Obama '08?

nimh wrote:

Because he's black, would be my answer (edit: to Thomas). Not that I believe the chance would be very big, but I do think that puts him in a different ballpark of hypothetic possibility than Hillary, let alone Giuliani.

There's still determined racists out there who'd consider it an act of patriotic duty to prevent the USA from having a black President, and my take would be that this is a sentiment that sits deeper, and is more able to spur someone to murder, than regular partisan passion, however extreme, could be.

A black president, a Jewish president - that's stuff that triggers something both darker and deeper than just a very liberal or very conservative President.

This seems so obvious to me. But - different paradigms and perspectives, I guess.

I admit to a big 'Huh?' when Thomas mentioned Cherie Blair and Hillary Clinton as comps to Michelle Obama.

Warner asked not whether he could be president, but whether he should be president. The irony of Warner's answer is that the kind of person who dwells on that question is the kind of person you want to be president.

Thomas wrote:

Assassins of politicians aren't rational activists with guns. I don't think your political ideology has any influence on whether some sicko may shoot you.

Coming from Holland, where in recent years Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were assassinated, I can not possibly agree with that conclusion.

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Assassins of politicians aren't rational activists with guns. I don't think your political ideology has any influence on whether some sicko may shoot you.

Coming from Holland, where in recent years Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were assassinated, I can not possibly agree with that conclusion.

Not to mention Yitzhak Rabin. Or Zoran Djindjic. Or, closer to home to the subject at hand (not literally a politician, but same category), Martin Luther King.

There's a thoughtful, empathetic portrait of Mark Warner, and why he may have thrown in the towel for a prospective Presidential run, on TNR: An '08 leader balks: Pop Warner.

Author Ryan Lizza had been following Warner on the trail for some time to build an in-depth account, but before he got to finish it Warner announced he was quitting, so that might also explain the rather melancholic character of the piece. Even so, Lizza makes a convincing point when, in conclusion, he sighs:

Quote:

Warner asked not whether he could be president, but whether he should be president. The irony of Warner's answer is that the kind of person who dwells on that question is the kind of person you want to be president.

The piece sparked one of the better and more reflective reader discussion too, here in Talkback.

obama spoke in Boston this weekend and for sure, he's not Presidential material, nor should he be.

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Assassins of politicians aren't rational activists with guns. I don't think your political ideology has any influence on whether some sicko may shoot you.

Coming from Holland, where in recent years Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were assassinated, I can not possibly agree with that conclusion. [..]

Not to mention Yitzhak Rabin. Or Zoran Djindjic. Or, closer to home to the subject at hand (not literally a politician, but same category), Martin Luther King.

Fair point. I hereby amend my "aren't" to "aren't always".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061022/ap_on_el_pr/obama2008

Gahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061022/ap_on_el_pr/obama2008

Gahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

sozobe wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061022/ap_on_el_pr/obama2008

Gahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

and...

This morning, on Meet the Press, John Harwood said he had been told by a former aide to Clinton that Obama would run and Hilary would not run.

???

He'd do well to steer clear of her, I think. Bill Richardson or Mark Warner, or even his own wife, would be better picks.