Andrew / October 19, 2006 4:08 PM

...Or wait till the next round? Or not run at all ever?

Ramsin / October 19, 2006 4:11 PM

If he's gonna run, he should run now!

Masale.Wallah / October 19, 2006 4:30 PM

Not so sure.. I mean what was he actually done to warrant all this attention?

I think he needs to prove himself first in Congress before aiming for the White House. A run in '12 seems more appropriate (and likely!).

Bill V / October 19, 2006 4:31 PM

If I were him, I would take a shot at it, if he feels up to it. If not, just remain a Senator.

Mike / October 19, 2006 4:48 PM

Yes, he should not wait because in 2012 there won't be as much momentum and he could face a Dem incumbent. If congress becomes majority Dem, I could understand his wanting to stay and get some things done though. What would make me truly happy is if there was more than one Barack Obama. When he talks, I think many Americans realize they have more in common with each other than some would have us believe.

Emerson Dameron / October 19, 2006 4:48 PM

Conventional wisdom seems to be that the Democratic Machine owes a lot of favors to the Clintons, and that if Hillary runs, she'll get the nomination whether she's "electable" or not. Right now, Obama doesn't have enough of a record to run on - if he runs now, he'll end up like John Edwards. I'd advise him to wait, but he hasn't asked me.

trmnprjct / October 19, 2006 6:26 PM

No.

Jeff / October 19, 2006 6:26 PM

Two questions help answer the question posed above:

1) Would Obama make a good President? I am not sure if he has the policy goods just yet, but I'm willing to trust his judgment, leadership, and intelligence. I say yes.

2) Could Obama win in 2008? Hillary tends to take all the money and air out of the room; it would be the most vicious primary and would damage Barack -- Hillary wouldn't be afraid to fight dirty. But too many "bad" (read -- principled and progressive) votes in the Senate may make Barack less palatable in 2012 in the general.

So this may be his best chance to get elected, despite the lack of experience and the tough primary.

Plus, there is an obvious great slogan:
"OBAMA IN '08."

Y A J / October 19, 2006 7:37 PM

Yes, I think he should run now.

Long senate records work against presidential candidates. Wasn't Kennedy the last Senator elected to President?

Obama already has more international & policy experience than Bush had when he won the first time.

And while I really like Hillary, I think a lot of folks really don't like her, so she's not the Dem's best choice.

So yeah, I like Obama in `08.

bean / October 19, 2006 9:51 PM

Who's more likely to win? A gentleman of color or a woman w/ connections?
It seems to be a stretch either way.
I'd go for Obama as a more moral canditate.
Who else is there?

via / October 19, 2006 10:10 PM

Absolutely. I agree that now is a better time than '12 will be.

Thurston / October 19, 2006 11:04 PM

I don't think he should run yet. He's a good guy and all, but he hasn't really done much yet besides give good speeches. He can't really say "I got X done and I got Y done."

I think Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico should run. He's got executive experience as governor, he's got foreign policy experience as a former UN ambassador, he was an energy secretary, he speaks Spanish fluently, and he's not a lilly-white member of the American oligarchy like Bush and Kerry (he's Mexican-American). What a resume for a president!

ender / October 20, 2006 1:58 AM

If he doesn't run this year, he's gonna have to wait 8 years. If its not him in '08, it's going to be hillary, and she's too divisive to the general public. That means a republican will probably win, and barring a huge event, will be in office for 8 years. That means Obama's next chance to really win will be in 2016.

OBAMAMANIA! / October 20, 2006 6:06 AM

We know people in Bucktown and Lakeview will vote for Obama.

Will people in rural Tennesse? Suburban Salt Lake City? Down in the bayou in Louisiana? How about all the mountain people up in West Virginia? Surfers living Sandy Eggo?
Texans?

You know, all those people that have more electoral votes than the north side?

We best hope the rest of the U.S. catches Obamamania.

SR / October 20, 2006 6:59 AM

Yes! The democrats have no fresh voices in their camp other than Obama... he's increasingly their best chance to win.

charlie D / October 20, 2006 7:03 AM

Yes

Nathan S / October 20, 2006 7:27 AM

Barack Obama seems like a good man. If that's the case, then he should finish out his term and leave politics behind forever. If he's a politician, then I would love to see him run for President in '08. I really don't feel any further trustworthiness or aptitude for running the country can be proven via another four years' senatorial duty. The current buzz around his political career is startling given his inexperience. Why not grab hold of that and run with it? He certainly seems like a less polarizing candidate than Hillary Clinton. I'm really not certain if the White Male Cockocracy is more ready for a Black Man or a White Woman to be president? What of an Obama/Clinton ticket? Either way, as long as George W. Bush gets impeached, we all win.

Julian / October 20, 2006 7:52 AM

We are at a pivitol moment in American political history. With Clinton the country swung far to the left and as a result the country rebeled and swung far to the right in electing Bush. The last thing this country needs is another radical sea change and unfortunately while Hillary Clinton is a brilliant mind, a mover and shaker and has the chutzpah to get ellected she would inevitibally swing the country far to the left again thus perpetuating the cycle. Though he has little political record on which to stand, relatively few "connections" (though everyone wants to be his buddy) Obama does posess possibly the most important, powerful element that this country needs; unifying force. Obama has based his entire political career (and his non-political career) on showing folk that indeed they are similar and that while we have been driven appart by power hungry career politicians, we as Americans can stand together and find the common goals, aspirations, fears and hopes within one another. And when one thinks about the function of the American President it is not to dictate policy, it is not to micromanage the country, rather it is to stand as a symbol for all that is good about this country, to stand and unite the 300 million different Americans. Obama, while wet behind the ears may very well be the only man at the moment who can do this.

And while he is a rookie, if the country believes in his message of unity, folk will stand behind him, they will live and die through his comning of age. perhaps the contry will even see within his maturing as a leader the rise of a new American identity.

I say yes, Barack Obama should run, and his Vice President should be a Republican.

charlie D / October 20, 2006 8:04 AM

Excellent post Julian.

That might just be the best argument for him running I have read anywhere.

Right on target in my opinion, including bringing a republican into his camp.

How about Obama/Hagel 2008

Thad / October 20, 2006 8:50 AM

What the hell is "unifying force"? Does that include the conservatives who already dislike Sen. Obama?

Listen, I like the guy. He seems honest and hardworking, and I'm a sucker for American dream stories. And that speech he gave at the convention was amazing.

But, I still have major questions about his policies, and I haven't seen him put his neck out for anything yet. What does he stand for? How does he handle the pressure, when the pressure turns against him even a bit? More importantly, what will he stand up for--that is, will he stick to this guns for an unpopular but needed policy?

So far, the main arguments about this guy is that he has charisma and the timing seems right. I need a little bit more, and I hope it comes, as I would like to think someone such as Obama--hardworking, apparently idealistic guy who thrived because of his merits and the chances offered in America--would make a good president.

Yes, there have been great presidents who kind of came out of nowhere: Lincoln and Truman come to mind. Yet both took strong pre-presidential stances on risky propositions that were unpopular with some: Lincoln on the expansion of slavery, and Truman on war profiteering, inefficiency and corruption (see: the Congressional Truman Committee of the early 1940s.). Sen. Obama at this point seems more like an actor being groomed for the big role. I don't blame him so much as our political culture, but still, don't you want more? If so, demand it.

Marilyn / October 20, 2006 8:53 AM

I don't really trust any politician from Illinois - the state is too corrupt. Obama is a good orator and he seems decent enough, but appearances are more deceiving than ever in these days of the spin and the lie. Is he what he appears to be? Maybe, but I'd like to see what he actually stands for through his legislative record before I vote for him. I've been underwhelmed by his responses to my letters - they are bland, take no strong position letters for the most part.

Should he run in '08 as far as his own personal career goes? I think he won't get the Democratic nom, but it might not hurt to get more exposure.

obamarama / October 20, 2006 9:00 AM

i sure wish gore was in on this somehow. he's been so amazingly awesome lately. i don't think the dnc or the rnc would let a dem/repub ticket happen, though it might be fruitful, depending on the republican.

i'd love to see either obama/gore or gore/obama. i think it's funny that people say "obama hasn't proved himself! he can't win!" err... look who's in office now...

(i know, i know, he didn't win, but he did get a whole lot of votes.)

obama. fo sho. fo '08. i think people would vote for him, if only because he does seem to be a unifying force. people won't vote for hilary. she's pissed off everybody at least once, and some people HATE her. who hates obama?

Julian / October 20, 2006 9:01 AM

One thing I find interesting is that we've come to accept a top-down governance from the Oval Office. We have come to expect the President to dictate policy and tell the congress and for that matter the people what's what. It's interesting in that the office of president is supposed to be one that is led by the people albeit through the local elected officials. Isn't America supposed to be governned from the bottom-up?

The ideal Amreican President would be full of charisma, listen to anyone and everyone and take his/her cues from the senate. He/she would not have an opinion other than to do what the people wish him/her to do. There would be no mandates, no political capitol, no declaration of policy, rather there would be alot of LISTENING and then acting.

I for one can see Obama listening to the various politicians around him and then making decissions rather than dictating to the people.

Chris / October 20, 2006 9:10 AM

Obama/Julian '08.

printdude / October 20, 2006 9:13 AM

I hope he runs.
I think he IS the right person for the job, he really is a do-gooder who is trying to be all we want him to be, yet remaining true to his own vision all the while.

He will be needing some volunteers to run, so I am wondering where I have to go to sign up for that....

john / October 20, 2006 9:14 AM

Yes Because he will screw up the democrats with all the infighting. Think of it. All of the negative ads between Clinton and him duking it out. Then people will see him for what he is....A nice guy but a very junior senator from even his own state who has a rock star presence.

Hal / October 20, 2006 9:15 AM

Not yet. Though the point about campaigns by senators being unsuccessful is a good one.

pantagrapher / October 20, 2006 9:16 AM

I think he should run just to get his name out there. There's almost no chance he gets the Democratic party nomination, so there won't be any harm done. Plus, he can funnel his supporters to the Gore/Feingold ticket after he concedes. Everybody wins.

Emerson Dameron / October 20, 2006 9:31 AM

[Marilyn]I don't really trust any politician from Illinois - the state is too corrupt.[/Marilyn]

One the one hand, no one person has done more to sour me on political participation than Richard M. Daley. I can't think of another city that's so cynical and jaded that it wouldn't call him on his steaming mountain ranges of bullshit.

On the other, I have trouble thinking of any politician or former politician, anywhere, who's shown more testicular virility lately than Dick Durbin and Patrick Fitzgerald, both Illinoisians.

Illinois politicians can answer for their misdeeds one at a time. As of yet, Obama doesn't need to answer for IL Democrats at large. He wasn't even the Machine's first choice in the primaries. If he's benefitted from corruption, he's done so by keeping himself seemingly clean.

wordup / October 20, 2006 9:32 AM

There are some good points here...hope he runs, but I don't know if my Nascar-watching, elk-eating, gun-slinging relatives would vote for him.

Then again, do they vote at all?

I'm all for Bill Richardson. But he won't win either.

amyc / October 20, 2006 9:39 AM

"With Clinton the country swung far to the left"

Huh? What's so "far to the left" about welfare "reform," the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act and some of the other crap bills Clinton signed? Both Clintons are conservative Democrats -- the idea that they're leftists (or even all that liberal) is a scare tactic straight outta Rush Limbaugh's ass.

Marilyn / October 20, 2006 9:41 AM

Emerson - If I'm not very impressed with Obama's replies to my letters, I'm downright disheartened by Durbin's slick political responses. He has been a real disappointment. Both he and Obama gave up the filibuster against the Patriot Act, and it was reauthorized. The suspension of habeas corpus was a slam dunk after that.

I didn't say Obama was corrupt. I said I didn't trust any Illinois politician because of the way the system is set up. I need to know more about him before I feel confident about voting for him.

BTW, I agree about Fitzgerald. He's proven his worth.

Felix / October 20, 2006 9:47 AM

N.

If you can't expect him to keep his word as a senator, why would you trust him as a president?

"I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008."
--Barack Obama, Nov. 3, 2004

“I will serve out my full six-year term,” Obama said. “You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you’re going to get weary, and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.”
To clarify, Russert said, “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?”
Obama replied, “I will not.”

bartleby / October 20, 2006 9:51 AM

Let's see some legislative accomplishments first.

Thad / October 20, 2006 9:59 AM

This country hasn't been "far to the left" since the mid-to-late 1970s. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn't paying attention. And, in case you have forgotten, President Clinton did a great job of pissing off many leftists--in fact, this started right away in his first term, when he agreed to the compromise "dont' ask, don't tell" policy. Indeed, Clinton won in part because he was more centrist than the more leftist parts of the Dem Party.

Sen. Clinton is doing the same thing, taking a more centrist path.

Julian thinks a good president listens (though he/she doesn't seem to realize we still live in a Republic, at least as mandated by the Consitution). I can see where this comes from after all these years of leadership from a dipshit who apparently thinks God put him here, and who apparenty disdains contrary opinions.

Still, a reason that President Clinton, one of the most brilliant and charismatic men to ever live in the White House, was NOT a great president is because he listened too much: To polls, to the political winds. He needed to lead more, get out in front of things, do more than neutralize the Republican Congress or co-opt their agenda. Really, what original, bold things did Clinton ever do? What is his legacy?

So yes, listening is good, but so is strong, courageous leadership--which, by the way, Sen. Obama has yet to demonstrate. If he has, please tell me how. I would love to reconsider.

paul / October 20, 2006 10:20 AM

It's a moot point whether he runs or not.

This country's moronic population and the machine that tells them what to think will elect Jeb Bush in '08.

jj / October 20, 2006 10:23 AM

I love Obama and think he'll be president sooner or later so I'm not as concerned about it being sooner. Initially I thought he shouldn't run in 08, but after reading the analysts I think I've changed my mind - it seems there's a large camp that think he could pull a JFK and ride to the top based on charisma and not enough time in offfice to have too many skeletons. Plus he's got the momentum and he's captured the hearts, if not the votes, of a large part of the nation - and we Americans to love to think of our presidents as "buddies" we could have a beer with more than anything (see: Clinton, W, Carter). I would be interested in a breakdown of where and to whom his latest book is selling - it could sort of serve as a straw poll, I suppose. Basically I think I'd rather see Obama be a VP to whoever wins the Dem nomination this time around, then take the Oval Office in '16.

Avril2080 / October 20, 2006 10:28 AM

He shouldn't run in '08. Obama needs to provide (detailed) solutions to the problems facing our country. I want to see him offer some of these solutions as legislation in Congress.

Our next President must be humble, wise, intelligent and thoughtful. He or she needs to listen to opposing views. S/he must realize that the government must represent all of its citizens, not just those with certain political/religious/moral views. Obama seems to have these qualities, but I need to see him ' in action' when things get ugly.

And finally, the next President MUST have a detailed plan for fixing the mess we've made in Iraq.

mark / October 20, 2006 10:39 AM

smart, popular yes
experience and gravitas no

mark / October 20, 2006 10:51 AM

how about this:

mccain gets beat by the christian right and mitt romney in the primaries

mccain bolts party, starts moderate party and takes with him all the moderate repub

moderate to conservatives bolt the dem party

Mccain/Powell ticket trounces Clinton/Warner, Romney/Bush(Jeb)

Lieberman Sec. of Def. Obama Sec. of Education
Danforth Sec. of State

we all live happily ever after

Julian / October 20, 2006 11:12 AM

Lieberman sec of def!? Now that's a laugh.

And for the record I will accept donations to my '08 campaign so lets get them greenbacks rollin' on in!

JenJen / October 20, 2006 12:34 PM

I don't think I'd vote for Obama for president. He and his 'entourage' drove off in a *fleet* of gas guzzling SUVs after giving us a speech about how we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil. SUV drivers irk me.

But I suppose if our lives are going to be micromanaged by a single man who lives 1,500 miles away, and our whole self esteem as a nation is dependent on who is living in the White House, Obama would be an OK. choice.

veronica / October 20, 2006 1:16 PM

Yeah, I think he's just popular right now, but I don't believe in him enough just yet to vote for him and I feel like the rest of America would feel the same way.

2016 I would!

madachode / October 20, 2006 2:01 PM

absolutly not. he has not accomplished anything nor is he about to do anything. take another overseas trip on the taxpayer dime for what purpose other than personal reasons? next trip he should stay where ever he goes.

C-Note / October 21, 2006 11:32 AM

Yes, he should, and he will. Yes, he's "smart," and popular; those are not negative traits. His relative lack of political experience is not necessarily a negative trait, it's just something critics can point to as a not-necessarily-positive aspect of his career. He does, in fact, possess gravitas, Mark. You're not going to see him introducing all manner of world-saving legislation in Congress, because that's not how things work when the other party holds the majority in the Senate. I'm sure that when he runs, he'll have some solutions to quite a few political problems, but he's not going to bring them up right now - it would implicate too many of his colleagues, whose support he will need. And denying that he will run in '08 is not the sort of lie that should be used as evidence of untruthfulness. It's just a necessary technique by which to foreclose questions about his future campaign. And please, don't do something as stupid as deciding not to vote for him because he rode in an SUV. That would be a ridiculous oversimplification. The man simply has no real flaws. Now is not the time to start nit-picking.

Jeff / October 22, 2006 3:13 PM

Run now and take the next 8 years. Who said you have to "do anything" in order to be President. Kennedy? Harding? (and yes I read that book).

We need a figurehead that brings back some dignity to us. America needs to get back on track with the rest of the world after our international disasters.

Who else is going to do that?

COP / October 22, 2006 4:46 PM

>The man simply has no real flaws.

Gotta love the cult of personality around this guy.

Jesus-from-Hyde-Park will show us the way.

Daniel B. Honigman / October 22, 2006 9:38 PM

No. The people of Illinois need him as a pillar of stability in a state fraught with corruption at the highest levels of government.

Dear readers: Count your blessings. This man is good, but let him stick around -- at least for now.

maardvark / October 23, 2006 1:13 AM

I don't care whether he runs or not, but for goodness sake can he make up his mind, definitively one way or the other, so the media will shut up about it?

Spook / October 23, 2006 1:13 AM

Yes he should run! Obama
is the best political opportunist that I can remember!
Obama is the arm candy for the Democratic Party. He is “Black”, but won’t raise concerns from that community. He is “African”, but won't raise concern of that community. I mean besides for going on a tour that avoided areas of conflict. Robert Kennedy is probably rolling in his gave. You would think with all his millions, he might have given a donation. Of course he did write a check for 5,000 dollars while in Kenya to multimillionare Lemont when he beat Lieberman who Barack campaigned for hard
Needless to say he has no urban agenda let alone an African agenda and totally ignores the poor and working class people in this country
His senate voting record makes Dick Durbin look progressive. Maybe Durban should run?

O'bama's support for the credit card and banking industry and his cowardliness with respect to the Supreme court is equally sad, yet liberal Goo Goos just luv them some O’Bama.
Course he is smarter than Carol Mosely Fraud

Skinnyfoodie / October 23, 2006 7:39 AM

Please NO!

He has no experience, 2 years in a do nothing Congress qualifies him for reelection as our Senator. This Bucktown resident will not vote for him as President nor Senator. He seems to be a DINO and we have enough of them.

Mikey / October 23, 2006 9:46 AM

I don't understand the arguments concerning his lack of experience. I see that as a positive...

Do we really want another Washington insider or career politician in the presidency?

Allan / October 23, 2006 9:57 AM

You mean he is not already? On a recent flight from Minneapolis to Chicago Barack Obama was on my flight. Not in first class and not with an entourage. He was riding in coach with the rest of us poor saps. This set him apart in my mind and if he ran I would vote for him and that will be a first for me.

Skinnyfoodie / October 23, 2006 10:26 AM

Mikey

Our current President has no experience as well. He has created diasters domestically and internationally. So, yes please someone with experience!

printdude / October 23, 2006 10:29 AM

To all those who say that Barack ought not to run:

Do you have anyone who is better suited to lead our country in mind, or are you just being a nay-sayer?

JenJen / October 23, 2006 10:41 AM

Cnote, you say

"And please, don't do something as stupid as deciding not to vote for him because he rode in an SUV. That would be a ridiculous"

Not voting for someone because of hypocracy is neither stupid nor ridiculous (Even in the case of Barack).

Marilyn / October 23, 2006 10:48 AM

Printdude - You either support Obama or you're a nay-sayer? This isn't an either/or issue. This is the presidency of the United States

printdude / October 23, 2006 10:53 AM

Right -
I am asking you for a person to vote for:

Either you have someone better than Barack or you don't.

It is a yes or no question.

Marilyn / October 23, 2006 11:00 AM

No, you called me a nay-sayer for not putting forward another name. OK, you want someone? Peter Fitzgerald.

printdude / October 23, 2006 11:09 AM

it's nice to know why you don't prefer Obama.
See, if I were a anit-choice Republican who foavored business over education, I'd dislike Obama, too.

Good thing for you there's a thing called Florida.

Marilyn / October 23, 2006 11:22 AM

Printdude - Fitzgerald isn't so easy to characterize, and he stands against corruption and for the environment. Here's a little something about him:

"Fitzgerald is difficult to peg politically. Some consider him a conservative, pointing to his views on abortion and federal spending. He is also a maverick, and has been a close ally of Senator John McCain on a variety of issues in Washington. Fitzgerald has some views that are more liberal, particularly on environmental issues—he opposed drilling in ANWR throughout his tenure in the US Senate.

Throughout his tenure in the Senate, Fitzgerald battled with the state Republican Party leadership. He insisted on the appointment of an out-of-state US attorney to investigate corruption in the Illinois state government, which led to a slew of indictments, including former Republican Governor George Ryan, who has since been convicted of several criminal abuses of authority. Fitzgerald declined to run for reelection largely because many Republican insiders who had failed to support him in his first run in 1998 had made it clear he would not have their support again, in what he knew would be a much tougher race."

I'd say I can handle him not standing for everything I stand for. We need a consensus government again, not the winner-take-all government we've had for years.

printdude / October 23, 2006 11:51 AM

Sounds an awful lot like a Florida Republican to me.

Perhaps you need to see some realty sites from Palm Beach County?

Spook / October 23, 2006 12:17 PM

Howard Dean

Mikey / October 23, 2006 12:24 PM

Skinnyfoodie -

I don't chalk up Dubya's disastrous presidency to inexperience, but rather to arrogance, stupidity and priorities more aligned with big business (his "base") than with the American people. He was planning the Iraq invasion (familial vendetta?) before 9/11 even occurred. The attack merely allowed him to execute the invasion with little or no resistance and debate whatsover, and to even argue against it was to bring one's own patriotism into question. Fear has been this presidency's greatest and misused weapon...

andy / October 23, 2006 12:31 PM

I would agree that Peter Fitzgerald is a hard politician to peg, but since everyone is arguing about experience, I think it's fair to point out that the man only served one term in the Senate. He's hardly more qualified than Barack Obama to be President.

Marilyn / October 23, 2006 12:45 PM

You know, I'm sorry I mentioned Fitzgerald. He has a record that I somewhat agree with, but I'm sorry I took printdude's bait. I'd rather research the field and come up with a considered response.

Printdude - If you think you are insulting me, think again. I'm not interested in what you think I am, because you don't know me. Why don't you stop hiding behind your alias. You're a realtor in Florida, right?

p / October 23, 2006 12:55 PM

i think the issue of obama's lack of experience is more one of whether he has put in enough time to build adequate political capital to actually win the election rather than an indictment of whether he's suitably qualified (which I believe he is). Does he have enough favors owed him within the democratic party to mount a successful bid? Would running him now expose him too early to the microscope placed on presidential candidates and spoil more assured nomination/opportunity later? I just want him to be able to go all-in at the right time and not squander all the (growing) popularity he's been enjoying. Sometimes great candidates wait too long and suffer for lack of momentum later- a la General Clark. If that time is now- so be it- I'll certainly be excited- but wary.

printdude / October 23, 2006 1:04 PM

I am a Chicagoan through and through, Marilyn, but I have deep knowledge of Florida and its politcal leanings.
Your suggestion of Fitz was your own, not through any bait of mine; I was asking for a better candidate than Obama, instead of nay-saying.
So you take back Fitz, then, hmm? Do you have another candidate you prefer? Perhaps you'd like to back Jeb or Condi?

Marilyn / October 23, 2006 1:26 PM

Printdude - Come out, come out wherever you are!

mark / October 23, 2006 1:30 PM

should he run/can he win???
well he is a blank slate right now that everyone can pin all their hopes and dreams to... which many people want since the debacle of this right wing incompentent adminstration countered by a brutally deafening abdication of responsible opposition party...
people want someone talking about hopes instead of fears and those longings are projected onto obama

and that is a plus for him because he can stake out his positions with knowledge of the already well known possible candidates having track records

his record in the senate is still slight enough that he wont have to run against too many of his own votes
money would not be a problem for him after the oprah blessing

does all this plus being smart, having a great book tour, and a honeymoon love affair with the media not seen since colin powell fawning, equal (YES) GRAVITAS?

Can he stand up to John Mccain in 2 years (while we will still likely be in tough straits internationally) and convince an electoral majority of the U.S. that they should hand him the presidency?

answer to both is NO in my opinion

Johnson Q / October 23, 2006 1:30 PM

Printdude - I'd take the sitting governor of almost *any* state (NJ and IL excluded) before Obama, simply because that person probably has more political acumen than someone who beat Alan Keys for a Senate seat.

Just remember, the mythical man we have come to know as the Legend of Obama, is partially the product of Blair Hull being a wife beater and Jack Ryan being a sex fiend.

printdude / October 23, 2006 1:44 PM

I stand behind Barack not only because I believe he can do the job well, but because I truly believe that he is an entirely good man, and having met him, can say that he could probably convince me to take a pay cut to work for him. He would have to ask, though.

As for his percieved lack of record, you must not have payed much attention to him while he worked in-state.

I'll not hold it against you if you are a johnny-come-lately, but if you must hate the man for being darlinged-up by the media, you must really hate U2 and that last alubm they put out, along with Bob Dylan and his last 10 or so albums.

Have you heard?
The parade is about to pass you by.

Oh, Marilyn, please call RE-MAX of the Treasure coast. I believe they are looking for some replacement blue-hairs.

Marilyn / October 23, 2006 1:47 PM

Printdude - What the weather like down there? Print? Can you only print? Never learned cursive? Do you work in a printing plant. Are you a reporter for the Miami Herald?

printdude / October 23, 2006 1:54 PM

Marilyn, I do not belong in FLA with all the crackers and blue-hairs, nay, I won't lay claim to your land.

I'm just trying to get you out of my land, where we honor and respect those with courage and conviction, not convictions.

Do me a favor and call that broker today, okay?

printdude / October 23, 2006 1:57 PM

Oh, and Marilyn, please read my latest post from the herald, while you're on hold from that broker....

you can find it through the link in my name

Spook / October 23, 2006 1:59 PM

You Printdude

If Barack is such a good man, what's up with voting for the Bankruptcy Bill supported by the credit card and banking industry , it was horrible vote against poor people and the vast majority of low income/working people who file for bankruptcy because of medical reasons. What's up with his tepid responses to the horrendous supreme court nominees,( now judges!) not to mention his support for Conda Sleeza Rice.

It would be one thing if he called himself what he is, a middle of the road, say any thing to get elected democrat, but to pretend that he is the champion of the common person or that he represents some new dynamic paradigm is just false. We deserve not to win untill we stand for something. At least some elected Republi-creatures belive in something and are willing to fight for it. I like my democrats like I like my beer strong and I'm not talking just national defense!

p.s I met him too,
Gawd how I miss Paul Wellstone

Marilyn / October 23, 2006 1:59 PM

Carl, I loved your last book. A real page turner. Too bad you hate people who are old and disagree with you. That won't make you very valuable to the Obama for President forces.

Spooks / October 23, 2006 2:00 PM

Opps, that's " Yo Printdude"!

mark / October 23, 2006 2:04 PM

who said anything about hate

and i am well aware of his work in the state house once the dems took over

i was merely trying to state some of the factors that go into the calculus of possible candidates

should he run is directly linked to CAN HE WIN??

and as i said in my opinion with how it adds up or the lack of it adding up he would be best served not to run

silly rock artist analogies aside...anyone with media coverage like he is getting is a good thing if they help to add to the debate of ideas in politics....and he is clearly doing just that

have fun on your parade delusiondude

printdude / October 23, 2006 2:05 PM

I love the fact that you two (spook + Marilyn) are against Barack, and wholeheartedly! Yet still, you can't name anyone whom you would prefer.

Seems to me, I'm standing right where I wsh to be:

On the opposite side from y'all.

Be sure and wear sunscreen, won't you?

Allan / October 23, 2006 2:08 PM

Fitzgerald? Are you serious? That guy is a gump

Spook / October 23, 2006 2:15 PM

I did Printy in Pink

Howard Dean, WHAT! who at this very moment is boldly and bravly fighting to save the democratic party least it sink into oblivion
like the Whig Pary, son!

jen / October 23, 2006 2:55 PM

yes.

in a discussion with a fellow clevelander last night, we both agreed that we would work on obama's campaign were he to run.
and travel back to ohio each weekend to do so.

Felix / October 23, 2006 3:39 PM

I'm still holding out hope for Kucinich, but instead the masses often fall into line and eat up someone like Kerry, or perhaps even Obama (too early to tell), where they project his "winnability/ electability." And then they reap what they've sown.

Itzie / November 1, 2006 9:36 AM

I think he needs to seize the popular support that is currently behind him and run now...it might be his (and our) only chance! I would LOVE to see him as our president and I don't think any other time would be an option.