Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obama for President

Back in October, I was touting Barack Obama as a great Democratic star. Since then Obama has been shining with beautiful brilliance, a brilliance so great that he seems to put all other Democratic candidates in a deep shadow. I see and appreciate his unifying light. I think he will make a great president, one that will restore this country’s luster.

Obama has been receiving lots of praise from both the Right and the Left. However, the praise always comes with a caution that he lacks experience. I must admit I have been cautious too. But every time I hear what he says and what he does, my caution evaporates. Today, I have very little caution left.

Obama has charisma. Obama makes a stupendous speech. Obama is a uniter who wants to bring all Americans together to achieve a grand future.

Obama thinks that liberals and conservatives can and should work together, even in areas where there appear to be an apparently unyielding polarization. Take the Left-Right controversy about all matters sexual. You would think that if a person such as Pastor Rick Warren, conservative author of the best-seller "The Purpose-Driven Life," invites a liberal such as Barack Obama to speak about AIDS at the World AIDS Conference to his 20,000 member Saddleback Church in Orange County, California, Obama would go, make a speech and receive polite applause. But that is not what happened.

Immediately after the invitation was given, the Religious Right erupted with condemnation of Warren because he invited a liberal Democrat who believes a woman has a right to choose an abortion when necessary. They spouted hate-filled venom. At this point I must praise Rick Warren, who though an evangelical Christian, had the courage to invite Barack Obama who disagrees with him about abortion and other matters related to sex. A truly American action.

When Senator Barack Obama spoke at the AIDS conference, he did not mince words. He said what he thought and believed:

I also believe that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal and not the reality - that we are dealing with flesh and blood men and women and not abstractions - and that if condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available.

He said a lot more in a very impressive, religious and heart-felt speech. This is what he said toward the end:

Or we can embrace another tradition of politics - a tradition that has stretched from the days of our founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another - and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done for the people with whom we share this Earth.

Obama delivered an excellent speech. You should read the whole speech.

What kind of reaction did Obama receive? He got a standing ovation! He told them what he believed, which contradicted what the audience believed, and yet the audience stood and applauded strongly! The audience embraced Obama because it agreed that "what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart." The audience wanted to be part of a broader community consisting of all Americans.

An excellent way of living up to our motto "E pluribus unum," ("from many, one") is to elect Barack Obama president of America in 2008.

Posted by Paul Siegel at December 6, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #198076

As a resident from the downtrodden southern section of the Democratic State of Illinois, I have to ask, “Barack who?”

Posted by: JD at December 6, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #198097

Sen. Obama also has a history which is going to be unfolded for national review which is not reflective of presidential material, if any of those traits or tendencies are still extant. He will have a helluva job ahead of him convincing the public that what he has done in the past is not a part of who he is today.

Great orators are not necessarily great leaders. I have known many who could talk up a blue streak after a couple six packs, qualifying them for Senatorial Oratory Awards, but, couldn’t walk a straight line to save their soul. Walking the talk is a rare mix for most people, especially in politics.

I like what I see in Sen. Obama so far, but, I will withhold judgment for a far more detailed look, and research of his past actions, affiliations, and stands under varying and stressful conditions. There is no comparison between the stress of being a Senator and the stress of being our President.

GW Bush has aged 20 years in 6.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 6, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #198116

To be quite honest with you, I don’t want to see this guy in an election just yet, or Senator Clinton for that matter. I want these people to get more real experience before they show up wanting to be president.

Let us learn from the mistakes of the Republicans on this one: six years as a Texas Governor did not prepare Bush for office.

We need our candidates to be more than just nice speakers. We need them capable to bear the heavy burdens of this office. There’s a reason Clinton came in a relatively healthy guy with dark hair and left bright white only a few years from a bypass. Let’s test those two candidates for a few years longer before we go trying to win elections and lead the nation with them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #198119

Sixty years as Governor of Texas would not have prepared George Bush for office.

Hillary may not have been the Governor of Arkansas or the President of the United States. However, I think that she gained a lot of experience while Her husband was.

I know that Obama gives a great speech and he is the darling of the Kos liberals right now but as David R. points out he has a lot of bagage that can be swift boated very easily.

My money is still going to be on Clinton. She seems to be fairly intelligent and she is doing what she can to position herself in the middle. She stood by her man when he did her wrong and in this age of divorce, that resonates with more than a few women and men. How many men out there wish their exwives had given them another chance instead of socking it to them in a nasty divorce.

If and when she gets the nomination, I think she should pick a former general like Clark as her running mate.

Posted by: jlw at December 7, 2006 2:52 AM
Comment #198126

What “baggage from his past” or “history” are you talking about, exactly?

Besides having a used drugs in high school he is pretty squeaky clean, it seems. And I don’t think very many people will be too tough on him for that since it was nearly 40 years ago and hardly unprecedented.

I suppose some Islamophobes might be put off by the fact that his father (who didn’t even raise him) was born into a Muslim family and that he inherited a middle name from that heretige (Hussein). He also spent 4 years of his childhood (6-10) in Indonesia, which is a Muslim country. I suppose some might have a problem with this but I don’t think that any reasonable person would hold him accountable for decisions made by his parents and/or give a hoot where he lived when he was 10. Besides, I doubt any serious Islamophobes were considering voting Democratic anyway.

Compared to all the other politicians I know of, his past is quite distinctly un-seedy.

Posted by: Gumby at December 7, 2006 7:18 AM
Comment #198142

I think Obama’s problem is that he has almost NO baggage. He has virtually no experience. Let’s be honest about this. Everyone is excited about him because he is good looking, mixed race and exotic.

“Swiftboating” (we used to call it Borking) worked because there was material to work with. Obama provides no material, but that is exactly the problem. You cannot construct a candidate w/o some resume.

Think of a job application for president. List Obama’s relevant experience and contrast it with that of other potential candidates. What we have is great potential. He would be wise to go for the VP spot. Of course, that was the Gore strategy.

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #198147

Barack Obama may become a viable candidate someday. What he lacks is executive experience. If you look at the Presidents of the 20th century, all but 1 had experience as an executive in a large organizations. If you look at recent elections, the Governor in the election won. Obama next step should Governor of Illinois. Until then, the Democrats should be looking at folks like Bill Richardson.

Posted by: David at December 7, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #198159

Jack Kennedy had served only two years in the Senate when he was elected President. Too much time as a legislator may be a disadvantage for someone seeking an executive job. So, if Senator Obama doesn’t want to retire from politics as Senator Obama, run, Barack, run!

Posted by: Dragon at December 7, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #198165

Jack Kennedy had served only two years in the Senate when he was elected President.

Eight years. He was first elected in 1952.

Posted by: Steve K at December 7, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #198197

While I don’t like to quote Rush Limbaugh its only appropriate here to point out that this is yet another case of the democrats going for style over substance. Its the cult of personality. All you have really said about him is that he says he wants us to all get along. Sounds nice but it really doesn’t mean anything. You might as well run Rodney “why can’t we all just get a long” King for president.
As for Obama speaking at Saddleback Church most conservative politicians can’t speak to a church group without fear of taking heat for “pandering to right wing nuts”, or fear that that church will have its tax status questioned for being used to promote the politican. On the other hand democrats for years have made the church pulpit a key part of their campaigns, often standing arm in arm with Black Pastors without any fear of criticism.

Posted by: Carnak at December 7, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #198200

As for Obama speaking at Saddleback Church most conservative politicians can’t speak to a church group without fear of taking heat for ‘pandering to right wing nuts’, or fear that that church will have its tax status questioned for being used to promote the politican.

Can you point to a politician who has not spoken at a church as you describe? I doubt it. As for Obama speaking: it is all perfectly fine. He wasn’t running for office or campaigning on anyone’s behalf. That is where the line is.

Posted by: Steve k at December 7, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #198211

So as conservative pro-life audience not only invited a pro-choice speaker but gave him a warm reception, and this is proof of Obama’s superior virtue?

Could you see NOW or Planned Parenthood inviting, say, Rick Santorum to speak? Could you see them giving him a standing ovation? Fat chance. Seems that civility here is a one-way street.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 7, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #198215

He wasn’t running for office or campaigning on anyone’s behalf. That is where the line is.

Wasn’t running for office?? then what are you talking about? Of course he is running and the fact that he is allowed to make an appearance at the church is a blatant violation of IRS rules.

Posted by: Marty B at December 7, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #198218

Apparently some hear are just learning that it’s ok for the democratic part candidates to candiate in Church (Obama, Hillary, Others), take their pastors (Obamam) on the campaign trail….but Republicans who do so are “neocons” that are using “brainwashed religious people” to gain office!

Obamam doesn’t shine until he does something. Tell me when he does something.

Meanwhile. Who in the Democratic Party has taken a stand, in congress, on the floor, to balance the budgets? Who in the democratic part has been able to walk away from the democrats “It aint broken” line on social security and has put forward a bill to really fix social security? Who in the democratic party has put foward a bill to really fix medicare? Who in the democratic party has put forward a bill to end ear-marks?

And whoes going to tell Harry Reid to stop taking money from people like Abramoff and to stop doing those dirty little land deals that so enrich him?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. When will the democrats really fix what’s broken?

Posted by: Stephen at December 7, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #198228


Now that I’ve stopped LMAO let me point out that virtually every Democratic politican campaigns for election in Black churches. Just turn on your TV during the next election. Its the same in every city in this country that has a sizable black population. Republican candidates try to get in on this but have very limited success in getting invited. Republicans speaking at white churches is, as I have mentoned, pretty much verboten unless you want to be labled by the media as pandering to right wing religious nuts. Just try to picture John McCain running for president and speaking at Liberty Road Baptist church. Election over.
You say Obama was not running for anything but lets face it he spoke at Saddleback not only because he was invited to do so but so that he can start marketing himself nationally. It was in essense one of his first campaign stops of 2008. Politically speaking not a bad move on his part.

Posted by: Carnak at December 7, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #198243

Think of a job application for president. List Obama’s relevant experience and contrast it with that of other potential candidates. What we have is great potential. He would be wise to go for the VP spot. Of course, that was the Gore strategy.
Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2006 10:11 AM

Jack, what impressive experience did GW have to recommend him to the US electorate in 2000? What were his glittering achievements? It seems to me that he was elected for his good ole boy humour and the fact that he wasn’t Al Gore. I’ve nothing particularly against Gore, but he did lack a certain charisma. I think wooden was probably the most common epithet raised against him. It seems to me that Bush has lived down to my low expectations of him. I never saw what he had to offer. What legacy do you think he will leave? What will history judge his record to have been?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 7, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #198249


Bush was governor of a state with 20 million people. A good practice for an executive position is an executive postion.

Besides the comparison argument you are making would make sense only if Bush had LESS experience AND you thought Bush was doing a really great job. As it is, if you feel Bush is doing poorly AND Obama has even less experience than Bush, you do not have much of a position left.

It is not necessarily true that Obama cannot get elected. It is just that we have absolutely no basis to judge besides looks, evident native intelligence and charisma. Those traits, while essential, are pretty common.

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #198253

Obama can speak, but can he govern? Two VERY different things. Also people are very good at saying things they don’t necessarily believe if it sounds good to the people who might be voting for them in a year or two.

Paul S.
A conservative christian church invited Obama to speak and gave him a standing ovation…this reflects well on the church, not Obama.

Posted by: Silima at December 7, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #198256

Jack, Bush may well have been Gov of Texas, but did he distinguish himself in any way in that post? I have to confess to a total ignorance of him before he sought the nomination in 2000. But when I saw him on TV while campaigning and read reports of him in newspapers, I have to admit that he did not strike me as a man up to the office, not by a long measure. And looking back over the last six years, I believe that my initial impressions have been vindicated. You seem to me to be a moderate conservative. If that is so, how can you support a presidency that has racked up debt by spending money as if its going out of style? And to what purpose? An administration that has malignly engaged its country in an unwinnable war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Queda, where Al Queda had no purchase, and where it does now, thanks to this madness.

I know little of Obama. But what I have seen is inspirational. Does that mean he would make a good president? I don’t know. What I do know is that first and foremost, a national leader should be capable of inspiring his or her people to raise their aspirations, to reach to build something better than they inherited. To motivate their people to pursue lofty and moral and prudent goals. To seek to leave a better society to the next generation. I believe that Obama has that gift. The fact is, we can seldom if even know in advance whether a person will in fact be a great leader. But when I think of US Presidents both within my lifetime and before, the ones who are remembered mostly for the right reasons, were the ones who had that gift. Take Roosevelt and Kennedy for example. Reagan to a lesser extent. Ok, I have to admit, as an Irishman, that Kennedy was idolised in Ireland. But I think that history is largely kind to him. And to see newsreel film of him making speeches is still inspiring. Is that enough? Maybe not, but it goes a long way. People still quote ” ask not what your country can do for you…..” or ” We have nothing to fear, but fear itself” Or “we shall bear any burden, pay any price….” These men not only inspired Americans, but people all over the globe.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 7, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #198257

Carnack, there is a chasm of legal difference between being invited to speak to a congregation at a Church, and the Church and its congregation campaigning for a candidate. One is legal, the other isn’t.

Ignorance of the law often blurs such distinctions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 7, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #198265

“Obama can speak, but can he govern? Two VERY different things.”

two qualities our current leader is entirely devoid of…

Posted by: Diogenes at December 7, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #198275


“Bush was governor of a state with 20 million people. A good practice for an executive position is an executive postion.

Besides the comparison argument you are making would make sense only if Bush had LESS experience AND you thought Bush was doing a really great job. As it is, if you feel Bush is doing poorly AND Obama has even less experience than Bush, you do not have much of a position left.”

Not all executives are particularly worthy of advancement just because they have attained that label. Many attain those positions because of favors owed, who they are, or who they know. Some are even effective regardless of experience or how they got there. If I remember correctly Texas was in less than pristine condition when Bush left. Everyone knows it was money, pandering to the religious right, and being able to effectively dupe the people into falling for the average guy next door routine that got him elected. If you are implying that after six years of failure he was worthy of the position, it speaks poorly of your judgement.

Perhaps a person that has not had the time to fall prey to the corruptive powers of our legislature might just be what this country needs. Somebody with intelligence that can look at our problems objectively, untainted by years of catering to money toteing lobbyists and special interest groups. Ethics reform is a current necesesity in government. Without it there can be no great advancements. I do not believe there are many long term legislators willing to promote it for fear of digging up their own dirt.

An untainted president who would be able to see thru the dirt and refuse to cater to corruption may be just what this country needs.

Posted by: ILdem at December 7, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #198276

I hate to tell you this, but Texas has one of the weakest governorships in the country. They can’t blow their noses without an amendment to the state constitution.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #198287

Stephen and Jack, not only that, in Texas, it is the Lieutenant Governor with most of the executive power, the Governor has a fair amount, but, not nearly as much as in other states.

‘Texas is in more dire need of a Constitutional blow up job, than any white man I know’, to paraphrase Good Morning, Viet Nam.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 8, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #198291

Folks need to understand two important things:

1. Democrats do get charged with illegal electioneering at churches. Read “AU Files Complaints With IRS About Illegal Church Electioneering” at this link:

2. Someone here said Obama is running for office. No he isn’t. Name the office, and point us all to the FEC filing statement. He isn’t breaking any electioneering laws.

3. Third, and most critical, everyone needs to understand the details about the laws regarding churches and politicians. No one (church or candidate) breaks the law by speaking at a church. The only thing that is illegal is the church’s endorsement of a candidate. That’s the fault of the church, not the candidate.

Posted by: Steve K at December 8, 2006 8:22 AM
Comment #198355

Steve K, quite right!

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 8, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #198446

For heaven’s sake! This is the US presidential election we are taking about here. Obama could change his name to George Washington Jefferson and he stands no more chance of being elected president in my lifetime than does Hilary Clinton. Nice idea, especially as political fodder, but this is still lilly white male dominated America. And this type of electorate will come out in droves if a Black man or any color woman wins the nomination of a major party for a presidential election. So I say “Condelezza Rice” for president!!!!!!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at December 9, 2006 6:19 AM
Comment #198447

Kim Sue, Condi ain’t black, she just looks that way! She’s pure white on the inside, and despite her accomplishments, totally discredited by her association with the current discredited regime.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 9, 2006 7:20 AM
Comment #198461

I don’t like those sorts of “oreo” allegations, to tell you the truth, because it implies that being educated, professional, and far along in a field is not being true to one’s race, which implies necessarily that other races don’t belong in positions requiring intellect, serious attitudes, and education. You can say that a person works with people who have done harm to their people, and agree with attitudes that do such harm, and avoid such stereotyping.

To all-
What I object to is this seeming pattern of automatic succession that seems to be building up in both parties. Pro forma promotion seems to have failed us in terms of delivering quality leadership. What we need to do is wait on raising people to that high office until they’ve proved themselves capable of running something that requires real executive skill to run. If we just go for “electability”, the abstract sense that a person could win, then we doom ourselves to relying on appearances that guarantee little in the way of skill and competence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 9, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #198472

Stephen, I think you misunderstand me, if not misunderestimate me! Firstly, the word oreo has no resonance for me, I just don’t understand it. However, what I tried to convey, however poorly, was that despite Condi coming from a race with a history of being enslaved and exploited by imperialists and denied human rights in her own country until comparatively recently, she has no problem serving an administration bent upon a new American imperialism predicated on continued control of mid east resources and the PNAC. In other words, her heritage seems to have had little influence on her world view.

As to your assumed implication regarding education, I’ve obviously failed to convey what I was saying. So let me clarify. I think it is wonderful to see people, whatever their background or race, excel in education and in their professions. I have the utmost respect for Condi’s undoubted reputation for scholarship and intelligence. However, education and intelligence and professionalism do not necessarily cut someone off from their peoples history and the insights such awareness can bring to their work.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 9, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #198505

Obama might make a great president, but how someone governs is much more important than having great speaking skills, charisma, and repeating lots of feel-good rhetoric like if we all just learn to get along all our problems will be solved. It would be much better for America to have a president without extreme charisma or charm, who nevertheless governs intelligently, over one who people feel they can “have a beer with” but can’t govern well.

In fact, people caring more about style over substance in a politician played no small part in Bush being elected. In 2000, he seemed like a nice, reasonable guy, as opposed to the supposedly arrogant/elitist Al Gore. Many people liked his superficial charm, dedication to traditional values, and that he seemed like a guy they could have beer with. Similar to what Barrack Obama has been saying, Bush ran on a platform of being a “uniter, not a divider.” Well, six years later, we all know how that turned out.

We need a president with the ability to govern intelligently, put practicality and what works over ideology, and sound, concrete policies that solve the problems in this country. We need to balance the budget, enact policies solving global warming and energy independence, meaningfully reform the government to eliminate corruption, and keep America genuinely safe while gaining back the civil liberties we’ve lost. The thing we DO NOT is need more rhetoric, feel-good blind optimism, and ideology.

Posted by: mark at December 9, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #198513


Posted by: Diogenes at December 9, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #198552

The right policies are a given. However, if you have a leader who has the communication and leadership skills to motivate the people to take the more difficult choices and unite behind him or her, then that is the key to effectging the right policies. That is the essence of leadership. In order to gain that kind of support, the leader has to be capable of projecting a vision of such power that people will make whatever sacrifices necessary to reach for it. That requires not just something of a visionary, but a visionary who can communicate the vision with highly persuasive skill.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 10, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #198570

agreed (begrudgingly).


Posted by: Diogenes at December 10, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #198576

I voted for Obama in the primary and general election for senator. GWBush is not qualified to be POTUS. Any democrat would be an improvement. People are trying to Rehab Gore, or bring Hilary in, to bring Bill back, or propose a candidate who is so conservative that core democrats would think he is republican. Obama should enter the primaries, and see what happens.

On the oreo comment, Obama has always looked Sicilian to me.

Posted by: ohrealy at December 10, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #198845

We, as Democrats, need an “open” primary, where we do not have to choose both a presidential and vice-presidential candidate together one one ticket. It is too constraining and artificial. Our convention should be a coalition convention, where we each vote for one presidential and one vice-presidential candidate, and the candidate with the most votes (for both seats) become our presidential candidate and the one with the second most votes becomes our vice-presidential candidate.

This plan should be adopted immediately to be used for the 2008 election season, so that we can avoid the impending train wreck of an election: there are some very strong Democratic candidates who should be included in governing our country, especially if they are the second most popular Democrat in the race.

The train wreck I am speaking of specifically is the one between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: they would make a great pair in office, with either one as president and vice president. But this would open the field to other strong candidates, as well. I’d like to see candidates like Howard Dean and Al Gore run again. Who kows what the political landscape will be like in one year? These are exciting times, and we need to take bold steps to successfully seize the day.

We, as Democrats, should use this primary to our best advantage. We are a party of coalition-builders: wouldn’t it set a great example to the rest of the nation and the world about how to build consensus, and how to achieve peace? Not only can we demonstrate flexibility as a party, we can demonstrate a willingness to adapt and embrace the challenges of the future: winning in 2008, to start with.

What needs to be done, and how soon do we need to do it to have a primary where we can vote for the strongest ticket possible? I want to see Hillary and Barack working together, not attacking each other, this campaign season.


John Mangione

Posted by: John Mangione at December 12, 2006 5:27 AM
Comment #198998


let me preface this short post by saying that i am no democrat — so take it for what it’s worth…

i like your thinking. this does sound like good policy… i would certainly rather you not run hillary with anyone… but the general idea appears quite sound.

the question is whether politicians in direct competition would be as eager to do so as you, yourself.

i must say, it doesn’t sound very likely… but i like the idea. best of luck (again, minus hillary).

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #199010


The truth is a Democrat who can speak well, is good-looking, and can project the image of just wanting everybody to get along is the perfect description of Bill Clinton, the Golden boy of the Democratic Party second to John F. Kennedy. Come to think of it, it applies to JFK as well. Forget about actual policies!! You see, that is really all you need when you are a Democratic President, because the media and Hollywood will pretty much cover your backsides when you fail miserably, and they will create a Camelot society for you. Considering the almost orgasmic adulation Obama has received, all he needs to do now is take up a musical instrument. In fact, even when you are not good-looking and a miserable failure like Carter was in Iran, and with his 12% double digit unemployment rate, he is deemed now as some distinguished Presidential spokesman. The standards are completely different between the two parties.


Posted by: JD at December 13, 2006 2:09 AM
Comment #199014


It is wonderful to have someone actually discuss and present thoughtful ideas to these posts. I agree with you in principle regarding your “oreo” comments. I think what is far more damaging than continued “old school” sterotypes—like those that will undoubltly plague Senator Obmam should he seek the dem. pres. nomination—are minorities that have come to the forefront of politics (ah la Condi Rice, Colin Powell) only to abandon independent thought and allow themselves to be dominated and marginalized. My example is Colin Powell. If he had “done the right thing” this political debate being carried on NOW about Iraq may have developed BEFORE nearly 3,000 American soldiers lost their lives for the sake of attaining a death sentence for Sadam Hussein.

Now back to the central issue of the post—Obama for President. Your final statement shedding light on the fact the appearances can be deceiving is well taken. I, however, think that is the nature of American politics today—appearance and money. If the presidential electorate truly considered issues in the manner you suggests (and one with which I personally agree), I find it very difficult to believe that an intellectually barren moran like George W. Bush get selected then elected president of the United States. We are a reactionary lot here in America. Sadly, we must first watch the demise of our own BEFORE we actually consider what is at stake.

Finally, Obama meets all the requirement to be the President of the Unite States. Nonetheless, the electorate in this country is still influenced by “old school” attitudes towards race and gender. This is a dismal outlook, but it is the current reality that is American politics.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at December 13, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #199186

People are looking at Obama’s inexperience as a negative, but with all the garbage that goes on in Washington today, by both Democrats and Republicans, maybe someone with less loyalties, and a fresh view is exactly what we need.

No President can govern without a great supporting cast. If Obama fills his cabinet with intelligent, qualified advisors, then combined with his own “genius” and ideas, his success is not a question, but a certainty.

Posted by: Seth at December 14, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #199238


As an independent who swings right more than left, I must say you are absolutely correct in your opinions on this post.

Obama is a brilliant man well worthy of the position of U.S. President.

I don’t like HIlary, I don’t like Bush Sr., not too fond of W., McCains okay, but Obama is truely a man of reknown.

If he runs for president he has my vote, whole heartedly.

I have even brought it up in the last Pierce College Republican Club meeting (I am their treasurer, they couldn’t find an actual republican capable of the position).

So if Hilary runs, I vote McCain.

If Obama runs, I vote Obama and I will do everything in my power to see that as many others vote for him too.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 14, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #199315

Bryan, when you say…

Obama is a brilliant man well worthy of the position of U.S. President.

Can you give some indication of what you base this opinion on? Is it his voting record? Is it a list of certain bills he has sponsored that you feel were good, etc. I’m not aware that he has put together much of a resume in his 2 years in the Senate but you must have additional facts that I am not aware of. Please share.

Posted by: Carnak at December 14, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #199428

I get most of my information on legislatives from here:

You should check it out if your not already familiar with it.

I also like him based on a ‘judge of character’ from his speaking style.

I see a lot of proffesionalism in the way he composes himself, and the means in how he speaks is defined and clear in his intended meaning.

About as good as it gets really.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 15, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #199548

Don’t count out Edwards.

Posted by: jlw at December 16, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #199818

As far as Obama not having experience… most presidents are only as good as their advisor’s, so experience is a mot point if he is intelligent enough to surround himself with the best of the best in the cabinet.
Is he that intelligent? I truly think so.

He speaks well, and does at least seem to be capable of pronouncing simple words, which is more than can be said for our current ‘leader’, I like his voting record so far.
He seems to pay attention to what the people he represents want, again, more than can be said for many politicians who seem to vote the way the lobbyists want….

I’m not a Democrat, yet… but having paid attention to this guy for awhile now, I can see myself voting Dem if he is the candidate, the Republican’s sure don’t have anyone I find appealing, and voting Lib or Green even if I really believe in the candidate is a wasted vote, since hades will freeze over before we see a Lib or Green in the Oval Office

Posted by: Jim at December 19, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #200830

With all due respect, I think a lot of the people saying “he gives a great speech, but he has no executive experience” really don’t understand what executives do. Specific or specialized task-based knowledge is not required, but rather judgement, vision, and the ability to define goals and inspire people to achieve them.

Posted by: mike at December 29, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #207641

Obama: Is he capable of being the next president?

The crucial question for any potential president is even more important given Sen. Obama’s lack of foreign policy bona fides. Can he offer a coherent and comprehensive approach that can help the Middle East towards peace, reestablish US credibility, give Israel some reasonable security, and help the Palestinians to have a homeland?

To answer that question successfully will take more than a great personality and an excellent mind. It will require being able to think outside the box that history has created. When Wilson went to Europe, it was the chicken going to the fox and asking him to design the henhouses of the future. And nobody has had a safe night’s sleep since.

Posted by: Dr. Kenneth Weene at February 11, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #209397

am no democrat and neither am i a republican,infact am kenyan.
when faced with a doubting old woman during one of his campaign stops,JFK tried to allay her fears when she told him “he had come too soon” by telling her that “my time was now”
i firmly believe that obama should take his chances and go for it cause, his time is now!

Posted by: bugo at February 23, 2007 7:56 AM
Comment #245682

In this generation, we have elected a peanut farmer, an actor and a bumbling idiot twice to office.

I am tired of politics as usual. In my State, we have one Senator who has almost half a billion dollars in pork money and another who has decided not to play the game with zero pork money.

I am a swing voter and will always be. Since 1980, I have voted in the major elections for a Democrat once and a Republican once, and that was in the 80’s.

I am ready for change and I hope that we can get someone like a Condi Rice to run as an independent. That would make it really interesting.

Posted by: D Wes at February 19, 2008 12:22 AM
Post a comment