He's hot? But that probably isn't the sort of thoughts you were looking for....

My fascist dad likes him, which is both why he's great and why he sucks. Overall a good thing, I'd say.

Douchebag. He's trying to be the next Joe Lieberman. The next "Sensible centrist" whatever.

Check out the profile in this month's Harpers...it isn't very flattering. It essentially makes the point that he's careerist and very careful about what he says and commits to. That isn't completely a bad thing, but it's at odds with the image of him as the fearless "speak truth to power" kind of guy that people can really love.

I'm getting worried about '08. I don't think Obama can win, I don't think Clinton can win, I think they will sap all the money and excitement from other more nationally viable candidates.

I'll take him, since he's better than the schmucks we have now, and unlike Dean and that crew he stands a chance of actually getting elected.

(on preview: of course he's a careerist. This is politics, the dirtiest business in the world, we're never going to have a staion wagon full of pacifist nuns as candidates. And I'll take a corrupt careerist over a zealot (religious or political) any day of the week)

He's not the savior people think he is: no-one who crafts a political career will actually accomplish any real or significant change. Just another symptom that the system is so broken it can't be fixed without cataclysm. Right now, the critical mass of people are uncomfortable but not uncomfortable enough to kill or die; therefore, revolution won't come. So smooth, calm self-interested centrist like Obama are our best option.

Also, when he was running for the senate, his website had a page all about his campaign to reduce American dependence on the private automobile which disappeared about half-way through the campaign. I kept writing his machine to find out more about it, but I never got any answer, which made me very sad.

Check out the profile in this month's Harpers

Seconded. (actually, all of this month's Harper's kicks more ass than usual, IMO)

2008 Presidential Candidates? Irrelevent until we see the results of next month's election and how King George responds to it. To steal a Star Wars cliche: I got a bad feeling about this.

Obama's fast-tracking is just another sign of how shallow the pool of candidates is right now, but if Bushitler cancels the 2008 elections on account of 'terroristic opposition', it'll be the least of our concerns.

meh.

His vocal supporters are overwrought and won't admit his only qualities reside in his excellent delivery and his youthful good looks. Complete and utter tool, in practice. When he first hit the scene it was all about this young man with something to say, now that he has a secure position it's more of the same. Completely weak.

I'm getting worried about '08. I don't think Obama can win, I don't think Clinton can win, I think they will sap all the money and excitement from other more nationally viable candidates.

I can't imagine there's another more viable candidate hiding out there (which is a little scary, true). I think both of them on the same ticket could work- Clinton/Obama?

I knew Carcetti. I worked with Carcetti. Obama is no...

Hey, wait a minute.

Are you all for fucking real?

He's a politician. A very successful politician. Of course he's going to be "careerist and very careful about what he says and commits to" (sorry omiewise, you just summed it up really well).

So, what, you'd rather have GW? Or Dean? Or Hillary? Or the douchebag who was too weak to fight for the election he actually won? (Gore's a great lecturer BTW, but that's not really relevant).

I'd like to see you vote for Robert Redford (what was that film again?), but you will ultimately get the choice between two politicians. Obama is way better than the alternatives.

Sorry. *Takes deep breath*.

I can't imagine there's another more viable candidate hiding out there

Well, yes and no. Candidates really are made...look at Bush, he was a national nobody before the campaign. I'm not enough of a political junkie to say that there aren't people waiting in the wings for a successful national bid.

The issue with the Clinton and Obama is that they are unviable, actively unlikely to get elected. That isn't there fault, and I could be wrong, but Clinton turns on the crazy button in a lot of people, and Obama is black. I don't think either one has a chance.

But, with them in the race, the national dems won't be able to spend the time, money and attention to build up another candidate for office. It's very disturbing.

(Oh, and my point about the careerist thing is simply that he's being talked about as if he isn't, as if he's motivated by principle above all. That doesn't seem to be the case, and I'm getting sick of being pissed on and told that it's raining.)

I'm voting for Robin Williams. That movie looks pretty funny.
...

I think both of them on the same ticket could work- Clinton/Obama?

Sure. Give people who aren't ready for a black president another reason not to vote for his ticket, and the people who aren't ready for a woman president another reason not to...

I think that if/when Obama gets serious about a run at the presidency, there will be dirt in his background that will make me less attractive to voters. This happens with every candidate, but I think that *because* he is black, many white voters will tend to put more weight behind such information to justify their not voting for him.

I myself find him a thrilling speaker but a rather average politician.

there will be dirt in his background that will make ME less attractive to voters

C'mon "Doohickie", spill.

Obama lacks experience, plain and simple. People's attraction to him is thoroughly superficial, largely based on the one feel-good speech he delivered at the '04 conventions. It's great to see strong oratory back in politics, don't get me wrong, but he has a terribly narrow frame of reference.

I believe Clinton deserves a chance. The idea that she's unelectable smacks of rightist thought manipulation to me. Yes, she arouses an odd distaste in many, for some reason, but she is a wonder on the campaign trail. She will not roll over like Kerry did and take what her opponents dish out in terms of rhetoric - she'll bulldog right back, with a command of facts and a refusal to be cowed, and I'm willing to bet that she'll begin to win a respect for that strength and fearlessness. It also won't hurt to have Bill (best-loved president in ages) waving from the sidelines.

The idea that she's unelectable smacks of rightist thought manipulation to me.

You know, I've seen this charge before, and I'm not sure that I understand it. My comment is based on the vitriol that she arouses in people on the right, people on the left, and people who ought to know better. I don't think the rightist vitriol is anything other than misogyny, but I don't think it's manipulation. Some of the things said about her are purely manipulative, but at a different level, at the level of the swift boat attacks. Unfortunately, her pugnaciousness condemns her more in this instance, not less. I don't like her (from the left), so I don't agree that she "deserves a chance." What she deserves is a course in remedial liberalism.

Are you suggesting that she actually doesn't piss of a wide swath of people and that my perception that she does is erroneous, that people are saying that but actually she's beloved in their hearts? Recall that the hatred directed toward her existed before she had concrete political aspirations to manipulate against.

I do agree that B. Clinton is the bomb for campaigning, and Gore would have won if he'd used him.

The idea that she's unelectable smacks of rightist thought manipulation to me.

I completely agree, but still I'd have a hard time voting for her. a)She still hasn't come out strongly against the war, and b)the whole Bush/Clinton monarchy since '88 thing kinda makes me sick to my stomach.

No, I think she does piss off people, though I'm not quite sure why. The problem is that that fact is easily grabbed and inflated by the right, to the point where those of us on the left are talking ourselves out of fielding the person who is probably the most able candidate and would probably make a very good president. I think she deserves a chance because the hatred directed at her is often so irrational that it could lose its power once she has greater exposure on her own merits, and is able to talk about her own platform.

Then again, I don't dislike her and never have, so maybe I underestimate the power of this revulsion people seem to feel. I always assumed it was simple misogyny, but I don't think you are a misogynist at all, so I'm curious as to what it is that is offputting?

the whole Bush/Clinton monarchy since '88 thing kinda makes me sick to my stomach

Yeah, that is creepy.

Yeah, I too have a bad feeling about '08. It makes me sort of glad that I can't vote.

the whole Bush/Clinton monarchy since '88 thing kinda makes me sick to my stomach

Oh yeah, but not because of the possibility of a Clinton II - because of a potential Bush III (i.e., Jeb).

talking ourselves out of fielding the person who is probably the most able candidate and would probably make a very good president...the hatred directed at her is often so irrational that it could lose its power once she has greater exposure on her own merits

There are two separate issues here for me, her electability and whether or not I like her as a candidate. Her (un)electability is largely about misogyny, and the hatred is precisely irrational in a way that makes me think that it won't go away with greater exposure. Part of this is pure woman hating (I'm really not at all convinced that the US is ready for a female president. I wish that were not the case, but I think it's likely), and part is irrational Hilary hating. I find it very difficult to account for, as I do most irrational hatreds that I don't share, but I very much believe it's out there. I've seen it.

The other issue is not irrational hatred, but disaffection with her from the left. That's me. I think her positions are too centrist, as were her husband's, and I think her approach to Iraq has been deplorable. I think her ideas, centrist, vacillating and catch-up, are the ideas that have been effectively dismantled by the GOP. Going even further back, I remember when she destroyed the broad coalition in support of universal health care in the US. Recall that I grew up in DC, and one of my close friend's father is someone whose whole career has been in liberal lobbying, lobbying for causes, not for groups. His assessment of H. Clinton was that she so mishandled the health care push that she set the cause back for 20 years in this country. David is one of the most fair minded and just men I've ever met, with a wealth of experience in getting things done in DC. I've never seen him so disheartened nor so able to suggest that one person bore the responsibility for messing things up.

No, I think she does piss off people, though I'm not quite sure why.

It's a personality thing. She reminds people of a scolding mother. Plus she sets off 'rich bitch,' alarm bells for a lot of people, too.

No woman is smart enough to be President. You're either a rich bitch or a dumb mommy type (Elizabeth Dole).

That's a good critique, omiewise. I agree that the Clintons are both too moderate for my tastes, but I doubt any more proressive candidates would win in the US, no matter how good. I'd still vastly prefer a Clinton administration over any possible GOP administration. The health care effort was a bungled and ill-timed project, but had she not set it back, succeeding events would have done the same (Clinton's impeachment followed by the Republican reign we have experienced anyway). I've no doubt that any national health structure the Clintons might have built would have been as swiftly dismantled by Bush II as were the environmental and social welfare programs they put into place. I'm not particularly well informed on it, though. And Americans in general were not as sold on the idea of national health as they are now...

I don't know; it's going to be interesting to watch. If there were anyone on the left I thought were more capable of taking on the right-wing machine, I'd get behind them, but so far I'm not sure that person has emerged.

No woman is smart enough to be President. You're either a rich bitch or a dumb mommy type (Elizabeth Dole).

I'd vote for Debbie Harry.

No, I think she does piss off people, though I'm not quite sure why.
As a former centrist republican, I can honestly say it's mostly because she doesn't present herself as a nurturer, a facilitator, or a communicator (even though she's a wife and mother). She IS very strident and bulldog-like - I personally admire her for her tenacity, but conservative see these attributes as unfeminine (and if they're homophobes, a little butch).

No woman is smart enough to be President. You're either a rich bitch or a dumb mommy type (Elizabeth Dole).

It would be interesting to see how conservatives would handle Condi Rice if she begins to show interest in the nomination. I think she would be a strong candidate that a lot of Republicans would support.

would would would would

Heard him on NPR and before I knew who was being interviewed, I thought, wow, who is this. I like the idea very much.

it seems like putting the cart before the horse to be talking about the 2008 elections, especially since we're in the middle of a really close and dirty fight here in nc-11, and we're trying to do everything we can to oust that corrupt little fucker we have in office right now, but i'll bite:

if the race were:
- between clinton and obama, i'd take obama.
- between clinton and lieberman, i'd take clinton, but only because lieberman is an even bigger narcissistic, self-aggrandizing shitball than clinton is.
- between clinton and kerry, i'll take kerry, but only after ranting for a solid hour about how severely damaged our electoral process is when we can't come up with better candidates than those two.

now, if edwards were a choice between any of these people, i'd take edwards, but he really needs to stop doing the fake tan and teeth whitening. too artificial, too smarmy. too... lawyer-ey?

i dunno... do you think howard dean is still "damaged goods" after his little "YEAAAGH!" outburst in iowa, not to mention becoming a "party extremist" bug-a-boo in a lot of negative advertising against democratic candidates?

and i still stand by my statement @ bunnystock: i'd switch teams for obama. :)

between clinton and lieberman, i'd take clinton, but only because lieberman is an even bigger narcissistic, self-aggrandizing shitball than clinton is.

It's politics. All politicians including activists and revolutionaries are narcissistic, self-aggrandizing shitballs. It a requirement of the job.

All politicians including activists and revolutionaries are narcissistic, self-aggrandizing shitballs. It a requirement of the job.

excellent point. :)

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again: zombie Barry Goldwater.

he stands a chance of actually getting elected.


?????????????????

HE'S A HANDSOME FELLER, BUT PROBABLY THE ANTI-CHRIST.

It's politics. All politicians including activists and revolutionaries are narcissistic, self-aggrandizing shitballs. It a requirement of the job.

Jon, I know I'm not the first to say this, but your standard set of jaded responses seem mostly like an attempt to avoid engagement.

zombie Barry Goldwater.

strangely, this sounds appealing...

Jon, I know I'm not the first to say this, but your standard set of jaded responses seem mostly like an attempt to avoid engagement.

Well, no offense, but your response seems kind of like 'pick a side!' And at this point jaded is exactly how I feel when it comes to politics, and I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I doubt I'm alone.

I'll take him, since he's better than the schmucks we have now, and unlike Dean and that crew he stands a chance of actually getting elected.

Just like Al Gore and John Kerry!

I'm betting on Clinton.

Right now, she's the favorite at 1.75-1.29:1. McCain is next at 5:1 and Obama is all the way down at 12:1, behind Gore, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani and others.

now, if edwards were a choice between any of these people, i'd take edwards,

I really think Edwards may be the most electable option. He's young, southern and doesn't have that rich, old guy smell Kerry does.

Clinton will not get elected. She is far too polarizing. Plus, to be perfectly frank, I am absolutely certain we will see a black male president before a female president.

Which brings us to Obama, who I think needs a bit more experience before he runs. The 2008 election is so important that we have to consider not only whether a candidate is electable, but whether they'll be re-electable in 2012. Obama is still too much of an unknown in my eyes.

I am absolutely certain we will see a black male president before a female president.

I'm votin' for Cosby, babie!

Oh, and way upstream: Gecko Dundee- I admit nothing.