Originally posted by Yahoo.com WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois will take the first step to entering the 2008 White House race on Tuesday, a party source said, forming a committee to explore a candidacy that could make him the first black president in U.S. history.
Obama, a freshman senator and rising party star, will file papers that will allow him to raise money and hire staff for his campaign to succeed Republican President George W. Bush, the source said.
Of the four names I hear most often, Obama is the only one that appeals to me at all. If he doesn't wind up in the Oval Office two years from now, I hope it's because people don't like his policies, as opposed to his name or the color of his skin.
Originally posted by GugsIf he doesn't wind up in the Oval Office two years from now, I hope it's because people don't like his policies, as opposed to his name or the color of his skin.
If he does wind up in the Oval Office two years from now, I hope it's because people like his policies, as opposed to his name or the color of his skin.
Originally posted by spfThe Holy War in the Democratic Party has officially begun. This is going to make 2004 look like a tea party.
I know using Jim Webb to deliver the counter to Bush's State of the Union is partially designed as a way to thumb their nose at Bush for a former Republican winning as a Democrat, but is the other key reason because he's 1 of the 5 or 6 Democrats in the Senate who AREN'T running for President in '08? I mean, CNN is already hyping up the April '07 debate for the '08 Presidency. Anyone who thinks the Senate accomplishes much in the next 14 months is crazy, as at least a dozen Senators, Republicans and Democrats, are going to be in Iowa/New Hampshire/S. Carolina/Nevada until next February. Obama would have been better off lurking on the outside as a guy who could possibly get in the race, but couldn't be attacked by those in the race because he wasn't in it yet and they didn't want to alienate his supporters. Now, he is fair game. Obama will learn very quickly that Dodd, Biden, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, possibly Gore etc. aren't Alan Keyes. Also, if he somehow can hold off the attacks through the summer of '07, the press will begin to tire of him and find a new 'fresh face' right as the primary campaign season really hits it stride late in '07/early '08. This is more '88 than '04 though, as it will be an open seat for both parties to shoot at, which means the only people that win are the politcal consultants, advertising agencies, local paid media in the early states etc. who will turn a tidy profit just out of sheer volume of candidates. It backfired in '02, didn't work in '04 and it worked in '06, but, will the Democratic Party actually be something other than 'I'm Not George Bush' in the '08 campaign, since they won't be running against Bush in '08.
(edited by redsoxnation on 16.1.07 1735) The Horsemen DVD is 3 Discs and 9 hours. Let Us Rejoice and Sing Its Praise.
Originally posted by redsoxnationObama will learn very quickly that Dodd, Biden, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, possibly Gore etc. aren't Alan Keyes.
Actually, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, and Gore are very much like Keyes, in that they have been losers in previous Presidential (in Edwards case as a VP hindrance) efforts.
This would be very sad for Democrats if all those previous losers decided to try to split the pie again. They proved last time that they could drop a fair catch, nominating the unlikeable in Kerry and goofy in Edwards in a very winnable election.
As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004 OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005 OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005 OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005 As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight" As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds
Let's not get crazy. Though 'half the Senate' may be running, the Democratic nominee will be one of only four people: Clinton, Edwards, Obama or (if he runs) Gore. The likes of Richardson, Vilsack, Biden, etc. all have no chance in hell. They will, at most, be VP candidates, though right now Obama is the dream VP candidate if he doesn't get the presidential nomination.
Also, given that Bush is on track to have record-lows in popularity over the next two years, the onus will be on the REPUBLICAN candidate, not the Democrat. The Republican will have to somehow present themselves as the anti-Bush without alienating Bush's southern base.
I don't know what is more disquieting -- the fact that the rest of the statue is missing, or that it has four toes.
I think Obama's likely positioning himself for a VP position almost more than the Presidential one. Not that he wouldn't like the job, certainly, but, without a record or much of anything except charisma and an interesting personal history, he's going to have a tough go surviving. Would Hillary/Obama be too much diversity for the ticket, though? I don't know, I think the 'two birds with one stone' aspect might actually be a selling point, make the ticket itself into a metaphor for a Democratic vision of the country. That or it'll make every reactionary utterly determined to beat them at all costs. Make for an interesting election, though, that's for damn sure.
I'm still kind of disappointed that Evan Bayh isn't running anyway...
"Never piss off a hawk with a blowgun" - Conan O'Brien
I suspect race, both ways, will play a role. I don't think it will be the determining factor. Hillary and company know how to play rough. Obama better have a stellar group of advisors or she will make toast out of him.
And yes, Bush's poll numbers suck but he can't run and Cheney wont. Don't count the Republican candidate out. Still along, long time till November 2008 and alot can and will happen.
(edited by DrDirt on 17.1.07 0644) Perception is reality
1. Obama is not looking for the VP job. No way, no how. And the Dems wouldn't want him to have it. The VP needs to bring something to the table that the Pres. candidate is missing (military, red state, foreign policy). Obama comes from a dark blue state, and lacks any obvious advantage in those other areas.
2. I think the timing is designed to try and isolate and make this essentially a 3 person race. By jumping in and beginning to get money and support commitments from anyone not tied to Clinton or Edwards he effectively can work to choke off the rest of the possible players. He knows it will be an uphill run against Clinton, so the sooner that groundwork begins to get laid, the better for him.
As for the media part of it, I agree there's the danger of overexposure, but I think it ties into the sense of inevitability. Get the public thinking that he and Clinton are really the only two viable candidates and perhaps that perception becomes reality.
If Obama were a more established sort of candidate I might agree its best to wait. As it stands though, he's going to get the floor to himself for a little while leading into the run-up, and that can only work to his advantage. The next two months or so will begin the real work for him of defining himself to the public. Using the mostly fawning media before they tire of him is likely a good idea. He'll get this burst of attention now, and then people will tune out for the summer and fall, and that's when the ground war can start for fundraising. It's going to take $100 million to win the nomination, so he pretty much needed to get going ASAP.
One thing Obama has going for him is not having a long legislative history and less to pin him down on. And he comes across as being able to bring people together. Hillary is viewed as shrill and a shrew by about half the population.
Originally posted by GodEatGodI think Obama's likely positioning himself for a VP position almost more than the Presidential one. Not that he wouldn't like the job, certainly, but, without a record or much of anything except charisma and an interesting personal history, he's going to have a tough go surviving. Would Hillary/Obama be too much diversity for the ticket, though? I don't know, I think the 'two birds with one stone' aspect might actually be a selling point, make the ticket itself into a metaphor for a Democratic vision of the country. That or it'll make every reactionary utterly determined to beat them at all costs. Make for an interesting election, though, that's for damn sure.
I'm still kind of disappointed that Evan Bayh isn't running anyway...
Not that I am any kind of expert, but I think that having charisma (in particular) and having an interesting personal history is a lot bigger factor in Presidential races than one's record. In fact, I am not even sure if not having a record is a minus or a plus. At least now he can state his position without having to worry much about something in his past record contradicting that position.
How many people voted for Bush the first time based on his record as governor of Texas? How many people voted for Bush based on the fact that they just simply liked the guy better than Gore (or Kerry for that matter)? I think intangibles play a large part in these things. Obama is just more likable than Gore and Kerry, so I think he already has one up on them.
(Of course, a large number of votes are just based on party lines, so records, charisma, anything else becomes irrelevant for those votes.)
The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
Except under unusual circumstances, a candidate has around 40% just because. They fight for the 15 - 20% undecided. What Hillary has against her is her ability to polarize (either way) so strongly.
Originally posted by DrDirtExcept under unusual circumstances, a candidate has around 40% just because. They fight for the 15 - 20% undecided. What Hillary has against her is her ability to polarize (either way) so strongly.
Bingo! If I'm the GOP I am praying for Clinton to win the primaries simply because she probably puts the GOP base vote (going to vote GOP no matter what) at 45% or more just by virtue of being herself.
If anything that's perhaps the one thing Obama has going for him over the rest of the field right now. From just anecdotal evidence I hear about a lot of people who say they haven't voted in years but would vote for him. Of course, my locale probably biases that in his favor, but at the very least I would say right now he seems to have the most appealing persona for swing voters. Even the GOP'ers on the board seemed impressed by him when he spoke at the 2004 convention.
Originally posted by GodEatGodI think Obama's likely positioning himself for a VP position almost more than the Presidential one. Not that he wouldn't like the job, certainly, but, without a record or much of anything except charisma and an interesting personal history, he's going to have a tough go surviving. Would Hillary/Obama be too much diversity for the ticket, though? I don't know, I think the 'two birds with one stone' aspect might actually be a selling point, make the ticket itself into a metaphor for a Democratic vision of the country. That or it'll make every reactionary utterly determined to beat them at all costs. Make for an interesting election, though, that's for damn sure.
I'm still kind of disappointed that Evan Bayh isn't running anyway...
Not that I am any kind of expert, but I think that having charisma (in particular) and having an interesting personal history is a lot bigger factor in Presidential races than one's record. In fact, I am not even sure if not having a record is a minus or a plus. At least now he can state his position without having to worry much about something in his past record contradicting that position.
I suppose I committed the sin of thinking about what bothers -me- about his candidacy more than the larger electoral benefits. You make a good point about W.'s lack of a record seeming to be no deficit to him during his 2000 run. I guess I just feel as though Obama runs the risk of feeling manufactured, in some way, since he seems to have come out of nowhere since 2004. He seems plenty likable and I almost always prefer a moderate to an idealogue when figuring out where I'd like to place my vote. I just have no idea how I can measure his judgement. Good decision-making ability is, to me, the most important part of being President. Who will he listen to, how will he decide? It's frankly the quality that I find our current President so lacking in and, having seen some of the consequences of its absence, it's the quality I'm looking for most in deciding who to vote for in '08. I'm just not sure how to get a gauge on that in Obama's case.
I see it being much more a two person than three person race at this point. I just don't think Edwards is that big a threat to either one of them. He's tainted by the Kerry campaign and hasn't really been in the spotlight since then. If he can find a way to revitalize his image, great, but he hasn't shown himself capable of doing so thus far. His primary advantage is that he's a Southerner, following in the Bill Clinton/Jimmy Carter mold of winning. I'm not sure even that could carry the South for the Dems in these much more divided times, though.
I think Obama might be thinking VP because, if they win, it gives him a very clear shot at the Presidency down the line. He's still a very young man, by Presidential election standards. But frankly, I agree that it's probably not his over-all position. Truth to be told, I probably shouldn't be writing about politics at 3 o'clock in the morning after a twelve-hour shift.
"Never piss off a hawk with a blowgun" - Conan O'Brien
Not to come to the defence of a man who couldn't get elected dogcatcher up here or anything...
But W. HAD a record of being Governor for one of the largest states in the Union. (Certainly largest by land mass, not sure how it sracks up in terms of population.)
As others have pointed out, all other things being equal being a Governor is a much better advantage than being a Senator.
I think only Kennedy this century has won an election for President with Senator as their chief calling card. All others have either been President (Truman/LBJ), V-P or Governor.
Originally posted by LlakorI think only Kennedy this century has won an election for President with Senator as their chief calling card. All others have either been President (Truman/LBJ), V-P or Governor.
Only George W. Bush has been elected President this century < /dick>.
Originally posted by spfA couple things from various posts:
1. Obama is not looking for the VP job. No way, no how. And the Dems wouldn't want him to have it. The VP needs to bring something to the table that the Pres. candidate is missing (military, red state, foreign policy). Obama comes from a dark blue state, and lacks any obvious advantage in those other areas.
On the VP: Getting a VP from North Carolina didn't get Kerry into single digits in the South. Barring the general election breaking completely, it is going to come down to 8-10 states. If you get a VP from one of those states that is a toss-up, perhaps that is enough to get to 270. Of course, the Presidential nominee being able to carry his home state is beneficial as well. I don't think the Biden's, Dodd's etc. of the world have a chance at the nomination. However, by declaring early Obama makes himself the person they can make points off of in a debate. They want free media, they attack him in debates. That is why I wouldn't be shocked if Hillary holds off until late spring/early summer before officially announcing. Now, if horse-racing terms can be put into play, Obama is probably someone who needs to be out in front. What do you do to counter that: You throw a 'rabbit' or two into the race, force the pace, and watch the front-runner run up the track when the race reaches its conclusion. Wink-wink/nod-nod deals on cabinet spots with some of the weaker candidates could accomplish such an idea. The Clinton's have shown they are deadly when they are stalking the pace or trailing the field. Give them a lead, and maybe they can get caught. Let them trail you, and they'll reel you in at the end. The better Obama does early, the more dangerous Hillary becomes. Let Hillary become content, and she might slip up, put her in a corner, and watch out.
The Horsemen DVD is 3 Discs and 9 hours. Let Us Rejoice and Sing Its Praise.
Originally posted by AWArulzBush "w" - Governor, Businessman
Won Two elections
Originally posted by AWArulzClinton - Governor, Lawyer
Won Two elections
Originally posted by AWArulzBush GHW - VP, CIA Head
Won One election
Originally posted by AWArulzReagan - Governor, Actor
Won Two Elections *Insert* Jimmy Carter - Governor Won One Election
Originally posted by AWArulzFord, VP, Represenative, Lawyer
Appointed and Defeated
Originally posted by AWArulz Nixon - VP, Lawyer
Won Two Elections
Originally posted by AWArulzLBJ, VP, Senator, Lawyer
Won One Election
Originally posted by AWArulz Kennedy. Senator, Lawyer, Author
Won One Election
Originally posted by AWArulzEisenhower - none previous, Soldier
Won Two Elections and I think running the entire US Army has to count for some managerial experience.
Originally posted by AWArulzTruman, VP, Senator, Businessman
Won One Election
Originally posted by AWArulzRoosevelt, Governor, Lawyer
Won 4 (!) Elections
Originally posted by AWArulzHoover, Cabinet Secretary, relief worker, Mining Engineer
Originally posted by AWArulzCoolige, Governor, Lawyer Harding, Senator, Newpaper Publisher Wilson, Governor, College President
And here's where my knowledge breaks down. There's also Taft and Teddy Roosevelt isn't there? I didn't realize that Harding was a Senator, but if you look at the list Americans seem to prefer someone wuth experience in the Executive branch or something comparable to someone with Legislative experience.
Originally posted by spfA couple things from various posts:
1. Obama is not looking for the VP job. No way, no how. And the Dems wouldn't want him to have it. The VP needs to bring something to the table that the Pres. candidate is missing (military, red state, foreign policy). Obama comes from a dark blue state, and lacks any obvious advantage in those other areas.
On the VP: Getting a VP from North Carolina didn't get Kerry into single digits in the South. Barring the general election breaking completely, it is going to come down to 8-10 states. If you get a VP from one of those states that is a toss-up, perhaps that is enough to get to 270. Of course, the Presidential nominee being able to carry his home state is beneficial as well. I don't think the Biden's, Dodd's etc. of the world have a chance at the nomination. However, by declaring early Obama makes himself the person they can make points off of in a debate. They want free media, they attack him in debates. That is why I wouldn't be shocked if Hillary holds off until late spring/early summer before officially announcing. Now, if horse-racing terms can be put into play, Obama is probably someone who needs to be out in front. What do you do to counter that: You throw a 'rabbit' or two into the race, force the pace, and watch the front-runner run up the track when the race reaches its conclusion. Wink-wink/nod-nod deals on cabinet spots with some of the weaker candidates could accomplish such an idea. The Clinton's have shown they are deadly when they are stalking the pace or trailing the field. Give them a lead, and maybe they can get caught. Let them trail you, and they'll reel you in at the end. The better Obama does early, the more dangerous Hillary becomes. Let Hillary become content, and she might slip up, put her in a corner, and watch out.
Edwards was from a state though that was totally out of play. If you take a VP from a Virginia or some other marginally red state you might be able to tip a state into your column.
As for the rest of it, the Clintons have been greatly blessed by running against a group of incredibly incompetent candidates. Seriously, the 1992 group was absolutely pathetic, and once Bob Kerrey proved to be useless that pretty much opened the road. Tsongas was never going to carry any of the south, Jerry Brown is Jerry Brown and the rest weren't worth mentioning. And then once Clinton got the nod he never really trailed again the rest of the race. He was never behind in 96 to Dole. Hillary has been the favorite in basically every race she has run. If anything what the Clinton's have been great at is getting that lead and choking off opposition. Hillary pretty well scared off all reputable competition this time around for her seat. Clinton in 92 made it clear through his campaign that they were ready to attack Cuomo fiercely.
This is why I think it is best for Obama to get as much time in the race without Hillary involved. Yes, the Bidens and Kucinichs of the world will fire at him, but I don't see them being much, and if anything going against guys like that can only make Obama look better in comparison. He will have a better organization than any of them (Chicago's machine is already revving up to support him) and be able to better respond to them. Edwards is somewhat formidable, but I think in the end no matter what he does he is going to carry the stink of John Kerry with him.