We won't have to worry about voting for Obama.

I saw him on the Larry King show last night. He was bumbling and staccato pretty much overall in most of his responses.

But King asked him doesn't experience count? Obama says I think when people learn more about my experience, they will consider me. King then asks what experience are you talking about qualifies you to be president? Obama says first thing--my community service work.

What?? I almost had to laugh out loud.

That's the thing that qualifies you to have the imminent nuclear launch codes and carry the football that could launch us into World War III ? Community service? That's what a judge sentences a mugger to that steals a handbag from a nice little old lady. That's supposed to influence seventy million Americans on your presidential resume? A comment like that in a national debate will leave you behind like tire tracks of a snow plow in a twenty foot drift.

God, Al you have GOT to announce.

Congressman

Senator

Vice President

Won the popular vote in the presidential election that was stolen once already.

Nobel prize nominee.


You will have more money raised on the internet in two months than Hillary Clinton has raised since she's been in office. You were already the president once. The fucking Supreme Court just wouldn't give you the keys to the office.

Al, I'm not requesting it. I'm fucking begging you .....BEGGING YOU !!!. .........Please be our president!!

have you read his book?

Or are you repeating the echo chambers mantra?

you can criticize; watch his rallies before 10,000+ people, then tell me this guy doesn't have it. He is brilliant. He was opposed to the debacle in Iraq from the get-go and DID NOT voted or Gonzo.

Yes, he's bright. Yes, he's ultra-articulate. I don't know that he has good common sense. I DO know that he doesn't seem to understand how harmful the DLC is to the Democratic Party because he has no problem parroting their points. I DO know that he thinks compromise is important, and I think that whenever we compromise with fascists we just move clsoer to fascism and the guy needs to wake the fuck UP on that one.

And so forth. He's young, he's handsome, he's bright, he's ultra-charismatic. None of that will make him a good President. NONE of it. And in fact, about the last thing we need is a damn people-pleaser (like Clinton was) and that's the way he strikes me too.

Bah!

Boring Larry King was asking his usual bland questions and Obama answered his questions.

Obama was as classy and smart as ever.

in Senate at that time and not privy to the inelligence, etc.

The next dem president must have foreign policy experience, since that is where most of our problems are at this time, i.e., Iraq war, Israeli/Palestinian conflict, terrorism, etc.

Obama, is a rookie, albeit a smart, attractive one, I agree, he's not ready yet!!

In anything that counted: none at all.

I've seen more than one interview and speech of his. His book shows great depth of character and he is very charismatic. Add that to about 8 more years of national political experience and he will be a powerhouse. He's not ready yet.

in Boston in 2004 for our convention.

It was a great choice by Kerry and a great address by Obama, one of the dozen or so greatest addresses by a Democrat I've heard in my lifetime.

Obama won many converts that night. I watched on C-Span with several Democratic state party chairs and their families and friends. This group was spellbound by that address.

I saw a similar reaction in the crowd in Springfield, Illinois for Obama's announcement speech earlier this year. The same rapt attention, the same rhetorical brilliance, the same uplift in the audience.

This man is MORE than ready for prime time.

why can so few people here promote their candidate without denigrating another?

Incdently, they are basing their decision on one interview?

Frankly Obama has been right on all the issues right out of the box

What they want is a SMOOTH TALKER. That is more important

Well, I tell, I think people are tired of SMOOTH talkers, they don't want a phony

I am sick of the same stuff coming out of the same mouths year after year. Give me the guy who speaks truthfully and doesn't just spew out his own talking points. Go Barack!

being nothing but a "smooth talker"!

And then people act all "aghast" when I suggest that maybe there's another, more underlying reason why they feel the need to publically criticize Obama with ridiculous, untrue talking points.

(Not meant to be directed at the people who criticize Obama with verifiable or at least well-thought reasons. Nobody is above criticism. I'm talking about the idiots who do no favors to this site or this party with their disingenuous character smears and those who parrot tired old talking points that have been debunked a hundred thousand times, like that Obama is a DLC'er).

Wait'll later in the process, when the candidates are denigrating eash other during the ten-contenstant debates. That will be an ugly scene, and on a national stage.

But if a candidate can't handle himself well on Larry King, how would he do in a presidential news conference in a room full of professional news-jackals?

King asked him every question he could to back him into a corner and Barack kept his cool and answered each question truthfully and with dignity. He will do just fine in the time to come, and would do great in a presidential news conference because he would tell us the truth and not spew out a bunch of talking points and political rhetoric. A refreshing change if you ask me.

It's what you're SUPPOSED to look at when voting in a primary.

Sigh.

the perceived "flaws" in the original post strikes me as insincere, and just a way to put down Obama. No one seriously believes he's incapable of articulating a sentence, or that he's basing his presidential run on his community service.

It's a childish and laughable attempt to tear him down.

Sadly, that's one that keeps getting dragged out. The primaries are for discussing, arguing, talking up and picking apart. Now, a whole separate point could be made that primaries are not the best idea but I don't really care to have the Democratic elite deciding who is going to be our candidate, though now that I think about it, that isn't far from what actually happens.

I would love if Gore ran, too, but Obama will get my vote if Gore doesn't. We get enough negative bullshit from the conservatives. They don't need any help in that regard.

Usually, I have one candidate I adore and the rest I have solid reasons to dislike. This time around, there are only two I solidly dislike and one of them has already decided not to run. While I don't think Obama is ready yet, were he to get the nomination, I could vote for him without reservation. Except for the fact that the only one left that I dislike is currently the frontrunner, I'm enjoying not being particularly stressed about the primary season.

I have no problem with Edwards, Obama, or Richardson.

I do have a problem with Hillary, she has been wrong on the war from the start

Even now she says they will have to keep some troops in Iraq for some time? What the hell does that mean

In reality Kucinich won't get the nomination, but just maybe he can keep the candidate honest.

and thus won't vote for him. I'll take a different approach. I like Kucinich and Edwards. I generally like Obama but haven't studied all his positions yet.

as someone who will keep people focused on Iraq.

That doesn't mean he won't run.

At this point in 1991, Clinton wasn't running either.

A lot of anti-Gore folks here tend to forget that.

If he doesn't (that will surprise the hell out of me), there are many people I would be okay with.

You ask a very pertinent question which I believe is owed the courtesy of a response.

n/t

And that long passage against Obama was a pointless slam.

and that point is that we are in dire need of a really impressive candidate

a Democratic candidate for the presidency.

You endorse it all you want. I thought it sucked.

It's not enough just to promote your own candidate/sports team/whatever, you have to put down the others.


When in doubt, always forget about Bill Clinton, the longshot unknown governor of Arkansas, who lost miserably when he ran for president against an unbeatable Bush riding high after an astonishing military victory.

Oooh, I can smell the testosterone... it's just so..."manly".


:sarcasm:

Primary season on DU is going to blow. But I'm confident that eventually we will put a Dem in the whitehouse and solidify our majorities in Congress and bring our country back.

him before and who is NOT a Democrat was impressed with him.

but he is just too green to be president.

lack of experience. I especially like his views on foreign policy, which is my No. 1 concern in '08.

I just don't think he is our best candidate. Not yet.

they wanted a president who went to bed with his wife at 9:30 every night.

I read that somewhere not long ago and I wanted to gag. That is exactly what we got and look where we are 6 years later.
:puke:

I don't think the "He's better than Bush" argument holds much water. Especially here.

Caveat: I like Obama, though I think he is too green just yet. But that wasn't the most ringing endorsement. :evilgrin:

the OP obviously has no idea where Obama stands on the issues, because he has been right from the start, even before the popularity turned

at Community Service work, you might have a point. But he's got other experience, and I'm sure he mentioned it.

I like just about all our candidates, Obama included.

And I doubt that Gore would raise as much money as you think. He'd do well, for sure, but there really isn't a huge groundswell of support for a Gore candidacy among the masses. That said, I wish he'd run.

I also think money will be no problem for him.

Visit our Gore forum here on DU. You may be in for a pleasant surprise.

I honestly believe he is planning on running but waiting it out. But only time will tell. Let's just hope we don't destroy all of our other candidates while we wait for Al.

his global warming goals OUTSIDE of the WH just fine, as he's proven. Obama represents the future of the Dem party, IMO--he will make a great standardbearer. Wish Webb could be his VP.

I sure like Webb too. He would be a great VP. But my first choice is Gore/Obama. Maybe Webb could be sec of defense?

FORCING Congress to act.

Gore can now act as a channel creating the necessary political pressure and fostering the political will that is necessary to force action.

As POTUS, he would have way too many other obligations to focus on the issue he has now devoted his life to.

has a hell of a lot of power. And he gets a lot more respect than a former VP.

but what's hot on DU is rarely reflective of America as a whole.

Only on DU do people think Kucinich is more electable than Clinton.

Now there are 1000. The groundswell is there. Check it out -> http://www.algore.org/

of the rest of the public--witness that Hillary is still the front-runner, but has very little support here on DU.

She is the right's favorite Dem candidate. They arrogantly believe they can force our candidate on us. But unlike them, we are not sheeple. Maybe they will figure that out one day. But I am not holding my breath.

how skewed perception is on DU.

Clinton is the most popular candidate at the moment - poll after poll shows it.

If you don't like her, I can understand the psychological need to believe the enemy is forcing her on us. It's just too hard for some people to accept that their version of reality isn't, in fact, the truth.

I know what the polls are showing but I don't see it among the ranks. Not in my DFA groups and not in my state party (which tends to be very conservative). The only place I see support for Hillary is among republicans.

to revile her more than DU is FreeRepublic.

I see no support for her at all among republicans. The canard that there is helps some people maintain the fiction that their views are reflective of the populace at large.

They see her as the easiest Dem to beat. No, I don't agree with them. :)

there's no question in my mind she'd be a very formidable candidate.

She has shown repeatedly that people who underestimate her tend to get their asses handed to them.

I agree, she is a very formidable candidate.

It's the DLC.

and are interested in, politics. People who follow policy, read about the sausage factory, and generally know who the players are, that makes us atypical in the extreme.

More often than not, we know what is going on weeks or months before the general public. This works to her advantage going into the primaries, once she gets the nomination, if she does, that will all change and is the main reason to keep that nomination from her. The reich-wing will eviscerate her.

will attempt to eviscerate ANY candidate. Mrs. Clinton has the obvious advantage of having survived such attacks for over a decade and a half.

I don't understand the mindset that thinks a candidate exists who will be immune from right-wing attacks. Do you honestly think the man in your sig-line wouldn't be attacked viciously in the unlikely event he secured the nomination?

argument in a way to make your fantasy possible just exposes you.

I'm absolutely certain that, should DK get the nomination (not a likely scenario in itself), they would try to do the same to him. The difference is he has made his positions clear and has submitted plans to make them happen, plus the fact that he's been right since the beginning, something that Senator Clinton cannot say about any issue.

The community service was just the starting point and he did not dwell on it at all. He gave more time to his time in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate. People are just nit picking in order to minimize him.

The OP just decided not to mention it in order to bash him.

And you never can tell -- he just might be our nominee.

And if he is, he has my enthusiastic vote.

Obama is my first choice among the current frontrunners, and I did not see Larry King, but I find the relexivness of some here to call any criticism of any Democratic candidate unjustified very unhealthy.

IMO, that's what he is running for.

Just spell out what you want to say. You want him to be the Vice President. There's no guarantee he'll be chosen. You all know Hillary won't choose him and your beloved Al Gore won't choose him either.

but you are sadly mistaken if you don't realize that many of the candidates are trying to position themselves for just that.

but I find him to be a more engaging speaker than Gore. That's just me.

I know that Obama will be attacked for having no experience, but I will take a lesser experienced candidate like Edwards or Obama over Hillary Clinton anyday.

I'd also take an experience candidate like Gore or Richardson over Hillary Clinton anyday.

did before entering politics.

My guess is none.

:rofl:

next weekend.

... but it wasn't by choice.

stunt (or court-ordered!) and not from his heart.

Obama's work was community-building, people-boosting stuff. The real thing.

Bush had when he became president.

He's not running against Bush. He should be presenting himself as being among the best, not being better than the worst.

Sorry, I don't want another green "bush" this time around, either.

You just convinced me NOT to vote for Obama.

WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER "ON THE JOB TRAINEE".

You put it very clearly.

Besides, his anti gay diatribes coupled with his religious courtship are two more very big red flags for me...

Actually, my mind ISN'T made up yet - way too early - and there were lately some things he said that I liked.

No matter what, ANY Democratic candidate is better than ALL repukes - except for LIE-berbush - but I repeat myself.

Obama wrote/sponsored anti-gay-discrimination legislation as a State Senator. There have been no anti-gay diatribes.

Obama is on the record saying that his personal viewpoint is that the word "marriage" applies to men and women. This doesn't sit well with some people and I can see the point. But we *must* look at the big picture here before foaming at the mouth and cutting off our nose to spite our face. Obama also said his personal opinion about the word marriage doesn't give him the right to take away the rights of other people.

If Obama is anti-gay then they're all anti-gay. I can find quotes on ALL of them because they've all been asked the gay marriage question and none of them pass the purity test no matter how some people try to spin it. But the thing that gets lost here is the big picture. Some people don't think it should matter to a candidate that the VAST, VAST, VAST majority in some states (like mine) would never vote for someone who thought the word marriage should apply to gay people. It's such a sticky, fucked up situation and it pisses me off but for gods sakes it is what it is. We've got to understand this and stop smearing our side for having to deal with reality.

I don't know why that doesn't occur to the people who choose to single out Obama. I guess because they know that if they smear the shit on the wall, some people won't bother to check the facts and will just believe it verbatim.

By definition, the occupant presides over a vast bureaucracy, relying on staff to actually govern. The significance of an election is to determine in which direction the government moves, what policies to implement, and what priorities to make. Obama has as many attributes as are necessary.

In practice, having experience making tough decisions is a liability. Exhibit 1: John Kerry.

Get over it already!

but wasn't he a senator for only one term? What are his qualifications that makes him better than Obama?

Obama? They're both lawyers, both Senators for a relatively short time. If one believes in Edwards as a candidate, then one must also accept Obama's resume.

fine.

Character transcends resume.

should he get there--you don't need to be an "almost-President" to be President--it's a unique position that I don't think can be learned EXCEPT on the job. Very few people would have that kind of resume, except for VP's. Not even Gov's. And no, I don't think Gore should run, before people take my VP comment as a Gore endorsement.

He will learn from this and be more prepared next time. He could also be having an off night.

Now compare this to our current dufus-in-chief. He says something truly idiotic every single press conference. He can't put a sentece together without sounding like he's reciting the words in his head. He has never, not once, had a single time where he has faced a truly public setting. Everyone of his appearances have been tightly controlled, no one allowed who is not a supporter. Protesters are miles away from his appearances.
And his limited experience as gov certainly hasn't done much good now has it? Is this ever brought up?

from the start

He doesn't go from a script like the slick politicians

You don't like Obama because he wasn't a smooth talker on one frickn' interview?

Point blank, GORE isn't running, he has found his purpose

You can wish all you want, it ain't going to happen.

you want to know something else, hillary will most likely be the nominee, and I cannot understand with her position on the war, and so many other things why THAT IS so

We also have Richardson and Edwards, those are REAL CANDIDATES, who are also right on the issues

Sorry, but you critisim has no foundation. Frnakly, his experience wasn't that much greater than Jimmy Carter, and definitely not than george bush

Maybe you should read Obamas book, and understand where he stands instead of jumping all over him for ONE bad interview.

Hell, in 2000, Gore bumbled quite a few interviews himself

I love your in depth analysis, NOT

I love these "Al Gore is the only answer to all the world's problems" posts. 1/2 of which are posted by f'ing Nader voters in 2000.

I'm not. :)

in Springfield, Illinois: it was a chilly Saturday and those people flooded that town square to hear him, and the C-Span cameras showed them rapt listeners. The were hanging on every syllable, willing to let his words lift them up, and he came through in flying colors. It was a magnificent performance.

Don't give me this Larry King bullshit. I've heard the man speak real words to real people who need to hear those words. Obama has the magic.

The more I re-read the original post here in this thread the less I like it, and I didn't like it at all to start with.

President of the United States of America is the most powerful man on earth.

This a junior senator from Illinois. A guy who is barely started on the trecherous road of political gravitas. He will be ground up and spit out like sausage if he is our candidate nominee.

People will not be looking for the cum laude equivalent of their high school teacher to lead the free world for the next four years. They are going to want the most competent individual this country has ever produced.

Obama has a long ways to go before he is ready to assume that mantle. Watching him for one hour last night verified it for me.

I mean, some pissant one-term Rep from Buttfuck, Illinois? You gotta be kidding me.

the hegemon of Greece.

He did just fine.

And you think the Greeks were happy about having a hegemon?

of the leader. Obama is attacked in the OP for being "green" when centuries of several examples suggest that age is not the lone determinant of success in governance.

And by the way, Darius III was no humble servant. On narcissism, he could dish it out with the best of them.

attack used by Demosthenes on the floor of the Athenian Senate when he derided the "barbarian" Phillip and his wet-behind-the-ears son, Alexander, then 19 (soon to be 20 at Phillip's murder).

Isocrates loved the idea of Phillip as hegemon. And although Demosthenes plainly did not, Phillip ran the silver mines, and that put him pretty much at the control panel.

Darius the Great might have given Alexander's vision a more serious obstacle. Darius III did not, and fled when Alexander's better-trained army out-maneuvered him. At Issus Alexander would have been 22 and Darius 47; at Gaugamela Alexander 25 and Darius 50. Those dates are approximate, as neither men's exact birthdate is extant.

Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be a U.S. President. If the OP prefers Gore, a strong case can be made in favor of Al Gore without debasing other Democrats under consideration by primary voters.

...Generation Jones. ;)

We are not talking electing a governor here, we're talking about a hundred million Americans having to be convinced that out of two people, one of them will hold their future, security, and literal lives in their hands.

Obama is new and novel right now. But the brutality of a presidential campaign as it unfolds will quickly show him that Obama love at rallies does not translate to taking the oath of office for most powerful man on the planet. He hasn't begun to see the torture of that yet.

If he is the nominee, I will certainly vote for him but I think I will stand by my original OP title.

country mile.

You watch

of how our federal government works than any governor and as far as experience goes, he has enough. I know Al Gore has alot of experience (even of the executive branch) and I like him. But that is irrelevant to Obama and any question on whether he can handle the job.

I still remember people talking like Jimmy Carter didn't have a prayer because he was so inexperienced and no one knew who the heck he was............

I remember people talking about Al Gore's "lack of personality" as a reason why he couldn't possibly win........

And Ronald Reagan - just a dumb actor can't possibly win.............


---- obviously if Obama is the right guy he'll rise to the top

with the current mess we are in.

People should vote for the person they have the most confidence in, since all of our lives may depend on that person.

I'm 54, and have never seen our country in such horrific shape. The dangers we face will be nothing we have seen yet in this country.

We can no longer vote based on looks, charisma and intellect only. Experience counts and most of all we must ensure a dem victory in 2008!!

In the past, I would have voted for Obama, but this time, I'm voting for what I know, the "DYNAMIC DUO" Hill and Bill, because we need 2 presidents to clean-up the Bush mess that will be left behind!

Let's just hope America doesn't vote "experience" in 2008 the way they did in 2004 (as in GW has more "experience" dealing with terrorism than John Kerry...........

that JK. Rather, people felt that "you shouldn't change horses in the middle of a war," which is total bullshit.

But I'm not going to rehash the 2004 campaign, since we need to look forward if we want to take the WH in 2008..

Bush totally mismanaged the war, it's just too bad it took some people longer to wake-up!!

country has ever produced"?

Personally, if Gore does not enter the race, I'm working for Obama. After the last administration, I'd sure like to see a professor of constitutional law in the White House.

every angle of a company from the ground up, 20 or 30 years, and doggedly racked up years of experience, yet still sits in middle management? And then along comes some hotshot kid who shoots right to the top on brains, talent and leadership ability? That is Obama. People want him to pay more dues, but it's arguable that any more time in the Senate would make a difference for him--look at Joe Biden, for chrissakes. Obama's energy and youth are working FOR him. He shouldn't squander that with a longer history of difficult-to-explain votes, stalled legislation and lobbyist minefields.

That it's just the clamor from the people that matters. I think he has a point, but I think there's more to it.

Some candidates have better... umm... hearing, as it pertains to the public clamor. Bush is practically deaf, for instance. He ignores the demands of the people, and does everything in his power to stifle it. Someone like Bush would start listening to the public when they started lobbing rocks through his window.

Gore would already be predisposed to pursue important issues and even help *build* that public clamor himself. I think he'd be a great president.

Obama is not glib in the classic politician's way. He listens carefully to questions, searches for the right word and his answers often look better in print than they sound on the tube. He also does his best to answer each question directly, which few politicans do, but his success suggests he gets high marks for integrity and trust from more than just Democrats for taking this approach. My wife, who doesn't give a shit about politics for the most part, watched the show and thought he seemed calm and refreshing.

Obama's style, which strays from blatant partisanship and is not always sound-bite friendly, is a by-product of his desire to elevate the tone of political discourse, which is the very foundation of his campaign. It often works, sometimes it doesn't, but to call it "bumbling" is to miss a basic and important point about the man.

succinctly spell out what he will do or opines on myriads of issues in upcoming debates.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think he will quickly be pushed to the back of the pack as the emerging leader.

And that really is a dilemma for me if Gore doesn't run, because Hillary is going to be knocked from pillory to post if she is nominated. Pukes are just salivating for that scenario.

I only hope her huge bank account can tamp that down and survive if it happens. Money buys the ads.

They would rather have some polished speaker who gives them the same talking points over and over without thinking about the real questions. What or who do we blame it on? Reality tv that isn't reality at all or on six years of having talking points spoon fed us by a bush and his talking heads? God, it is refreshing to me to have someone like Barack. He comes across just the way he is. You ask him a question and he listens to you, then he gives an answer directed at you and what you have asked. He doesn't just brush you aside with a quick pat response. I support Barack because of he is who he is.

I DVR'd it earlier this week. I knew that Obama uses uhm's and ah's when he talks, so that wasn't a big surprise. Some people talk like that. But, when I finally saw the interview, it wasn't as bad as some here said.

I thought he did well in his interview. I didn't hear as many uhm's and ah's as I thought I would.

As far as the experience question, he started off with talking about his experience in Chicago, THEN he talked about his legislative experience dealing with nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, and veterans' affairs.

Sometimes, you just can't go on what people on DU say, especially when their only intention is to bash other candidates in order to prop up their own candidate. I had to watch the interview myself to get the truth.

edit: wrong word

I watched it at 3 am this morning, and like you was surprised there were not more uhms and ah's. In fact, as I posted on another thread, he talks like most of us do here in the mid-west. We are not for the most part fast talking, and we are more deliberate in what we say and take pauses to think about what we are about to say. Not as slow as the south but not as fast as the north, we are middle of the road in our speech habits. ;-)

fifty million people watching every word he's going to say in one of the most solemn forums we will witness prior to selecting a candidate to hopefully keep the republic scum from continuing to pollute the White House.

This was just a cordial one on one conversation. This was the equivalent of one hand clapping. You don't hear anything because there is no resistance.

Wait until the other hand shows up.

I think that the folks who are taking the anti-Obama positions since the Larry King interview were firmly entrenched in anti-Obama positions well before the interview.

... with a (even a scripted well rehearsed) speech of the Chimp's. Obama is most certainly not an inarticulate boob (one might get that impression from reading some of the comments).

Millions of Americans will, regardless. :)

The Chimp was appointed to office with experience as a failed businesschimp and the very weak governorship in Texas.

Obama has enough experience in an important area ... He is experienced at being a decent human being.

and he'd probably make a great President but he doesn't stand a chance in getting elected. The last Dem to go to the White House that wasn't a Southern white male was JFK. I highly doubt that a guy whose middle name is Hussein and last name rhymes with Osama will get elected in this country.

elect him if he's nominated.

I believe he carries all blue states that Kerry/Edwards carried, and adds southern states owing to the large Afro-American voter registration numbers.

Obama can speak. Where Bush stammers incoherently, Obama speaks lyrically and to the point. There's a dramatic uplift when he talks.

I think he can go all the way.

I hope I'm wrong. But I think the "new" will quickly wear off this crystal chandelier, and we will be voting for one of our other present field.

If Gore announces, I think it's a runaway slam dunk.

I guess this post will either make me omniscient or wrong. It will live in the archives for years. :scared:

are throwing really bad people at the public -- pretty much as usual. McCain is a has-been. Romney is a nitwit and creepo. Rudy is thuggish and thick. Brownback is overtly psychotic. And on down the list. They're offering the usual nothing, the usual negatives.

We've got the zip and the zeal and the good opportunity. If we combine the hard work with the inherent offering, it's going to be a blue November in 2008.

I'm willing to do the work, certainly, no matter who our nominee is. But I like our chances -- especially when you throw in the hard work part -- a lot better than the GOP's.

I was unpleasantly surprised.He isn't quick on his feet and stumbles and stammers.I guess he has to memorize his answers!

true to the points asked.

He and Michelle were interviewed on 60 MINUTES a ways back and did beautifully. He's been on NPR pieces as well.

An address by its nature is composed prior to its being given. He is lyrical and frequently magnificent in those addresses.

He was really awful recently on Larry King.And he wasn't asked hard questions.I was shocked.I expected him to do better. It definately caused me to revise my first imnpression of Barak.Just saying.

the Obama interview.

But he's been quite good on many other interviews. His media availability sessions are increasing, too, so we'll have an opportunity to watch him over a long period of time for the next 9 months leading up to the Iowa caucuses.

just to get in a plug, and I don't think Al Gore would be of the mind to do that. I may have no faith in this system, but I'm not about to slur any of these people running because I just don't see the point, and I can see other things as more important now. But this does prove that nothing has changed in how campaigns are run to some, which is why I can also understand why Mr. Gore would want nothing more to do with it, especially since he is making progress on the most crucial crisis we face from outside this beltway...finally.

<just to get a plug in> Interesting comment from "The One And Only Keeper Of Al Gore's Flame Of Truth"
:eyes:

And look at you stalking me in threads like clock work.

to Gore threads for support. This time, just came across your 'Don't run, Al' comment, and of course, was TOTALLY surprised!
:eyes:

If you think a bashing Obama thread is a Gore thread, then you too are for the type of politics Al Gore is against. It is also not that I would not want for him to run, as I DID work for him EVERY YEAR he ever ran and even in 2004, but it is not going to happen now in my summation IN THIS TOXIC SYSTEM, which he has also made reference to many times which certain people living in their own little bubbles refuse to address. I support him whether he does or not unlike those who only seem to want to do so when it is tied to political rhetoric. And FYI, this thread title does not indicate AT ALL that it is about Al Gore and I was not the only one to share the opinion that he is doing tremendous work out here. Sad you don't think so. I DO support him http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=491084&mesg_id=496479 and not just a title and my work for him proves that. So you can take your petty childish contest and put it you know where.

Again, you seem to think you're the "The One And Only Keeper Of Al Gore's Flame Of Truth". Personally I think, because this system IS so toxic, that is exactly why we need him and his sensibilities and his passion. I am sick to death of you jumping in every time someone hopes that he runs and going on the attack. If he decicdes to run that will be his choice, no doubt, but those of us who hope he runs will continue to verbalize those hopes and we would like to do it without you jumping in to tell us what he REALLY thinks or feels. He's a grown up, remember?
:think:

But you don't run this forum and you aren't the boss of me. The sooner you accept that the sooner you will get over your obvious obsession with me. As long as I am a donor here and as long as I have opinions about this good man, I will express them wherever I choose to here. Now excuse me, as I have more important things to do than continue to shake you off my ankles.

continue to point out your obvious obsession with his NOT running,(even tho your username implies otherwise), that is, until I hear it from HIS mouth that he is not running. Get over it.
:boring:

when you don't succeed in stifling my free speech.

:rofl:

No particular experience is required, in fact, you only have to have been born in the U.S. and 35 years old at least. I'm qualified.

This is a leadership position, and sometimes years of working in the halls of Washington may actually cause you to become disqualified. Politics and power corrupt.

Right now Chimpy has the nuclear codes, etc., and I would trust Obama with them more.

on the very short list for the VP position.

He has a resume that goes for miles. Few people know about it right now.

would be a great VP!!

I hope he gets more play around here in the future.

Health Care Forum yesterday. I think he's a good Senator so far, and a good Dem, but he was just OK on LK, and to appear in a HC forum and say I don't have a plan yet is terrible politics! He would have been better off just not going there!

National politics is a real tough blood sport, and I'm really afraid Obama hasn't been beatenup enough to instantly react to the rapidly changing politics of a National Campaign. That's not putting him down as a man, as Dem, or as a Senator. Just think about Howard Dean. He was flying high in the Dem Party for MONTHS. Still today, all the things he said have been proven true! But he was blindsided by rough politics. Watch him today! The knowledge he learned from that campaign has been invaluable, and has made him one of the best DNC Chairs we've had. That's all I mean by Obama's inexperience. He didn't grow up in a political family so he couldn't learn it there. This is trial by fire!

graduate program in that? Obama earned (actually *earned*) a law degree from Harvard for cliff's sake. And his community service wasn't exactly picking up trash on the side of the highway. He was helping underserved communities come together and work together to get the things they needed to survive and thrive. I'd say that's excellent experience for being president.

But since it's my crystal ball against yours, you want to stake $50.00 that he won't be the nominee?

I'm not trying to be contentious. He is a valuable Dem. I'm attempting to be pragmatic. Fifty bucks right to DU.

You in?

as overly harsh criticism from you (of Obama) with overly harsh criticism of my own. That's unfair and I apologize. I removed that last comment.

I do still disagree with your assessment of Obama. I don't know whether or not he'll be the nominee, but I know he's a good man and as qualified or more qualified to be president as any other candidate (certainly more qualified than our current pResident). He's certainly my pick of those currently running. For the record though, I wish Gore would run. I'd actually love a Gore/Obama ticket in 2008. Then Obama could gain tons more experience and be the perfect candidate in 2016.

Peace.

You could have left the comment in. Our emotions run high and rightfully so. We have to keep our eyes on the big prize, that's my only point. The consequences are just too great to lose.

Our comparison cannot be with the decrepit dick in the White House now. He wouldn't get 20 percent of the vote anymore.

We have to deal with the next scum lord they put up and Obama would not survive that.

RUN, AL, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!!

But I disagree as to the reasons why. I think Obama would be a decent President - I think any of our Democrats would be a whole helluva lot better than any Replican, and certainly a thousand times better than The Decider! I'm not going to disparage any of the other candidates who are out there - although I've got my differences with some of them.

I put it another way in this thread earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=496524&mesg_id=497085

"But I want Al Gore to run in '08 for far different reasons. It's not that he is our only hope to capture the POTUS at all, but we shouldn't want just anyone anyway, we should be looking for someone who's extraordinary - especially right now. I want him to run because he's the best qualified by experience and intelligence, temperament, abilities and skills, and dedication to the core principles of our country. He's got a vision of what America (and the world) needs to do to change, and how we can succeed and thrive while doing it. He's open-minded and curious. He thinks. And he's a statesman, he's acheived that status now - he's not a politician.

When your country is in need of a true leader, and you live in a time that cries out for a person of vision who can heal and inspire your nation to reach for the stars, you look for the best, the brightest, the most qualified. I think that person is Al Gore, that he would perform the job of President better than anyone else.

I know some people disagree and have other preferences, and that's okay with me. I don't know if Al Gore's going to be a choice for us at this point. If he becomes one, I'll be working my tail off for him. If he doesn't, I will be disappointed because the person I believe would be the best President for our country isn't in the race."

bull, bull, bull.

...he should have worked backward starting with what he's doing in the Senate now, then to his State gov experience, his work as a lawyer and then his community service work.

He eventually listed it all out and I think his experience is just as valid as a Governor running for Prez but from a PR perspective, he shouldn't start out with the community service stuff no matter how good it is. Could you imagine receiving a resume from a prospective CEO that begins with her/his pizza job they held in high school? It doesn't discount the hard work and experience they've undergone since then, but it does sound strange.

He is qualified enough, and not being able to be as articulate at times is something the public is used to with bush...

And as far as "experience" goes, they said the same crap about Clinton and when they saw that he also had charisma among other things, then set up the VRWC to undo him--as they will Obama should he succeed.

Not a good one, anyway...not even a mediocre one. As we've seen. Let's not leave the bar set THAT low...

But regardless, the sad fact is this: If Obama got the Dem nomination, he would not win one state.

your comment.

If Obama is our nominee, I would put money on it that he will be our president. If he can survive what lies ahead of him and is in the pole position at the end of our primaries and debates, I will be stunned.

I don't think there is any way one of their puke scum lords could then top that test of national "Rocky" survival and beat him in the general election.

My prediction is that I just don't see him in the race when the dust clears.

Just to be clear, I would have NO problem whatsoever supporting him if he were to get the nod...I just think 1) it's about a zero on a scale of 1 to 10 and 2) no way - if he did - could he win one state in the electoral college. I'd love to be wrong.

Those are my tickets.

those kinds of tickets, no problem, wind at my back, blue skies & sunshine enthusiasm.

Go, Democrats.

besides you?

BTW you're NOT required to vote for anyone.

He said something to the effect that "Dick Cheney had a lot of experience".

We all know how that worked out. Not to say experience is a bad thing, but I don't see any of the current front-runners as having a whole lot of experience. I somehow can't imagine Darth Cheney giving up a 6 figure salary to work for the betterment of peoples lives, like Obama did. To me, something like that is worth a LOT.

I like Obama - so far I like him the most of the 3 front-runners. I've studied his past and it's quite impressive. I've seen several speeches, which were impressive to the point that I wanted to go contribute to him right away. He inspires hope.

Why this is on the greatest page is beyond me. I'm not "worried" about voting for him, in fact, I'm looking forward to it. That is subject to change, if other people enter who I think could do a better job - it's still early.

Why do we eat our own?

:shrug:

He might well make a fine VP candidate this time around. But he isn't ready to be President yet.

I don't see anything wrong with that answer. I think if all politicians were out there in the community, they wouldn't do the shit the republicans are doing.

Carry on...

Please tell me you have something more substantial. Have you read "Why running oil companies right into the ground makes me a good leader!" Or "What I learned about boinking Arkansas women helps foreign relations".

I would have just said I support Gore and list my reasons why. And then I would share these links:
http://www.draftgore.com/
http://draftgore2008.org/
http://www.algore.org/
http://www.electgore2008.com/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/303874397
http://www.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html