Obama is running a very smart campaign that looks past the Democratic Primaries. The others don't miss an opportunity to bash Bush.

Terry McAuliffe did an interview for NPR Friday where he stated that the race will be all but over by Feb 08 -- that's how the state jockeying for primaries is skewing toward a near-perpetual Presidential campaign. So, essentially we will know who the Democratic candidate is by this time next year.

Having read both of Obama's books, which I believe should be required reading for everyone with a brain in this country, I believe that Obama is thinking beyond the primaries, I think he is thinking beyond the general election, I think he is genuinely thinking about how to change and transform our country. This statement probably sounds incredibly naive, and perhaps I am blinded by my own hopes. I have spent a lifetime as a political junky and worked in politics in many different roles. I hope, I believe, that Obama is the real deal: a transformational leader. He is someone who is genuinely committed to liberal values, but who has figured out how to frame those values using our history and our constitution so that they are appealing to a broader audience.

I hope that others will set aside their cynacism and actually pay attention to what Obama is saying. Read his books, especially his first book "Dreams From My Father." I am willing to wager that when you put the book down will be saying, "I hope this guy becomes my President."

I hope, I believe, that Obama is the real deal: a transformational leader. He is someone who is genuinely committed to liberal values, but who has figured out how to frame those values using our history and our constitution so that they are appealing to a broader audience.

I too, believe he is a visionary and that we are witnessing history in the making. Our American democracy has reached a nadir and we are experiencing a constitutional crisis and threat to the rule of law this democracy was founded on due to the gross  incompetence, fraud and  'tyranny by the decider' GWBush and his neo-con/big oil cabal...we are on the precipice of watching our very democracy and republic as we know it crumble..

Obama understands that and based on his knowledge of the constitution, the rule of law, and what American democracy means he is communicating to Americans how to take back their country and act to sustain the democracy they believe in. Americans must understand their power in order to execute it and halt the disintegration of our country domestically and globally.

Hello!?! What a snarky post. "Fictionalized autobiography," says who? Homophobic? Corpratist? Based on what?

I am getting more than a little tired of people who are supposed to be Democrats, repeating Republican memes about Obama being an "empty suit." The guy was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a constitutional law professor at a top tier school. He has a long and distinguished record of progressive votes and successful legislating in the Illinois Senate. He was right on Iraq from the start. He has a more progressive voting record than any of the Senatorial candidates. His books are beautifully written without a ghostwriter and clearly demonstrate that he has a wonderful mind and are full of self-deprecating humor that comes across as very genuine.

I am an agnostic who is not involved in any organized religion, but I am glad that Obama can speak in the language of the majority of our country. I do not find him to be overly pious, just comfortable talking about his own beliefs.

Who are you, and who do you support? Are you schilling for the DLC, Hillary, are you a paid Republican operative? If you are going to throw around a bunch of unsubstantiated attacks, we have a right to ask.

The point isn't that Obama is totally bipartisan. He has a very progressive, strongly Democratic voting record. The point is that by stressing bipartisanship, after years of fierce partisanship, Obama is combining good politics with good policy:

The public yearns for less bickering and gridlock, so it is good politics. In terms of policy, it is important to find areas of agreement, it is important to be able to strike "grand compromises" in order to get things done. Our system of checks and balances makes it very hard to get anything done during divided government. So stressing bipartisanship is a way of laying the foundation for better policy.

It is also a way of restoring faith in the "idea" of government. For the last twenty-five years conservatives have bad-mouthed government and done everything they can to discredit governments ability to do anything efficiently or effectively. Overcoming cynacism is a way of restoring the publics faith in the possibility of collective communitarian action.

Sorry to burst your bubble, darling, but Obama himself acknowledges (in the forward to his book) that he has created composite characters "to better tell [his] story," leaving many of the conversations and circumstances he cites as unverifiable. In the real world, we call that "fictionalized."

Also, darling, Barack Obama is on record as stating he is "uncomfortable" with gay marriage, and he goes on to cite his religious beliefs. In the real world, we call that bigotry and homophobia. Gee, it wasn't so long ago that people were "uncomfortable" with mixed race marriages, too, such as the one that Obama's mother and father enjoyed. Such blatant hypocrisy certainly does detract from the sort of integrity we would hope our candidate's strive for.

And by corporatist, I refer to Obama's voting record (albeit thin), specifically the banking bills. Do your own homework.

I am getting so tired of all you Obama fluffers who seem to spend your entire days roaming the internet to try to eliminate any critical discussion of Obama, who he is, and what he stands for. Go spin your paranoia someplace else.

You can look at Obama and immediately see where he may have problems getting enough votes even to win the primaries. Then, you can listen to him and hear why he will have still more problems getting enough votes to win the primaries. That is certainly no knock on him, but on our voters.

In any case, as I have posted before, the primaries are where we get to express ourselves about what kind of candidate we want running for president. I am pretty sure now that my expression will be that I want a progressive, who is intelligent, articulate, does not attack those who differ with his positions, but does speak persuasively about those positions, who is comfortable with people different from him, whether that means being gay or being more experienced, and who stands for the things I believe are important.

Right now I am disappoiinted only because I can't find a campaign website for Obama.

Hoppy in Sacramento

What Banking Bills are you referring to? He voted AGAINST the Bankruptcy Bill? Hillary didn't vote on that bill, because Bill's surgery was scheduled for that day.

03/10/2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill VOTE = NO

An interesting voting comparison diary on Daily Kos:

Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama Part 1 (2005)

Obama still has a lot to prove, and his electability remains open to question. But I too was impressed with the generational aspect of his speech.

The Baby Boomer leaders in both political parties are a walking, talking disaster area. The "worst generation" epithet only begins to describe them. (Nothing personal; some of my best friends are Boomers.)

One thing that Obama has going for him, in stark contrast to Hillary, was that he was not in the Senate in the dark days of 2001-04. The Republican Noise Machine will have a field day hanging the "flip-flopper" moniker on Hillary if she is the nominee, especially with regard to the war. One advantage to having a record as short as Obama's is that it gives the opposition less fodder to distort.

2008's nightmare scenario: Mrs. Clinton as the Democrat nominee and Rudolph Giuliani as the GOP nominee. Both are Boomer candidates in the worst possible sense. Kiss America bye-bye if that is the choice.

Was I watching the same speech? Personally I found it fairly boring, better than his DNC Winter Con, speech but on the whole nothing better than Chris Dodd could give on a typical day.

The bi-partisan stuff was weak too. "Co-sponsorred an anti-loose nukes bill with Dick Lugar," Senators have been co-sponsorring loose nukes bills since the fall of the Soviet Union, for all the bi-partisanship it's brought us.

Besides which, has there ever been an emptier suit than the current occupant? In fact, Obama's lack of political experience may be a handicap just because it could remind people that the last time they voted for a guy with so little political experience, it was Bush.

Of course, Obama's obvious charisma, intelligence, and political instincts are far greater than Bush's (need it be said?)--but unfortunately for him, this may be a cycle when people are less willing to take a chance with someone relatively new and unfamiliar. After all, that was the mistake they made in 2000.

It's irrational, of course, but voting behavior, especially in a presidential election, is almost completely irrational.

I guess it's true, denial is really more than a river in Egypt.

HERE'S BUT ONE EXAMPLE OF OBAMA'S INFLATED SENSE OF SELF-IMPORTANCE:

"I've written two best-selling books that probably give people more insight into how I think and what I care about than, perhaps, any presidential candidate or potential presidential candidate in history."

-- Sen. Barack Obama, in an interview with The Politico's Roger Simon.

Look this is sheer BS. What was the question he was responding to? You attempt to infer that he made an egotistical self-serving remark without any context of what was being asked. Give the complete context and stop the innuendos. Nothing but hotairandnosubstance, is what this is. Your screaming in caps does not add validity to your factless assertions.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK, DARLING. Obama himself acknowledges (in the forward to his book) to having included "composite" characters with circumstances and conversations that are devised to "better tell [his] story." In the real world, we call that fiction.

Based on this...you are protesting full disclosure, honesty and accuracy by demeaning it as fiction. Moreover,  your use of this criteria means all autobiographies are fictional.

You people act as if Obama must somehow be above critical examination and then you react incensed when someone comes along and says something you don't like.

Wrong. First off there are no 'you people'. Secondly, you have failed to provide any valid criticism or facts to support your conjecture and wild speculations about Obama and his positions on the issues or his judgment.  Third, no one is incensed. You simply are frustrated because your juvenile attempts to smear and create false rumors have been met with demands for facts and evidence. This is not talk radio. When you post on this site you are expected to provide sources and facts to substantiate what you assert. So far, you have failed miserably in that regard and are successfully and loudly posturing. 

As a good old Democratic war horse once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I'm pulling for Gore, myself.

As they say in corporate America...'if you can't run with the big dogs don't come off the porch.'

The only thing you are pulling is yourself.

Lest we be left with any mis-impressions, it is true that Gore actually won the 2000 Presidential popular vote, with compelling evidence that he won the vote in Florida (and thereby the electoral vote), as well, whereas there is no basis for your statment that Obama is "obviously a superb vote-getter." Obama has no track record whatsoever on the national stage.

Here's a fact for you--Gore isn't president. Ipso facto, he lost, and he lost what was really an unloseable election. Jesus, the guy couldn't even carry his own state!

Here's another fact--Obama hasn't lost an election yet. That, plus his poll numbers are plenty enough to call him a superb vote-getter.

What really frosted my onions about Gore is that HE COULDN'T WAIT TO GIVE UP on election night.
He looked like an ass conceding prematurely, then calling Bush back to rescind his concession. It started the whole Florida battle off on the wrong foot. However smart he is as an administrator or policy wonk, Gore is a political imbecile.

No -- I have not taken any money from any campaigns.

When JFK and Bill Clinton made the generational argument they were breaking away from a generation in their 70's. Most boomers are in their 50's.

I like Obama but I can tell you that running a campaign with a message that every boomer's time is long gone just might not sell well to the people who are actually going to be doing the voting.

Instead, he can and should run against perpetuating another dynasty. He should run on a platform of change. Since people aren't happy with the way things are going change is a winner. Telling boomers to be unhappy with themselves is not a winner.

Obama interests me, but I'm with the people who think he's a little thin on experience. That wouldn't make me totally unwilling to vote for him, if he puts out some very specific position papers on issues I care about. I'm in "wait and see" mode.

Hillary - not all that interested in her. I believe she is way too moderate, just like her hubby.

Edward - I'm VERY interested in his candidacy. I believe he has a firm committment to economic justice and ending the war in Iraq. I'm a bit worried that he is also too cozy with corporate america, but in my mind, all the candidates are.

Gore - I would vote for him in a New York minute. And I don't believe for a second that he is "too lame a campaigner to win". I actually believe that America would be very interested in "seeing what they missed". I think in many people's mind it would be a cleansing experience. A chance to get it right. I ABSOLUTELY think he could win. But I believe that Gore is a fundamentally honest man, and he's said he will not run. Therefore I don't think he will run.

This thread contains examples of why Democrats haven't consistently won the presidency since the '60s. Stupidity, naivete, anger, and some people who have their own, passionate, personal agenda that has nothing to do with actually winning. If we do win in 2008 it will be, as in 2006, because the Republicans are so awful as an alternative rather than because Democrats have finally solved the problems that have dogged the party since 1968.

There's a vast difference between Dean and Obama. Obama is a smarter politician and does really want to win. I'm not sure when Dean started out he thought he'd win and I'm not sure he wanted to.

agreed...

I'm genuinely curious: do people really believe that Obama will be the first person in US history to get partisanship and bickering out of politics?

Isn't it all a show?

For Christsakes it's like arguing politics with one of the Gabor sisters. No darling, you made the claim, you do the homework. Banking bills? Name them.

He's got a year for you to get to know him. BTW he's done plenty in the years he's been in politics
in Illinois and the US Senate. When Republicans make these claims what they're really saying is they can't plausibly say he's voted to raise taxes 350 times.

Yes, Dean was flying high. Why did he crash? What lessons does the Dean experience have for the '08 race?

1) The Dem leaning MSM (NYT, WP, CNN) spent months assualting Dean's electability and convinced the good folks in Iowa that Dean was too liberal and too anti-war to win the general election.

2) Both Gephardt and Leiberman went Kamikazee on Dean, spending all their money on negative ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. This had the effect of driving Gep and Joememtum into the cellar, but damaged Dean and created an opening for Edwards and Kerry.

3) Dean's campaign in Iowa made significant errors: going too negative, and relying on too many out-of-state volunteers and not enough in-state organization.

The result was that rather than nominating the authentic, anti-war Governor with the moderate record, the party nominated the establishment's favorite the pedantic, stilted, MA Senator with the long record and the propensity to speak out of both sides of his mouth.

What lesson should we learn?

I would argue that either Obama or Edwards would be far superior to HRC. HRC comes across in the same calculated, inauthentic way that Kerry did. Her tortured positions on the war will open her to the same flip-flopping charges.
she will be accused of naked ambition, and no one is more Democratic establishment than the Clintons.

Don't let the establishment and the MSM talk us into making the same mistake twice. HRC is the one with the electability problem, and if she does manage to win, we will be in for eight more years of bitter, polarized, partisanship and DLC caution.

I think it remains to be seen whether Edwards or Obama is the stronger candidate. At this point, I lean towards Obama because I beleive he could be a more transformative leader, however, he has to show that he can handle the heat and that he can thread the needle on the complex issues of racial identity.

Above all I encourage Dems to avoid picking up Republican memes about Obama being inexperienced and superficial. His undergraduate degree was in international studies and economics; he has community organizing experience that really connected him to the poor and working people of Chicago; he has Harvard Law and ten years as a constututional law professor
at a top tier school; by 2008 he will have twelve years of legislative experience (eight in Illinois, four in the US Senate); he has demonstrated his gifts as a speaker and writer; and he will be nearly 48 by the time of the inauguration, older than Kennedy or Clinton. He has far more foriegn affairs experience than either Clinton or W, and finally he had the judgement to make the right call from the beginning on the biggest issue of our day, Iraq.

gq I was there today. Froze my butt off but it was worth it. No he won't be able to get partisanship and bickering out of politics but he will be able to marginalize the Roves to the far ineffective dark corners where they belong for the first time in decades. On the bus back home a red Dodge minivan passed us with windows all soaped up like it was homecoming with "Barack Hussein" on the side and "I love all Muslims but I don't want one for president" on the back. That's all they have and it'd be my guess about 98% of the country will adamantly reject that.

I passed out free tickets yesterday for his appearance tomorrow at the U of IL Chicago campus's Pavilion at a local suburban bookstore in my solidly Republican bedroom burb. When I asked people if they wanted tickets to see Obama make history nobody, but nobody snickered and walked away. Many were more than happy to take them even though it required signing the sheet with their contact info. Those who didn't in most cases at least made sincere sounding excuses as to why they couldn't go. Almost everybody expressed an interest in the campaign. Even here in this town which again, is overwhelmingly white and Republican he is viewed as our guy, not the local guy, not the Illinois guy, but "our" guy by most everybody. I've worked a lot of campaigns but this really is remarkable.

Obama could overcome the "inexperience" label with startling speed.  It's called Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.  A watershed moment is coming on Iraq.  Someone is going to stand up to this President and the nation will cheer.  The dam will break and people will demand change.  The moderate Republicans will finally abandon the president and the Dems will assert control.  But someone must take the lead.  That brave person may not be Obama.  But if it is, he will leave the competition in the dust.

Throughout most of American history, there has been no worse presidential candidate than the US senator.  It's fitting then, that in these crazy times we live in, there could be no better venue for campaigning for president than the floor of the US senate.  Where else could you stand up and make empassioned speeches against an unpopular president and an unpopular war? Where else could you show leadership on Iraq now - not in 2008, but now?!?  If you're running for president, the senate is exactly where you want to be.

Sure, Obama is inexperienced.  But the nation is ready for a watershed moment.  It is ready for someone to stand up and say, "NO!" to this president.  And the person best able to make that statement is a US Senator.  A senator will be heard.  And a senator will be in a position to create change.  Think Jack Murtha times ten.  The opportunity is coming... 

The key is bravery, timing, and political savvy.  Bravery, because the successful senator must take the lead and make the transition from symbolic resistence to real resistence.  Standing up to the president will require a binding resolution to cut off funding in Iraq.  It needs to be real.  Timing, because as Howard Dean and Russ Feingold will tell you, the only thing worse than being wrong is being right too soon.  A binding resolution must be perfectly timed.  It doesn't need to get 50 or 60 votes, but it must be something more than symbolic.  It must make the White House scared and it must be real enough to create excitement.  In hindsight, it must look inspired.  It must look like a turning point.  And political savvy, because it's not enough to piggy back on Jim Webb or some other brave senator.  If Obama wants to win this thing, he needs to make the big speech and put forth the binding resolution.

The nation doesn't just want a candidate. It wants someone to stand up to President Bush. It wants a leader to emerge. 

As a person who knows some of the people and organizations that are material for composites in Obama's first book, in the Chicago section, it seems clear to me that he changes names in order to be more truthful, in order not to have to pull punches to protect the privacy of people that he worked closely with, and cares about.

Have you read this book? It is gut-wrenchingly honest, and yes, certainly qualifies as telling us more about Obama than we have known about any other candidate, before they ran.

I'm kind of surprised that Obama's speech got me excited. I would have thought that with all the blogging and commenting and analyzing that I'd be beyond that. But, he did get my interest and enthusiasm, if not my vote.

To be fair to Hillary Clinton on the question of who's more history-making... Clinton isn't just the first woman with a good shot at winning, she's the first former First Lady have been elected to the senate. That accomplishment alone is enough to put her in the history books. I don't want to make too much of this, but she really took a ceremonial post that usually leads to a life as America's cookie-baker and maybe an advocate for social issues, and went way farther.

Also, don't forget Bill Richardson. He's also a potential history-maker. I think he's more Veep material than anything, but he's a first Hispanic contender for the highest office and should be acknowledged as such.

Now, all this "history making," stuff based on race and gender is fun, but it's also not the most important thing. The white guys running have a lot to recommend them as well. We've got a really strong field. That it's diverse is excellent and speaks to how times have changed. But that it's so strong is what's really got my hopes up for 2008.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

js,

Let's be clear here. Markos Moulitsas, the owner and founder of Daily Kos, was hired as a technical consultant for Howard Dean.  He announced this on his site the next day.  Jerome Armostrong of mydd made a similar disclosure. So it's simply false to say that "Kos and other blogggers took money from Dean then stayed silent while boosting Dean's credentials."  What you are saying is factually wrong.

I suspect this is why your comment is receiving so many 1's and O's.

Obama was wonderful! His speech was masterful. I contrasted it to Hillary's sad denial in New hampshire that she voted for the war in Iraq today and could not help but contrast the two.

You nailed it. "Experience" isn't the issue. Leadership is.

The people who got us into the Iraq quagmire have impressive resumes, after all. Maybe in 2008 we'll learn to look beyond the resume.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I just don't think people will take Hillary seriously enough... Like Al Gore who had to profess, "I'm my own man," Hillary will probably have to say "I'm my own woman."

Obama has no such baggage.

Gore! Would he be the candidate that lives in a 10,000 sq foot home to keep him and his wife in the sytle they've become accustomed to, which is one of 3 residences they toggle between? This while running around the world (on private jets) lecturing us on wasting energy. Good call.

In ’04 I watched my Democratic caucus in Iowa City turn to Kerry and I had the immediate impression that it was a defensive reaction aimed at the media.

The lesson of ’06 was that a significant portion of the electorate ignored the dominant media narratives and turned against the war and voted for Democrats who did not act defensively about security issues.

So far Obama has that right, 95% of the speech was affirmative and leaned forward. He is going to be slimed and swiftboated but he seems to know that he has to speak above and around a media wurlitzer that many, especially those younger than 40, have tuned out. I don’t see any other candidates who seem to understand that as well as he does.

I am a boomer but I was not put off by his generational call to action. After all, we did give the world George W. Bush and the divisive political ass he Roved in on but we do not need to rehash the 60s one more time. Obama will move us past that.

But I am not in his camp, I still want to hear specific policies about foreign policy, health care, the environment and the economy. And I know that those specifics will probably have little effect on the outcome of the primary.

J. McCutchen

I'm with you. I don't get the generational thing either. If we boomers didn't invent inter-gen conflict, we surely reinvigorated it.

I came clean for Gene, others for RFK. I haven't got any generational hang ups. I'd rather like to feel young again!

This thread contains examples of why Democrats haven't consistently won the presidency since the '60s.

What examples?

In what way are "Baby Boomers" even a unified voting block? And how is Obama telling boomers that they are "long gone" or that they should be "unhappy with themselves"?  Seriously, I'm asking.  Is that what you actually took from his speech?  It's not what I got from it, that's for sure. 

(Perhaps you are just responding to MuteNostrilAgony's post with a heated post of your own?)

I think using the language of a "new generation" is a subtle, tactful way of criticizing Clintons or Bushes as dynasties.  As Greg said, it's lofty language.  Obama is treading lightly and skillfully around the dynasty idea, handling it almost gently.  

And for the record, most baby boomers are now well into their 60's.

I got this from a highly placed source who was in on those conference calls in the last days. Yeah advisors pushed him and if Palm Beach County had come in the way it was supposed to on a clean ballot it would have come out the way they'd said.
But anybody who'd been watching that state should have known that Jeb and Harris were doing anything and everything to steal it. In the end the decision was Gore's. He could have made the safe play and won without Florida.