it's official -- Obama is running for president

[beachmom]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/16/102642/321

If Gore is out, then I am glad Obama is in. But, of course, Kerry is my first choice forever and always.

[Mass]

1. Same here.

I hope John Kerry will run, but I am relieved that somebody I like will run.

[Inuca]

2. I asked in GD-P, but

I will also ask here: what exactly does an exploratory committe do? Apologies for the probably silly question, but I really don't know beyond what the words themsleves suggest.

[beachmom]

3. Others will answer better, but I think it sees if he can do the fundraising

necessary. Once you offically declare, I think there are more rules you have to follow.

But some of the primary veterans can expound on this.

[benny05]

73. It's more than fundraising

What viability does a candidate have to raise the ground boots organization?

Dodd is older, doesn't care. Obama has to wonder since he's only been to Iowa twice.

[Mass]

5. No silly question. It is a way to do everything a candidate can do

(like raising money, managing a team, ...) without actually be a candidate.

This said, it is not clear whether or not there is an advantage (except that you get to announce twice and get a boost twice). Vilsack, Edwards, and Dodd (I think) skipped this phase. Biden formed an exploratory committee.

[wisteria]

6. My interpretation is that an exploratory committee -it is a formality. It

sends out feelers to see if there is enough interest in the candidate running and to see how much money can possibly be raised.(although,most don't go this far if there is not enough interest). There are also legalities involved. I believe this allows a candidate to begin raising funds.
This is a simple explanation, I am sure some will have more detailed info.

[TayTay]

16. What are exploratory committees?

It is a requirement of the Federal Election Committee (FEC) that candidates who want to raise money, form an official committee announcing an intent to raise money for that office. This makes it easier to track that money.

Exploratory Committees Build Buzz
Candidates Drag Out Announcements to Get More Press

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A17

It is the season of exploration.

Everywhere you look, prospective 2008 presidential candidates are forming exploratory committees. Three leading Republicans and one prominent Democrat who have long been pursuing the presidency announced such committees in recent days, saying they are not ready to announce a real presidential committee, and so are taking an intermediate step to raise money and put together a campaign operation just in case they decide to run.

According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), there is no difference between an exploratory committee and a presidential campaign committee. The ideas behind creating an exploratory committee, strategists and experts say, are to create buzz -- and to do what everybody expects you to do.

"You get two press releases, one when you form the exploratory committee, and one when you say you're actually running," said Kenneth A. Gross, a lawyer specializing in politics and elections.

Dorothy James, a Connecticut College government professor who specializes in presidential elections, said creating an exploratory committee has become a routine campaign ploy. "A lot of people have to do it because it's done," she said. "There's no proof that bumper stickers and posters turn out more voters. But if everybody does it, then you do it."

More at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000854.html

List of FEC filings in '02-'04 for Sen. Kerry. http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/kerry/kerrfin.html

[Inuca]

7. Thanks for the replies n/t

[beachmom]

4. FYI on Kos: Delaware Dem is a big Obama supporter

This is why he did his "open letter to Kerry". He knows Kerry will blow Obama out of the water in debates, so it was a pre-emptive strike. We need to start figuring out who is who and for whom, so we understand what their agenda is.

It also explains why he rec'd the diary I wrote on Gore. He wants Obama, so that means he wants Gore out.

[wisteria]

8. I have a feeling just about everyone will blow Obama out of the water in debates, but

especially Kerry. Obama was not good on Sunday compared to McCain. McCain was wrong, but he talked like he was right- commanding if you will. Obama, although we have the upper hand and we are right, seemed unsure of himself and extremely concerned, and I mean extremely concerned about saying the wrong thing.

[Mass]

9. I think you underestimate him.

He is a fast learner and he has a knowledge. He certainly needs to improve his interviews and debate skills, but he knows the substance of the issues, contrarely to some other people who only use 60 sec clips.

Obama will learn, and will be a formidable adversary, IMO.

[wisteria]

17. He won the Senate race because other s faltered or were nut jobs.

He tried for a congressional seat and he lost, so he went back to where he could win and that the the state senate. He has had some lucky breaks, but I don' think- like Clinton that he has ever ran in a very tough race. I also think he may become a victim of the Harold Ford, kind. People will say they will vote for him, but when all is said and done, they won't and given any excuse not to just makes the choice easier.
I may be wrong, and I am certainly still not looking beyond Kerry. In fact, IF (and that is a big if) Senator Kerry doesn't run, I don't know who I will support. I can tell you who I won't at this point though- Senator Clinton.

[Mass]

18. I disagree. He won a difficult primary in IL.

Dismissing that is that same thing as arguing that Kerry should not run because he lost to *, but that Edwards and Clark that he beat somehow should run.

At this point, if Kerry does not run, I will support Obama. I may end supporting Clinton, because, as much as I dislike her, I dislike Edwards even more.

But, as I said again and again, I hope Kerry will run, and, as much as I like to disagree with people here, the longer he waits without giving signs, the more it is probable that he will not run. So, please, Senator, jump into the fray VERY SOON.

[karynnj]

19. I agree that he his Senate seat was a huge lucky break

but it gives him the appearance of being a big winner. In 2004, he had 2 nearly unprecedented big breaks. 1)The strongest Democratic contender and then his Republican opponent fell apart - and he ended up running against Keyes, who wasn't even from Illinois. 2) He, a little known state senator, was given the Keynote speech by Kerry.

The fact is though he used the speech, delivering an incredible speech very well. That was the basis for his reputation and superstar status. It is in fact all most people really know of him. His Illinois record is progressive and good. The problem is that he is inexperienced in Foreign policy, but no more so than Edwards.

[beachmom]

10. So he's already tightening up. That's a shame that it made McCain

look good.

I missed that, but I did read Tay Tay's posts about not being all that impressed.

[ray of light]

11. Try to look at this through non-political eyes.

Because what you see and what everyone else sees is different. Try to imagine the feelings or the last click moment that lives on with these appearances.

I have a hard time with evaluating candidates and their talk show appearances because I can easily see how people are swayed. Most people are wanting to be swayed by their own side. And those not already decided are looking for that little nugget of 'comfort' that one of the candidates will give them.

That's why you hear, "well...I just don't trust him...." It's nonverbal. It's an emotion and a gut instinct. It comes from the portion of the brain that deals with feelings and emotions, not logic. It's the way people go for something that feels good or feels right.

[ginnyinWI]

12. that's just it--it's an emotional connection

That's why * supporters hang on and on--it's not based on facts but feelings.

And how do you get that kind of support--there isn't any logical formula I don't think. You have it or you don't. JK has it--we can all attest to it. I don't think Hillary, for example, does.

Obama: I'm glad he's in, because he will make for interesting debates--especially if he debates JK. ;)

[karynnj]

15. Good idea - it's always good to know where people are coming from

and to do the second step you did - which was to identify what helps each candidate.

I think you are right that Kerry in hurts Obama. If the serious candidates are just Obama, Edwards and Hillary. He has the best chance to be the "anti-Hillary" and as things are going the "anti-Hillary" may well be better positioned than Hillary. He is a fresh face "Edwards", with far more claims to authenticity, at least as much total experience - especially as his experience as a civil rights lawyer and a constitutional law professor is relevant as is his 8 years in Illinois' legislature. Edwards may also lose his asset of being seen as "nice" if he continually isn't.

On one of the DU threads, a Clarkie made the point that Clark worked in public service for 30+ years rather than making a fortune - as I started to add Kerry did too, I realized that it was true of Gore, Dodd, Biden, Kerry, Dean, Obama (if you adjust the years) and Kerry. Edwards entered politics in 1998 with little prior public service. At that point he was 46. He was wealthy at least a decade before that. He is not really a grassroots activist. Consider Dean, as a doctor, got involved in a gorgeous bike path in the Burlington area when he was a doctor.

In addition to Obama and Edwards, there are Dodd and Biden. Kerry really is stronger than these two. If given a break (unlikely) or he makes one (as he did in 2005-2006), he may prevent either of these two from taking the "experienced anti-Clinton" position. Biden might actually be a Hillary substitute rather than an anti-Hillary. If Hillary has about a third of the vote, this could work out as the more traditional ABX movement. Where people may line up behind the strongest non-Hillary. This could well be Kerry after debates (if neither Dodd or Biden get much of the anti-war experienced candidate people) Imagine Hillary 33, Kerry 22, Obama 20 , Edwards 20, other 5 - as the first debate causes people to see Kerry, his positions and gravitas. Then he gets the comeback theme and who knows. I seriously can't see Dodd or Biden playing this role.

For Kerry, oddly, Edwards sinking too fast helps Obama.

[Mass]

13. Listen to his annoucement. What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMpsEniIB58

[beachmom]

14. Okay -- not much. I just re-read Tay Tay's comments as well

as what BLM said about him siding with the cover up wing of the Dem party. His campaign is based on covering up for Bush. That's a bad idea. It's not revenge, it's justice to hold these people to account for what they did. Their decisions have blown up this world leading to thousands of people dying. Bipartisanship means to first get rid of the criminals from our government and make sure they never work there EVER AGAIN. The same Iran/Contra crowd is back because we didn't hold them to account the last time.

Sigh. I hope Kerry runs.

I mean where's Iraq, where's the GWOT, where's the environment? This is not a good start. It's weak and empty.

[TayTay]

20. This announcement is weak

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

And that's what we have to change first.

We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

This won't happen by itself. A change in our politics can only come from you; from people across our country who believe there's a better way and are willing to work for it.

Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things.

Once again, I am not impressed. I heard Sen. Kerry say in April of 05 that the people must change politics. But he at least listed 5 issues that people could organize around and had the example of 'The Dirty Dozen' to say that the specific issues mattered and were a spur to activism.

This is wishy-washiness of the first order. Honestly, I think Sen. Obama sounds like he is running for the head of Unicef, not the United States. (Our problem in this country is that we can't all get along. No sir, our problems have to do with an economic structure that is dangerously off kilter and that threatens to destroy the middle class and we have an out of control military and defense industry that is warping our political values. These things are not amenable to sitting around the campfire and singing Kumbayah at the top of our voices. We must vigorously and loudly oppose the Republican agenda that is doing this, not break bread with them and find out how to make them happy little campers.)

Once again, I am not impressed. This is what people say who are running for High School Class PResident, not President of the United States. How disappointing.

[MarjorieG]

21. Definitely emotional

Unless the media creates the idea you are supposed to feel.

For those open to Kerry, we see integrity and loyal friends, with exquisite finesse on policy, well worth the devotion. He never disappoints.

Obama spoke at the Take Back America Conference, which some of DU attended, and he was captivating for a mixed room of progressives: union, celebrity, open or cynical, and racial, of course. It was a deliberate, studied performance. Richard Bell was there and mentioned he spoke in parables, relating everything to story, and it worked. I, of the cynical variety, noticed the bit lip, and I'm still not over the insincerity of Clinton. Enough away from the Clinton years, when I hear him, seems even more manipulative.

We'll see. I remember after 04, Al Franken said the only way we could win was with Obama. So it's a mixture of desparation, of wanting to assume great numbers of people and new voters will also fall in love, of wanting the hope thing.

When Kerry was about hope, the critics wanted more Bush bashing. He had to do it all, and it was an enormous task for someone getting introduced. He was also supposed to be responsible for every poll site and organization in the country, if you listen to those critics. There is a very unreal expectation of what everyone else and the candidate are to do.

An interesting ride, and whether the media will continue the McCain love-in to everyone's detriment. I do think people will be sold on Obama, to the exclusion of a sense of reality those not invested will see. Our primary voters are often pure emotion. Remember Edwards getting the sunshine nod.

[TayTay]

22. This is just deceptive and awful

ROCKVILLE, Md., Jan. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the nation's leading grassroots movement to encourage Illinois Senator Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) to run for President in 2008 announced the launch of "ObamaWasRight.com," an affiliated website and blog dedicated to discussion and solution-finding on the issue of the War in Iraq. The website was launched today in response to strong interest from participants in the DraftObama.org movement for creating a forum specific to issues concerning the war. It highlights Senator Obama's uniquely consistent position in opposition to the war in Iraq among the six leading presidential hopefuls in both parties.

"Although he could easily be the 'I-told-you-so candidate,' Senator Obama has shown remarkable statesmanship by focusing not on the past, but on the future," said Ben Stanfield, DraftObama.org founder. "Our new site, 'ObamaWasRight.com' will become a leading forum for Americans who appreciate that Senator Obama has been consistently opposed to the Iraq War, and who want to follow his lead, and help in the process of finding non-partisan approaches to bringing our troops home."

http://tinyurl.com/smfsn

A non-partisan approach to bringing our troops home. OMFG! That is the worst idea I've heard since Bush said let's start a war in Iraq. OMFG!

[kerrygoddess]

24. Who was right?

I checked and someone already has Kerrywasright.com, but no one had JohnKerrywasright.com until just a few moments ago. Someone does now. :) I'm totally overloaded with biz, blogs, etc but if anyone is interested in getting the website going let me know. Otherwise I'll hold it in limbo until I find some time.

[Democrafty]

27. Why not just redirect to DemDaily? n/t

[kerrygoddess]

29. That's a thought.

Ultimately it would be more effective to create a blog on the domain however.

[Democrafty]

42. I agree, but it's a good short-term solution. n/t

[wisteria]

28. I agree, and I have heard him say this himself. I intend to call him out on it.

It is as you say, deceptive and disingenuous. He was an Ill. State Senator at the time of the vote, not involved with the vote at all. To say, you wouldn't of voted for it, when you were never in a position to make a "real" choice and use it as a tool against probably opponents is despicable. He should be ashamed of himself for even mentioning it.

Besides, I have always felt, it was more important to err on the side of caution,security and public safety, when faced with the possibility of harm coming to this country.

[beachmom]

37. "Was" is the key. Obama WAS right about the war.

He gave a great speech in '02. However, since he's entered the Senate he's been DEAD WRONG on Iraq. Only Kerry can take him down with this, since he has the voting record (K/F amendment) to illustrate how wrong Obama has been. Hillary voted the same as Obama, and Edwards . . .


UURRRHHHHH -- I could write a book about how Edwards is the biggest joke. He's just catering to the anti-war crowd, even though he has NOTHING in his record to back up this anti-war sentiment. And what's his FP vision?

The real race, if Kerry enters is:

Hillary vs. Kerry

Hillary is going to come out with an FP speech some time soon, and I bet you there WILL be meat in there, just not the meat we're looking for. Only Kerry can counteract her.

Run, John, run!!!

[ProSense]

23. He has every right to run, but

I'm not impressed. First, Obama does not have the experience. The last thing this country needs is another test-run presidency. Second, experience isn't about ideas, it's about the ability to apply a personal and relevant frame of reference to each situation, to translate ideas into strategy, to know how to adapt when Plan A doesn't work, to exercise exemplary judgment, and to be visionary in one's approach to policy. Obama has a lot of ideas, that's it. Third, Obama's entire statement is about the political climate---it's all about bipartisanship (bipartisanspit, bipartisanspin). The concept of working together is fine, but the Republican machine of the past six years has nothing to do with lack of cooperation from Democrats. Democrats were at a table headed up by Republicans who were serving up lies, complicity and corruption. Bipartisanship isn't a policy, and it doesn't always result in good policy. So, I'm not buying it.

Obama's position on the war reflects this obsession with the political climate. I agree with Tay, he is asking people to die for a bipartisan solution to war. The war is wrong, start there and end it. We need leadership, which encompasses working together, but it also means making the case when one must stand on conviction, when it is the right thing to do.

[Democrafty]

26. I really like what you said about bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake is so meaningless. It's a non-idea and, basically, a way of pushing everybody's values aside and saying they don't matter.

[wisteria]

31. Leiberman comes to mind. n/t

[wisteria]

30. Ask yourself this question, what does he do when trying to "get along"

doesn't work? How does he go about making it work and how does he go about getting things done. You know the repubs aren't going to just roll over and play fair just because Obama wants them too.
I am sorry, he appears to be nothing more than a feel good candidate. This country needs more than just the idea of good feelings.

[_dynamicdems]

33. Well stated.

I couldn't agree more.

We can't afford the gamble. Our country is too screwed up to go for someone with ideas and little experience. We need real leadership now.

I'd only choose Obama for the same thing Kerry chose him for in 2004: let him give speeches. That's his strong suit. He can give a good speech. That does not necessarily a president make. Point in case: Bush. Bush never mastered the English language but he was good at speaking to the least common denominator of the voting public. Appeal based on how you sound as opposed to what you have done is simply wrong. It's false advertising.

I'm for Kerry but if it came down to Obama or Clinton, I'd pick Hillery Clinton. I think most people will flirt with Obama and vote for Clinton. She's not perfect; from it, but she's a known quantity. And I think that is precisely why Obama is in the race: to help Clinton. That's just my opinion and I could be totally wrong, but something about his political caution and his mysterious rise in the polls makes me more than a little suspicious.

edit: If Kerry isn't running, I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton. I'll make a protest vote and either write in Kerry or vote for Kuchinich in the primary. Of course, it goes without saying that the nominee will get my full support even if I have to hold my nose.

[wisteria]

35. I have been considering the same thing. He is being used by the party. n/t

[_dynamicdems]

39. Maybe he's being used, maybe he's making a deal with the devil.

That's the one thing that rubs me wrong about Obama: he seems to be too willing to play ball. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but these are the vibes I'm getting.

He may actually be in the race for other reasons. Also, we can't forget that Kerry chose him in 2004 to give that speech at the convention. And consider that Clinton was supposed to get the AR vote hands down, but that has changed with consideration of Obama as a candidate. Perhaps Obama will knock down Hillary's edge and actually help Kerry should our favorite senator decide to run.

I'm not saying that Obama is a closet Kerry supporter. Far from it. But his candidacy might be used to the benefit of a Kerry run.

That's the thing about this game: you never know.

[kerrygoddess]

25. ‘08 Watch: Obama Is In

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5128

On Gore, from what I read last night on MYDD the news articles that he was not running were deceptive.

[wisteria]

32. That was good. n/t

[wisteria]

34. Obama-the audacity to think he is ready to be President.

I am sorry for those I offend, but this though has been running through my head.

[Mass]

36. Well. This could have been said for many, including John Kennedy!

This certainly applies to other running in the 08 race at this point as well.

[beachmom]

38. Kennedy had a lot more federal congressional experience

Look, Mass, I was with you about Obama, and then I saw that video. As a voter, I feel responsible for my vote, and I'm REALLY worried about Obama. "This Moment on Earth" is very scary and we need someone who is up to the task. Obama is not.

I suppose if he had, you know, Kerry as his VP maybe we could salvage him, but when I think about the danger in the world as well as the environment, only Kerry (and Gore, if he were to run, which he's not) can do that job.

The Republicans will be a disaster.

I can't believe I'm feeling this way -- but he scares me, he's so green.

[Mass]

40. No reason to argue. We totally agree that Kerry would be the best,

and I sincerely hope he will run, because I am feeling the same way you do.

This said, I am starting to evaluate the options in case Kerry does not run (and I wish nothing more than him showing some signs he will run, I think I may have been too vocal for some here on this subject). The truth is that, in this case, of all those who run, Obama is the only one I feel will try to find the best solution without being stuck in his ego or in an absurd party line. It is true that I would prefer that he has a little more experience, but there is also a question of being able to trust somebody and there are so many in the list that I do not trust).

(Politics in the US is still a strange "game" for me. There is no way either Obama or Edwards would even been considered seriously for president in France. Imagine that the two main candidates for the 07 elections are both considered inexperienced because they have never been prime minister (!!!), though they have been in Congress or in cabinet positions for the last 20+ years. )

On edit: I also know that I need to learn about Obama's policies. I definitively disagree on some like supporting coal liquefaction. It seems totally contradictory with fighting global warming.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/16/muckraker/index_np.html

[karynnj]

44. The coal idea sounds horrible

Wasn't there some preprocessing of coal that was being recommended years ago to "clean" the coal of some toxins before burning. Although I guess that couldn't help with carbon - unless there were a way to capture all the carbon.

It bothers me that it has to do with Illinois having coal. (I wonder what Gore thinks of this.)

[wisteria]

41. John Kennedy was older and had a military, and diplomatic background.

The times were different, and I think side by side, Kennedy was a more commanding figure.
I don't think it is a good start that he has been given a cheese cake shot in People Magazine. They are selling the looks and the good message because there isn't much else to sell.
But, I am sorry, I am getting over the top with Senator Obama. I know you like him, and I will respect that from now on.

[Mass]

43. Peace!

:-)

Feel free to be as negative as you want about Obama if you feel like that. I am sure I made some people mad with my opposition to Edwards.

(Also, I agree on the photo , but he may have been a little bit overwhelmed with his popularity, I suspect. But what an idiot thing to do.)

[BlueIris]

45. I realize this is going to look callous to some, but: I'm not done laughing yet.

Good luck, Senator Obama. But I hope you put a stop to this charade before you waste too much of any supporter's hard earned money.

[WildEyedLiberal]

46. I rather resent that he doesn't even plan to serve out his full term

I elected him to serve the state of Illinois for six years - that's all I ask, one full term to the office to which he was elected. I'd love to see Illinois better represented in national politics, trust me. But not like this. Obama is famous for ONE speech. One. I hadn't even heard of him in the primaries in 2004 - I voted for Dan Hynes, the state comptroller, because I liked him and he was a known quantity to me. But I'm not from Chicago, so I may as well be a nonentity as far as Illinois state politics goes. :eyes:

I get the impression that Obama is a very intelligent, nice man. I like him. But is it so damn wrong for me to want him to serve the PEOPLE who elected him to national office? Of course, I suppose it's hard for him to remain humble when he has the entire Democratic party licking his boots because of a lovely speech he gave two years ago. :eyes:

[Noisy Democrat]

47. I think they should run the kid who wrote the speech

Apparently a lot of it was written by a 26-year-old, so I guess he can't run for a few years. But it's true, Obama's main claim to fame is one speech. When he doesn't have that kid writing for him, he's not even that great a speaker.

[whometense]

51. Is that so?

Interesting. On Hardball tonight all the idiot talking heads were blathering about how Obama is the only dem candidate who can write. I kid you not. Do you think they pump noxious gas into their heads before they're allowed to appear on camera? How can they spout such utter crap???

[Noisy Democrat]

54. I heard it from someone

who knew the writer personally. My friend was working as an aide to someone in Congress and got to know a lot of people there, including this one young aide/speechwriter. She said he was one of 3 contributors to the DNC speech but wrote a substantial part of it, and that he was definitely the main writer for Obama's other one decent speech, that commencement address he gave that was so good. Those two speeches have a distinctive style that seems clearly scripted by the same person, and they're very different than the soporific stuff Obama usually comes out with, so I'm inclined to believe she had basically the right story, though of course I don't know how intensely she grilled this guy as to the exact percentage of it that was his contribution. But the bottom line was that she was sure that what was good about those two speeches was primarily the handiwork of this one aide.

[Island Blue]

48. True WEL. At least we here in NC did get a full term out of Edwards.

Sort of. He was elected and then pretty much immediately started running for president. I guess we got maybe 3.5 good years out of him. That was disappointing to me because Democrats (on a national level) just don't grow on trees here. Sigh.

[TayTay]

49. Hey, welcome back

How are you doing?

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. Howdy

I haven't been around much because I have some personal crap to sort out... I should know more about that in a week or so. Basically, I am pretty sure I'll have to have heart surgery in the next couple of months or so. I'm going to meet with the surgeon next week to discuss everything and perhaps schedule a tentative date. Of course, this is my last semester of college too, so that's not stressful or anything to plan around.

But I'm doing fine, really. I just needed to step back from the stress of the blogworld for a few weeks - nothing makes my blood pressure spike like some of the brain-dead tools in the political world, and I think exacerbating my blood pressure right now would be a bad idea.

But I'm doing fine, thanks, though I doubt I'll be around much for a while... I'll be sure to keep everyone posted, though, once I know what's going on.

[whometense]

52. Be well, sweetie.

Do what you need to do to take care of yourself. :hug:

[wisteria]

53. Yes, please, look after yourself. n/t

[karynnj]

55. Take care of yourself

You are an incredibly special amazing person.

[ProSense]

56. Take really good care of yourself WEL.

I heart you!

[Mass]

58. Take care of yourself, WEL.

[beachmom]

59. Please know we're thinking about you.

May you be well, and when you are able to allow your blood pressure to go up again, we'll see you on the blogs.

[MBS]

57. good luck to you

Get yourself graduated, and get yourself well, and let us know how you are. I really miss your posts. Your fresh, right-on-the-money observations are always a treat.
(And, yeah, I agree with you about Obama, especially how all the adulation seems to have messed up his head. My hope has been that Obama's intelligence and (former) self-deprecating persona would keep him from going crazy over the attention and would lead him to the common-sense conclusion that he wasn't ready yet. My fear was that his intelligence wouldn't be enough, and that he would lose his head over the attention: if he DID decide to run, it would be a sign that he had lost his moorings. This seems to have happened, and it makes me sad.
My son is in Chicago, and was an enthusiastic early supporter of Obama in the primaries, and even the general election. But his support now seems much subdued: the words "sleaze" and "typical political " have escaped from his lips from time to time, along with disappointment in his voting record . And my son doesn't seem at all happy about the prospect of a presidential run, both because of the lack of experience factor and the way he seems (despite the claims of his speech yesterday) NOT to be really about change, at least judging from his performance in the Senate so far.

[whometense]

60. Interesting article in The Nation on Obama's candidacy

by John Nichols: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=157760

Pretty clear-eyed, I think.

...Democrats like Barack Obama. But they don't necessarily know what it is about him that appeals to them.

Obama's challenge is to quickly provide grassroots Democrats with a rationale for his candidacy. There will be a lot of discussion about how he must compete with Clinton, but that's not the challenge. If she runs, Clinton will do so as what she is: a cautious centrist with lots of money and prominent support but with dubious grassroots appeal.

Obama's real challenge will be to make sure that he compares favorably with Edwards. The 2004 Democratic nominee for Vice President has done a reasonably good job of identifying himself as the Democrat who wants to bring the troops home from Iraq and address fundamental issues of economic and social injustice at home. And he has spent a lot of time talking about those issues with the party faithful in the states where Democratic activists and voters will make or break Democratic candidates. Already, Edwards is beginning to attract the endorsements--particularly from labor union leaders and members--and the volunteer base that he needs in states such as Iowa and Nevada. Obama will have to move quickly, and seriously, if he wants to block not just Clinton but Edwards. That is the only way for him to transform his star power into the practical support base for a winning candidacy.

[beachmom]

61. You know, with all the ranting against people who fell for all the

Bush lies, why are so many Democrats falling for Edwards, when all his talk is NOT backed up by a record? He has NO RECORD to back up his rhetoric!! No anti-war record from ANY WAR. No career whatsoever in really helping poor people -- just that poverty center which was just a parking area to launch his presidential campaign. I mean, I'm flabbergasted at how gullible people are. He's an oily salesman just saying whatever people want to hear. Who knows WHAT he'll do if he actually got to the WH.

[whometense]

62. I happen to agree with you.

It may be just me, but I've already sensed some cooling off over Obama. He's certainly not as white hot as he was a few months ago.

I've said from the beginning that I have no idea what he really stands for - besides ambition. People have mocked Kerry's ambition for years - but look how long he served in public office before he decided he wanted to run for president. I honor him for that, and have little patience with Obama and Edwards. I've heard all the comparisons with JFK - but frankly, he was probably too inexperienced too, and we paid some price for that inexperience.

This stuff reminds me of the Dean boom, though. There's a big difference between excitement about a candidate and actually casting your vote for that person.

[wisteria]

63. Me too. It seems to be about winning and nothing more.

Our party seems so shallow to me right now. To many still fall for the idea that in order to attract the south we need a Southern candidate and in order to win we need someone like Bill Clinton. Right now, I am disgusted with the mod mentality displayed at OKs and DU. Credentials mean nothing it seems, working for the people and really getting things accomplished mean nothing. It is who can put on the best show and snicker the people into voting for them.
I still feel Kerry is a breath of fresh air in this campaign if he decides to enter it. The problem is the hype for the others makes raising money an issue. But, I keep asking myself this, does our party really believe we can win a general election with an Obama or a Clinton or even an Edwards when they may be up against the RW machine and someone with credentials like McCain?
IMO, our party is right at this moment setting ourselves up for another loss.

[MBS]

64. "Our party seems so shallow.. right now"

Boy do I ever agree with you. . .it's SOOOO frustrating .

[whometense]

65. Did anyone see last night's Daily Show coverage

of his announcement?

A choir of angels preceded Obama. :rofl:

Thank god for Jon Stewart, puncturer of pomposity.

[wisteria]

66. I am glad that Stewart is exposing the hype surrounding Obama.

I am fed up with it all. My gosh, he is only a mortal man, with very little record and no documented cases of real leadership. Yet, Obama can part the seas and take us to the promised land. :sarcasm:

[Inuca]

68. Or cure sickness by his touch

That's from another Daily Show a little while back

[wisteria]

69. LOL! n/t

[Mass]

67. Did you read Vennochi's column this morning?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/18/not_quite_the_next_jfk/
Not quite the next JFK

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | January 18, 2007

DELIVER A dynamite speech. Grab some quick time in Washington. Write two best-selling books. And, last but not least, look real fine in a bathing suit .


Barack Obama is making headway in presidential politics by following a formula John F. Kennedy would appreciate: promise change, ooze charisma, and downplay experience.

The junior senator from Illinois also brings a new element to the JFK equation: his race. He is aiming to become the nation's first black president.

The Kennedy model works well for Obama, but only up to a point.

Compared with Obama, JFK was a seasoned political veteran. When he announced his presidential candidacy in January 1960, Kennedy had already represented Massachusetts in Congress for 13 years, first in the House of Representatives and then in the US Senate. Even that resume didn't stop Richard M. Nixon, the vice president and Republican nominee, from challenging Kennedy's gravitas and credentials for the White House during one of their legendary televised debates.

Kennedy benefited from the new, 20th-century media environment, with looks and grace that easily won out over Nixon's sweaty lip and grim demeanor.

So far, Obama loves the media, and the media love him back. But there's peril in its infinite 21st-century embrace. For an illustration, go to YouTube.com, search "John Edwards hair," and watch two minutes and one painful second of the former senator from North Carolina fixating on his locks to the tune of "I Feel Pretty."

Obama will have to negotiate those same YouTube waters; he already got a taste of what is to come from that swimsuit shot taken by pap arazzi while he was vacationing with his family in Hawaii.

The Illinois senator is promoting a vaguer version of JFK's "New Frontier." In the "Message from Barack" posted on his website to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, Obama told voters , "I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics." Details, presumably, will follow about the precise nature of the different kind of politics he is talking about.


...


While Obama has a good model to follow, he has a way to go before he deserves billing as the next JFK.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is [email protected]

I like Obama and will probably support him if nothing better appears (hint, hint: where is JK), but all this hype is getting on my nerves. What does he propose, except being different? At least, Dean had positions on issues, the first of them was to oppose the Iraq invasion with determination. Obama did this in 2002, but where is he now with getting out of Iraq.

[wisteria]

70. I rarely agree with Vennochi, but this time, she is on the mark.

We already have a president that promised to be a uniter and not a divider in 2000 and we know what happened there. Why would people think Obama would have the magic touch to bring all of Washington together and unit them in one cause- America?
I think I would rather vote for Dodd if JK doesn't jump in, rather than Obama. But, I an not lost to his appeal.

[ginnyinWI]

71. I would think people want "experience" above all else

All they have to do is think of this country's need for good foreign relations, as well as solutions to our big domestic problems. It will take more than promises and ideals. It will take an experienced leader at the helm to guide us back out of troubled waters. The repubs will look for their most seasoned Republican, and the Dems should, too. It will take more than somebody who has a good speaking voice and nice smile.

The media people are different; that's exactly what they want--glitter, sparkle and pizzazz. But that may not be where the people are, because they're anxious.

Remember not too long ago how everyone said a Senator couldn't win the nomination and that governors were the best bet to run for president? JK has changed all of that; now the field is choking with Senators from both parties eager to jump in and try their luck. This shows that what people want is someone who knows Washington and how it works, and they aren't willing to pull some governor out of some state and wait for them to get their on the job training once they become president.

[MBS]

72. I think (hope) so , too n/t