Wood Goblin wrote:

AlBStern wrote:Here? Where? In Illinois or nationally?

It'll be an issue.

Nationally. It will probably be an issue with some people, but with 50.0000001% of the population? Or even close? Nope.

It doesn't need to be 50% of the population. Over 40% isn't going to vote democratic anyways. Just a significant percentage of the general population who would otherwise consider voting for a democrat.

Think of the independant southerners (or westerners) who wouldn't vote for a New England liberal and multiply it ten fold.

in Obama's senate election a huge number of Bush supporters also voted for him...... and he was the total underdog for even the democrtatic nomination.

I saw him speak in an art gallery where I was serving coffe at a second job i took on to help pay for my home studio. I didn't know shit about him when he walked in and 5 minutes after he opened his mouth I'd have given him a kidney.

I worked in marketing for a while and politics in this day and age is marketing. That sucks, but it's what it is. Howmany bands have been around forever so you don't check them out because you figure if they were good enough you'd have heard them at some point?

Not on;y do I think he should run, I think he should be the only democratic nominee. It would be an unorthadox and unified statement by the democrats who are seen to have no balls right now. and trust me, if he gets to run, he'll shred anyone the republicans have to peices. He can appeal to both the inteligent folk and the common person alike...... also - he was editor of the Harvard Law reveiw which is like a bigger deal than anything according to Harvard folks........ oh, shit, never mind. I'm an asshole, sorry.

whiskerando wrote:First off, he is not going to run for president in '08. Not. NOT.

Read the news this morning? I guess this whole idea ain't so far fetched, eh?

I have a couple of bets out already that he will run in '08.

I think latent racism and assassination attempts are the only obstacles he faces. Experience is a red herring. No one cares.

The factor of latent racism, however, is offset by two things:

1) White guilt--white people love to feel good about black people, and he is very easy to feel good about, and

2) The huge 'get out the vote' potential among African-Americans. I mean a turnout that can cover the evangelical vote completely and then some.

Anyway, I have been following him for a long time, and he really has it. Really. He does.

tmidgett wrote:Anyway, I have been following him for a long time, and he really has it. Really. He does.

Agreed. I dont think Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell. I think Obama has a great chance of going all the way.

"Obama" sounds too similar to "Osama".

I can picture the attack ads now:

"Barack Osama, err...I mean Obama, wants to put terrorists in your breakfast cereal....."

Now that I think about it, didn't someone "accidentally" refer to him as "Osama" a couple years ago?

But I'd vote for him, and I'm pretty sure Hillary doesn't stand a chance, whatever year she chooses to run. Even I've grown to hate her, and I'm so liberal I'm not opposed to grown men marrying chairs, as long as the chair gives consent.

Either a Feingold/Obama or an Obama/Feingold ticket would be enough to make me cream my pants.

tmidgett wrote:The factor of latent racism, however, is offset by two things:

1) White guilt--white people love to feel good about black people, and he is very easy to feel good about, and

2) The huge 'get out the vote' potential among African-Americans. I mean a turnout that can cover the evangelical vote completely and then some.

I was thinking the same thing. My theory, though, is that if someone was racist enough not to vote for a black man probably wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway. I think it would be much harder for a woman to become president, honestly.

DrAwkward wrote:Either a Feingold/Obama or an Obama/Feingold ticket would be enough to make me cream my pants.

Yea, I would love Fiengold in the picture somehow. He's one of a rare breed of politicians who actually seems to mean what he says. Though, I was thinking that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be revolutionary on a grand scale. Maybe the momentum for a return to social programs will gain steam by 08' after 8 years of suppressive republican dumbshittery.

As for being assassinated, I think that's something definitely to be aware of. The first black president? And he's for the working class? We'll be on sniper watch for years if he won.

Does he have the experience? Well, we can all admit that Bush didn't really have experience, but he was sold as a no-nonsense candidate with experience as a Govenor. Almost 50% of the voters saw through this thin veil years ago, but he convinced just enough people that he was for real to become president. Historically, it's much easier for Govenors to win over Senators. Since Carter, we've been voting in Govenors or vice-presidents and in W's case, a retard.

I don't think Hillary will win. Here, we have years upon years of the right wing totally bashing her. All negative all the time, to the point where she's had to morph somewhat politically. Plus that view, even if we don't believe what the right-wingnuts say, still leaves a bad taste in all our mouths. She's gota stigma that won't go away. I think she could probably win as a vice-presidential candidate. If Hillary won the D ticket and was up against McCain, we're all fucked. She might be able to beat Guilliani. What a bizarre candidate he'll be. I wonder how easy he'll be to shred. Maybe we'd get lucky and Pat Robertson will run as an evangelical independent and split the vote...we can all hope...

Ken Silverstein has a noteworthy article on Obama in the latest (November) issue of Harper's. Silverstein clearly sees much to admire in Obama, but the article is called "Barack Obama, Inc," or something (don't have the issue at hand), and it situates Obama's reformist politics within the nexus of lobby groups and big $ interests that influence and constrain any successful career in politics.

More generally, it seems that the American political process, and "the Washington climate," precludes substantively progressive reforms from ever occurring (if I'm not mistaken, Clinton wanted to do some more progressive stuff re: social services, etc, but there was no way in the USA). Anyway, the article's a good read and is structured around an interview w/ Obama.

Me thinking aloud:

It's possible that Obama's relative inexperience could be spun into a strength. "I haven't been in Washington very long, so i haven't been correputed by the special interests and scandals you see all over Congress these days. I haven't been sucked into the bitter partisan wars that are exhausting all of us." Etc. The "Washington Outsider" bit plays strong with the everyday American--G-Dub proved that in 2000.