Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama is a bit like Kennedy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:40 PM
Original message
Obama is a bit like Kennedy
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 12:57 PM by Tiggeroshii
He's charismatic, new, influential and a rising star among the Democratic party. Like Kennedy, he is not liked by the progressive wing of the Democratic party, if you've read "A thousand Days," you'll see that Progressives were outraged not seeing Stevenson get the Democratic nomination for a third time. Kennedy served very little time in the US Senate before running for president for the first time, Obama may be the same. He is like Kennedy in the respect that while he has served very little time in Congress, he may still make a highly productive, influential and effective president for the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. If you feel that way. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Um Okay... Since When was Kennedy Disliked by Progressives?
This is a new one. BTW - I live in Massachusetts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It's not a new one.
If you do any kind of reading on the subject, you'll find that his unappreciation for the New Deal and other still radical ideas of his time significantly turned off those "radicals" who favored pregressives such as Stevenson. Stevenson had always been the favored among the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

Read "A Thousand Days" by ARthur M. Schlessinger, Jr. Schlessinger was a special council to Kennedy and a historian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Now I Know You Is Lying.....
you have fun there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Kennedy was deplored by the "progressives" of his day... and even...
...into the late 60s and 70s was seen as some sort of imperialist.

He was an early practitioner of triangulation.

He advanced the doctrine of liberal internationalism (what the DLC calls progressive internationalism.)

He was a proponent of welfare to work programs.

He rejected the term "liberal" as descriptive of himself.

If his life and record were presented to some on the left today - void of any obvious identifiers - he would be trashed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
31. That is all Supposition...
I don't see or hear progressives trashing him. BTW - I live in Massachusetts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. it is all fact
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 02:03 PM by wyldwolf
You don't hear (many) "progressives" trashing him because his is JFK. Take out all indentifiers and he becomes just another "mushy middle" DLC-style centrist to many.

Be honest - if you did not know who this was, how would you describe him?

After a major election year loss, he distanced himself from the liberal/progressive wing of the party, declaring, Im not a liberal at all... Im not comfortable with those people.

His father told a leading national magazine, How could any son of mine be a god damn liberal? Dont worry about him being a weak sister. Hell be tough.

In a Senate race, he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate and instead endorsed the Republican!

As president-elect, he appointed high level Republicans to prominent cabinet posts!

His most well-known catch phrase was a rebuke of the welfare state and a promotion of individual responsibility.

Another phrase was a Woodrow Wilson-like call to arms for Liberal Internationalism.

A master of the New Democrat perfected "triangulation," he alienated Labor Unions by not siding with them on a number of issues, saying disputes must be settled with what is best for the publics interest.

He considered our tax system obsolete and advocated massive tax cuts.

A leading Republican characterized him as a Democrat by accident of birth; he is more of a pragmatist than a Democrat.

Congressman John Lewis (D, GA) a civil rights hero, said his civil rights actions were "too little, too late"

He was a big proponent of military spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Ted Kennedy is a DLC Democrat?
Wow... gotta link for those quotes. I'd really like to confirm them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Please tell me you haven't thought we were discussing Ted Kennedy
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 02:14 PM by wyldwolf
I believe we've all been clear in saying "JFK" - you know, Ted's older brother?

In addition, no one has said JFK was a DLC-Democrat, mainly because the DLC was not founded until 1985.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. That's Who I Thought You Were Talking about:
"You don't hear (many) "progressives" trashing him because his is JFK. Take out all indentifiers and he becomes just another "mushy middle" DLC-style centrist to many"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. you do know JFK stands for John F. Kennedy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Before You Make this Out to Be My Misunderstanding
Read again my first reply to the OP:

"Um Okay... Since When was Kennedy Disliked by Progressives?

This is a new one. BTW - I live in Massachusetts."

I referred to Ted Kennedy since he was the one being compared to Obama. And I could have sworn "Ted" was in that post before it was edited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. no, the OP was referring to JFK as well. NOT Ted Kennedy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. That Clears up alot... thanks (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #31
46. Seems like an esoteric view.
I remember discussing him with East Coasters who came out here to go to college in the late 70s early 80s and they loved him. That was even before I turned into a pinko Democratic Socialist who likes Ted Kennedy quite a lot most of the time.
:P
I wasn't aware of his lack of popularity among progressives at any time.

Is this another in a series of divide and conquer threads?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. This is well-documented
JFK had to practically grovel tot he liberal wing of the party, who believed he was too conservative, in order to get their support. For example, in his book "An Unfinished Life," Robert Dallek recounts Eleanor Roosevelt's original opposition to Kennedy, specifically because, in her view, he was not a true liberal and how he had to keep saying over and over to people, "Yes, I am a liberal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, clearly it's rather early to know if he's Kennedyesque
But JFK did start out in office with very little vision, and mouthing many of the mantras the corporatocracy expects (lower taxes to stimulate the economy, be conservative on civil rights,...).

Then over his three years, after being dragged thru the Bay of Pigs by the CIA and the Cuban Missile Crisis, he developed his conscience and agenda and vision. And he instituted the policies and made speeches that showed he was the great leader we now know him to be.

Of course that's what got him killed. I don't know how a real people's president who opposes the war machine can survive today. Sorry to be so gloomy but that is our situation in the US. I don't know if he realizes the true depth and scope of the evil he's facing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brazenly Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm progressive and I don't dislike him.
I think you'll find a lot of us who are considerably left of center don't dislike Obama at all. Some of us are waiting to see more of his record before we decide. Some of us see him as a man who is closer to the center than we'd like, but has other very important redeeming qualities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. But a lot of us would go for somebody else besides him
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 01:09 PM by Tiggeroshii
And would be dissapointed if that somebody else(who is more progressive, or seems more progressive) lost the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Stevenson DID run twice both against Eisenhower. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. 3 times
He ran for the nomination in 1960, and lost it to Kennedy. But your post did force me to make a correction. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. there was even a move by progressives to "draft" Stevenson...
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 01:06 PM by wyldwolf
...at the 1960 convention because they didn't want Kennedy.

Dem party history is such a shocker the first time people hear it. Shatters all kinds of preconceived notions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yeah.
People outta at least take a look at the book. It's long, but very informative and insightful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. well, most of this is pretty common knowledge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. "denial" is right....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. JFK served 4 years in the House of Reps and 8 years in the U.S. Senate 1st.
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 01:14 PM by Tom Rinaldo
I'm sorry, but it is grossly misleading to state that:

"Kennedy served very little time in the US Senate before running for president for the first time, Obama may be the same."

JFK already had twice the seniority in the United States Senate when he ran for President that Obama will have by 2008, plus John Kennedy also served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. That is a total of 12 years that JFK spent in Congress prior to running for President, or put another way, JFK had three times the experience in Congress that Obama will be able to claim by 2008.

While they have in common being young, smart, dynamic, etc. they are NOT comparable regarding prior experience. If Obama waits until 2016 to run for President, THEN he will have spent as much time in Congress as JFK did before he ran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Actually
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 01:24 PM by Tiggeroshii
Kennedy only serve a couple years in the Senate before he first ran for president. He serveed equally as much time as Obama will have in 08 in the Senate when he ran for president in 1956 and nearly received the vice presidential nomination to Adlai Stevenson. Kennedy was elected to the Ssenate in 1952. He ran for president for the first time in 1956.

I'll admit that Kennedy served in the US congress for 8 years before he ran for president. But actually, if you count Obama's 8 years in the State legislature as "time in Congress," he will have served 4 years longer than Kennedy had before running for president, giving him 4 years, or 1/3rd more political experience than Kennedy had when he ran for president for the first time, and just as much poltiical experience as Kennedy had the year he was elected president in 1960.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Being a State Senator does not equal federal experience
If Obama had been a Congressman before Senator, then I wouldn't object as much to him running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. It is political experience
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 01:34 PM by Tiggeroshii
And you can't really disregard it because it was just state policy. It is political experience to the same extent that the US legislature is, in that you will have the same amount of compromising and diplomacy as is required on the national level.I will also emphasize that I was talking about Kennedy's FIRST time running for president.

Kennedy only had served as US Senator for 4 years before he ran for president for the first time(in 1956!!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. He doesn't have enough experience for '08
He's strong in the charisma department, but his resume is lacking. If he runs in 2012 (assuming we end up with another Republican) or 2016, then he will be a strong contender. If he runs in 2008, then he will have even LESS experience than Edwards would have had at this point in his Senate term (and Edwards himself was/will be criticized for lack of experience.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. He will have had 12 years of political experience
before running for president for the first time. Kennedy had only 8 years of political experience when he ran for president for the first time and 12 years when he was elected presid3nt. The same number of years of experience Obama will have in 08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. State Legislature =/= Congressman
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. ?
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 01:36 PM by Tiggeroshii
A state legislator is to many respects still a "congressman," if that is what you are directing. This is considering that a state legislature is a kind of congress and that legislators serving in that congress -as are legislators serving in any other congress, "congressman"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Sorry but a State Legislature doesn't deal with International Affairs
A State Legislature doesn't deal with balancing the needs of one State or National region with those of others. A State Legislature doesn't deal with Federal budgets or the Federal Court System, or any Federal laws either for that matter. I find it disingenuous that you try to blur the distinction between the U.S. Congress and the Illinois legislature.

Argue Obama on his merit. Make the case that he has enough experience in your opinion, but don't compare apples and oranges and then say, aren't we all talking about fruit?

Two years in the U.S. Senate, even after 4 years in the House of Representatives. was too soon for JFK to run for President in 1954 in my opinion. Those 6 more years in the Senate helped JFK get up to speed on serious world issues, and he STILL blew it with the Bay of Pigs shortly after he took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Political experience is political experience
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 01:46 PM by Tiggeroshii
and the decisions JFK would have made would have been done by anybody who gave a little bit of thought to his/her decisions.

Please look at ieoeja's post, nonetheless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. What about Clinton?
He had far more political experience than anybody else, but by your standards wouldn't quite cut it because it didn't deal with foreign policy(all his expereience was based in his involvment as attorney general and governor of Arkansas). None of it had to do with foreign policy. Do you concede that Clinton did not have adequate experience in foreign policy to qualify well for the presidency in 1992?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. There is a classic debate here, but Obama misses on both counts
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 02:26 PM by Tom Rinaldo
The Governor is Chief Executive of his or her State. The President is Chief Executive of our Nation. Some believe that a politician with considerable high level Chief Executive experience will have a less steep learning curve to master regarding their new responsibilities in office upon becoming President, than would a typical United States Senator who never held a major Chief Executive position. That is one reason why a candidate who can claim experience in both is often a hot property. In recent years our Presidents either have been former Governors OR experienced former Senators who served as Vice President before running for President.


The President of the United States is confronted with serious life and death decisions as soon as they step into office. Bush was handed North Korea and Bin Ladin for example. I'm not claiming, in Bush's case, that he would have handled either one well with more experience, but even he would likely have done marginally better had he known then some of the things he figured out later (and I don't mean facts and figures, I mean how to relate to our allies, stuff like that.) Clinton will be the first to admit that he didn't handle the crisis in Rwanda correctly for example, he learned while he was in office

When a new President takes office they also are faced with gaining a degree of control over a vast bureaucracy that nominally is under their authority. They have to appoint new heads of departments, and supervise all of their activities. A former Governor usually starts out as a new President at a disadvantage regarding international issues, but they already had hands on executive experience in running a government. They don't have to play catch up there also while they get up to speed on "leading the (ahem)free world".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
65. doesn't have enough experience for '08? - compared to whom? Bush?!!
experience? all one needs is the ability to make proper dicisions, Obama's intelligence is a bonus, I can't say compared to Bush, it would be unfair to Obama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
25. Experience vs inexperience

Is there something special about an elected position that makes that experience more important? If you answer no, consider the following...

Youngest Presidents: JFK and Teddy Roosevelt
Oldest President: Ronald Reagan
Most Experienced: Richard M. Nixon

Maybe experience is overrated.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. THANK YOU!
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Age doesn't guarantee relevant experience, only relevant experience does.
Both JFK and Teddy Roosevelt, though young had sufficient experience on the National and World stage. JFK's father was ambassador to England for Christ's sake, and JFK spent 12 years in Congress before becoming President. Teddy had been through war and was already Vice President when he became President.

This is another case of apples and oranges. No one is saying that someone in their 40's can't have enough experience to be a good candidate for President. It's the resume being debated, not a chronological age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. You seemed to miss the point with Nixon
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 02:00 PM by Tiggeroshii
Nixon had the most experience out of anybody and still turned into one of our most infmaous presidents. Clinton had no foreign policy experience and is considered in the latest gallup on the issue by 60% of Americans, one of the best former presidents who who has served in the past 20 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. See my post #37
It is foolish in the extreme to trot out people who had "experience" but still blew it, and use that to argue that experience doesn't matter. If you want to go down that path most Democrats would put most Republicans on that list. Can we walk and chew gum at the same time here? Being able to be a good President is a combination of natural ability, an openess to learning, and an adaquate set of prior personal experiences sufficient to enable one to perform well on the job virtually immediately. Clinton for example served 8 years in office, and he was much more sure footed regarding Bosnia and Iraq later in his Presidency than he was about Somalia and Rwanda early in his Presidency. Sure Obama may have the stuff that a good President is made of, but I would prefer it to be seasoned a bit more first.

On the other hand, if you have someone become President who is quite experienced at enabling global imperialism that experience almost certainly won't lead them to be a good President in my book, so what does that prove? Don't elect the wrong man President.

And Richard Nixon didn't become infamous for the experience he brought to the job, he became infamous for his paranoid bent of mind that led him to subert the Constition. Richard Nixon would never have refused direct bilateral negotiations with our global adversaries the way Bush Jr. does, Nixon is the guy who went to China and hugged Mao, remember? Hardly anyone believes that was a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. That is why I would prefer Gore.

I think Gore is probably the most qualified competent candidate out there.

I have to include "competent" because there are a large number of highly qualified Republicans who have proven themselves just the opposite. President Idiot aside, this administration is packed with people who have decades of "relevant" experience. Just look at Cheney's and Rumsfeld's resumes. Yet they have clearly proven their incompetence.

Which brings me back to Obama. Given the choice between Gore and Obama, I will vote Gore based on (1) his experience and (2) what I know to expect from him. Nevertheless, I have little doubt that Obama will end up being a decent president.

Even if the bar hadn't been lowered so much over the past six years....

Bottom line: incompetent people will always be incompetent no matter how much experience they have. While competent people start out that way, and sometimes get better (though sometimes get worse; as I get older I worry about that).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. And that's why I prefer Clark, and Gore & Feingold after him
But sure, experience isn't everything, no where close to being everything. Still, asking to become President of the United States is aiming for the very top. It is foolish to not factor in experience as a criteria to consider. Personally, I like Obama a lot so far, though he may be a tad more moderate that what I ultimately want. Hard to say when there isn't a whole lot to go on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
38. This may get me slammed, but being a Black man in America by itself
often confers valuable and unique experiences that should not be discounted. And the fact that, as a Black man, he has gotten as far as he has, is a big deal.

A Black man who manages to become President of the Harvard Law Review and then go on to become a U.S. Senator must possess a degree of skill, savvy, knowledge, determination, hard work, and just plain true grit than many other White politicians - especially a Kennedy - have had to exhibit in order to achieve similar status.

So, before unfavorably comparing Obama to Kennedy because Kennedy had x number of years longer in the U.S. Senate than Obama has had, be sure to also factor in the fact that Kennedy was the wealthy son of an ambassador with almost unlimited contacts, resources and opportunities, who probably not fail no matter how hard he tried. The fact that Obama, who had nothing even close to the head start that Kennedy had in life - and in fact, started out with several strikes against him - is being mentioned in the same breath as Kennedy and has acquired, if not exactly equal, at least nearly comparable, political experience in his career, speaks volumes about him.

Until he became President, Kennedy's career was nothing close to remarkable. Obama's already is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. No slam from me, it's a good argument, but...
It's not a good enough argument for me to support Obama starting a run for President two or three years after first entering the U.S. Senate. It might be a good enough argument for me to support him considering running after he finished at least one full term in the Senate. He doesn't have to match JKF year for year.

It's not just Obama, I had this issue with John Edwards also, and they both are obviously talented men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I certainly don't think this should alone be enough to support anyone
But it is a consideration that should be factored in when assessing someone's experience, especially vis-a-vis another candidate's. If, after weighing that, someone still doesn't believe that he has enough experience, that's certainly fair - but I think it should be considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
43. Obama is most likely a bit like a lot of people, and a whole lot
like Barak Obama! Bout that? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
47. Excellent article here.....which reasonates with points you have raised
in your op, and points you haven't.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/23/the...

I suggest that you read it......it makes much sense to me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Sushi Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
51. NOT
Dont get me wrong he is a nice guy!

but, Dont waste time on a NEWBIE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
53. And I wish Obama kept his mouth shut about all this 3 weeks longer
How hard is it to say; "There's plenty of time to talk about all of this after the Congressional elections. It's a distraction to talk about who may or may not run for President now. That's not what I'm focused on currently. Ask me again in January and maybe I'll have had some time to think about it." And if pulling that off meant having to release his new book in Mid Novemeber instead of shortly before the elections, he could have done just that.

Obama isn't up for election now, I'm sorry but I think his current book tour is a distracion right now from Democrats concentrating on winning an election two weeks from now. The national media loves a chance to talk about anything other than the issues that will decide this election. Obama 08. How convenient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. And then he would have been hounded for the next two weeks
by reporters trying to get him to answer the question.

The question was asked. He answered it. He didn't play cute or coy or evade. He said he's thinking about it.

This is a two-day story. If he had avoided answering it, it would have continued being a story until he did answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. It's tied in to his book tour. That's why he's suddenly everyhwere
That's what I meant about perhaps he should have delayed the release. A popular politician puts out a book shortly before an election, he gets invited on to all of the talk shows, then he gets asked about his future plans. Not hard to predict in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. The book release actually HELPS Dems
The Obama for president buzz is fairly new - just in the last couple of weeks. But the book release and tour have given the Dems a platform and a spotlight that they might not have had without it. It's provided him a way to not only go to traditional political events, but also hit bookstores, local television and radio, etc. throughout the country (and, not coincidentally, his tour has taken him to the battleground states). Everywhere Obama goes, he draws humongous crowds and everytime he opens his mouth, he talks up the Democrats - the party couldn't have bought this kind of exposure.

If he had waited until after the election to release his book, the Dems would have really missed a bet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Maybe.
I'll grant you that, but it is the combination of the timing with the way he's handled the questions about 08. I'm sorry but I don't agree that he would have been "hounded" if he didn't openly say that he was considering running in 08. Yes the media would have kept asking, and yes he would have kept being coy. There is nothing new about that, that is business as usual. The question comes up twice during each interview and both times you repeat that it is too soon to talk about it, I'm thinking about 2006 now not 2008.

If you were right about this only being a "two day story" as a result of how Obama has played it I will retract my comments in advance. However I think it will be a two week story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. I really think if he refused to answer, he would have been accused
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 03:42 PM by beaconess
of stringing this along to keep the attention on him.

This is what he actually said yesterday:

SEN. OBAMA: I don't want to be coy about this, given the responses that I've been getting over the last several months, I have thought about the possibility. But I have not thought it--about it with the seriousness and depth that I think is required. My main focus right now is in the '06 and making sure that we retake the Congress. After oh--after November 7, I'll sit down and, and consider, and if at some point, I change my mind, I will make a public announcement and everybody will be able to go at me.

MR. RUSSERT: But it's fair to say you're thinking about running for president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: It's fair, yes.

I think he handled this well - he stressed his focus on the 2006 elections, but didn't dodge the question. He said, "yes, I'm thinking about it." We spend a lot of time complaining that our leaders aren't straight shooters, that they won't come out and just tell the truth. Well, Obama did just that. I can't fault him for that.

But let's see how it plays out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. OK
It might be instructive either way. Just so you know, I do like Obama, and I usually prefer direct and straight forward answers. If this were happening 6 weeks from now, or even 6 weeks ago, it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. GOP media will hound Obama to distract from election, FOX has already begun!
Obama is wise to comment that he would be able to answer the Prez quetions at a later date...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
54. I'd like to see a lot more of him
and what he believes in before I could make such a comparison or consider voting for him. When I saw his convention speech in '04, I predicted he would eventually win the nomination, but I think its too soon and he would be a weak Democratic candidate in '08.

He is a very skilled speaker, I think he can connect with the audience very well. Its his decision making process on policy I need to know more about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. Yep.
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 04:04 PM by RUMMYisFROSTED



:D




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. We are talking about President Kennedy, here... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pyrzqxgl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
63. JFK only got the nomination in 1960 because progressives were divided
you forget that not only Stevenson, but Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Stuart Symington of Missouri were in the running along with a couple of favorite son candidates (I think the governor of New Jersey was one, & even Pat Brown of Ca. was talked about). Both Stevenson & Humphrey ran to the left of JFK. I was at the convention in LA that nominated him and I remember a lot of bitterness on the progressive side, particularly from AFL-CIO types who mostly backed Humphrey. When LBJ (who also ran for President quite a bit to the right of JFK) got the VP nod over HHH I remember talking with folks about "sitting this one out" but we all agreed that we just hated Nixon so much & dug in and worked our butts off for Kennedy. Thats the way its always been. Maybe someone you like and maybe someone you don't like will get the nomination in 2008, but anyone the Democrats put up is going to be so much better than what the Republicans will have to offer that you better suck it up and elect that Democrat. Its always been that way and every time folks got pissed and sat on their hands election day, they were sorry later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
64. Good luck in winning that election
without the progressives and the East and West Coast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 04:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC