Is it possible to have a thread here about Obama...

that doesn't turn into an attack fest? Only our party would be gifted with a candidate who has people acting like Bobby Kennedy is among them, and respond to him with ferocious attacks: How dare he presume to run for President? The press gives him attention! Horrors! Can't have a Dem hyped in the MSM! They're picking our candidate for us!

Obama's too conservative for a lot of folks, but the guy could be the winner we badly need.

Flame away. Maybe we can get some of the venom here out of our systems.

(And for the conspiracy minded, how about the possibility that some are trying to turn us against a candidate who might be a winner?)


ON EDIT: I'm gratified by the positive and open-minded responses in this thread!

But let's see what happens with this thread...

and seems like some kind of concerted effort. That's why there are folks who aren't attacking but pointing out that this is all media run.

People who watched him still remember that. He's a brilliant speaker and he has a compelling life story, and he has the intellect that we've all been missing.

ask John Kerry and Al Gore....

More experience as a Senator? As experienced as Al Gore was, he didn't fight back IMMEDIATELY when the election was stolen in 2000. Neither did John Kerry in 2004. And the opposition used both men's long experience to paint them as flipfloppers.

Reagan and Bush prove that your experience isn't nearly important as your appointees, and how you work with them.

or seen him on TV, I am not a big fan.

I am bothered by his failure to stand up against Roberts and Alito. I am bothered by his willingness to attack the left and democrats. Several times Somerby has written that Obama has been on TV saying things like "Democrats are not offering positive solutions". And Somerby writes "Obama, YOU are a Democrat". So if he is on TV representing Democrats, why can't he offer some positive solutions instead of adding fuel to the Right Wing Noise Machine's endless criticism of Democrats?

Also, I care more about Congress than I do the Presidency and do not like a cult of personality. No offense, but fu$% Obama. What are his policies? Can we get excited about a vision, about a message, or is it all about the messenger?

For whatever reason, the media is zeroing in on them. I'm not a fan. I'd like the media to do some speculating on Gore running again. Let's give him some encouragement.

I'd have to consider giving him my vote.

edit: I like having his voice out there right now.

People underestimate him at their peril.

on any dem candidates. The primary is open to anyone who wants to run. We may have different favorites, but we are all on the same side.

I think he has a lot of common sense and the ability to listen and consider other viewpoints--which, after all, is a hallmark of liberalism.

I would happily vote for him.

they were trashed. What resources would "Obama" call on to unify his government? What alliances would he bring into play that would protect him? What "Coalition" would he be able to put together that would save him from what Carter and Clinton went through.

It's kind of laughable...that folks think some "outsider" could come in with a landslide and be another Bush II ignoring the "Powers that BE!" Obama doesn't have the Vast Right Wing at his back...or DOES HE?

protecting its own -- because your comment would apply to any Democratic Presidential candidate. You are right, the Democrats haven't done a good job of circling the wagons in the past. We have to learn to pull together.

is that candidates are too busy appealling to party establishments. How about we run some candidates that would talk to the people and use a little common sense while doing it? If that's naive, label away. I'm sick of the BS and the presumption that because the party elite or connected ordains it, it's gospel. Well, if these people were all that, we wouldn't be in the shape we've been in the last two election cycles.

How would he govern? Hopefully, appealing to the citizenry as a whole would mean that we could have an administration by the consent of the governed, not just the consent of the party machine. What a novel idea.

GOVERNS? Does he call a Mighty FORUM where all the RW THINK TANKS come in and give their view to him? He does this between November Elections and his Inauguration? He gathers the "greatist minds together" and forms a coalition Government and thinks that Howie Kurtz, David Broder and the Neo-cons and the Progressive Dems are all going to be like "lambs" lying down with the "Lion, Obama?"

What are you smoking? If you are sincere...then tell me how this could work?

The Beltway is a national disgrace. Since when is Howie Kurtz and those other hot house vegetation that you mention representative people essential to governance? Why are we relying on RW constructs to validate and give legitimacy to a potential candidate from the left? I could care less what that side thinks. The whole point of turning things over in DC is to dismantle those cesspools. Remove their bosses from power and they will lose power too.

if you think "Governor Carter and Clinton" with many years under their belt were failures whereas "State Senator" and "Two Term Senator Obama" could be better that those two POWERHOUSES at REFORMING GOVERNMENT...then you are "smoking something" or too young to have read your history about Dems!

(This is not personal to you...but to those of you who buy into HYPE)

And one had a much more successful Presidency than the other. Your point is really unclear.

Government" one becomes TOAST! Beware the Obama's who shine with pretty lights...because the "Shadow Govt." will NEVER SUPPORT THEM.. If you are looking for HEROES look at what those who thought there Hero would be with Carter or Clinton.

two sides of the same coin crowd."

....seems to be as "in the beltway" as anyone. That's why I find him unimpressive.

The media will always attack a true progressive and pump up a fake one. It is as simple as that.

a DINO, and a corporatist, and feeding at the money trough.

There's no way to win with a lot of DU'ers.

:shrug: That those folks "suddenly got religion and care about the Constitution and Democracy?"

:eyes: Are you trying to sell me a new BRIDGE, here? DO YOU KNOW YOUR AMERICAN HISTORY? At least for the last 50 years of it?

And that attitude won't get us anywhere.

Presidents have you lived under? You might be young enough to be very idealistic...as I and others here once were...before we learned the REALITY of what Dem Presidents and Candidates are faced with.

And the way you are talking about Democrats, that's the camp you seem to be in.

And since you ask, I am old enough to have seen many election cycles, and to have rooted for JFK, too.

That perhaps it is beyond time to change some of the rules? That politicians will not change those rules so it is up to the people to? The system always seeks to preserve itself. I think that change can happen though. Just because something has been done one way for half a century doesn't mean that it need carry on that way until the end of time. Ask Joe Lieberman.

I'm probably as old as you are given the snide remark you made about age and experience to the other poster. Call me naive too then because I think that as a party we can be better than this. That we can deliver to the nation a government of, by, and for the people. And that to offer what we promise, we need to stop playing the same cynical patronage game the Republicans play. I own my vote, not Clinton or Carter or anyone else in the party. I will cast my vote for the person I believe best to represent me and to lead the nation. I will do this in the privacy of the ballot box or in my home. That is ownership of your government. This is the rule that needs to be put out there. Those people in the Beltway can be removed as easily as they can be put there and should be.

One of the very best speeches I have ever heard by anyone.

He will be part of our party's future, possibly its near future, and certainly in a key role.

be putting out such a statement here on DU. You must be "Young Crusoe" to even put forth what you just said. :eyes:

politics, I like the Mario Cuomo/Robert Kennedy/Bela Abzug model -- kind of older-generation stuff.

But this Obama. I like him.

I think he's got a benevolent fire, one our party will have need of in the coming years. I don't know if 2008 is his year or not, but he's a top-drawer orator and mighty inspiring.

very very green.

I haven't seen those threads, but Obama's probably one of the classiest, most intelligent, sincere and decent Senators we have right now. Since this is Democratic Underground, it would seem ironic and strange that we'd see too much animosity towards one of our brightest future stars. Wouldn't quite make sense. Every person alive has their flaws but as far as being a Democrat goes I'd be hard pressed to find enough reasons to not be proud as hell to have Obama as one of ours. I think some people just can't take when anyone is boosted up too high and feel the inner need to constantly tear people down. I dunno. I do know that I'm prouder than hell to have Obama in our party and his positives outweigh any of his negatives by probably 20-1.

And I don't think he's too inexperienced. Too many years in the Senate is an albatross around anybody's neck. Obama has the brains (editor of the Harvard Law Review), the speaking ability, and the charisma to challenge any Republican. I think he may just be the one to beat.

What's wrong with having a politician on our side who is thoughtful, rational, and has some sort of undeniable appeal for many people?

Hey, nobody is perfect -- nobody will ever act or vote exactly as we want them to 100% of the time. So what's wrong with sifting through the short list and picking someone who is actually electable?

I was actually in a waiting room this morning, and MTP was on the TV. Lots of people in the room, and pretty much EVERYONE was glued to the TV! All I know was at that point in time, a wide variety of people from all walks of life were listening to what one man had to say. There was no shrill voice, no arguing, no gimmicky one-liners -- just some intelligence and common sense that was somehow managing to captivate a large and disparate group of people. Regardless of my feelings about any candidate, I could never deny what I witnessed.

Here's to next time!

I think he has a bright future with the party. I think he might be President one day. I don't think he should run in 08, I think it's still to early for him - but that doesn't mean I don't like him. I do hate the way the media is obsessing over who they (and the Republicultists) want as the Democratic nominee for 08. It's been Hillary for a while, and now they've added Obama to their short list. I'm sick of hearing what "they" all think and want in general, anyway. I wish they'd stick to giving us the (expletive deleted) NEWS instead of what "they" think the news is or should be.

See, the difference is that Bobby Kennedy actually did things for people, as opposed to talking about the things that might be done and telling them what to think and how to live.

They're just fitting another empty suit to fill a seat and do their bidding.

sit-down with the party power brokers after the election before the inauguration. Hey, you like him, I don't dislike him, I just think he is another manufactured placebo to shut the sheep up. I don't live in his state so it doesn't matter and He's a thousand times better than the alternatives I have here.

But to compare him to RFK? C'mon get real, he hasn't done anything yet, it's far too early to start this "saviour of the party" stuff.

He lacks good judgment.

I could rattle off half a dozen instances where that's been a problem over the past 20 months or so that he's been a Senator. At first, I chalked it up to inexperience and his being promoted to a position of prominence in the party that he'd not yet earned.

However, I'm seeing this more and more as a pattern of his that's unlikely to change.

And it's going to get him (and us) into trouble.

His castigating DNC Chairman Howard Dean re: a reasonably accurate statement about Republicans showed poor judgment AND was arrogant.

His criticism about the Alito filibuster- when we were trying to keep an OBVIOUSLY unethical man off of the Supreme Court- a man who'd previously lied to Congress during confirmation hearings was about as foolish and counterproductive thing that anyone could have said.

Of course, he went ahead and voted nay on cloture- but the damage had been done.

Not so with the Bankruptcy Bill. That one he enabled, despite it being one of the sorriest and least justified pieces of economic legislation that many of us had seen in our adult lives.

He jumped into to a primary race to actively support Lieberman- now why would he do that? Because he actually believes in what Lieberman says and does- or was it to ingratiate himself with the Democratic establishment? And why would anyone particularly care what the junior Senator from Illinois thought?

Durbin (a seasoned Senator) didn't behave that way- he couched his words. Seems to me that Obama has much to learn.

I don't think he's ready to be POTUS.

depakid,

You have been here a long time, and I have always respected you for providing some interesting commentary. I'm really hoping you'll provide some examples here of Obama's poor judgement...

-----

As for what Obama said this morning, Newsmax reports it this way:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/22/112754.shtml?s=icp

"Given the response I've been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility" although not with any seriousness or depth, he said. "My focus is on '06. ... After November 7, I'll sit down and consider it."

Not exactly an "announcement," is it...



Laura

Not so much as precisely "what" is said.

Therein lies the problem- which in the past, I've chalked up to inexperience.

My granpa would have called it "getting too big for your britches," which is understandable- yet not a wise pattern to get into.

Don't get me wrong- I like his rhetoric. He speaks well in public, but that's a two edged sword.

The answer is a big NO.

I am very intrigued to note that every complaint I've seen about Obama echoes the complaints made against JFK and RFK: not progressive enough, no experience, too young, empty suit, just a lot of hype etc. I'd like to see anyone with passion and commitment who hasn't made a mistake after being in politics as long as he has. I'm not willing yet to say that this is the man on the white horse, but I want to take a good look at this guy.

Obama ain't no RFK that's for damn sure. What's he done for the people lately? Nothing! Why? Because the dude is a DINO! So why are you and others like the media trying so hard to "sell" him?! The hype behind it all is total b.s.

Slick DINO politicians like Obama or Hillary ONLY serve their corporate masters NOT the people. That there are more than enough of those kind of politicians in Washington DC is the very reason this country is in the dire situation it is in right now.

Want someone with integrity who walks the talk and will make a difference? Try Al Gore or RFK Jr.!

based on his 92% voting record on progressive issues. www.progressivepunch.com

He will doubtless offend even more DU'ers in the future, however, as he attempts to position himself a bit more toward the center, which is where he will need to be if he is to win a national presidential election.

JFK was far more centrist, in his day, than people around here seem to realize. That is the way to win votes from enough swing voters to carry a national election.

:thumbsup:

Single handedly go to Iraq and stop the war by himself? Your wild guess about why he hasn't done much is way off and doesn't jive with what Obama has stood for his entire career.

John Conyers, RFK Jr. or Al Gore.

a politcian who's feeding at the troughs?

don't look beyond their nose for the "truth of it."

It would almost seem that an "Ignorant/Compliant" electorate looks for "TIME" and "NEWSWEEK" to tell them whose the latest ROCK STAR to vote for.

I guess it's all gone beyond me!

for the Presidency served two terms in the White House. JFK was a "rock star," too, IMO, as was FDR. They connected with people in a certain indefinable way -- something only a few politicians are gifted with.

And I don't think TIME and Newsweek can sway very much of the electorate (I'm not sure how much of the electorate reads, sad to say). But I don't like to argue, KoKo. I respect your opinion.

:)

That was a time when Politics was divided from "ENTERTAINMENT/ENFOTAINMENT!

There's just NO Comparison. And...btw...I was around when JFK was Inaugurated....so I know where I'm speaking of...

:-( OBAMA? GIVE ME A BREAK!!! I remember JFK and BOBBY...and OBAMA is NOTHING compared to those "POWERHOUSES!" And, don't even get me started about MLK and CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!

GACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

He and Jackie were media darlings.

Would you rather he have stock in Halliburton? WTF?

I think it's curious that anyone would attempt to insult a potential democratic candidate because they are a "politician." Who else would we consider as a serious candidate?

publicity as a "Newbie?" :shrug: So...lot's of Dem Politicians have written books and are writing books these days because one can't get Media Air Time on Whore Media unless one WRITES A DAMNED BOOK! You get your PR people to PROMOTE IT to one of five Controlling MEDIA POWERHOUSES who CONTRO AIRWAVES AND PUBLISHING!

It's all a CIRCLE. Publishing just "ain't what it used to be..these days.

I must've taken a wrong turn somewhere. Where is dissent allowed again? :eyes:

on a candidate with possibility, overwhelming every thread where some might want to discuss him, with negativity.

It's unfair to leap to the conclusion that I would advocate shutting down dissent. It's ridiculous. And I think, OTOH, I should be allowed to say positive things about Obama without being branded a mindless fan.

Some people will always bash Obama because he threatens their favorite '08 candidate. I wish people would act less like missionaries for their candidate while on DU.

When the 8th most progressive Senator is dismissed as a DINO, you gotta wonder.

when Obama is just trying to sell his book and we pile on to make him the Second Coming of Christ!

Surely Obama has enough honor and integrity that EVEN "HE" see's the MEDIA PUMPING UP for the BIG LET DOWN...just like EVERY DEM BEFORE HIM HAS SUFFERED!

Democrats do? Maybe NO Democrat should run? Should we just all fold up as a party and let the Greens take over?

I don't see you offering a single positive suggestion here, just a lot of mud throwing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=348

These groups require a donor star, and are also protected from idiot flame posts per the DU rule for Groups.

to Obama as my candidate. I just think he's making some powerful waves out there, and could be a winner.

I'm going to think about a group, however, and study how to do it. Thanks!

Let me know if I can help :hi:

of the democrats who I think would be able an exciting influence in the primaries. I have a feeling that, as the process moves forward (should he run), that a large number of democrats, independents, and progressives would actively invest in his campaign.

And, I've been a long time reader of you here on DU.

If you would support "Mr. Time Magazine Cover Boy" then I really have to say...I cannot understand where you come from or where you've been. And...yet..I've read probably every word you've written on DU through these past years.

I totally disagree with you here. I would hope you would put forth reasons for your support of "Rock Star Obama."

Thanks and Peace,
koko

of reasons that I think that his entering the primaries would be a good thing. The first one is perhaps the most obvious: I think that the larger the gene pool in the primaries, the better the debates are. An example would be the Rev. Al Sharpton. I like the way he debates, and his influence on the others in the primaries. The second part of that is that there isn't any democrat who I think damages the process by throwing his/her hat in. (I even though Joe Lieberman added to the process last time -- because of the near total lack of support he had when he was forced to drop out.)

Second, as I said a few years ago, I remember Malcolm X telling about one time when he was speaking in public, and he realized that not many years before, he had been a hoodlum on the streets perhaps a block away. And Malcolm always wondered if, instead of discouraging him with a "pep talk" about what was "realistic for niggers" to think about as a career, one of his Jr. High teachers had encouraged his dream of being an attorney? I wonder about that, too. Perhaps Barack Obama, I think.

I have read your posts on this thread, and have yet to identify exactly what harm you think would result in his entering the democratic primaries. I'm not sure what the comment about TIME is all about -- I find it hard to think that disqualifies him, and, more, I think that any democrat who makes a serious run will likely be in/on TIME.

by me. It's the HYPE...and where it comes from at this point surrounding Obama. I've tried to be clear about that...but seems that I'm a voice that no one can understand on this thread and others. The Hype is what's disturbing...at this time...not OBAMA himself who remains a chalk board we can write on what we wish to because he has little experience on the National scene so what we might wish about him to be true may not be what the reality is.

is likely to take place, in various ways, whenever someone who is not a white man attempts a serious run for the presidency. Most Americans still haven't come to grips with the thought of a black man, much less ANY woman, being president. I've noted before that in 1988, Rev. Jesse Jackson ran a campaign that surely would have put any white male democrat in a powerful position. The party's elite got together, and pressured others to drop out of the primaries. They pushed the candidate they could agree upon to the front. Jackson certainly earned the right to be considered as among the top choice for VP, or Secretary of State. But he wasn't.

Now, I am not going to support any candidate simply because they are black, brown, red, yellow and/or female. But I am aware of certain dynamics in this country, that lie just beneath the surface of the collective conscience.

But more importantly, I'll look for who can best do the job as closely to how I feel it needs to be done. That doesn't mean it's the person I like the best. Let me explain that: if I need an attorney on something general, I can pick my cousin, or one of my long-time friends. They are both very nice individuals, who will get the job done, and give me a break on the price charged. But, if I have something more specialized, I will go to the person most qualified to do that specific task. And my cousin and friend both understand that.

Our country is in a very "high risk" place right now. There are potential candidates that I might like more as individuals than, for example, Obama. My values may indeed be far closer to Jesse's, if not Rev. Al's. But I think it is worth my while to look at Obama and consider if he has the most potential not only to get elected, but also to get the job done.

Democrat. It's nothing personal about Obama -- except that he might actually have a chance to win, which makes him that much more threatening to you.

Here's a post of yours from last year, which puts all your Obama comments in context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5532492#5532609


OP:

Let's Face it...We Dems are Dead and Gone and Buried...and what's left
is being picked over by the carrions. The Media is out there "setting up Spin" for Bush Witdrawal from Iraq...and the Scandals are coming down the pike..but it's REPUG JUDGES and BUSH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT who will...in the end...decide who goes down...with light counts and pardons and the rest of the "let them go lightly" crap.

Dem Party has tried..and those who have been STALWART SUPPORTERS (not the Lobbyists) have tried so HARD FOR REFORM...but in the end...REPUGS VS. DEMS...It's the SAME OLD CRAP...Same Old and Same Old.

SNIP


And post #33.

I KNOW...WHAT YOU SAY! And why Shouldn't we VENT! And work towards something Better?

I'm thinking down the road it's GOTTA BE...THIRD PARTY...but not the kind of "Third Parties" we've known in the past like Nader, and the rest who caused all kinds of trouble...even Ross Perot who got folks involved them left them at the Dumpster at the first chance he got some folks coming back at him.

I think...there will be a Huge FUSION of Disenfranchised Dems and Lefty Repugs who split off and run from Bush Neaderthal and "Salem Witch Trial" Politics who come together and form a "New Alliance."

I'm a way Lefty almost Socialist Dem on Human Rights Issues...but lean more to the Center Right on a few peanut issues.

SNIP

but this sudden "hype over Obama" is just what it is "HYPE." Why such a flurry of HYPE just now over OBAMA?

Why?

And...you could also pull out posts of mine saying that I hope all who want to run in '08 do. But, a fair run without some sudden Media Hype of the "Flash of the Moment" when we don't know quite why...beyond his "book PR Hype" the attention is there to drown out all other issues and folks in the Dem Party.

Do you understand what I'm saying? HYPE....like this...always has something behind it that we should look behind the curtain to see. And, it very well might NOT be OBAMA or his PR Book Pushing team who is behind it.

in the first critical weeks after the 2000 election. He should have had his lawyers screaming from that first day to get all the votes across the state counted.

I do understand what you are saying about the hype. But I think some of the reason for the hype has to do with Obama's stirring oration at the Democratic convention. He got the attention of a lot of people then, and he has held it.

And it's just human nature to be interested in the new face -- as opposed to the also-rans from previous elections. I'm not saying that that will give us the best candidate -- but the media's interest in him might not come from the dark conspiracy that you seem to believe in.

I would be very happy if Al Gore entered the primaries. I believe that he has so much to offer the country, and that a significant amount of it goes unreportedin the corporate media. By participating in the primaries, more people would hear his message, and evaluate how his works relate to their lives.

Still, I have an image in my mind that can be viewed by anyone with a copy of Michael Moore's "F 9/11," a movie that I think is one of the classic political statements in American history. The part which I refer to is, of course, early in the film, when a group of democrats from the House are trying to bring attention to the absolute denial of black voters' rights in the state of Florida.

Their plea falls on deaf ears in the Senate. It remains one of the great betrayals in our history. Now, I was taught as a little boy to look to the injustices that were done to the Indian and African population yesterday, to see what would happen to other Americans tomorrow. What happens to the "least," will happen to the others. And in 2004, the denial of voters' rights became more wide-spread.

I have the impression that Barack Obama is not the type of man to sit quietly, like a bump on a log, and allow this type of thing to go by unchallenged. I could be wrong. But I've been in numerous situations where people in various positions are pressured to "rise above their principles," which is what those Senators are doing in the Moore film. "Rising above your principles" simply means to betray your own beliefs and values, and let others suffer the consequences of your cowardice. And if I've learned anything, it's how to tell what type of person is more prone to doing that. I think that Obama would be among the least likely democratic candidates to sell out the least among us.

ROCK ON OBAMA! YOU'RE THE MAN!!!! :yourock: WOOOO!!!!

Obama/Pelosi 2008. 'Getting it right for a change' :thumbsup:

about this? (Photo of Obama and daughter)

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.petesouza.com/photos/Barack%2520Obama/3/&h=480&w=379&sz=64&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=FJK1PQLxO86bkM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdaughter%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

My only hesitation about 2008 is that it seems a little soon. Of course, maybe in an election year when his opponent (whoever that may be) is not an incumbent or a VP, Obama's inexperience won't be as big of a deal.

office.

Lack of experience didn't hold Bush back either.

I'm sure the deep south is ready for a President of color. If not maybe a woman!

Our Democratic Party is known for shooting its self in the foot. I'm certain whomever they put up will kill any momentum gained from this election.

Gore won the popular vote once. Let him do it again.

and the like--

Poisoning the pot from the get go does very little good.

Plus-- it's politics.

It's a sign of strength, to me, to have vigorous discussion prior to the making of decisions.

See: Edwards, John

Why did he choose to enable the bankruptcy bill? One that is not populist and is hurting people and emboldening corporations?

about any Democratic Rep that neither flames nor hero-worships? Something inbetween the two extremes, where an honest discussion without "campaigning" could go on?

I don't know if DU can do that, with the "campaign" mindset that either has to make a hero or a goat of the person discussed.