Democrats eyeing Obama for 2008

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13389274/

Barack Obama was standing before a packed high school auditorium when he noticed a familiar face in the crowd -- none other than singer Dionne Warwick. He paused, flashed a mischievous smile, then let loose with a perfectly on-key performance of the opening line of her hit song "Walk On By."

The audience of 300 students and adults roared with approval.

Obama, a first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, seems to be hitting the right notes these days. During Senate recesses, he has been touring the country at breakneck pace, basking in the sudden fame of a politician turned pop star. Along the way, he has been drawing crowds and campaign cash from Democrats starved for a fresh face and ready to cheer what Obama touts as "a politics of hope instead of a politics of fear."

His office fields more than 300 requests a week for appearances. One Senate Democrat, curious about Obama's charisma, took notes when watching him perform at a recent political event. State parties report breaking fundraising records when Obama is the speaker.

The money he is bringing in for fellow Democrats is shaping up as an important influence on 2006. And the potential Obama is demonstrating as a political performer -- less than two years after his elevation from the Illinois state legislature -- is prompting some colleagues to urge him to turn his attention to 2008 and a race for the presidency. Obama has made plain he is at least listening.

Joementum, Obama, Biden, Hillary - if MSGOP sez it, it must be so.

Lieberman/Obama -- now that's the ticket.

!

Sometimes I wonder if there's a Democrat you guys do like.

Experience is overrated.

I remember his speech that was so electrifying at the Democratic National Convention, now
that he is in Washington, where is the performance to match it. He may be a good candidate
after he has established a proven track record, frankly I don't see him as feasible at this
time.

but this is still an America where in at least 35 states open discrimination against blacks is not only accepted but the norm. Look, some of you people think things like color and gender don't matter in politics, I am here to tell you it not only does it is key. Looking around this country can you name a single state where a woman or anyone not white, could win the majority of votes of all citizens for pres? I can't think of single one. We would easily loose the midwest, southwest, south which leaves us with the task of trying to win in the northeast and California. We loose will California in 2008 because Arnold will have in place a repug sec of state and a completely repug election board along with the voting machines. You would have no chance in N.J., N.H, that I know the rest you might have a chance but I doubt it. If we don't accept the limits of thinking for the "voters" and the reality of their bigotry, well it's all over before it even gets started.

There simply hasn't been a time when a non-white or a female ran for national office in a general election. I believe Powell might have had a reasonable chance in '00 or even '96. There certainly is a segment of population that conforms to your description, but by no means is it anything close to a majority in most states.

He would have had a good chance in '00, and it wouldn't have mattered which party's flag he carried. Of course, I would prefer Dem, but I think that a Powell administration would have been very, very moderate and much better than Bush, despite Powell's disgrace at the UN. Powell might actually have acted on that August memo about OBL striking the U.S., wouldn't have gone into Iraq, and would have enforced civil rights laws. He probably would not be in the business of bullying every country in the world. He would have left a lot less for a Dem to clean up. Sigh.

I think they see him as a positive influence... and maybe get them "coloreds off the front stoop smokin' that weed and to work, insted of makin' babies an' livin' off me"

because they're black, Jewish, or female are the sorts of people who wouldn't vote Democratic anyway.

We don't need to appease bigots when nominating a candidate. This isn't just an issue of morality, but one of simple demographics as well.

There are many of us who are intelligent enough to know the difference between the two, but I'm afraid that for the last five years, the American public has been conditioned to associate "evil" with a guy named Osama . Phonetically speaking, it's going to be a difficult thing to overcome.

"Osama 2008"

We had a very popular Chinese governor, and now we have two women Senators and a woman Governor. IF the election wasn't stolen, and the candidate was good, I think a woman or a person of color could carry this state.

They, Republicans through Republican media, expect people who are running around with no time in their lives to study candidates who they, Republicans, want.

I'd like to see their list - the one with Dem names under the 'promote' column and others under the 'ridicule/destroy' column.

Gore, Boxer would be suitable, if they were candidates. No Clinton, no DLC please.

See you in November.

Name me one piece of landmark legislation, or one example of steady, powerful leadership that has resulted from his relentless effort.

I have nothing against him, but I have nothing FOR him either, except that he's a Democrat and telegenic. I want our rightful President Al Gore sworn in, with Russ Feingold or Wes Clark as VP.

Obama's performance as Senator has been one of a A DLC shill and Lieberman cheerleader, and so far, he has shown himself to be an empty suit. What are these fools trying to shove down our throats now. a Hillary/Obama in '08 ticket?

:puke:

status quo corporate insider.

EDWARDS / CLARK

REPEAT

EDWARDS / CLARK

then they are eyeing to lose.

No way would he even come close to winning. If would also be throwing away a golden opportunity to regain the presidency.

Beyond dumb if this happens.

I notice that some posters feel that Obama is hardly ready for the job of being President.


IMO,we certainly can not measure "READY" by the current resident in the WH.

After GW, the bar for READY does not involve being a GOV. or a SEN. for a number of years.

It involves having a rich father, being a White Male and being a NEOCON.

And his political career shows that.

and not on scholarship. Its a liberal school for the children of the very well to do.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040531fa_fact1

"Then Barack returned to Hawaii, where he was brought up largely by his grandparents. The family lived in a small apartment—Barack’s grandfather was a furniture salesman and, later, an unsuccessful insurance agent; his grandmother worked in a bank—but Barack managed to get into Punahou School, Hawaii’s top prep academy."

And his mother was 18 when she married his father. He left her to go to college (when Obama was a toddler) and never returned.

Doesn't sound like a life of privilege to me.

in the making. A puke. They will run whomever they think can win and still be a puke for Mr. Carlyle.

Democrat 'lite', 'weak', 'POS'

Is there any Democrat who you would find acceptable?

question. Feingold/Gore Gore/Feingold

Why is it always someone else?

They don't like anyone.

At this point, there are a handful of viable dem candidates, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses, both as Democrats and candidates -- unfortunately, the perception is that the better Dems (Feingold) are weaker candidates. I don't know how valid it is, myself.

I think Obama is an imperfect democrat, but an exciting candidate. Dean was a much better democrat, and exciting, but we know how that all turned out. I adore Gore and think he'd probably make the best president. But I worry that he's perceived as a loser. It would break my heart if he "lost" again.

Frankly, the best we can hope for is an honest, open, and fair primary season. After that, I'll accept WHOEVER wins.

I especially agree that Gore will be perceived a loser in many folks' minds. I really like Feingold, but I'm not sure how he'll do with moderates- we'll have to have MOST moderates in our corner if we're to win. I think Obama could add a lot of charisma to a dem ticket, perhaps in a VP role.

Feingold/Obama??

What is the point of your question? If the answer is, no there isn't not currently a washington democrat fit to run for the office of the president - that says something about the state of the party, and the work we should be doing to repair what's been broken down in the party.

When you ask a pat question like "is there a dem you would find acceptable" then gloat when you don't get an answer back like that's some kind of victory or concession of a point, all that tells me is that you're more concerned about loyalty to a party NAME than to a core commitment to certain values and principles.

I'm committed to values first. When a party stands for those values, I support them. When they don't I criticize their failure to do so and work to change their attitudes. That's what everyone should be doing.

My values include a long, long lists of human rights, which transcend any government, party or law. Social Justice is a collection of several human rights - social justice is inseparable form economic justice. Thus I am not ok with the corporatist takeover of both parties and an oligarchical agenda oft supported as much by washington democrats as republicans.

My values include a lot of other things too. When the democrats in DC start better reflecting those values, I'll be less verbally critical of them. Until that time, to do anything else is to place a blind loyalty above any kind of commitment to values, and that's just wrong. A party is only as good as the principles it has the courage to stand up for. When it doesn't have the courage to stand, it is a waste of space. National democrats are not completely worthless, but they are sickly and anemic, full of representatives who frequently betray values the party has long stood for historically and betray my own convictions all for the sake of their corporate masters. It's time we start being honest about the flaws rather than be obsessed with loyalty for the sake of loyalty.

...then I hit the ignore button because I don't have time for this, and I encourage the rest of the people here to as well. There are people here who seem to get their jollies from acting contrarian. I'm here for different reasons, and will manage my time accordingly.

:shrug:

even Kerry for that matter. Edwards, Clark, and a bunch who won't show up in the primaries.

I don't he could win the election in 2008, but I think that he would be a good choice for Vice President.

I think the only thing an Obama run would show is the true state of American racial affairs. He is a relatively young man and with more time, I think he will be right up there. Also, did he not admit he has used crack cocaine before and has had some other personal problems in his past? (If I'm wrong, please forgive me.)

My point is, with the media ads of the right, I can just imagine (especially after the Kerry-war-treatment-vs-a-chickenhawk) the ads that would unleased.

Now they are shilling Obama. Repuke dream ticket: Hillary/Obama - a sure loser. Thank God the corporate whores don't choose our candidates.

but they might think that putting Obama on the Hillary ticket will appease everyone.

First off, Obama is a young senator. The fact that he is a senator ALONE makes him a less than ideal candidate in my mind. Senator's tend to lose, in no small part because of the way the legislature works. You can always dig up a few votes (Since they cast so many) that sound bad on 30 second ads and a few votes that appear to contradict each other. He also has the lack of experience.

Now, aside from that, I think that the top of the 2008 ticket should be someone with the ability to energize the progressive base. Maybe he could work as a VP candidate, bringing some "youth and energy" into the mix, running with an old, experience progressive. Who knows.

indicates to me that he is off in some fundamental way, not just his youth.

As long as we're dreaming.

a status-quo holding DLC. I'm NOT Obama-bashing. He seems like a bright, and likeable enough guy...but look at this voting record, and his demeanor...DLC through-and-through.

completely 100% DLC.

called an "Orea" cookie. He certainly does NOT represent black oonstituents TRULY, and from his voting record, does NOT represent TRUE-BLUE Dem values.

That tends to point toward (almost without exception)..."DLC." Sorry.

despite your attempt to somehow qualify it. Do you have an example of how he doesn't represent black constituents? As far as I know, there isn't a check-off list for Senators to use when casting their votes, nor would I want there to be one. We ALL often disagree about what constitutes "TRUE-BLUE Dem values". That's the nature of our party.

According to your standards, it appears that Bill Clinton should never have been on the presidential ticket. The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton actually WAS DLC before he ran, as is Hillary.

Who's done little to distinguish himself.

Sorry, MSRNC et al.

Critical thinkers aren't buying the propaganda.

Let the young man get a little seasoning, first. Or he'll catch political flu and die in the first hot contest.

As we have seen Senatorial track records can be twisted and distorted to make a candidate look like a hypocritical nincompoop. The DEMS need to find a candidate with charisma so I like thinking about Obama but can't take it as a serious possiblity.

IMHO DEMS should not nominate ANY Senator... they lose elections. In all of American history (about 56 Presidential elections) the only serving Senators who ran for the Presidency from the Senate and actually won were Harding and Kennedy.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Senator_Becomes_President.htm

Forget about these Senators from Kerrey to H. Clinton to Feingold... I'd feel better about a charismatic Governor or private citizen. Better odds.

Condo-sleeza to run - it will never happen.

But he votes too much of the time with the GOP. As far as I'm concerned his DLC votes of the past are what I am going on. The MSM seems to be shoving him down our throats. Obama will need more experience and a shift to the left before I will support him.

it is not Obama's time yet.

but this reeks of the same kind of desperation that all those "Hillary in 08!" articles have- call me cynical, but it seems dreadfully obvious the cons are trying to pit dems against eachother in order to keep the higher offices.

elephant in the room, obama is black--and white america couldn't save black people from drowning--you think they'll elect a black man for president?

i doubt it.

hilary? i don't think so. too female

lieberman? too assholish

there. i've called the elephant out.

he support missile defense or something? Kidding aside, what is the fricking deal with these guys. First you flog the hell out of Billary and then, for some reason or other, you decide Billary's not it anymore and start flogging Obama. Mathews was a treat to watch the other day. What an artless, loudmouth chump that guy is.

Rather than trying to annoint somebody, why not cover those who are obviously preparing to run. You know, a "here's what the field looks like at this point" sort of thing. Edwards, Warner, Clark, Kerry... and whomever else I'm forgetting.

What's MSNBC's game?

Or at least what they can make up about his teen years-which is virtually anything.

Rejoice!

:eyes:

but not for 2008, our country is not ready yet, too many skeletons in our closet right now. sorry to say.

an obscure senator named Kennedy was in 1958.

no way

he can accomplish more as a senator...hopefully he knows this

Think I'm being outrageous?

Since when does something have to be true for the media to say it and make it an established "fact"?

(See Gore invented the internet, Clinton was a Chinese spy, Swiftboat vets, WMDs, Terry Schivo, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc)

If you think the media was unfair to our white candidates, you have not seen anything yet.

Be dammed sure that GOP/media will "attack his strengths."

I hope the nice, polite, cordial Obama will know when to take his gloves off- because there is no "if"- they WILL Swift-boat him.

This goes for ALL Democrats, btw. I sure wish they make it known that they realize this.

everyone seems to be forgetting that the article is thoroughly spun in order to icite speculation for Obama's 2008 plans.

People seem to be overlooking the fact that Obama is travelling and BRINGING A LOT OF MONEY IN FOR DEM CANDIDATES. Whether you like the guy or not, we need 2006 first and he's doing what he can to help us gain some ground. He at least deserves our appreciation for that.

Just like Edwards running for president. Nobody will vote for a one-term senator.

I would ask what the real problem is, but I already know. And it makes me sick. Obama a corporatist DLC'er, huh. Show me. Too green, eh. How convenient. Doesn't support the interests of black folks. WTF????

This is a shameful, shameful display of posters who are completely ignorant trying to look like they have something to contribute to the conversation. I really wish people would back up their bullshit, though. It would make you a lot more credible. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're vile B.S. WILL influence others who don't need pesky facts to alter their opinions. Sad. Just sad.

-----

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

2003 On the votes that the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 94 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Personal Liberties on personal liberties 45 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 25 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Issues on economic issues 5 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Association for College Admission Counseling 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 88 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

2003 On the votes that the Illinois Environmental Council considered to be the most important in
2003, Senator Obama voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 83 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.

2004 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all state legislative candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Obama a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Federation for American Immigration Reform 0 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 92 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 92 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

2005 According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Obama voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Obama voted more liberal on social policy issues than 77 percent of the Senators.

2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Foreign Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Obama voted more liberal on foreign policy issues than 76 percent of the Senators.

2005 According to the National Journal - Liberal on Economic Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Obama voted more liberal on economic policy issues than 87 percent of the Senators.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

I think a lot of people like to play devils' advocate- people like Obama and he's gotten a lot of good media play, so he makes a good target.

Hellllloooooo....

PEOPLE!

We WANT a likeable candidate!!!!


For now, everyone should at least be happy that Obama is bringing money in for dems to use in the fall!

That sounds a lot more forgiveable than the reason I was thinking of for the collective animosity against him.

In any event I love the argument that Americans are too racist to vote for a black man so let's just hold him back. I got news for everyone, holding back a man from running for President of the U.S.A. because of the color of his skin IS racist!! So I guess black people, women, gays, and other minorities are "welcome" in the party, but don't ruin it for everybody by trying to participate in office.

If that's really the attitude of the Democratic party, then the Democratic party is dead. In fact it's beyond dead, its gone to hell.

signed right after being elected....

Media!

few of those bimbets on faux. (Now that Nicole has stopped stalking me.)

Clark/Feingold
Obama/Clark
Gore/Clark
Gore/Feingold

...which combination do you think is mostly in '08?

which is partly the reason why Bush is in office to begin with? Remember the map that showed the red states/slave states?