Carol Platt Liebau: O-bama in O-Eight?

Sunday, June 18, 2006

O-bama in O-Eight?

The Washington Post raises the possibility.

Certainly, Barack has lots of charisma and is making all the right moves. But he's not even served a single term in the US Senate, and as the piece points out, his legislative record is still somewhat sparse.

Is the enthusiasm for a nascent candidacy among some Democrats genuine, or is it an implicit reflection of some weakness in their field?

24 Comments:

Blogger wrabkin said...

I think it's genuine, but I also think it's way too early. The Dems have a great bench warming up for 2012 and beyond -- Obama, Eliot Spitzer, Brian Scheitzer, maybe even Gavin Newsom and Villaraigosa if they don't self-destruct along the way. But they all need more time in their present (or next) office before they're ready for the big stage.

1:31 PM  
Blogger suek said...

Obama seems to be a very articulate young politician. He's also black. Of course, we're not "allowed" to say that except in the most offensively amazed tone of voice. In other words, political correctness once again seems to be allowing people to ignore the elephant in the living room. Can a black democrat win the presidency? or rather...can a black win the presidency? can a democrat win the presidency? I don't know the answer. Political correctness means that to a large extent, the effect of color on electibility nationwide can't really be discussed. If he runs and fails, will it be due to color or party? If he wins and succeeds, will it be race or party? Or maybe because his only experience is a couple of years in the house of representative? How many members of the house of representatives have run for president and won?
Is it even _possible_ to take race out of the equation?

1:34 PM  
Blogger suek said...

Villaraigosa????

Why Villagraigosa?

By the way...not that it matters, but it's an interesting point..he was born "Villa". He took the Raigosa name when he married. That's his wife's maiden name. Not sure just exactly _what_ that means.

1:37 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

The guy is popular. No reason for him not to run and get experience running. Wasn't that how McCain gained political capital.

1:49 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Obama is a senator, not a congressman.

His race will be a negative factor for some (don't bother with South Carolina, Barack), a positve for others (if only EVERYONE in Mississippi would vote, huh?), and a non-factor for the majority.

Run, Barack, run! And let the Jim Crow sentimentalists go gentle (or otherwise) into that good election night.

4:03 PM  
Blogger suek said...

>>Obama is a senator, not a congressman>>

You're right...my mistake. Is the record of Senators getting elected to President better than Representatives?

>>...a non-factor for the majority.>>

You really think we're _there_ ? I don't. I think we've come a very long way towards a time when people are taken completely on their own merits, but I don't think we've arrived. I agree some will vote for him _because_ he's black, and some will vote _against_ him because he's black, but I don't think it won't be a factor.
Don't think we're ready to elect a woman yet either.

6:29 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Obama is wise enough not to reach for the brass ring in 2008. He'll pay his dues and look to inherit the Clinton machine.

He'll be the VP nominee instead. This will line up either 2012 if he loses or 2016 if he wins. He's had 15+ years in Chicago/Illinois politics, is knowledgeable, articulate, very smart and a touch too smooth. (Think Bill Clinton with his fly zipped.) Anyone claiming Obama is too inexperienced will wake up with his back in a ditch

W/Rove is pushing hard to peel off the black social conservatives from the Democrats. Rice would make a good VP to do this, as well as to consolidate the Christian right. Look also for Ken Blackwell, if he wins Ohio and his polling numbers are good.

7:12 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

I don't think a person's lack of time in the Senate makes them possibly unsuitable for the presidency.

Was George W. Bush ever a Senator?

3:06 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

Senators don't normally make it to the Presidency, especially in their first term. Voters have gotten very lazy - but not THAT lazy! There is simply no viable track record. The last Senator to make President? JFK, if memory serves correctly.

Is Obama a JFK? I don't think so!

5:33 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Bush was elected Governor of Texas - twice!

I think Governors have a better track record for getting elected to the Presidency than Senators. It probably has to do with experience and track record at the executive level.

I could be wrong, though.

5:47 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

You're right, Greg. Governors have the track record to show executive competence. We still can mess up, however, as evidenced by the elections of Gov. Carter and Gov. Clinton to the Oval Office.

6:22 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

And then, once or twice a century, our country takes complete leave of its senses and elects someone like George Dubya Bush.

6:38 AM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

duke-stir,

You don't have to think very much of W to have preferred him to Gore and Kerry.

8:06 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

More accurately, you had to think little. Period.

8:20 AM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Looks like your beef is with democracy, duke-stir. Now THAT is an inconvenient truth.

By the way, which of your two stellar candidates, Gore or Kerry, will you be supporting in 2008?

8:42 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

My beef is with "democracy" as manipulated by greedy, vituperative (neo)Conmen who forge a formidable voting bloc of the three R's (rich, racist, and religious) and use a drawling idiot to unite them all into a misguided, chest-thumping exercise in futility in a desert halfway around the world, wherein we needlessly fritter away the lives of our sons, our equipment, our credibility, and our national treasure.

As for whom I will support in '08, that remains to be seen, as I actually make that decision on my own, at the appropriate time, and without the "advice" of Rush Limbaugh and his fat-mouthed ilk.

9:06 AM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Duke-Stir,

Feel better now?

9:52 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Oh, much. Thank you. ;-)

9:56 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Duke-Stir,

"And then, once or twice a century, our country takes complete leave of its senses and elects someone like George Dubya Bush."

Thanks for admitting George Bush was elected rather than "appointed".

That's refreshing!

10:14 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Nixon was a senator, Also - perhaps I am wrong on this, but ALL senators are congressmen, but not all congressmen are senators?????

10:39 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

I may be wrong, but I believe Nixon came from the House of Representatives to VP for Ike. Presidency later.

Technically, Flomblog, I think you're right - both Houses are part of Congress, therefore Senators can be considered Congressmen - but the common usage would be that only Representatives are considered Congressmen. Senators have so much more stature, you see - pass the barfbag!

BTW, duke - nice underhanded insult. YOU can think for yourself, but we conservatives have to wait for Rush to make our decisions for us? And that's what I like about the left - tolerance and respect for differing opinions! You're a joke, duke!

10:51 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Thanks Pete. I love you.

11:26 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

What do you have against people who have amassed more of a fortune than you have? (The Rich)

What do you have against people who are "religious"? (I'm assuming you mean people who are also out-spoken about it, and not just anyone.)

Heck, you even have it out for Rush Limbaugh because he's fat. What's wrong with that, really?

12:23 PM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

I was starting to think Duke had joined in with some reasonable debate discussion until he unleashed this recent "My beef with "democracy"...(rich, racist, religious)" diatribe.

If the left wing didn't have it's rich (Soros, Moore, hollyweirds), or it's racists (JJackson, Sharpton, Byrd), or it's religious (Choamsky...yeah, just read "Godless"), they wouldn't have anyone.

Democracy in an of itself is not good, because it ends up just being rule by majority, and the majority can be wrong (as we saw for 50 years of a Democrat congress)...but I digress...and America's Republic with it's checks and balances is the best any country has done in the history of the world. The Democrats want to remove the checks and balances by inserting the Judiciary into the Legislative.

2:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google