big part of why he voted against impeachment.

                  Please provide bill page links for this.

                  Patient Bill of Rights
                  Campaign Finance Reform
                  Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada.
                  Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination.
                  bills on anti-spyware privacy.

                  Then, you shouldn't loosely bandy about the phrase "Wrote and sponsored":

                  1. with respect to the writing part, not everyone that signs-on as a co-sponsor actually contributes to writing the bill. Authors usually are mentioned as the sponsors and the bill tends carry their names, almost always.
                  1. co-sponsor is NOT the same as sponsor

                  We can determine the exact contribution from Edwards once you provide the bill pages and related links.

                  Co-Floor Leader.  Praised by Feingold and McCain.

                  link please.

                  ~~~~~~~~~

                  About minimum wage, Edwards did co-sponsor minimum wage bills, but as did 25-40 other Democrats for each of those bills.

                  For example, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004 (I believe the author was Sen. Kennedy), S. 2370(108), had these co-sponsors, including Hils and Uncle Joe:

                  Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI]
                  Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]
                  Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D-NM]
                  Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
                  Sen. Robert Byrd [D-WV]

                  Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]

                  Sen. Jon Corzine [D-NJ]
                  Sen. Thomas Daschle [D-SD]
                  Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
                  Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
                  Sen. John Edwards [D-NC]
                  Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
                  Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
                  Sen. James Jeffords [I-VT]
                  Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
                  Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
                  Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
                  Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
                  Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]

                  Sen. Joseph Lieberman [D-CT]

                  Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
                  Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
                  Sen. John Reed [D-RI]
                  Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV]
                  Sen. Paul Sarbanes [D-MD]
                  Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]
                  Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]

                  Here is kicker with Edwards on minimum and his current poverty rhetoric: during his entire 6 year senate term, not even one minimum wage bill cleared the senate and was sent to the house/whitehouse.

                  In fact, from mid-2001 through 2002, the Dems had control of the senate, and could have easily pushed the minimum wage bill through. Had Edwards made as much rhetoric on this as he does now, maybe that would have happened. He instead focused on helpin Bush wage the war during that period.

                  Bottomline: Edwards did not any more or less on minimum wage than any other Democrat out there while in the senate.

                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                  Led the fight for the state ballots on raising the Minimum Wage in 2006

                  You can't make the claim "led" without substantiation from a third party. Edwards does seem to make this claim, but I haven't seen others do the same.

                  which helped us win the senate since it probably pushed Tester and McCaskill over the top (the initiatives outpolled them by 25%).

                  Proof needed to make a claim of this strength. All Dems support minimum wage raise. So, exactly what would put Edwards over the top for this allusion needs to be proven, not just claimed.

                  Campaigned tirelessly for Democrats in federal and state-house races.

                  I think he did his part on this, and gets credit for it. But, other Dems also did their share, and they get credit too.

                  Has made fighting poverty and defending middle-class working families based on Democratic values a core part the Party's program, thus helping us win in 2006, especially in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana and Virginia.

                  Dems have always been for the little guy. The Dems' logo is a donkey for a reason.

                  And He started a poverty center at UNC.

                  What exactly did the poverty center accomplish? It always looked like a nice label for him to claim, but I'll change my opinion if you show me what it actually accomplished beyond window dressing.

                  He also started a "college for everyone" program in rural North Carolina, where he doled out over $350,000 to high school seniors so they could afford to go to state college.

                  The charitable deed is good, but only if he and those close to him don't go about bragging about it.

                  I'd like to see more about this "college for everyone". Is this an ongoing program being run by a charity? Link?

                  He did a tour with Hotel Workers Rising, to put pressure on big hotel chains like Hilton to pay better wages.

                  I think it was good that he did this. Any links regarding the results?

                  He raised $9.5  million for Democratss in 2006.

                  He did raise from what I've read. If you have a link to authenticate the figure, pref. from a third party, feel free to post it.

                  He also took 700 college kids to New Orleans to gut homes. He joined security workers in California to help them form their own union. He went to Uganda to shed light on the humanitarian crisis. He went to the UAE to encourage wealthy investors to invest in poor areas of the world. I'm sure there's a lot more.....

                  All of these are nice, but they all fit nicely into a good campaign plan. What would change my view on this is if the Edwards' donated a large amount of the enormous wealth their legal careers generated, before he turned to a politics.

                  Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:29:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  You're exactly right (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            TomP

            In view of your point, I agree it is not balanced with my opinion of Obama.

            I perceive Edwards as having more experience - maybe it's his balls-to-the-wall litigation experience that works for me.  I know he was only a 1-term senator.  Makes one hell of an argument for perception.  Thanks for calling me on it.

            OK, you got me on Edwards/Obama, but I'm not letting go of Gore/Clark! :->>

            Believe little of what you see, and none of what you hear. Source it for yourself!

            by Ninepatch on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:34:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Edwards also has the experience of (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            jkfp2004, jj32, TomP

            cosponsoring (cheerleading) the IWR.  This gives Obama's meme that judgement is more important a bit of weight.

            by Urizen on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:47:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is this the only tune you know? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              philgoblue

              You seem to inject it quite often.

              Do you think people are unaware of the vote?

              For your information, using "cheerleader" kind of gives you away an an Edwards detractor and not much else.

              by citizen53 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:06:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He co-sponsored the IRW. (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Pithy Cherub, jj32

                That puts him in a class above (or rather, below) simply voting for the war like Hillary and Joe Biden (although it does put him in a similar class to the class Joe Biden is in regarding the bankruptcy bill).

                That puts him right up there with Joe Lieberman

                Join the College Kossacks on Facebook. Hat Thief

                by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:12:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  BS (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  metal prophet

                  Edwards is against Social Security Privatization, Against School Vouchers, and Against the Bankruptcy Bill.

                  West Michigan Rising the new blog for progressives to build our left coast -- now live

                  by philgoblue on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:14:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't know that changes his being in a class (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    akeitz, NeuvoLiberal

                    worse than Hillary or Biden on Iraq.

                    It's also not clear that he would have voted for the 2005 bankruptcy act.

                    However, we can look at how he voted on the bankruptcy bill passed by the Senate in 2001 that never became law and compare it to Hillary (and the rest of the Democratic caucus).

                    For instance, he voted against Paul Wellstone's amendment to that bill to

                    To create an exemption for certain debtors that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the reason for the filing was a result of debts incurred through medical expenses.

                    Hillary, Baucus, Bayh, and 2/3 of the Dems in the senate voted for that amendment.

                    He voted against Paul Wellstone's amendment which

                    changes the means test so it looks at an average of the debtor's last 2 months of income instead of the last 6. This is a more accurate picture of the debtor's circumstances and will ensure that only individuals with actual ability to repay will be captured by the means test.

                    Hillary and 21 other Democrats voted for it.

                    He voted for cloture on the bill. Hillary and 18 other Democrats voted against cloture.

                    Finally, he voted for the Act himself, although Hillary voted for that act as well (she was with President Clinton as he was having open-heart surgery for the absolute final vote that was a foregone conclusion for the 2005 bankruptcy act, but she had voted for virtually (if not every) Democratic amendment to make the bill better and had voted against cloture.

                    So you can hardly say for certain that he would've opposed the bill (but it's unsurprising as Senator from Bank of America).
                    I don't know any Democrat that supports social security privatization except perhaps Ben Nelson, and he merely didn't take a stand rather than taking a stand against it.

                    I'm not sure where school vouchers came from.

                    Join the College Kossacks on Facebook. Hat Thief

                    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:39:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  That is quite impressive... (0+ / 0-)

                  but says nothing that edifies and only shows your dislike of Edwards.

                  When you can explain all that was occurring when these resolutions were debated, considered and voted on, then perhaps I'll listen.

                  by citizen53 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:26:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I like Edwards (0+ / 0-)

                but not as much as I would if he hadn't cheerled for the war.

                by Urizen on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:25:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is ridiculous on its face (0+ / 0-)

                  Bush cheerled, Rice cheerled, Cheney cheerled.

                  Edwards and the other Democrats, even those who voted for the IWR, were NOT cheerleaders.  Do you have any evidence that they WANTED to fo to war?

                  How do you know that Edwards did not co-sponsor the resolution to make sure the Daschle-Lott Resolution, based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, would not pass?  

                  If you want to discuss matters intelligently, perhaps tou should refrain from comments like these.

                  by citizen53 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:46:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It was a bad vote (0+ / 0-)

                    and a bad co-sponsor (which is cheerleading to me).  It's a bad war.  I'm glad he's acknowleged the mistake he made.  I'm willing to forgive him for it up to a point.  He's one of 3 candidates I'm drifting between at this time (Clark and Obama are the others).  Going into Afghanistan, fine.  Going to Iraq was crazy.  Most of the world and even plenty of americans knew that all along.

                    At the time, and still to this day, I feel like the democrats who voted for the IWR failed in their duties to challenge the "intelligence".  Sending kids to die is very serious business and can't be taken lightly or undertaken for emotional or political reasons.  Plenty of people were telling the truth then, but ambitious politicians didn't want to listen to them.  

                    He's going to have to own this and deal with what a bad choice it was.  I hope he does well with that.  I think he's grown a lot over the last two years (I saw him on Stephanopolis last week and was really impressed) and wouldn't do that again.

                    by Urizen on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:08:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  That pretty much sums up my feeling too n/t (0+ / 0-)

                  Annie

                  by akeitz on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:56:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I agree (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              jj32

              He was right to turn against it, but the minute he criticizes the Iraq War as a candidate, some GOP dumbass will say "well, why did you vote for it?" and Edwards will look like a chump. Same deal with HRC, though more so with her.

              by metal prophet on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:28:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Where Edwards has more experience (0+ / 0-)

            is in campaigns.  He ran a tough campaign against a Republican incumbent with the Helms Machine and won.
            He was headed to reelection in NC.
            He shocked people and almost on the Democratic primary, coming in second with 24% of the vote and so much good will that he was essentially proclaimed the VP nominee by the Democratic rank-and-file.
            He ran a national campaign that almost unseated a sitting President during wartime.

            That's a far bigger resume than beating some nut from Maryland in an Illinois senate race.

            West Michigan Rising the new blog for progressives to build our left coast -- now live

            by philgoblue on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:13:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Not bad timing (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, ourprez08, anthonyLA

    -4.63,-3.54 If the people will lead the leaders will follow

    by calebfaux on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:29:01 PM PDT

  •  Your link is to this diary, not to (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jkfp2004, ourprez08

    any report on this rumor.

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

    by leevank on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:29:13 PM PDT

  •  Obama is a master of riding the fence. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    tmo, HarveyMilk, hopscotch1997

    He can't give a yes or no answer to anything. It's always some long, drawn out response where he tries to have it both ways. Listening to him talk about Iraq gives me a headache. He's unwilling to take a bold stance on controversial issues.

    by blitz boy on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:33:08 PM PDT

  •  BREAKING! (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jab, ourprez08, NeuvoLiberal, TomP

    Obama goes swimming.

    You, sir, are a like a Hitler burrito, wrapped in a Mao fajita, with low-sodium Stalin sauce.| Strategy08.

    by turneresq on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:33:30 PM PDT

  •  Right now (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, 0wn

    I like 1) Al Gore, 2) John Edwards, 3-5) Either Clinton, Obama, or Biden.

    by anthonyLA on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:34:23 PM PDT

  •  A bad choice (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, hopscotch1997, Ninepatch, TomP

    Making such a move would move Obama from a black candidate to the black candidate, it would turn his candidacy from whatever he wants it to be about, to being about race. Unfortunately, it's something like that that would make a lot of the white voters he would need to win. Sadly, too many otherwise moderate to liberal white voters view any black person talking about race as "just another of those ones who make everything about race".

    by GWOdem on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:37:17 PM PDT

  •  My rankings (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, 0wn
    1. Al Gore
    1. Wes Clark
    1. Obama
    1. Edwards
    1. Richardson

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:39:38 PM PDT

  •  Mine: (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TomP
    1. Feingold
    1. Feingold
    1. Feingold
    1. Feingold
    1. Feingold

    There are others I'd probably vote for, but, based on what I know today, Russ is the only one I'd actively support. I'm starting to think I may be more likely to end up working against Edwards in the primary than for anybody.

    by Free Spirit on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:55:48 PM PDT

    •  Interesting. I also like Feingold. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ourprez08

      Why against Edwards?  His vote in 2002?  I'm not looking to fight, just interested.  

      I like Edwards, Obama, Gore, and Clark, and I'm not sure in what order -- different at different times.

      I'm interested why you would be so opposed to Edwards.  

      "The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08

      by TomP on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:10:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Long list of reasons (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        TomP

        I am not ready to get into them now.  I had hoped he wouldn't run again, so I could just keep quiet.  But some things need to be said.

        I think it may be an emotionally draining experience for me to say them, and I'm just not ready for that yet.  Just like a lot of people here aren't emotionally ready for the primary season to begin.  

        So be patient with me, please. The time is coming, and soon.

        by Free Spirit on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:35:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  SCOTUS nominees (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Sandy on Signal, ourprez08
      1. Feingold
      1. Edwards
      1. Obama

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:12:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jab

      I pretty much support Obama by default now that Russ is not running, though I might look at Clark and Gore, if either of them run. This is largely based on their positions on Iraq. But I think Obama, despite his centrist language, actually supports some pretty progressive policies, so he could make a real difference as President. Edwards is good on economic issues and he's improved on Iraq, but the GOP will try to nail him with the flip-flopper label. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson are both low on my priority list because they're all unilateralists. A foreign policy quagmire is still a foreign policy quagmire, even if Democrats sent the troops there.

      by metal prophet on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:37:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  how tall is Obama? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08

    Lincoln was 6'4". Surely Obama isn't that tall. Anyone know his height?

    by QuickSilver on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 04:55:54 PM PDT

  •  Gore for me. Obama will be a great VP for (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, 0wn, TomP

    whoever wins the nod.  His experience will be a big issue. NO Governor or mayor or anything outside of state legislature and short term as Senator. That will hurt him.

    Personal choice. GORE GORE GORE. It just seems everyday that he will run

    by jkb246 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:06:11 PM PDT

  •  I like Gore but could go for Obama for VP (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    0wn, Ninepatch

    Edwards leaves me cold.  Ditto Clark, Richardson, HRC.

    Someone pointed out in another diary moons ago that Gore wouldn't need to announce yet.  He can afford to wait until the Dems scratch each other's eyes out in the primaries and then jump in.  

    I just don't think HRC can win, I really don't.  Used to like her but can never forgive her for what she did to Howard Dean.

    "Most women have no idea how much men hate them."--Germaine Greer

    by Diana in NoVa on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:06:11 PM PDT

    •  Wont wait that long (0+ / 0-)

      Since he needs to raise money, but that's something he is good at. Plus he would probably get all of the net roots behind him. Business might be cool to him, but vs McCain the evil one (flipping the coin for the bcs game now) we might be down 2 to 1 at the starting gate. Hilary just is going to be wierd for me and a lot of people.  

      We are all tired of this country right now. Who started all of this outsourcing mess?? Her Hubby the next VP if she wins.  On one hand that will be great, but not really.  

      Can't wait to see what happens thats for sure

      by jkb246 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:28:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You can (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TomP
    vote here for Gore / Obama (or your favorite ticket).

    Alex
    Choose Our President 2008

    by ourprez08 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:15:50 PM PDT

  •  Experience overrated (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jkfp2004, jj32

     "Experience doesn't really pay off in presidential politics".  {Just now---Jonathan Altar on Olbermann)
     He was discussing Biden's viability, but he made the point that the one with the most "experience" is rarely the winner---that, in fact, it is almost always a liability--more to target.
     The majority of voters vote on a feeling---who they trust the most, who they like the best.
     I don't think that the day of Obama's announcement will be significant.
     

    by dotster on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:22:43 PM PDT

  •  ::::Gag::::: (0+ / 0-)

    I hope not.  I saw him on CNBC Russert's program and his flat-out condescension to Democrats of every stripe ("Tim, I think I can tell you why Democrats are uncomfortable with the language of faith..."  WANKER!!!!) made me vomit in my mouth.

    Every day, he just pisses me off more and more...and if he isn't pissing you off, I wonder if you're watching these little presentations of his.

    Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:24:42 PM PDT

    •  Raven had a bad day (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      TomP

       Way too harsh Raven.  Just breathe.

      by dotster on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:29:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Funny thing is... (0+ / 0-)

      ....that he's probably the most liberal of those candidates out there. If talking about God a bit is what it takes to be President, so be it, so long as you don't put the Religious Right's adgenda into action. I'm no Christian, but Jesus was a pretty good role model.

      by metal prophet on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:39:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He made you vomit in your mouth? (0+ / 0-)

      Sounds like a scene from the exoricist...did you swallow it too?  

      Seriously, your post makes me think Obama must have a point....if that minor comment caused such an expulsive reaction.  

      by markymarx on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:47:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can't speak for the original commenter, but (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        hopscotch1997

        I personally find Obama's quite frequent (it seems like every time I look up a quote from him, he talks about his religion) references to God to be both annoying and overkill. He'a a United Church of Christ member. Not a Southern Baptist or Evangelical. Not everything needs to be about his religion. It seems frankly insencere. Furthermore, he seems to use it in 2 inefective ways. 1) He attacks the Democratic party for not being open to Faith. If that were true, I don't think we'd have Casey standing by to screw us over. It's not really different from Lieberman's rhetoric, except Obama's alot smoother.

        1. He isn't always (or even most of the time) using that religion to push progressive positions. All of the top tier candidates have basically the same position on equal rights (better than alot of other Democrats, better than I would expect) but he's the only one that I can see framing his objections as  "because I'm a good Christian" I'm sure he uses that same rhetoric for other issues, and it's not really good for the progressive movement.

        Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

        by tigercourse on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:17:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But.... (0+ / 0-)

          Unlike Holy Joe, his criticism is also self-criticism:

          I've fallen into this trap myself. During my 2004 Senate race, my opponent said, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response: that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another. I said I was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not the minister of Illinois.

          But my opponent's accusations nagged at me, and I knew that my answer didn't address the role my faith has in guiding my values. I, like other progressives, should have realized that when we ignore what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew, when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, when we shy away from religious venues because we think we'll be unwelcome, others will fill the vacuum: those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

          Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.

          If progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates with all Americans. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of America's renewal.

          http://www.usatoday.com/...

          by markymarx on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:30:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unless I read that wrong, his self-criticism was (0+ / 0-)

            to say that he should not have been so secular, and needed to be more outwardly religious. That doesn't fill me to the brim with confidence.

            Also, Lincoln was basically a non believer, "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

            And I wouldn't sight Bryan as someone to emulate.

            Hillary Clinton's Liberal Ranking http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/10/122232/619

            by tigercourse on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:43:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well (0+ / 0-)

              Why wouldn't you cite William Jennings Bryan?   Plenty of secular writers like Bryan's populist economics. Sounds like you're viewing all of history through the lens of the scopes trial.  

              Are you implying that any Democrat who speaks openly about his or her religious beliefs should be disqualified for office?  Or that you wouldn't vote for them?  

              You're free to disagree with Obama for saying Progressives would be smarter politically to talk about their religion in the public square (if they're religious that is).  But I think it's pretty obvious he's right, and I agree with it.  

              by markymarx on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:39:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  He's a member of a predominantly black UCC church (0+ / 0-)

          The predominantly black congregations, even within predominantly white denominations, tend to be a lot less diffident about expressing their religiosity than most predominantly white mainline Protestant congregations.

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

          by leevank on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 08:50:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Undecided, but I'd like (0+ / 0-)

    to see O get in.  I want to see how well he fares under some intense scrutiny.  If he fares well, and can build on the momentum he already has, great!  But if he has a glass jaw, let's find out now rather than after the nomination is wrapped up.  I think the "lack of experience" thing is a total canard.  He's smart as hell, and perhaps would be the most intelligent President we've had in a long time.  But . . . . let's face it, his Senate campaign in '04 was a gimme; there was no real oppositon in the primary or the general.  So, it remains to be seen how tough a candidate he'd be.

    In any event, as an undecided and enthusiastic Democrat, I look forward to his enterence into the race.

    by livosh1 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:42:50 PM PDT

  •  my preferences (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    metal prophet

    in reality:

    1. Bill Richardson
    1. Al Gore
    1. John Edwards
    1. Hillary Clinton
    1. Barack Obama

    in fantasy:

    1. Russ Feingold
    1. Dennis Kucinich
    1. Al Sharpton
    1. Bill Richardson
    1. Barack Obama

    Barack's okay, I just have nothing to judge him on. Significant accomplishments? I feel like he could have waited to finish out his first term as senator. But I can't blame him for wanting to capitalize now.

    i think they're attacking me cause i'm awesome. how's that??

    by missreporter on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 05:43:58 PM PDT

    •  Why is... (0+ / 0-)

      ....Richardson so high on your list? If I recall correctly, he either favored or did not oppose the Iraq War, which makes him very different from people like Kucinich, Feingold, or Obama, who opposed it from the very start.

      by metal prophet on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:41:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  cause he reminds me of my dad (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        metal prophet

        sorry...it's true.

        i also think despite all his warts, we need his foreign policy and diplomacy expertise right now. we needed it yesterday.

        but mostly because he reminds me of my dad.

        :)

        i think they're attacking me cause i'm awesome. how's that??

        by missreporter on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:21:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Interested to see how the process... (0+ / 0-)

    will be affected if Obama runs.

    He certainly has a voice to contribute to the debate of the issues.

    by citizen53 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:09:22 PM PDT

  •  Probably voting for Obama (0+ / 0-)

    in the primary, if he runs. I'm not ga-ga over Edwards like everyone else seems to be. I like Gore and Feingold, but neither are running, and Russ semi-endorsed Obama too. So he is my first choice.

    by jj32 on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:41:35 PM PDT

  •  I like his energy (0+ / 0-)

    I have no idea where I would rank him this far out, but he is exciting.  Nobody can deny it.  

    by markymarx on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:49:12 PM PDT

  •  if Sharpton runs, does that help or hurt Obama? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jkfp2004

    If Al Sharpton runs again, does that help or hurt Obama?  I have to think it helps him... whatever few votes Sharpton pulls away from Obama, I think Obama more than makes up in "moderate" voters who are impressed by the contrast between Obama and Sharpton.  And it would help takes the media's focus off the "black candidate" label, which otherwise they would be hounding Obama with every step of the way, obscuring his post-racial message.

    Obama's mixed heritage: part RFK, part MLK, part Clinton, part Dean. Read more

    by jab on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:16:19 PM PDT

Permalink | 112 comments