Obama '08?

Obama at Saddleback Church... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/02/obama/

finn

Perhaps your argument would be more compelling if you were speaking of a Board of Directors considering candidates for CEO or a school district considering choices for superintendant or if you were searching out a new mechanic.

Blatham - take a moment and look at what you have argued. Do you really mean to suggest that the President of the US should not be judged by the same attributes as those judged of CEOs and school superintendants?

What are you arguing, that the President should be judged by the attributes of Warren Beatty or Jack Nicholson?

Your obviously sneering disreagrd for an executive "mechanic" in the role of President is blatantly percipitated by your desire to see a novice like Obama occupy the Oval Office, and in stark contrast with the arguments you have made against the competency of GWB.

What set of personal and interpersonal qualities, talents, intelligence and experience a person might demonstrate is quite different for such positions than for president. Particularly when a corporation, for example, or a nation are at a critical juncture. And surely the US is at such a point.

What an utter crock. You who, for years now, have argued with your fellow Lefties that GWB is an incompetent boob, now chooses to argue that competency is secondary to the requirements of the position.

Bill offered up the example of Reagan, an ex-actor, accepted by Californians as a reasonable choice for governor and then by Americans as a choice for President. Or one could look at Arnold presently. From Canada, there is the example of Pierre Trudeau...a writer, traveller and general bon vivant with a short time in government but with immense talents and intelligence who went on to become one of the two or three most important leaders in our history. Or, one could consider the case I think is most appropriate...Lincoln. When he arrived here in New York and gave his speech at Coopers Union, he was without the sort of background you seem to consider necessary. Accounts of that speech, written by the New York press of the time still absolutely thrilling to read. The exceptional qualities of the man were evident immediately and with clarity from that single speech.

Again what an utter and self serving crock. Let's accept that all of your examples are truly equivalent to the superficiality of Obama (and of course they are not), all this might possibly suggest is that one should not rule out a novice for high office. It, in no way, suggests that a novice is best suited for high office, and this is what you and (incredibly) Bill are suggesting.

America is now, and has been for a while, deeply divided within itself. Continuation of that self-destructive dynamic moving into the complex and dangerous future we all see ahead would be tragic. Another divisive leader like Bush has been (imagine Gingrich as president now!) who moves to that divisiveness out of electoral strategies or out of us/them ideologies will take the US in a direction towards self-destruction.

And Obama is the Uniting Savior? Based on what? Your desires? It is incredible to me that you might be so desperate as to annoint Obama as the Mahdi. This urge is sweetly innocent, but dangerously naieve.

There have been few points in American history when you have so needed a leader who can inspire - through charisma, integrity and intelligence - Americans to come together. Not to mention, a leader whom the rest of the world can understand and respect. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Iraq but a fundamental one is that America cannot continue to operate as an arrogant bully with the expectation that this will bring more positive consequences than negative.

This is your personal left-wing bias at play. We had a Jack Kennedy and first of all he wasn't the leftie you lefties remember him to be, and secondly, he wasn't all that much more than a charismatic figure. With each passing year, history is able to shed it's addiction to his Glamour and consider him for the leader he actually was---or wasn't.

Be careful of what you wish for. Charismatic leaders: Hitler, Mao, Huey Long, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, etc etc etc. If the position has no actual power than inspiring charisma is perfect, but that ain't the presidency of the US.

Furthermore, you really do not make an accounting of how broad (across party/ideological lines) Obama's appeal is, suggesting that it is limited to folks on the "left". Earlier here, I've quoted people like David Brooks and Pat Buchannan and David Gergen and others who have acknowledged this man's gifts and potential. That is the typical understanding from thoughtful folks on the right. They often point to Reagan as well. It is only the folks who are deeply invested in republican party dominance or in a bastardized and impoverished modern "conservative" ideology who will proceed to ignore and refute what everyone else sees.

The ultimate crock. Brooks, Buchannan and Gergen have not come forth in support of Obama for president. They have recognized his talents. So do I. He has tremendous potential, but potential never automatically equates to performance.

You are like a giddy teenager drooling over the latest pop star. All you can argue is the man's charisma and "potential."

The notion that "thoughtful" folks on the right buy into Obama is so ridiculous, it defies a thoughtful response.

Your response is the perfect example of an, otherwise, thoughful individual abandoning his intelligence and logic to the thrill of a good talker who has a hell of a smile. You betray yourself with this mania.

We have already had a Black president: Bill Clinton.

Is the site "ignore" function coming soon? (we pray).

Until it does, everyone, please put LSM on manual 'ignore'. Whatever her motives for involvement here might be, the consequences of her involvement are universally without positive value.

Good piece in (I think it was) the NY Times this morning on how Obama's potential candidacy has effected everyone else considering a run.

I'm starting to become a groupie.

Roxxxanne wrote:

The only way the Republican candidate would have any chance agsinst him is if they just flat out refuse to hold debates. Obama would have any of them for lunch.

Point well taken... but not everyone watches debates. Perot obliterated his opponents (doubled his polling numbers), but only a fraction of the voting public watched it.

When will the hysteria cease?

Roxxxanne wrote:

We have already had a Black president: Bill Clinton.

Good grief!

Someone has actually vomited this idiotic nonsense!

That it was Roxxy is not surprising.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Finn,
I follow your "it's not always the most popular guy who gets the job done" logic on this one... but submit that on occasion; it is (See: Ronald Reagan). The attributes you scoff at may well prove to be the defining qualities of a great President.

Perhaps, but what are the odds?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

1. As you know; it is in no small part his inexperience that attracts me, being quite tired of watching business as usual. I can't be alone in desiring a change from the bipartisan old guard BS I've watched since birth.

So your logic is here is a babe in the woods may f**ck everything up but at least it won't be because he his an old fart? Since when does youth = performance or inexperience = virtue? You are allowing a credible disatisfaction with the Old Guard stampede you towards an incredible affection for the New and Unproven Guard.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

2. Those same attributes, even if they only serve to garner popularity, can still be used to force handshakes across the aisle and maybe even get something meaningful done. If, and it is a big IF, he could get approval ratings from the nation as high as he does in Illinois, you would see bipartisan cooperation, whether his adversaries liked his prize winning smile or not.

Bipartisan cooperation is a canard. To the extent it has ever happened, it has been within a government controlled by the (White Male) Establishment. Take a look at the Baker/Hamilton Commission. It revels in its bi-partisanship and it takes comfort, behind the scenes, in its Establishment origins. Except for his Houston roots, Baker is the quintessential Establishment magnate. The difference between today and 40 years ago is that Southerners can compete with Rockefellers and Cabot-Lodges for primacy in the Establishment. Baker is The Establishment Man!

OCCOM BILL wrote:

3. One need not be a world traveler to realize the consensus of world opinion of our current leader is just about as bad as it could be (though I'm crossing my fingers that statement doesn't jinx us :wink:). This has to be considered when accessing the relative lack of global cooperation we currently receive. Again; these same attributes could play a major role in reversing this trend.

What? Who gives a flying f**k about the world consensus on our leader? Frankly, the more Europeans support an American candidate for President, the more I believe they should never be given the office. The interests of these fools is only partially aligned with our own, AND there is no shortage of European idiots who don't care about common interests and want to dis America because it is America.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Sony's Betamax was considered by many to be a superior technology to JVC's VCR. Doesn't help, if you can't sell it. Sometimes it is the most popular guy, who gets the job done.

This is such an inconsidered and superficial reason to support Obama that I cannot believe that you have advanced it. Even assuming that "sometimes" it is the most popular guy who gets the job done, is this a reason to support the most charasmatic guy? The very use of "sometimes" suggests that you appreciate that popularity equalling effectiveness is a crap-shoot. Is that how you intend to cast your vote?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

The only way the Republican candidate would have any chance agsinst him is if they just flat out refuse to hold debates. Obama would have any of them for lunch.

Point well taken... but not everyone watches debates. Perot obliterated his opponents (doubled his polling numbers), but only a fraction of the voting public watched it.

Point well taken?

When will the hysteria cease?

Who has seen Obama debate an opponent of high skills and regard? He ran away with the election for his current Senatorial seat.

Obama clearly has a natural eloquence. It is (obviously) a formidable talent, but to assume that it will triumph in a debate is to display an ignorance of the dynamics of public debates.

Neither McCain nor Gulliani are slouches when it comes to public rhetoric, and both have far more gravitas than Obama. Does anyone really think that either of these serious men might find themselves spellbound by Obama's toothy smile and measured cadence?

The National Journal released a new Washington Insiders poll of 70 Congressional lawmakers and 150 political insiders on who they think are the likely Republican and Democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential election.

Democrats
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Al Gore
5. Evan Bayh
6. Tom Vilsack
7. Bill Richardson
8. Joseph Biden
9. Wesley Clark
10. Christopher Dodd

I wish he had a different name. The one he has sounds like something somebody made up. And Barack rhymes with Iraq and Obama rhymes with Osama and his middle name is Hussein. I think the bigots will have a far greater field day using that to create negative image than Obama's race which I do not think is a problem at all. Colin Powell's postives were as high as anybody in the first Bush administration and Condi Rice's favorables are higher than anybody else in the administration now.

I think we're mostly past race issues as qualifications and yes, I agree there are more voters who will vote to prove that than there are bigots left to make problems.

Foxfyre wrote:

I wish he had a different name. The one he has sounds like something somebody made up. And Barack rhymes with Iraq and Obama rhymes with Osama and his middle name is Hussein. I think the bigots will have a far greater field day using that to create negative image than Obama's race which I do not think is a problem at all. Colin Powell's postives were as high as anybody in the first Bush administration and Condi Rice's favorables are higher than anybody else in the administration now.

I think we're mostly past race issues as qualifications and yes, I agree there are more voters who will vote to prove that than there are bigots left to make problems.

I've been thinking about the name thing too. All I can say is, it's going to be really interesting to see if something so remarkably shallow can actually be used against him effectively.

When the Fox news pundits start trotting out the "Are you going to vote for someone named HUSSEIN?!" attacks, I shall watch with bated breath to see if a certain type of voter falls for it. It will be fascinating, if only to see how I handle the depression as I come to the horrifying realization that functioning people who walk among us are dumber than I ever thought possible. <shiver>

Democrats
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Al Gore
5. Evan Bayh
6. Tom Vilsack
7. Bill Richardson
8. Joseph Biden
9. Wesley Clark
10. Christopher Dodd

It is, in my opinion, the very worst sort of divisive, hate and stupidity promoting bigotry. I think any instance of it ought to gain an immediate response...letters, email, phone calls of the seriously angry sort to the offending media outlet.