Obama '08?

Of the

Two OF THE main things.

There are more than two main things.

Two OF THEM are personal charm and intelligence... in immediate, non-advisor situations, furthermore, not in general.

To restate:

There are many attributes that are important for a president. No specific number... more than a dozen is probably safe. Charm and intelligence are two of them. Those two are especially important in immediate, non-advisor situations, since they are things that cannot be compensated for. As in, if someone doesn't have a lot of experience, they can get experienced advisors to help make big decisions.

cyphercat, yeah, that made an impression on me too.

Will be great to have you on board! :-)

Ya know what, I might actually have to do it -- I looked around and as far as I can tell everything's pretty pitiful so far. I'm really liking the idea of, at the very least, a bid for the nomination, even if he doesn't get it. The groundwork thing makes sense to me.

Bill, I remember that strength and wisdom thing from Clinton when we were doing the live commentary. That was fun!

I do think that Bush has the charm thing going too, his own personal brand, and that it's a huge part of why he is where he is. He walked past our house in Naperville in 2000 and we totally felt it. (We looked at each other ruefully and said "uh-oh" at the time...) (This was pre-election...)

Nimh, yeah, complete agreement on the last two lines of the NYT article. (I think that was from the same event that sparked Dowd's column and, in turn, this thread...)

Great thread, Boss . . . i've got pages and pages and pages to read, but great thread . . .

Yep. Sad as it may be; that's politics.

That argument can and has been made Ad Nausium, but I don't think its continuation is a winning strategy for Democrats, regardless.


If you've been reading my posts you'll see we don't disagree about Giuliani's chances of winning the GOP nomination; accept that I don't consider it impossible. First; I think the Democrats have to field a candidate that appears to be unbeatable by the old-school GOP. Obama might be that man. Only then might the GOP concede to a moderate like Giuliani or McCain as a last resort before forfeiting the White House altogether.

Pro-Choice litmus tests are dangerous ground for the GOP. The recent changes on the Supreme Court will make it more difficult for me to vote for another hardliner like Bush, because I find his bible-thumping, anti-women's rights stances deplorable. It would be more of a compromise for me in 08 than it was in 04… and I hope the pollsters are paying attention.

Another distinction I've been meaning to make is between Edwards and Obama. Having read Edward's "channeling" of an unborn child for money, I will forever consider him a scumbag. Brilliant as that may have been, legally, I consider it morally repugnant. I'm not alone on this. The similarities of Youth and Lawyerly end there, IMO, so I don't think Edward's lack of success is an accurate indicator of Obama's potential. Also where Edwards (and Kerry for that matter) seemed to come off as arrogant; Obama's confidence doesn't, IMO, come off that way at all.

Also, if the Democrats decide to retread Edwards into the main-man-spotlight; I think the opposition has only scratched the surface of demonizing him as a scumbag ambulance chaser. Were he the main-man in 04; I think a much larger chunk of the Republican War Chest would have been spent this way, to great effect.

Nimh, I appreciate the polls, but my gut tells me they aren't quite accurate. I don't think they can adequately reflect the terror-fear-quotient when it comes down to pulling the lever on a candidate. The flip-flop accusations may have dissipated for now, but they'll be back if and when they're needed. 2 years from now; Iraq may be a hell-hole or a budding young democracy... or anywhere in between. I see no profit in us debating our predictions here... but consider the actual results paramount in future polls regarding "who's better on defense". Where some see only doom and gloom; the picture that resonates most in my mind is of proud Iraqis holding up the blue finger in the face of their true enemies. Time will tell.

Also; the truth isn't always the most important consideration. Everyone knew Bill Clinton shouldn't have ignored a Supreme Court decision and lied to a grand jury, but attempts to capitalize on that, politically, were largely rejected by the voters... Blueflame and Roxanne are not alone in believing Bush a War Criminal, but they are clearly not a majority (of eligible voters, at least :wink:).

Further; not knowing who the players will be makes the polls almost useless. If memory serves; prior to the Democrats fielding a candidate they were more popular than they ever were after doing so. I seem to recall an "unnamed Democrat" fairing better in the pre-election polls than any name they penciled in. Unless and until the positive/negative campaign machines are operating at full-steam, with specific names on the dotted line; the polls are too handicapped to be of much use, IMO.

Yes Soz, that was fun. I remember Clinton's delivery of that line like it was yesterday. I agree Bush trumped Gore (and Kerry for that matter) handily in the charm department so no, he's not without it, but Clinton, he is not. Giuliani, he is not. Tony Blair, he is not. Obama, he is not...

Word.

Interesting perspective about the difference between Edwards and Obama, that's encouraging, too.

OB wrote:
Further; not knowing who the players will be makes the polls almost useless.

I agree 100 percent, but also add that discussing potential candidates for the 2008 elections is far too premature. Two years is a long time in politics and elections.

I'd also forgotten about Bill Richardson. He has serious cred.

Yeah, he's definitely up there. Seems to have been a very effective Governor, Governor rather than Senator, international experience, Clintonian charm/ speaking skills, but I seem to remember some stuff that made me wary about Clintonian appetites too. Will see what I can find on that.

Definitely like that he's another in the groundbreaker category, Latino/ Hispanic. (When I was in L.A. I finally nailed down how those terms are supposed to be used, can't remember right now though.)

Some food to chew on. What can be done to reverse this trend?>

March 20, 2006
Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn
By ERIK ECKHOLM
BALTIMORE ?- Black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics, a flurry of new scholarly studies warn, and it has worsened in recent years even as an economic boom and a welfare overhaul have brought gains to black women and other groups.

Focusing more closely than ever on the life patterns of young black men, the new studies, by experts at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard and other institutions, show that the huge pool of poorly educated black men are becoming ever more disconnected from the mainstream society, and to a far greater degree than comparable white or Hispanic men.

Especially in the country's inner cities, the studies show, finishing high school is the exception, legal work is scarcer than ever and prison is almost routine, with incarceration rates climbing for blacks even as urban crime rates have declined.

Although the problems afflicting poor black men have been known for decades, the new data paint a more extensive and sobering picture of the challenges they face.

"There's something very different happening with young black men, and it's something we can no longer ignore," said Ronald B. Mincy, professor of social work at Columbia University and editor of "Black Males Left Behind" (Urban Institute Press, 2006).

"Over the last two decades, the economy did great," Mr. Mincy said, "and low-skilled women, helped by public policy, latched onto it. But young black men were falling farther back."

Many of the new studies go beyond the traditional approaches to looking at the plight of black men, especially when it comes to determining the scope of joblessness. For example, official unemployment rates can be misleading because they do not include those not seeking work or incarcerated.

"If you look at the numbers, the 1990's was a bad decade for young black men, even though it had the best labor market in 30 years," said Harry J. Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and co-author, with Peter Edelman and Paul Offner, of "Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men" (Urban Institute Press, 2006).

In response to the worsening situation for young black men, a growing number of programs are placing as much importance on teaching life skills ?- like parenting, conflict resolution and character building ?- as they are on teaching job skills.

These were among the recent findings:

¶The share of young black men without jobs has climbed relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late 1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless ?- that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By 2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and 19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included, half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000.

¶Incarceration rates climbed in the 1990's and reached historic highs in the past few years. In 1995, 16 percent of black men in their 20's who did not attend college were in jail or prison; by 2004, 21 percent were incarcerated. By their mid-30's, 6 in 10 black men who had dropped out of school had spent time in prison.

¶In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not finish high school.

None of the litany of problems that young black men face was news to a group of men from the airless neighborhoods of Baltimore who recently described their experiences.

One of them, Curtis E. Brannon, told a story so commonplace it hardly bears notice here. He quit school in 10th grade to sell drugs, fathered four children with three mothers, and spent several stretches in jail for drug possession, parole violations and other crimes.

"I was with the street life, but now I feel like I've got to get myself together," Mr. Brannon said recently in the row-house flat he shares with his girlfriend and four children. "You get tired of incarceration."

Mr. Brannon, 28, said he planned to look for work, perhaps as a mover, and he noted optimistically that he had not been locked up in six months.

A group of men, including Mr. Brannon, gathered at the Center for Fathers, Families and Workforce Development, one of several private agencies trying to help men build character along with workplace skills.

The clients readily admit to their own bad choices but say they also fight a pervasive sense of hopelessness.

"It hurts to get that boot in the face all the time," said Steve Diggs, 34. "I've had a lot of charges but only a few convictions," he said of his criminal record.

Mr. Diggs is now trying to strike out on his own, developing a party space for rentals, but he needs help with business skills.

"I don't understand," said William Baker, 47. "If a man wants to change, why won't society give him a chance to prove he's a changed person?" Mr. Baker has a lot of record to overcome, he admits, not least his recent 15-year stay in the state penitentiary for armed robbery.

Mr. Baker led a visitor down the Pennsylvania Avenue strip he wants to escape ?- past idlers, addicts and hustlers, storefront churches and fortresslike liquor stores ?- and described a life that seemed inevitable.

He sold marijuana for his parents, he said, left school in the sixth grade and later dealt heroin and cocaine. He was for decades addicted to heroin, he said, easily keeping the habit during three terms in prison. But during his last long stay, he also studied hard to get a G.E.D. and an associate's degree.

Now out for 18 months, Mr. Baker is living in a home for recovering drug addicts. He is working a $10-an-hour warehouse job while he ponders how to make a living from his real passion, drawing and graphic arts.

"I don't want to be a criminal at 50," Mr. Baker said.

According to census data, there are about five million black men ages 20 to 39 in the United States.

Terrible schools, absent parents, racism, the decline in blue collar jobs and a subculture that glorifies swagger over work have all been cited as causes of the deepening ruin of black youths. Scholars ?- and the young men themselves ?- agree that all of these issues must be addressed.

Joseph T. Jones, director of the fatherhood and work skills center here, puts the breakdown of families at the core.

"Many of these men grew up fatherless, and they never had good role models," said Mr. Jones, who overcame addiction and prison time. "No one around them knows how to navigate the mainstream society."

All the negative trends are associated with poor schooling, studies have shown, and progress has been slight in recent years. Federal data tend to understate dropout rates among the poor, in part because imprisoned youths are not counted.

Closer studies reveal that in inner cities across the country, more than half of all black men still do not finish high school, said Gary Orfield, an education expert at Harvard and editor of "Dropouts in America" (Harvard Education Press, 2004).

"We're pumping out boys with no honest alternative," Mr. Orfield said in an interview, "and of course their neighborhoods offer many other alternatives."

Dropout rates for Hispanic youths are as bad or worse but are not associated with nearly as much unemployment or crime, the data show.

With the shift from factory jobs, unskilled workers of all races have lost ground, but none more so than blacks. By 2004, 50 percent of black men in their 20's who lacked a college education were jobless, as were 72 percent of high school dropouts, according to data compiled by Bruce Western, a sociologist at Princeton and author of the forthcoming book "Punishment and Inequality in America" (Russell Sage Press). These are more than double the rates for white and Hispanic men.

Mr. Holzer of Georgetown and his co-authors cite two factors that have curbed black employment in particular.

First, the high rate of incarceration and attendant flood of former offenders into neighborhoods have become major impediments. Men with criminal records tend to be shunned by employers, and young blacks with clean records suffer by association, studies have found

ci, Why not start a new thread when you change the subject completely?

Sozobe:

Howard Kurtz in his Media Notes in the Washington Post this morning stated that Time Magazine got the colors wrong for the cover picture of former VA Governor, Mark Warner. It was in Wednesday's NYTimes.



The cover photograph in The Times Magazine on Sunday rendered colors incorrectly for the jacket, shirt and tie worn by Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor who is a possible candidate for the presidency. The jacket was charcoal, not maroon; the shirt was light blue, not pink; the tie was dark blue with stripes, not maroon. . . . The film that was used can cause colors to shift, and the processing altered them further; the change escaped notice because of a misunderstanding by the editors." -- Wednesday's New York Times.

It's a stretch, but I can make a connection between this article and the subtopic of how society views black men. But you're right - it creates too much of a detour from the Obama prognosticatons.

OB, If you can manage to see that the problems we have for blacks in this country is directly ralated to politics in this country, you'll know that it's related.

I was thinking of starting a new thread on that one before I checked in here today, c.i., it's definitely interesting. I agree with snood's take on it's place on this thread.

Vietnamnurse, interesting. Misunderstanding, eh? If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say them editors are Hillary-backers... ;-)

Found the NYT coverboy:



A more normal pic:

Sorry, snood. I'll have to "think twice" before I post "unrelated" articles.

I remember seeing this guy on TV as a child. But wasn't his name Addams?

Please excuse my audacity but here's another rant from Son of Bush. I post it because I agree with it and certainly believe the Dems need a boot in the butt wake up call. Also I know many dont wanna hear it. ' PROGRESSIVE ' NEOCONS : `WAIT TIL NEXT YEAR YEAR STRATEGERY "
The Neoconservative/ 'Progressive' /DLC bloggers and certain 'kept' journos , all the usual suspects, are rallying behind Dicktator Cheney and his ward Master Bush , employing the ` Wait til Next Year Strategery ` ... The BS line goes as follows ...... Don't challenge the two usurpers until next year - after the Dems retake control of the House.... Such BULLSH*T !..... Why ? Hophead Rush Limbaugh may stir up the GOP base in the months leading up to the midterms by casting Resident Bush as a martyr , the victim of a liberal witchhunt seeking his unfair ouster from the throne he so disgracefully occupies ....... The Republican may keep control of the Congress..... Of course these ` progressive' poseurs know that `Operation Bonfire of the Insanities ` will be in full force in the year 2007 , aka ; the bombing of Iran's non-existent "nookular" weapons programme...... These very same neoconservative /`progressives' will then urge us to rally behind Master Bush .... Impeachment or even censure ? In a time of national crisis ? Unthinkable .... It's a classic confidence game..... These moles exist to eat out the very substance of the progressive movement , turning it into a neocon redoubt , a hollowed out shell that blows neither hot nor cold..... The voters , following the example of our Creator , should spew out their kindred spirits in the coming election..... What matter does it make if the onrushing Fascist Permanent Warfare state is administered by thugs with different letters beside their name ? .....


By : SON OF A BUSH
March Monday 20th 2006

Now that one, I don't see any connection at all...