Looking ahead to 2008, I think Barack Obama is the guy to beat.

[pnwmom]

Why isn't there more enthusiasm for Barack Obama for President?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

"According to a February 2006 poll by Survey USA, Obama is tied for the second highest approval rating among United States Senators at 71% approval"

The only Senator with a higher approval rating was John McCain, at 72%. (Actually, there's no difference, statistically speaking.)

www.progressivepunch.com

According to ProgressivePunch, he takes the progressive position 92% of the time and is more progressive than 93 other Senators.

He's young -- but he's older than John Kennedy was.

He's a first term Senator -- but our current President was a one-term titular governor of Texas.

And he's showing the makings of being a great orator AND fund-raiser.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lindisfarne]

6. I've got to agree with this. 3 months ago I was more pro-Obama than

I am today; he's said a few things lately that have made me sit back and say hmmm.

Also, I agree with the statements that he's too inexperienced to run in 2008 as Pres (regardless of my other misgivings). Probably too inexperienced to run as VP in 2008 as well.

[pnwmom]

21. The good thing about a candidate with a short record -- like GWB --

is that he's a blank slate, or a mirror for whatever people might want to see in him.

He doesn't have a history of modifying his positions over the years, which we call "learning from experience " but the other side callls "flip-flopping," or "back-pedaling."

And really, after a President like GWB, who can say Obama lacks experience. At least he would be bringing in a lot of good Democrats to help him.

[lindisfarne]

27. Well, Obama would be better than GWB. But that's not saying much!

I think he has potential. But pushing him forward as a candidate too early can be counter-productive. I don't think the US public would vote for him in 2008 as Pres. due to his age in part. (Of course, there's the "Senate curse" as well.)

[pnwmom]

31. But isn't the "Senate curse" a bigger problem

the longer that you are in the Senate?

[blm]

61. All the old myths are obsolete - this is not the same media that even

Clinton had in 92. Back then, corporations weren't making their news divisions tow the party line - now they acively USE the news divisions as their own public relations department that promotes policies that benefit the parent companies' bottom line.

ANY Governor, Senator, General or Pope would get put through the grinder if they campaigned as a Democrat lined up against the BFEE's policies.

[pnwmom]

74. In that case, then we can put up anybody.

[pnwmom]

86. You might be interested in this thread

about Obama's spirited disagreement with a Christian pastor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2720313&mesg_id=2720313

[cboy4]

7. I agree that all of the religious talk is a turn-off. That should be a

private matter -- not an issue that belongs in politics, IMO.

[pnwmom]

19. Is he sounding like a fundie?

Any links?

[Rosemary2205]

20. Oh I disagree

as a progressive Christian I appreciate being represented openly in the Democrat party.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. I managed to miss that whole flap...

...over his remarks about evangelicals. Just reading back through it now. I don't see anything particularly new or startling about his comments. I suspect that a lot of people saw "evangelicals" then assumed he meant "fundies" and, without actually reading his words, decided that this meant that Democrats should start bashing gays and abortion. But then again that's the sort of thing I've come to expect from a certain, very loud minority at DU.

[1932]

46. It's not as if he talked about religion on floor of Senate. He was invited

to the Sojourners convention. Soujerners is a progressive religions group. If Democrats can't speak to groups like that, we're going to leave religion to the Republicans.

Obama is doing important work when he speaks about religion to religious groups.

[SaveElmer]

47. Obama has been right on target with his views on religion...

And public life...

[Sam Odom]

2. VP maybe ?

Gore/Obama could win

[AtomicKitten]

9. I'd support that ticket in a heartbeat. n/t

[Selatius]

3. Obama is inexperienced

He's a Freshman when you compare him to Gore or Feingold or Kerry.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Obama supports Lieberman

gave a speech in which he bestowed praises on that warmongering Bush enabler!

[The Magistrate]

14. The Horror, Ma'am!

Can the ghastly sound and sight be gotten from my reeling senses?

Sen. Obama seems a little young to me, but he would make an excellent President. He certainly has the "X-factor" essential to a successful campaign for the office....

[pnwmom]

32. Yes, it's that X factor that could be key. The media would be entranced.

It could be another Camelot.

I know . . probably wishful thinking. . . but still.. . . I can daydream if I want to.

:7

[pnwmom]

26. You think we're going to find a candidate who never said one thing

in a speech that you didn't like?

[pnwmom]

23. Sure he is. But Gore's and Kerry's experience counted AGAINST them,

in the final analysis. That's why they got brushed with the flipflopper charge.

John Edwards was a first term Senator. He was a serious candidate for President. Why not Obama?

[Selatius]

58. Gore beat Bush, and Kerry's defeat is questionable citing election fraud

With respect to the flip-flopper charge, I guarantee you could slam Bush as well as the Republicans with the same weapon at this point. John Edwards trailed Kerry throughout the primaries. The only weaker contender was Howard Dean, who was the victim of character assassination in my opinion.

[blm]

92. Their experience did NOT count against them. The rigged machines did.

.

[pnwmom]

102. It isn't possible to know how big their margins would have been

without the rigged machines, that's true.

But long term Senators don't have a history of doing very well in Presidential elections.

[blm]

116. With the GOP controlling most broadcast media, no history matters.

Work to expose GOP control of broadcast media and secure the voting machines, and Dems will win with a competent nominee.

Your old mythology about candidates went out the window after 1992. And the window closed and locked by 1996.

[Purveyor]

4. Focus on the 2006 elections/results first... n/t

[pnwmom]

24. Do you ever watch TV? Read fiction? Go to movies?

You don't think about the 2006 election every minute that you could. Why should I?

[WI_DEM]

8. but he's not running for president in '08

he might be somebody's vice president, but it's too soon to say.

[pnwmom]

25. How do you know that he won't? John Edwards hadn't announced this

early in 04.

[longship]

10. Several reasons

1. He's a neophyte. Let him get some experience in the Senate before jumping into the presidential campaign meatgrinder. We need somebody who is willing to be their own candidate, not a neophyte who will be influenced by the DC power elite. In other words, lack of experience weighs against him.

2. So far, he's too conservative for my taste. He has made some very troubling statements. This could be more of his inexperience, but I'm not sure I could support him either way.

3. His constituency in IL deserve a Senator, not somebody who would use the Senate as a mere stepping stone for his own political aspirations. He's smart and very eloquent. There will be a time, but I don't see it being now.

4. If Al Gore runs, nobody else will matter.

[Sam Odom]

12. Maybe that's why he (they) could win

>>too conservative for my taste

[pnwmom]

33. That was the lesson that was burned into my soul when

George McGovern lost 49 states.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. would Republicans of today show the kind of disrespect to Barry Goldwater

that many Democrats--even many progressives--show to George McGovern? I do not think so.

But the right-wing did not give up after their devastating--landslide defeat of 1964. It was the birth of the modern conservative movement; not its death. They kept fighting and they eventually won. Today they control all three branches of government; a movement that is now way to the right of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater.

Even so, Sen. Obama would still be a step in the right direction.

[pnwmom]

48. I would like to think you're right. But those Republicans seemed to make

steady progress toward their goal. On our side what I see are people who don't bother to vote if they don't like the Democrat and what I hear is "things will get better once they get bad enough." That's not a strategy, that's merely a hope.

[longship]

35. In case you haven't been paying attention recently.

This country is a liberal country--no matter what the fucking neocons say.

The last person I want running for President of the United States is a young, ambitious neophyte whose only goal is to satisfy his own ambitions. That's precisely what Obama would be if he runs in 2008--nothing more and nothing less.

In reality. He won't be running. He's too smart. He knows what people in IL will say about it, what people in DC will say about it.

[Sam Odom]

37. Who's not paying attention ?

>>This country is a liberal country

Explain then the Repub House, Senate & WH ?

[pnwmom]

50. I would love to believe "this country is a liberal country."

But I don't see all that much evidence of that.

True, the majority of Americans are sick of Iraq. But they supported it strongly in the beginning.
The majority of Americans support abortion -- but with restrictions that aren't really "liberal."
The majority of Americans don't support gay marriage.
The majority of Americans support universal health insurance -- as long as their taxes don't go up to pay for it.

I think it's clear we live in a divided country, not a liberal country.

[howmad1]

108. And the majority of Murkins are dumb as dirt.

They wouldn't know a smart, intelligent candidate for president if their lives depended upon it. (Which, by the way their lives do depend upon it). I can just see those dumb white christian southern crackers looking forward to voting for, and having a beer with Barack Obama. Gimme a break. Maybe in another life, he'd have a chance, but not in this good ole' US of A.

[pnwmom]

110. Sounds pretty hopeless then, no matter who we put up.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. oh my!

you nailed it

:applause:

[pnwmom]

28. He IS a neophyte. He is NOT a conservative.

If he was the candidate that could win the Presidency, then his constituency in Illinois would just have to do without him.

[longship]

36. The extent to which he mixes religion and politics...

is the extent to which this First Amendment advocate *cannot* support him.

I like him as a person and I think he's eminently qualified for his office, but he's too damned conservative for my taste. And then there's that religion bit which I find extremely difficult to swallow.

[pnwmom]

51. So no democratic candidate is allowed to give talks to religious

groups like the Soujourners without being accused of mixing religion and politics?

So we'll just hand over all the votes of religious people to the Republicans, without a fight?

And, considering that his vote record on progressive issues puts him above 93 other members of the Senate, who ISN'T too conservative for your state?

www.progressivepunch.com

[longship]

55. Sojourners do not have a seat in the Senate.

But what they do is to oppose the lunatics in the GOP who are on the whole fundemental religious lunatics.

In principle, I am against all use of religion in politics. But somebody has to wake up this country to the very real danger of the GOP being taken over by those lunatics. But it's an entirely different matter when a representative in government does it. Is he advocating for his religion? It appears that he puts his theology above his Constitutional oath. That's wrong.

Obama, instead of taking a stand that would give the lunatics less power, is giving comfort to the insane fundies. I cannot support such a candidate no matter what the rest of his record is like.

I take the First Amendment very seriously. It's too bad that Obama does not.

[pnwmom]

67. What has he said that makes you think he puts his theology above

his constitutional oath?

[Zhade]

118. Sure they can!

They just can't reinforce the lie that progressives are anti-Christian and can't take potshots at atheists the way he did.

[AtomicKitten]

11. I get the impression certain Dems were sent out to "support" Joementum.

Think about it. Boxer has a lot of support on the left. Obama at least was pretty popular. I get this distinct feeling the head cheese of the Dems felt they could withstand the flaming from the leftwing bloggers, etc. I don't know, it's just a gut feeling I've had.

And we heathens :) really have to try to find some space for the christmongers of the world. We really do need them at the ballot box.

Oh, and for the record, I still really like Obama and think he has a bright future. I don't think he's ready for prime time yet, but a Gore/Obama ticket would kick some serious ass in 2008.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. I think that Obama and Boxer genuinely support Lieberman

Senators, especially of the same party, form very close relationships even when they disagree on key issues. They probably agree more with Lamont but Lieberman is their friend. If my close friend were running for office, there's a good chance I'd vote for him even if I liked the other candidate's positions a little bit better. Lieberman has 18 years of relationships with members of the senate and someone who has probably never spoken to most of these people can't compete with that. I wish that they would put friendship aside and act in a professional manner only, but they are human beings and I can understand why they won't do that.

[The Magistrate]

16. When You Ply The Politician's Trade, Sir

Acting in friendship is acting in a professional manner.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. I guess professional wasn't quite the right word

But yes, you are definitely correct in your assessment.

[pnwmom]

29. Ted Kennedy/Orrin Hatch are one of those political odd couples.

Diametrically apart on the issues, but they appear to be good friends.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Sometimes senators of opposite views agree on one issue

And that brings them together. Paul Wellstone and Sam Brownback liked and respected each other mostly because they worked together on a human trafficing bill.

[pnwmom]

103. I didn't know about Wellstone and Brownback. Interesting.

[Solon]

60. That is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard...

And we heathens :) really have to try to find some space for the christmongers of the world. We really do need them at the ballot box.

Not till they find space for us first, to say that we fucking heathens have to take a back seat to the MAJORITY, is fucking disgusting, I want NO FUCKING PART OF THAT SHIT, FUCK THE "CHRISTMONGERS", we give a fucking inch, and they take a fucking mile.

[AtomicKitten]

65. your threshold and criteria for disgusting are, um, interesting ...n/t

[pnwmom]

69. This appears to be a lot of gibberish.

But I assume you have a point buried in there.

[Zhade]

119. It's insane to think that the Religious Right will EVER vote as Dems vote.

They simply DON'T support the same things liberals do, such as choice, freedom of AND FROM religion (that isn't THEIRS), equal rights for all, GLBT included, etc.

So do we LIE to them to trick them into voting for us (once, because they'll realize they were used pretty quick), do we change our principles and what we support to get them to vote for us (those who advocate this are invited to jump off a cliff somewhere), or do we write off this small percentage of the-lawd's-way-or-the-highway types and go for the non-insane majority of reasonable Americans, half of whom don't even vote?

I'd go with the third one, myself.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Our current "president" should not be a standard bearer

Obama has the charisma, the charm, and the intelligence to be the next Bill Clinton without all of the baggage. The problem is that he's making the mistake that John Kerry made and he's letting people handle him. He was much better at expressing his beliefs as a candidate than he has been as a senator. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all of the fund-raising that he has done for other Democrats and while I highly disgaree with him about Lieberman, I don't dislike him because of it.

Also, candidates who have run for President in recent years have for the most part had a considerable amount of experience. A Senator or Governor in his/her first term could easily run for president 30 years ago, but not anymore. The reason for this is simple. The primary process has gone from being a few months to over a year. Any candidate that wants to have a chance starts running almost a year before the Iowa Caucus. That means almost completely abandoning their duties of their elected office for over a year and for almost two years if they win the nomination. Should they fail to capture the nomination and sometimes even if they do, they will face the wrath of their constituents for spending so much time running for president instead of addressing their needs. Generally the only way that you can make up for this is actually winning the presidency because people love having the president be from their state. But victory is far from a sure thing in presidential politics.

Obama needs to wait a few more years if he is going to have a chance.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. He has said that he will not run in 2008

"Ever since the day he was elected to his first term in the Senate, Obama's name has been brought up as a potential Democratic candidate for the 2008 Presidential elections. At the time, Obama responded by saying "I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years".<1>

In a January 22, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, Obama once again reiterated that he will finish out his Senate term and will not run for president or vice president in 2008"

link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

____________________________

____________________________

I know that I have posted this next part before. But I feel it must be said again:

The conference that Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and Gov. Dean were speaking at was sponsored by the Sojourners movement.

Sojourners are actually fairly left-wing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.


Sojourners are the Evangelicals they were speaking to:

link for Sojourners


http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:


http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview on Democracy Now with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204

_____________

"They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm


.

[pnwmom]

30. Thanks for the very informative post, Douglas.

[BluegrassDem]

34. People don't like Obama on DU cause he could actually win

It seems more popular to support a lovable loser like Kucinich or Feingold, than support someone who has a chance to bring the White House back to us.

Too many people are nit-picking on issues here and there instead of looking at the big picture at getting a Democrat back in power and saving our country and the world from tyrannial GOP rule. But who cares? Obama supported Lieberman, so he's automatically disqualified. Gimme a break!

[boolean]

43. BINGO!

Democrats seem to be self defeatists, don't they?

Who cares if he doesn't have any experience? Since when have experienced politicians ever shown to be anything other than corporate puppet boys? If anything, his lack of experience should be a REASON to support him. And so what if he expressed his religious views? For god's sake, THEY ALL DO THAT. Why crucify Obama for it. I know it sucks and I hate it when politicians get all fundy nutty, but it's not like any of the other leading Democrats have been silent regarding religion.

Every 4 years the same damn thing happens. An actual candidate who can beat the republicans comes along, and the Democrats of America choose the worst one. Howard Dean would've taken chimpy down EASILY. Instead, who did you guys pick? John Kerry. The most uncharismatic one of them all.

The media has a lot to do with this as well. (Remember the "Dean scream"?) It seems like the vast majority of the people are influenced by the media. After the Dean scream media circus, all the Democrats jumped ship and went with Kerry. You guys played right into their hands. Dean would've WON. The corporate media made sure that didn't happen.

But you can't put 100% of the blame on the media because it is the Democrats that are scared to stand up and fight. They always take the easy way out. As soon as the media started reporting falling poll numbers after the scream, you all jumped to Kerry. The same thing would happen to Obama, I think. One slip, and he's toast.

It's time for Democrats to stop giving themselves self inflicted wounds. Obama would have a clear shot at winning. Stop making up dumb excuses for why he's not good and recognize that he IS good.

[pnwmom]

52. I do think he is very intriguing. So the question is

can he withstand the pressure?

[FrenchieCat]

88. Just one correction in your recollection of the '04 primaries.....

The people of Iowa had already spoken prior to the "Dean Scream". Howard Dean came in a poor 3rd in Iowa. So I don't know if he "would've won". And it is certainly questionable if he actually would have beaten Bush even if Howard Dean would have won the primaries.

Obama is good, but he has shortcomings that we don't need to try and hide them....(Dean did too).

In conclusion, Obama is not the only one with a "clear shot at winning". See my posts lower in this thread to know why I don't think 2008 will be Obama's time to run.

[Ysabel]

59. hey - ! - feingold is not a loser...

feingold has won every race that he has entered - 3 time state senate / 3 time u.s. senate...

feingold has been a solid winner - for 24 years...

why try to put down others and / or lie in order to boost your own opinion...?

- not very nice imo...

[mtnsnake]

62. Amen

Too many people are nit-picking on issues here and there instead of looking at the big picture at getting a Democrat back in power and saving our country and the world from tyrannial GOP rule.

You sure got that right! Good post...

:toast:

[Le Taz Hot]

38. One more time with feeling . . .

the progressives will not, repeat, WILL NOT go along with another DLC/DSCC shill. Now, anytime you guys want to COME BACK to the Democratic Party and offer up a true opposition candidate, we'll be more than happy to welcome you.

[pnwmom]

53. What do you mean exactly when you say he's a DLC shill?

I don't have the code book.

[wisteria]

39. It may be about appeal but it also has to do with knowledge,

competency, leadership and experience. These things are even more important once we no longer have a Bush administration. 2008+ are going to be about renewing ties with former allies, straightening out our foreign policy, making us safer, dealing with the terrorists, balancing the budget, health care costs, assisting the veterans, to mention just a few issues that face a new President. Obama is a great guy, but for this time in history, I don't think he is ready to be President.

[depakid]

41. The man has shown very poor judgment

and I expect that will continue.

He's not heaeded anywhere but down from the hights he was elevated to- without having earned the honor.

Watch and see- he'll stick his foot in it over and over.

[leesa]

44. Not interested. Seems like a great capitulator.

This man acts on politics and not on principle. An illegal war's OK with him, just wasn't run well enough...etc.

[kentuck]

45. He hasn't shown me much since his speech at Dem Convention?

I will admit that was an impressive speech, but he needs to show me more.

[Sapere aude]

49. It seems to me who ever is making the most noise today is the guy/gal to

beat.

I don't think that anyone who says the Dems should speak about religion or what ever is the guy to beat.

We need a candidate that will tell the people how he/she is going to solve the problems each of us face on a day to day basis. How will our kids pay for college, were will our jobs come from, how will we be able to afford health care, how will we be able to afford a home, how will we ever stop spending all our tax money on war and defensive weapons. Not how Jesus relates to me!

[pnwmom]

54. He was asked to speak to the Soujourners, a very liberal group, and

so he did. Are you saying he should have turned them down?

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. RE: the Evangelicals that sponsored the conference Sen. Obama spoke at

The conference that Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and Gov. Dean were speaking at was sponsored by the Sojourners movement.

“They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception." link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm

Sojourners are actually fairly left-wing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.


Sojourners are the Evangelicals they were speaking to:

link for Sojourners:


http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:


http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview on Democracy Now with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204

_____________

[Sapere aude]

66. I understand who he was talking to. I could not care less about his

stand on religion, his faith, or how much he loves Jesus, just so long as he upholds the 1st amendment's separation of church and state. Now where does he stand on the issues that matter?

[pnwmom]

70. If you're curious, why don't you take a look at his voting record?

Just click on his name (he's in 6th place) for the details.

http://www.progressivepunch.com/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=66&y=12

[pnwmom]

87. You might be interested in this other thread

about Obama's disagreement with a Christian pastor,
and about his beliefs in separation of Church and State.

[Dr Fate]

56. He will be very suprised when the media swiftboats him into the ground.

When its all said in done, they will turn him into a crack-head who rapes white women.

Outrageous? You forget that it does not have to be true for the media to say it. (See Swiftboat vets, Al invented the internet, WMDs, Cliton killed Vince Foster, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc)

And then Obama will say to himself- but I was so polite and moderate- I tried to "work with" those criminals & liars- I played fair-why are they doing this to me???

Obama has not shown me that he can handle a knock-down drag out fight against a full GOP/media assualt.

I wish him the best, he has some fine qualities, but he seems to cave in to RW/media framing off the issues.

[mtnsnake]

63. Obama could likely be the next Dem President & that would be fine by me

If I had to pick someone who I thought could heal this country more than anyone else could, it would be Barack Obama.

[pnwmom]

71. You're right. They could try that. Or they might try to turn him into

a JFK.

It will be interesting.

[JNelson6563]

64. I think not

He's too green. His campaign would be even more poll driven and far too heavy with consultants. Just cause the guy can make speeches and raise money doesn't mean he's WH material just yet.

He's got a ways to go yet in regard to being ready for such a thing.

Just my .0125

Julie

[ndcohn]

68. Here is a good question that puts things in perspective

Name me another Democrat that gave a good speech?

UH...

Look, there are arguments for ALL of these candidates why they "can't" win.
Yeah, Obama is young - but I think thats a good thing. America is tired of status quo politics and politicans - that means kerry, gore, hillary, etc.
Obama is clean, and refreshing - exactly what the american public is looking for.
This religion thing is ridiculous - i can't believe that democrats would complain about a politican explaining how his values fuel his progressivism. Thats exactly what this party means.

Oh - and i can't believe people are arguing he isn't electable.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html

just look at that map.

if you need a comparison
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/P/00/index.html

Quite a difference, eh?



This is the most talented, natural politican in the democratic party, and he is sufficently progressive. If he runs, i'm decided.

[pnwmom]

72. Welcome to DU, ndcohn!

[pnwmom]

73. And for some "balance," how about

Obama/Clark?

[FrenchieCat]

75. I don't think this is Obama's time.....

there are three wars too many going on, and more shaping up in the horizon.

Just ask yourself this question:
Who are the potential Dem candidates that an Osama Bin Laden Tape released a week before the vote would help elect?

folks, whomever they are.....those are the Dem candidates who need to run for Prez. Everyone else should wait until more peaceful times, or line up for a VP spot!

The "terror Fear" card is the only card the GOP has left to play that seems to still work! And they are currently playing it day in, day out. (see Bush's poll number up 8 points since all of the "new" terror announcements).

Guess that I'm just a Black Pragmatist. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

77. I'm really confused. We're supposed to pick the candidate that Bin Laden

wants?

I think that Obama with Clark as VP would be a good combination for security.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Nope....not the one that Bin Laden wants....the one that voters feel is

the biggest threat to Bin laden.

But in reference to National Security...I think that Obama will have to be his own man. Wes Clark is not an accessory to be used for those not qualified in the area of security and Foreign policy needing a hole plugged in their resume.

But you know, Democrats can continue to ignore the day in, day out discussion on the news (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, The middle East--Israel/Palestine, War on Terra, Border security, etc....) for the past 6 years and run who they want and be prepared to lose. :shrug:

Bottomline is "it's the national security stupid" (as evidenced in the elections of 2002, 2004, and shortly 2006)...and for those who still don't understand that, they should just vote for who they want to.

Me....I know the game, and have already seen it played.

Obama as the Dem nominee in '08 loses....easily (IMO, of course)

[ndcohn]

81. this argument doesn't make sense

1. with the exception of general clark, there is no candidate in either party who is "qualified" in the areas of security and foreign policy
2. with the exception of g.h.bush , there hasn't been a candidate who is "qualified" since eisenhower
3. the republicans sure as hell aren't going to put up a candidate who is anymore ."qualified" then Obama. The only one that i think could seriously impair obama in the national security debate is Guiliani
4. I contest the notion that being 'qualified' is important to being able to win the national security debate. Its all about perception of being tough - seeming like you know what you talk about is second to sounding like you're ready to kick some terrorist ass 5. I think security will be more of a litmus test vs. an issue. i think the public will simply want to know that the candidate can keep them safe, then they will listen to the rest of the issues, which i think will ultimately be more important. I doubt that like in 04 people will vote for a candidate because they will keep them 'more' safe because there won't be an incumbant involved

[FrenchieCat]

83. IN reply.....I believe it makes perfect sense, based on what has already

happened, and is happening, and what will continue to happen, until Democrats get a clue on this one.

Responding--

1. There is Clark, Gore, and possibly Richardson....which is why I support Clark and then Gore.

2. 9/11 changed everything according to the voters (en masse)--you don't have to believe it, but they still do believe that....and the media will help them remember if they forget.

3. The GOP has McCain (who is currently assigned ahead of the pack as of present for reasons that include his national security strength as numero uno), Guiliani is perceived tough (but is he really? pure perception cause he was on the ground during 9/11--which was not handled based on toughness--but he is rated high on the GOP list at the moment), even Condi's name is making "noises". Why? (because of her National Sec Creds, that's why)....and they also have a natural built in perception "edge" when it comes to security for any of their other candidates. Democrats, on the other hand, have been gifted with the perception of "weakness" to fight against. (Google Bush, Kerry, Osama Bin Laden tape, 10/31/04)

Your quote in #5 perfectly examplifies the issue of perception...."Its all about perception of being tough - seeming like you know what you talk about is second to sounding like you're ready to kick some terrorist ass"...meaning the GOP has one up on us on security due to historical perception since Vietnam; meaning a Republican with equal qualifications as a Dem in the area will always appear "stronger" in that area than the Dem.

Why would you want to enable the Republicans to be one up on us by determining that if they put up a candidate without Security Creds that it's ok if we do so as well? Elections are meant to be won, not tied.

Your Number 5 is pure "BINGO!"....."i think the public will simply want to know that the candidate can keep them safe, then they will listen to the rest of the issues, which i think will ultimately be more important.

You are right....they have to feel safe before they will listen to what one has to say about other issues.

I don't know about you, but for me, Obama does not give off the perception of being strong on Security. Neither does Mark Warner nor John Edwards. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

82. Clark wouldn't be an accessory. He'd be more of a Cheney.

And I guess he can decide for himself whether he'd be willing to run for VP. It won't be up to either of us.

[FrenchieCat]

84. I think that Wes Clark is a natural leader.....

and I don't think he's gonna be Obama's Dick Cheney. That model isn't serving us well now, and I don't particularily recommend it for our side either.

Clark said this just a couple of days ago....""they're ratcheting up the risk that America faces. You can see it in their rhetoric, and you can see it in their approach to the, to the news cycle and how they're dealing with the issues in the country. You can even see it in the actions of the government.

So, let's just take stock in just the last few days, what have we had? We've had the issue with the Miami bombers, who were going to blow things up in Chicago, even though they had no plan and no explosives. And a lot of people wondered whether that was real or not, but it sure made headlines and reminded us all that there's a terrorist threat out there.

And then the problem of North Korea and the North Korean missile launches, yes, North Korea's a problem that's why I've been saying, along with other Democrats for five years that we should be talking to North Korea. This administration's totally mishandled the North Korean issue, attacking the North Korean leader personally. President Bush called Kin Jong Il loathsome. This administration cut off the discussions and dialog between North and South Korea, and instead branded Korea as a member of the Axis of Evil. This administration, instead of having dialog with North Korea and trying to advance toward a solution to the challenge of North Korean problems, this administration stalled, putting off the North Korea problem so it could deal with the war it wanted to fight in Iraq, and then hiding behind the six-party talks and China rather than directly confront a regime which it doesn't want to deal with. Now the rhetoric's up on North Korea.

You see, already it's clear to me that what the Republicans are doing is making the case that the country is in danger and that only Republicans can understand the threat and deal with it. It's a familiar argument. They've played it in one way or another in election after election after election.

They used it in 2002 with the drum beat to go into Iraq. And in that election, the Democrats in office, many of them believed that the best thing to do was to sort of go along with the President and just then try to sort out the domestic issues and draw a difference with the President on domestic issues, ceding the national security debate to the Republican Party and the President. It didn't work, and the Republicans took back control of the Senate and strengthened control in the house..."

"The point is we don't have to be afraid. What we have to have is a competent government that looks to the future with resolve, with purpose, with a understanding that it's not about rhetoric. It's about pragmatic problem-solving, and that's why I believe the 2006 mid-term elections are critical. It's our chance to vote and prove that America believes enough is enough. My focus over the next four months is to make sure we elect good Democrats to take office and to help take back the Congress.

But to do this, we have to understand what the Republican ploy is and then how to beat it."--Wes Clark
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1613060

[Awsi Dooger]

85. Bush's approval rating hasn't gone up due to terror announcements

Jeez, talk about phony analysis to fit your foreign policy-only meme. The only thing keeping Bush's number that low was one self-inflicted implosion after another. A remarkably masochistic week after week and month after month.

It was artificially low since it required betrayal of a huge chunk of his base. I posted many times the approval rating would slowly creep back up once you got to the inevitable period of normalcy. That's where we are now.

His number will continue to rise unless we get a good break and something that puts Bush in a negative light comes out. What Democrats need to avoid is instinctive Bush bashing to try to get his approval number back down. That won't work and never has worked. His approval rating and reputation are tied to independent events only, not anything we say about him.

[FrenchieCat]

89. That's your theory....and you can go for it.....

However, to call my analysis "phoney" is a bit over the top....wouldn't you say...consider your lack of any links, sources, or otherwise backing your statements up?

here's mine....(the most recent article does agree with some of what you say.....but what I say is also clearly there...natch! :) )

The Bush Bounce
Mon Jul 10, 10:54 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20060711/cm_weeklystandard/thebushbounce
For the moment, the issue agenda has turned favorable for Bush and thus for Republicans. His best issue is national security and the war on terror, and the Supreme Court pushed that issue front and center. While striking down the administration's plan for prosecuting terrorists held in Guantánamo, the court said Congress could authorize and set the rules for prosecutions. And that's what Congress will try to do this month, no doubt with extended debate on how to deal with terrorists.

The overall importance of national security issues ­ have a major impact on the typology. Foreign affairs assertiveness now almost completely distinguishes Republican-oriented voters from Democratic-oriented voters; this was a relatively minor factor in past typologies. In contrast, attitudes relating to religion and social issues are not nearly as important in determining party affiliation.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242

Kerry Loses Edge on Issues of Security

By Richard Morin and Christopher Muste
Washington Post Staff Writers

President Bush holds clear advantages over John F. Kerry on national security issues and leadership in the war on terrorism, largely erasing the broad gains Kerry made at his party's Boston convention last month
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46918-2004Aug30.html

President Bush focused his campaign on national security, presenting himself as a decisive leader and contrasted Kerry as a "flip-flopper." Bush's point was that Americans could trust him to be tough on terrorism while Kerry would be "uncertain in the face of danger." One of Kerry's slogans was, "Stronger at home, respected in the world." This advanced the suggestion that Kerry would pay more attention to domestic concerns; it also encapsulated Kerry's contention that Bush had alienated American allies by his foreign policy.

Americans who based their vote on the issues of terrorism or moral values tended to support President Bush. Those who focused on the war in Iraq or economic issues like jobs and health care more often backed Kerry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004

I do strongly believe that our next president needs to be foreign policy equipped and national security experienced in order to win the election. That's not a meme...that's my informed opinion. :eyes:

Why don't you try "respect" as your meme? It might help your point come across better. :shrug:

[zulchzulu]

76. I'd rather have Obama run in 2016...

...after President Kerry finishes his second term and very successful presidency.

:toast:

[pnwmom]

78. Is Kerry in his first term now, then? Working behind the scenes?

:eyes:

[zulchzulu]

80. Whoops...changed the title...

It's been a long day...

[Greyhound]

90. So far all I've heard about/from him is that he is willing to compromise

his word and principles when given orders from the leadership. He talked a great game when he was running, but the minute it was clear he would win, he took the "this is the way things are" speech to heart and followed his orders.

[pnwmom]

98. Examples?

[Greyhound]

106. Just search here, Obama threads from the run-up to his election

there are hundreds of examples of what he was saying as a newbie unknown candidate, then suddenly, I'd guess about 2 weeks before the election, when it became very clear he would win, the new and Democratically approved Barak ver. 2.0 appeared.

[pnwmom]

115. But that won't tell me what issues he's changed on that concern YOU.

[Greyhound]

117. His sudden down-the-line approval of the DLC stands

that coincidentally appeared right after his meeting with Shumer, Emmanuel, and Clinton, indicates to me that he will support their anti-worker positions and help further the corporate agenda.
He's not my Senator and would, in fact, be an improvement over mine, so my personal stake is limited to his advocating the continued expansion of empire.

Edit: regarding your OP, he,like *, has no qualifications to speak of, and there are other, better, choices available (personally I like Clark/Feingold)

[Clark2008]

91. Because he has a problem similar to Hillary Clinton:

he won't be able to flip any red states.

Now, I despise the fact that Hillary Clinton won't be elected because she's a woman and Barak Obama won't be elected because he's black, but it's the plain and simple truth, in both cases. The mushy middle will not vote for a woman while we're at war and the latent racists, fed-up with the spending of the Republican Party (and, believe me, there are a lot) won't vote for a black man. I'm not talking about the backwash here - the 23 percenters - I'm talking about people who swing vote. People who have been voting for Republicans since 9/11 because the media keeps telling them Bush did a great job.

That's why there's little to no support for him on my part: not because I don't like him or don't think he's capable (I both like him and think he's more-than-capable). I don't push a presidential run for him because this country has regressed in its thinking both toward women and people of color and he simply can't win. It's a sad, but true fact.

[ndcohn]

93. i generally agree

that minorities and women face an uphill battle to win the presidency -

that said - i'm convinced obama is the one who can.
in my opinion, there is no one who has a better chance of breaking 50% in an election then someone like barak obama.

barak obama is black
al gore is a wacko
john kerry is a flip flopper
hillary is
feingold is too far left and might implode
biden will say something stupid
bayh is boring
warner is awkward

and all except one can't inspire

[Clark2008]

94. Once the country begins to swing back to the left, he will - but

probably not by 2008, is my point.

And you forgot:

Clark is insane. :7

[ndcohn]

95. already happening

the country is either already swinging to the left, or its ready to be swung to the left. the total dissatisfaction with this government, and the demand for the government to change and actually DO SOMETHING is the vital precondition for resurgant liberalism. Even support for nationalized health care is over 50%, with opposition in the 20s%!!! the very basis of conservatism - small government has been shattered. The country won't swing back to the left without someone to swing us.

Democrats aren't capitalizing because they lack a leader and because they cant inspire the masses towards change - Barak Obama is THE person in the democratic party who can secure that swing to the left, and capitalize on the sentiments which support liberalism because he is trusted, he is fresh, new, and persuasive.

[pnwmom]

100. You left out Clark, Dean, and Edwards. What's your take on them?

[ndcohn]

105. i like them

i more or less like all the prospective democratic candidates - i was just listing off common reasons for those why they can't be elected

Dean - screams too much
Clark - doesn't know anything about domestic issues
Edwards - too young

i'm just trying to say that if we keep talking about this electability stuff, we won't get anywhere. There is an argument that can be made for any of the candidates as to why they aren't electable.
essentially - no one is electable by the standards that we use on candidates.
None the less, i think that obama is the only one with the leadership, positions, charsma, and reputation to really take america in the right direction again. I'm not saying that others can't be elected, i think that most democrats 'can' be elected - but i think obama is unique and infront of the pack for the reasons i've been explaining

[FrenchieCat]

107. You are stereotyping Clark, and Dean and Edwards .....and I don't

Appreciated it!

As I am a supporter of Clark's, I'll attempt to provide you with information that goes against the stereotypical title you have assigned him! (I'll let others defend the other two!)

Why do you say "he doesn't know anything about Domestic Issues"? Why do you say this? Because he didn't spend 1/2 of his life in Washington DC in large rooms speechifying about this and that?

Please list the examples of what he doesn't "know" about, This Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas with an advanced degree in Economics, Ethics and Politics from Oxford?

Elaborate, but first read a couple of things, if you have time, prior to passing additional judgement!
Domestic policies:
Taxes- http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
Immigration- http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/4890.php

Education
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/107th/edr/impaid110801/clark.htm
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/clark.interview.pdf

Environment - http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/74
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_marcher.asp?2724
http://energybulletin.net/15587.html
http://www.clark04.com/press/release/167/

Science - http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2006/jun/10/566627991.html
http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=1560&setappvar=page(1)
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/Commencement/Clark_speech.html
http://www.greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm


Affirmative Action & Human Rights- http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-05-clark-women_x.htm
http://www.clark04.com/articles/010/
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html3month/2006/060105.Ingrao.Sears.html
http://www.purdueexponent.org/index.php/module/Issue/action/Article/article_id/2404
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2005/05-007.html

Mark Kleiman – http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/cat_wesley_clark.html

Endorsement by the Washington Blade (largest Gay Newspaper) - http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2004/WB040109.html

Endorsement by the Native American Times (largest American Indian Publication) http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=3440

http://usliberals.about.com/od/peopleinthenews/p/WesleyClark.htm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040202/lawton

[pnwmom]

111. Thanks FrenchieCat, for all the food for thought.

You ARE a Clarkie!

I do like him, too.

[ndcohn]

113. You're right - i did sterotype him

Just like i sterotyped every other potential democratic nominee...

That was the point.

There is an argument, true or not, for every single democratic candidate as to why they can't be elected.

i like Clark, and i'm sure that he studied so much about domestic issues since being punished for it in 04 that he might know more then anyone else haha

but once again, my point was that the people in this thread can make their electability argument, but in the end, these arguments exist for EVERY democratic candidate. We are so paranoid about losing again, we don't know how to even evaluate candidates objectively anymore.

if you genuinely think that Obama 'can't be elected', fine, i guess you shouldn't support him if you really don't think its possible. but i think that almost all of the democratic candidates ARE electable. Hillary, yeah she is electable. John kerry is. Edwards. The only one who i just think... i really have a hard time seeing you in the white house, is Biden.

That said, Obama has the "problem" of being african american, but i don't think thats any more substantial then the perception that kerry is a flip flopper, gore is a hack, etc. Infact, i don't think its an issue at all given his HUGE positives. Obama is someone who by the end of the campaign will just be a candidate who isn't thought of by his race like jackson or sharpton were. Furthermore, i doubt that there are many racists who are going to vote democratically. Obama can inspire and move this country like no other politican can.

[pnwmom]

99. Assuming the machines get fixed -- how about Ohio? Indiana? Iowa?

or even Nevada (with Harry Reid's support) or New Mexico (with Richardson's) ?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

96. OMFG! Electability again! I feel very sick!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[pnwmom]

101. What would make me sick is to lose another Presidential election.

Would you prefer a candidate who's just for show?

A send-a-message candidate who's NOT electable?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

104. You do not understand what I meant! Do you remember the 2004

Primaries and something called "ELECTABILITY"?!?!?!?! PLEASE!! That dog ain't going to hunt NO MORE!!

[pnwmom]

109. Okay. What dog is?

[ArkySue]

112. FORGET 2008!

We've gotta worry about 2006. We can't wait til 08 to begin to get the country back in the right direction. I don't think we'll last til 08 if things keep going like they are.

[pnwmom]

114. Who says we can't think about more than one thing at a time?

Why is talking about 2008 any worse than watching TV? Or going to a movie? Or listening to music?