Obama '08?

In spite of popular rumor, I am not dead (yet)

did someone inquire?

yes

Dontcha know? All the hot ones are gay...

What do any of these posts have to do with Obama? Start a new thread if you want to talk about cowboys.

I think I've actually found a post of yours I can finally agree with, chr4.

Dammit.

Fer sure.

There was more sputtering about the Mark Warner cover in the NYT Mag letters to the editor today -- one person accused Hillary of having paid for the photo session, heh.

Question: One of the writers made the point that Warner is against gay marriage, for the death penalty, and for parental notification in abortion; that "President Bush won two national elections not by appealing to the other party, but by appealing to the base."

I go back and forth on that one. I want someone electable, and that likely (well, part of what I'm trying to figure out here, re: Obama) would mean not someone who's completely to the left, a Feingold or Kucinich*, but I don't want the focus-group milquetoast.

Hmmm...

*That's yet another question, though -- is Obama what you get when you have someone who's a true liberal but has the other electable factors? Looks, charm, communication skills?

Y'know what bothers me about the way you talk about him, soz? Its like you are really just talking about a quantifiable commodity, and not a man. And if that is the case - if presidential politics in its distilled-down state is simply that - so be it. You may be right to frame the discussion that way, but if you are, I think its sad. I think its sad because everything we say our system stands for - representative government by and for and of the people - is based on the best interests of humanity being represented in the halls of power.

I'm too old to be a certain kind of naive, so my faith in basic human nature is thin at best. But it seems to me that what gets left out of the discussion, when we muse about the chances of this or that person getting office, is their humanity. Not what can they sell, but what are they about? Not what do they appear to be, but what are they made of?

The reason I get excited about any candidate is not just how well I think they will play "the game", but also if I think I see something that makes them a real human being with the courage of some kind of conviction.

I saw that in Howard Dean. All that gets talked about now is how "the scream" played in prime time. He was the only one besides Kucinich who spoke up in no uncertain terms against this war that 72% of Americans are now against. I see that in Obama. I see a steely adherence to certain core convictions.

If he ever gets to run a high profile campaign, I think a lot of other people will say they see it too. And if he ever gets to run a national campaign, I pray that he not only will stay true to the things that made himpursue public office to start with, but that he can be judged by his ability to serve the greater human good, and very little else.

snood, Excellent points made. The reason I said I also support Kucinich is based on a personality test I took when he first ran, and my ideals matched his. I haven't had the opportunity to do a similar test for Obama. All we can do is to watch him before the next election, and make up our minds who represents the best ideals for our country.

Snood, it goes like this:

I see a politician. I like something about the politician. I investigate further. If I like that, I investigate further yet. And on it goes.

I've researched Obama thoroughly, and so far pretty much everything I see, I like -- the man, the ideas, the politician, everything. I would be absolutely thrilled to have him be the next president of the United States. I am very ready to put a great deal of effort into making that happen...

... if I think it's feasible. I don't, for example, think it's feasible for Kucinich to become president, no matter how much I like his ideas.

This thread is about feasiblity. So that's where the discussion lies. I already know that I think the man is a fine human being.

soz, "Feasible" is a strange adjective when applied to politics. Look who we have as president - for two terms, yet!

Well soz, I don't know that the subject matter of the thread had been all that narrowly well defined, (just the feasibility, ma'am) until just now.

But understanding that you have now done so, I can go with that.

Yeah... I know what you mean.

Lots of traceable reasons why he was elected, though.

Snood, first paragraph of my first post: "Would Obama work, after all?"

Of course we can talk about who he is, it's pertinent. And I think I've said plenty of that, too. Random example:



I removed the speech because it was long, whole thing here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1929370#1929370

To summarize:

The person energizes me and makes me want him to be a candidate. The next step is to decide whether he can achieve the presidency. Not whether he will, but whether he can. Partly just 'cause I think it's an interesting question, partly 'cause I personally want to do something about it if I think it's possible.

Well, originally the thread was defined even as something that "can become the equivalent" to my thread on Republican primaries "about Democrats", with the Obama case only being the "initial question". So I agree with Snood, it seems odd to now narrow it down to not just Obama, but even specifically the feasibility of Obama.

I also agree on another point with Snood (and in a way with c.i's remark on Bush). I think the question re feasibility has obvious merits, in general it works like that. But there is an element that is consistently underappreciated by the pundits, politicologists and lobbyists, when for three years ahead of presidential elections they weigh and defend or doubt the candidates' chances on the scale of feasibility. It's personality.

In the end, there is a fair degree of random-seeming development of candidates' chances that springs forth simply from the strength of personality. And that strength may well bring candidates that were considered wholly "unfeasible" to the fore and into a winning position - or vice versa (see Kerry). I'm guessing that up untill the last year before the 1980 elections, Ronald Reagan was considered a completely "unfeasible" candidate - his radical opinions out of sync with those of the average poll respondent, his actor background making him look more odd than appealing, etc.

I'm still really intrigued by how Dean would have done, sans Scream, if he'd gotten through. If I'd have to bet money on it, I would bet he'd have lost in a bit of a landslide - his opinions and cultural background were just too far out of the "feasibility" range. But at the same time I think he might actually have had a chance despite that, because of the strength of personality. He probably would have failed, but he might have surprised us - whereas with Kerry it was clear from the start that he would not surprise us, and at the very best scrape out a narrow victory on feasibility points.

The scream wouldn't have made a blip if he'd had strong support. People were looking for a reason to step around him.

Clinton had bimbo eruptions out the ying-yang and a pot smoking admission in a Presidential campaign.

This would have killed any other candidate before him, and most after him.

They liked Clinton. He survived it.

They didn't like Dean.

Nimh, you think snood's comment that "Its like you are really just talking about a quantifiable commodity, and not a man," was fair?

That's what I was reacting to -- I've already indicated I think he's a great man, but *I* started this thread to talk about feasibility. (First paragraph, first post.) Great man, check. Established. Now, what I'm curious about is...

It's not about what other people can or can't talk about.

Completely agreed about personality.

OK, so I take back some of my indignation re: commodity. I didn't like the implication that I wasn't appreciating who Obama is as a person, since I think I've been pretty clear about how much I do. However, when it comes down to it, feasiblity = commodity, I guess. Will this commodity sell? Will the public vote for him? I guess that's not totally unfair.