KumbyObama
Anne Martens
Oh yay, he's in. I just watched the announcement video for Obama's exploratory committee, which means he can raise money and poll and travel and "listen" before actually announcing that he's running for president, which of course doubles the media hit. He's neat. He wants real change for America. Good education, quality affordable health care, less dependence on foreign oil, a strategy to get out of Iraq. Just like every other democrat.
Actually, I really do think Obama's neat. He has a way with words - he can say the same things as every other politician, but he makes them sound more meaningful without actually providing any more meaning (watch that video again). He's got a little bit of everything, which means everybody gets something but nobody gets everything, and isn't that the essence of democracy.
And he doesn't scare the white people. He offers middle 'merka a way to congratulate itself on being tolerant and accepting without actually confronting people's prejudices. By backing Obama, people prove that they too are worldly, educated, interesting and of the future instead of the past. The midwest can send a hearty "thbbbt" to all those volvo-driving latte-drinking west coast libs, proving that they are just as smart/cool/snobby.
My initial take is this: Hillary has more money than god and the backing of the establishment. She's got a lot of baggage, a lot of experience, has stances and can convince people that she knows what she's talking about and bring people to substantial solutions. I'm not convinced that all her substance and expertise are actually an advantage (they should be, but the world just isn't really like that). John Edwards is hot, his name rings a bell, he's anti-war enough to hug the peaceniks and that anti-warness plus a focus on poverty are where he's staked his claim, which is important in the abstract but may not be tangible enough to win an election. Obama, on the other hand, is for the superficial, he represents possibility, without any solid stances other than what you would expect from any D, he's got the life story that exemplifies pulling diversity into unity, and in a world where we sell jeans based on lifestyle and makeup based on philosophy, Obama is the packaging that can build the market share (er, votes) to win. We'll see.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 17, '07
Obama, on the other hand, is for the superficial, he represents possibility, without any solid stances other than what you would expect from any D...
Well put. But since Hilary, despite her millions, has yet to come out on top in any polls, the race for the White House may be Obama's to lose. To win, he's got to show he's got some steak to go with the sizzle.
Obama, we're listening...
10:51 a.m.
Jan 17, '07
First, Iowa - where John Edwards leads Hillary and Barack by 36 to 16 to 12.
Second, Nevada - where the first-time caucus will be dominated by the culinary union (the largest local in the nation, with 65,000 members). John Edwards has a very close working relationship with their national UNITE/HERE.
Third, New Hampshire - anybody's game.
Fourth, South Carolina - the state of John Edwards' birth and a neighboring state for him now.
You tell me who the frontrunner is.
Jan 17, '07
Zak said:
To win, he's got to show he's got some steak to go with the sizzle.
Obama, we're listening...
... Or to echo a slogan from the past,
Where's the beef?
Tranlation for Oregonians, Portlanders respectively: Where's the Oregon Country beef? Where's the Tofu?
11:07 a.m.
Jan 17, '07
Kari's right, but Edwards needs money up front. Dick Gephardt showed that you can win Iowa and get nothing out of it if even a Mike Dukakis can spend you to death on Super Tuesday. Hillary and Barack start way ahead in the money primary unless all of us who are pro-Edwards pony up.
11:08 a.m.
Jan 17, '07
Every thing OBama does at this point screams that he is not ready for the job. His script could be written in Hollywood. There is no there there. Let's just all have a group hug.
When he starts taking real positions, then I will listen. Until then, it is just the wind in the trees.
11:14 a.m.
Jan 17, '07
Yeah Anne,
Obama sure seems like the classic Tabula Rasa. We will make up a persona as the primaries progress.
This early on, I'm going with the Dorian Gray Democrat, Edwards. Now I'm a confident heterosexual, but Edwards, who could give Tom Cruise a run for his money, is the cutest danged metrosexual on either side.
Since there seems to be zero chance of a Schweitzer campaign, I'll start with Edwards and work my way down through the campaign season.
11:53 a.m.
Jan 17, '07
excuse, the guy did not suddenly pop up out of nowhere. he's been a teacher, has a family, has had a life of some variety and depth. he's not some Hollywood creation. he's a real person who may well have the gifts this country needs to undo the damage of 8 years of Bush.
Obama, like the others, will need to prove himself. but given the dearth of quality candidates -- i miss Paul Wellstone more every day -- and Hillary's self-destruction by running to the center and not taking a real stand on Iraq; why not Obama? if he can inspire the country to work together and be a good global citizen, why not? who else is there?
i believe he's a person of depth and substance; i hope he can demonstrate that over the coming year. it would be exciting to work for his presidency, but we'll see how he does at this level.
12:06 p.m.
Jan 17, '07
You tell me who the frontrunner is.
WAY too early to say. John may have a nice hand on the flop, but will he be competitive when it arrives? Can he continue to stay at the top tier with Hillary and Barack in terms of money? What about media? What if another big name Gore enters the picture?
Obama excites everyone right now, except that he admitted drug use, has almost no national-level experience, is seriously international (his middle name's a bigger problem than his skin color), and hasn't endured any abuse on the campaign trail. That's actually the good news, though--if he can survive as a major candidate through these roadblocks, it will probably be by force of his personality--and then, look out.
And of course, it wouldn't be a presidential discussion if I didn't mention Gore. Run, man .... RUN!
Jan 17, '07
I was watching CSPAN the other night with a bunch of friends from all across the political spectrum, and it was showing a committee hearing where Obama was grilling Condoleezza Rice over the Iraq issue. I hadn't really heard him speak before that, so I kept watching. After a few minutes, we were all very impressed with his delivery and what he had to say. Obama has all the makings of a rock star candidate, without the baggage accompanying Hillary or some of the other would-be candidates. Obama got a few votes at my house that night, and those are votes that Hillary would certainly not get. At this point, he has my vote, unless he screws up big time...though he does have plenty of time to do exactly that...
1:22 p.m.
Jan 17, '07
Nice that you feel you can dismiss the 3:2 majority of the House Democrats and 40% of the Senate Democrats who voted against the Iraq war resolution as "peaceniks." Edwards wasn't one of them, unfortunately, but five of the nine Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- including Ron Wyden -- did vote against giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Very well-informed analysis.
Jan 17, '07
Barak Obama called Paul Wellstone "a gadfly", t.a., so be careful what you wish for.
If you examine the record, there seems to be little difference between Hillary and Barak. Obama has a ways to go to prove his progressive creds.
1:52 p.m.
Jan 17, '07
Anne
I'm still wandering around with my latte looking for a Volvo, that is when I'm not watching the fabulous, fabulous, fabulous Move On ad rejecting John McCain's Iraq troop build up plan. My interest is on the candidates on the Republican side for the moment.
Jan 17, '07
i like all three, but obama's taken the lead for me since he didn't give dumbya the benefit of the doubt with that stupid authorization of force vote. both ms. clinton and mr. edwards did.
Jan 17, '07
Former Salem Staffer said: "I was watching CSPAN the other night with a bunch of friends..."
Wow Former Salem Staffer, you have as much of a life as LT and I do!!!!
Jan 17, '07
At this point, the best bet the Democrats could nominate would be an Edwards/Obama ticket with Edwards running for president.
IMO, Hillary is out of the question. She's too wishy washy.
2:49 p.m.
Jan 17, '07
Edwards may have some advantage in early polls and networking, but Hillary is the one with the war chest at this point. At the same time, she's the one candidate I won't support. I tend to agree with Jimbo she's too wishy washy.
Obama is still an unknown at this point, but like many I am interested to see what happens in his campaign (given the fact he has only announced he's forming an exploration committee nothing is for sure).
Keep in mind, this is the earliest (at least that I know of) that a presidential campaign has started. There is still a full 12 months before the first primary. Anything can happen at this point.
2:58 p.m.
Jan 17, '07
Like a gazillion other people, I'm working my way through Obama's "Audacity of Hope."
After the initial rush of "Wow, I like this guy; he's contientious and can draw out progressive solutions from a broad base of people," I started to sour on what increasingly seems like a humble-meets-self-congratulatory tone.
I can only hear so many stories that end with Obama delivering a perfectly phrased, heart-warming, God-laced impromptu quip to a higher-up like Sen. Byrd or Bush Jr. (Cue soft focus, part 6.)
Of course, I still hope he does well in the Senate and has a bright future. D.C. is full of big egos, and if he can deliver the goods, then fine. I'm for whichever D ends up on the ticket, with Edwards as a current fave.
Jan 17, '07
Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002, Jami. Who knows how he would have voted if he has actually been required to cast a vote?
Jan 17, '07
"HAD been required to cast a vote."
3:47 p.m.
Jan 17, '07
Who knows how he would have voted, perhaps--but this speech from October 2002 makes it seem highly implausible that he would have voted for it...
Jan 17, '07
As I re-read this, I think maybe we should take a cue from Time Magazine's person of the year.
Can we figure out how WE can be the candidate?
5:25 p.m.
Jan 17, '07
"we" are the worst people to be president. "we" don't vote. "we" are poorly informed, with too many of us watching fox news instead of the real thing. "we" live and die by American Idol but could give a shit about Darfur. "we" piss and moan about gas prices but refuse to ride mass transit or get a car that has sensible mileage. "we" eat junk food by the ton and wonder why our health is shot. "we" vote for the bastards who send our kids to war, raise our taxes and give our money to the richest people in the land.
"we" are almost too stupid to live.
the last person i'll ever vote for is "we".
Jan 17, '07
I'm undecided as of yet, but, given Obama's early opposition to the war (see torridjoe's post above), I think it isn't fair to call him an empty suit.
I'm not usually a one-issue voter. In fact, I can't think of a single issue I have ever considered so important to determine my vote. But there has also never been as important an issue in my lifetime as this war.
John Edwards has apologized for his vote to go to war. Hillary hasn't. But if this war really is the biggest mistake our government has made in a generation -- possibly the biggest American foreign policy blunder ever -- can we so easily forgive and forget?
I knew the war was wrong in 2002, and I said so. So did all of Oregon's congressional Democrats. So did Barak Obama. Clinton and Edwards did not. That's important. Maybe even important enough to determine my vote.
Jan 17, '07
Unfortunately, Obama's two most attractive characteristics are (a) he is not Hillary Clinton, and (b) he is not just another rich white guy who wants to be President.
Unfortunately, John Edwards is yet another rich white guy who wants to be President and therefore I and my fellow progessives will suffer a certain amount of guilt in supporting him over a woman or a minority, but when it comes to the end of the campaign, hopefully substance will win out over gender or skin color and I believe Edwards has the most substance of the front runners.
5:49 p.m.
Jan 17, '07
tj, unfortunately, that quote was from before Obama made it to the Senate. In his statement on the Kerry amendment -- which he termed a "precipitous withdrawal" -- last summer he even acknowledged those remarks. Before he voted against the amendment.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_iraq_debate/index.html
Jan 17, '07
If Obama is allegedly against the Iraq war, why did he support Lieberman against the antiwar candidate who actually won the Democratic senate primary in Connecticut?
Jan 17, '07
Viewing Obama through my non-tinted independent lens (sharp reds & blues tend to distort), I see him as a serious contender. He definitely has a certain mojo about him. His overall lack of experience and left-of-center track record might hurt his chances this time around, but he's one to keep an eye on.
In this independents opinion, Obama & Edwards trump the rest of the D pack in terms of likability, charisma and non-polarization. Hillary? Kerry? Gore? Fuggettaboutit!
Jan 17, '07
Isn't Anne a Volvo-driving, latte-drinking west coast lib?
Jan 17, '07
Seems like everything that is being said about Obama was said 47 years ago about a young Senator from Massachusetts. Yeah, Obama isn't JFK, or even a war hero, but the fact that he can inspire a diverse group of people with rhetoric that sounds more soaring than it really is gives him a lot of credibility as a candidate. And I'm not going to say that's bad.
Jan 18, '07
who knows indeed how obama "woulda" voted, terry. but we know edwards and clinton (ms.) both made the critical mistake of thinking xenophobic republicans are capable of using a (once) powerful military to a good end. and i believe obama's stated opposition was sincere.
12:52 a.m.
Jan 18, '07
Unfortunately, John Edwards is yet another rich white guy who wants to be President...
Is there a difference between a "rich white guy" who started life as the "son of a millworker" - and one who was born to it?
Jan 18, '07
Nope: they're both white and they're both rich. That's two strikes.
Obama is destiny. You need to get on the bus, Kari. The back of the bus, that is.
6:42 a.m.
Jan 18, '07
Here's my take. Obama is following the JFK script perfectly, whether intentionally or not. He finally realized the power he has as a political populist (whether deserved or not) and unless he is assassinated (a la MLK, Bobby, Wellstone), he will become our next President.
Having said that, I really like John Edwards.
It's a tough choice this season. God, I wish Dean was running again.
Jan 18, '07
I just finished reading Obamas' first book. The guy sure can write. He comes across as a perceptive, self-honest person of huge integrity. He's got charisma. He is believable. Most of the other candidates sound calculating-- especially Hillary.
Jan 18, '07
He comes across as a perceptive, self-honest person of huge integrity.
Again, if I recall correctly, Obama publically supported Lieberman's independent campaign in Connecticut against the Democratic nominee. Integrity? Opportunism? There is room for discussion.
Informative article about the man in Harper's a few months ago, by the way.
John Edwards is yet another rich white guy who wants to be President and therefore I and my fellow progessives will suffer a certain amount of guilt in supporting him over a woman or a minority.
Aargh! This is the sort of thinking that had many "progressives" supporting Jesse Jackson in 1988 even after his stupid anti-Semitic remarks. But retrospectively this needn't have been a concern, of course, because Jesse Jackson is not a rich black guy, making him obviously undeserving of our attention.
Jan 18, '07
Sorry, I mean Jesse Jackson is NOW a rich black guy :-)
10:22 a.m.
Jan 18, '07
Since Obama's book is selling a jillion copies, he's going to join the dreaded ranks of the wealthy and therefore lose the "I-only-vote-for-paupers" constituency. All two of 'em.
Jan 18, '07
Barney Frank for President!
Jan 19, '07
Obama has my vote.
10:07 a.m.
Jan 19, '07
"Again, if I recall correctly, Obama publically supported Lieberman's independent campaign in Connecticut against the Democratic nominee. Integrity? Opportunism? There is room for discussion."
You recall incorrectly. Obama declared himself a supporter of Lamont, and as I remember donated $5000 shortly after his primary victory.
That said, Obama was a poor ally of Lamont's, and weaseled his way out of being a notable supporter overall. This Kos diary does a decent job deconstructing how Obama left Lamont hanging after promising much early on.
But it's definitely not true that Obama supported Lieberman against Lamont.
Jan 19, '07
sigh. it seems we will be taking a spin on the 2004 bumpersticker: "listen to nader. dream of kucinich. vote for kerry." only in 2008 it will be "vote for obama, edwards or clinton". how truly sad. i'm still voting for kucinich.
Jan 19, '07
I appreciate the correction re: Obama and Lieberman.
As for the "listen to Nader" bumpersticker, never saw it and that's fine with me. I voted for him in 2000 and not long thereafter realized he was an egotistical jerk uninterested in actual governance.
Jan 19, '07
Lin Qiao: I'm surprised at you...I never would have guessed you were that idealistic. My "Nader moment" was a vote for Perot (the first time around), before I realized he was a paranoid chihuahua of a man.
Jan 19, '07
Zak J:
But since Hilary, despite her millions, has yet to come out on top in any polls, the race for the White House may be Obama's to lose.
Bob T:
Well, no, it's not his to lose. That phrase or status is reserved for someone who clearly appears to be running away with the nomination based on all sorts of data. So far Obama is an empty suit with some temporary good press. I've seen a zillion of them already.
Zak J:
To win, he's got to show he's got some steak to go with the sizzle.
Bob T:
Sizzle?!?! What sizzle?
Bob Tiernan
Jan 19, '07
jami:
i like all three, but obama's taken the lead for me since he didn't give dumbya the benefit of the doubt with that stupid authorization of force vote. both ms. clinton and mr. edwards did.
Bob T:
'Scuse me, but he was a state legislator at the time, and if he voted for one of those symbolic statements, well, that's cheap and easy. He gets zero points on this one. Who really knows what he would have done with that vote in the US Senate, particularly if some pork barrel or other goodies for Illinois or a favorite cause were dangled in front of him [1].
Bob Tiernan
[1] On the other hand, he apparently favors doing something about earmarks, and was in line for this even before it was certain that the Repubs would lose their majorities.
BT
Jan 19, '07
Gil Johnson:
Yeah, Obama isn't JFK
Bob T:
Heck, JFK wasn't even a JFK (as most think of him).
Bob Tiernan
Jan 19, '07
Karl Smily:
The guy sure can write. He comes across as a perceptive, self-honest person of huge integrity.
Bob T:
Yeah, I guess that's why his autobiography had a number of fictional characters in it.
<h2>Bob Tiernan</h2>