Well, his middle name is Hussein, and his last name sounds like "Osama," and over the course of the next two years right-wing radio will never let America hear the end of it.

Prediction: Osama Hussein Obama will not be elected President.

What about John Dickerson's article in Slate about a supposedly "shady" real-estate deal?

It's starting...

Prediction: Whoever wins the Dem nomination will kick repukeliscum butt by 6 % points.

Kevin, think about it. We want him to be the candidate.

The Obama boom is just something designed to sell newspapers during a slow news period. The man is bright, articulate, good-looking, maybe even charismatic. Also he's black. All good things for a potential candidate.

But, his entire career consists of 2 years in the Senate. The coutry did elect W, JFK, and Clinton with limited relevent experience, but even these tyros had much bigger resumes than Obama. Especially when we're more-or-less at war with radical Islam, the country will look for maturity and military expertise -- a phrase that precisely describes John McCain.

Better idiots, please.

I hear McCain and Romney are fighting over Michael Richards for campaign manager. They only have about a year to come up with palatable euphemisms for "Nigger". Better get cracking.

There is also, of course, the little matter of his racial background. The mouth-breathers won't attack it directly, of course, but they'll deliver plenty of the usual winking, dog-whistle messages to the base.

ex-liberal. agreed.

the experience issue is what keeps him from being a plausible presidential candidate.

especially after Dubya.

(rebuttals based on W.'s relative inexperience miss the point -- not only did he have more political experience than Obama, but the last thing the public wants is another inexperienced president -- from either party).

of course, age is the main concern with McCain. we might yet end up with Romney.

I do think that any Democrat nominee for Pres would be an idiot not to pick Obama as a runningmate.

Obama-mania will flame out long before the nominee is chosen. there's just not enough there to sustain the press' interest for the next two years.

The concern trolls are here, I see.

I have to agree, though, that he'll only be referred to as "Barack Hussein Osama--oh, I'm SO sorry, Obama" by Rush and ilk for the next two years.

(With any luck, he'll be using "President Osama--oh, I'm SO sorry, Obama" for eight years after that 8^)

Especially when we're more-or-less at war with radical Islam, the country will look for maturity and military expertise -- a phrase that precisely describes John McCain.

I think both "maturity" and "military expertise" more precisely describe Wesley Clarke than John McCain.

It's early, Kevin, the repukes won't bring out their big guns for another year, at least.

The local rightwing talk show guy has used the "you know, he's not really able to speak for inner city blacks because he isn't one. Why his father is Kenyan and his mother is white, so what a hypocrite he is for identifying with black democrats!"

I think he's just trying the theme out, much as if it were an off-Broadway tryout, to see what sort of invective laced e-mail he gets. If there's a lot, he may try to go national with it. I wonder if he sells the rights to Sean and Rush and what kind of market there is?

Unfortunately, "freaking nuts" also describes Mr. Clark (the guy with the "e" at the end is Richard Clarke).

Has everyone forgotten about his attempt to start WWIII?

It may be that it's his church that's the problem.

GHWB and Straight Talk

What is it about getting shot out of the sky that qualifies as "military expertise"?

Heck, Wrong Way Corrigan many have had more military expertise than them.

The smears are not just coming from the GOP -- they are also coming from faux progressives. Check out mydd.com, especially anything written by Matt Stoller.

I have five interview questions for all those vying for the top job in 2008, and those answers will determine who I support.

his last name sounds like "Osama," and over the course of the next two years right-wing radio will never let America hear the end of it.

Don't forget that the first person to call him "Osama" was Ted Kennedy. Maybe that shouldn't count, since Teddy may have been drunk at the time.

A2.) General Wesley Clark; and not just yes, but hell yes!!!

A while back someone mentioned that Clark wasn't eligible to be Secretary of Defense until 2010. I'm pushing for Anthony Zinni myself, but was told he wasn't eligible either. Anyone know if that's true?

My dream ticket, although technically impossible, would a Clark/Obama ticket. Salman Rushdie at State. Zinny at Defense.

I don't even want to know what the GOP is going to through next time. It's all well and good to joke about it now, but I imagine it will be ugly and embarass the country. Oh well.

For the record, Obama had several years in the IL state legislature. I'm unimpressed by his work there, but he did serve in that capacity. That said, I don't think you can compare Obama's experience to that of Clinton or JFK. Clinton was a successful governor and attorney general. He had some 13 years of government experience with executive duties. JFK was in the House and Senate much longer than Obama--and he was a war hero. Obama's resume doesn't approach JFK's or Clinton's. One thing for Obama, he has probably had elected office longer than John Edwards (who I only credit with four years, since his last two were spent helping John Kerry lose.)

My alternate, in the absence of eligibility by Clark would be Sam Nunn. I'm sure he is enjoying retirement and would be none to eager to take on the task of cleaning up after the elephants, but being a true Patriotic American, he would once more step up and serve, recognizing the good of the many outweighs the good of the few (h/t to Spock in Wrath of Kahn the best Star Trek ever.)

BTW: I already updated my post to indicate my preference for Nunn if Calrk is unavailable.

Homophobic Sam Nunn who virtually single-handed delivered the gay wedge issue into the hands of the GOP?!!

No way!

--TGM

never mind that Zinni is calling for a troop surge to Iraq....

But, his entire career consists of 2 years in the Senate.

Bzzzt. Wrong. He was a leglislator in the state of Illinois. In fact, as several other people have pointed out, his political experience is quite similar to another famous former Senator from Illinois: Lincoln. Yep, that's right wingnuts, your favorite example of great GOP presidents had exactly as much experience as Obama will have by the 2008 general election.

A sultry blonde saying: "Barack, call me?"

You and Steve haven't been watching CNN, have you Kevin?

Barack Obama and Ahmadinejad. Separated at Birth?!

Essentially, the end of the piece (which tries to be tongue in cheek, but ends up stupid and borderline insideous), Greenfield links Ahmadinejad to Obama because they both wear sports jackets and shirts without ties. Of course, he has to mention the fact his name issues of course.

Senior Analysts outside of the Daily Show really don't need to thrust mindless drivel like this on major news channels as campaign analysis, no matter how jokey it's meant to be. Because there will be dumbasses who take it seriously and...you get the idea.

Down goes Frazier: um, you miss the point.

Edo: um, you miss the point. (btw, state legislature "experience" hardly counts. but as I noted above, inexperience doesn't disqualify someone...but I think after eight years of W. (who had more experience in 2000 then Obama does now) it does make someone unelectable. he is perfect running mate material though.)

All they have are smears. A year ago they were smearing Brent Scocroft, for cryin' out loud. Although Obama has more experience than given credit, anything even smacking of Bush will be radioactive. I don't think that will hurt him, although it's pretty much impossible to see 270 Electoral votes in his future - a fact that a lot of Dems don't seem to mind, which is ominous. The big thing I like about him right now is how he is deflating Hillary.

(btw, state legislature "experience" hardly counts. but as I noted above, inexperience doesn't disqualify someone...but I think after eight years of W. (who had more experience in 2000 then Obama does now)

Really? What federal office did Bush hold?

My, my, my!

The Gay Millionaire slams Hormonal Citizen!

Can I get a bucket of popcorn and watch from the wings?

Nathan, George W Bush had significantly less political experience, as the Texas governor's office was effectively a no-show job. State legislators actually do work, and anyone who decides to get "into politics" would be better off and would contribute more by working for and campaigning with their local state legislator then moving to Washington, DC, in my opinion.

One can validly say that Obama is not experienced, but one could certainly not compare the Bush of 2000 favorably to Obama.

The Gay Millionaire slams Hormonal Citizen!

Au contraire, mon cherie. I disagree with Global Citizen but I slammed divisive Sam Nunn.

Add butter to your popcorn and I'll show you where you can put your popcorn, lover.

Kiss, kiss, Normie.

Tyro, Stefan:

I didn't say that I'd compare Bush favorable to Obama -- but at least Bush had government executive experience. (substantially the same as Clinton's).

there's no question that governorships are the path to the White House now.

but, as I noted (and as did MaxGowan), the real reason why Obama's inexperience makes him unelectable is eight years of W.

I agree with TGM; Sam Nunn cannot be trusted, not so much because he is a homophobe, but because he stabbed Clinton in the back and helped set the stage for 94. He's more Dixie than he is 'Crat.

I eagerly await the Democrats smearless, dirtless, issues only 2008 campaign.
As for St. Barack, recall that in his Senate run his main primary opponent and his popular general election opponent both fell to well-timed "discoveries" of arguably irrelevant domestic allegations. Looks like he can dish it out...

Nathan - I'm no fan of the Clintons, but Clinton had far more experience than Bush and held other offices. And Clinton did actually push Arkansas into the Twentieth Century. Bush made Texas worse off in his mere six years as Gov. Overall, Bush had the most slender resume of any incoming president. And it shows.

"State legislators actually do work, and anyone who decides to get "into politics" would be better off and would contribute more by working for and campaigning with their local state legislator then moving to Washington, DC, in my opinion."

For the record, I entirely agree with this statement.

MaxGowan:

that may be true (I think one can argue convincingly that Bush's record as Texas gov. was positive, though not exactly astounding) but it's hardly germane to the point.

whiskey man, well in the general election it was probably what's-his-name's (Reynolds?) ex-wife seeking revenge...I doubt that anyone actually needed to do anything on Obama's behalf to spread the story.

but, yeah, it was a smear job.

Nathan, I don't disagree with you about the experience of the last 8 years leading us to be more careful about electing such inexperienced, shallow cyphers such as W into the presidency, but you wrote that W "had more experience in 2000 then[sic] Obama does now." That statement is certainly untrue and did not have the "executive" qualifier that you added in a later post. Also, the nature of the Texas governorship is such that it's not exactly a training ground for would-be government "executives."

Nathan - Maybe not. But please be careful about comparing Bush's pre-Prez with Clintons. (Clinton had twice the state government experience; 2 at AG, 10 as Gov.)

Back to the topic, I think the Dem Prez obsessiveness this early on is precisely because of Bush's miserable failure as president.

But talk to any middle-age Black man or woman, and you will likely find a different view of Obama than white liberals. At least that's my experience to date. Middle age Black folk are a lot less optimistic - and worry about his safety. Gee, I wonder why. What might they know . . .

TGM: I admit I forgot about that. My impressions of him are strictly from his service on SASC, which to us military types is in overall pretty positive.

Norman, unlike you, I welcome having my ideas challenged. Since no one can know everything, it's a welcome part of the process.

(Now back to the kitchen. My potatos should be cool enough to make the latkes now. My 2-year old granddaughter is spending the first night of Hannukah at Bubbe's house. This is so cool! I'm Bubbe!)

Since when did the American people start caring about experience as a criteria for governing? The presidency of George W. Bush is a prime example of how a good campaign can erase any personal or professional handicaps. In any event, Obama is a long shot. He would have to be supported by the non-DLC arm of the party and this wing is not as well organized or connected. If he does get the nomination it will be revolutionary. A presidential win would open up a new era in American politics.

A run for the presidential nomination will help transform Obama from a celebrity to a national politician of importance. Even the low hanging fruit is a boon for his career.

"That statement is certainly untrue and did not have the "executive" qualifier that you added in a later post."

a. it is true.

b. it didn't need a "qualifier" since that was the obvious point of the post. (at least it should have been obvious)

Name me a state that Obama can win that Gore or Kerry couldn't.

Props to you, Global Citizen. I appreciate your ability to hear another's objection.

Happy Hannukah, Bubbe!

--TGM

MaxGowan:

actually, the answer is "any"

Gore and Kerry are not viable candidates (losing to W. proves that). Obama is a better candidate than either of them. But after W. he's not currently electable (that changes by 20012).

Mark Warner would have made the most sense -- though there are the inevitable rumors that there was a skeleton in his closet that prompted him to bow out... If that is not the case and he really just didn't want to be president -- color me impressed...that's a rare man.

Neoconservative "ex-liberal" wrote: The coutry did elect W, JFK, and Clinton with limited relevent experience, but even these tyros had much bigger resumes than Obama.

Y'know, it's true...Obama hasn't racked up nearly the record of poor character and filure that Bush had before running for President.

TGM: I have no problem with anyones opinion, even when they disagree with me...So long as they are not clinically insane. And those I am speaking of? You know who you are...

whiskey man, well in the general election it was probably what's-his-name's (Reynolds?) ex-wife seeking revenge.

No ex-wife revenge. Obama's (first) opponent in the general was Ryan (I forget which one -- we have so many Ryans in politics in IL). He and his ex-wife, the actress Jeri Ryan (best known for playing Seven of Nine in Start Trek), were both fighting to keep their divorce records sealed. It was the local Chicago papers that successfully fought to have the info made public.

I should also add that the general outline of Ryan's skeletons had already been leaked during the primary campaign by one of his fellow GOP challengers.

And the Chicago papers fought to have her chest displayed as often as possible, as well.

Gregory: Obama hasn't racked up nearly the record of poor character and filure that Bush had before running for President.

As Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers, Bush made himself a multi-millionaire and made the silent parters a lot of money. Perhaps Stefan has made as much money as Bush, but few others on this Board have matched Bush's success in private industry.

experience? i dunno. seems there was a politician from illinois elected president with minimal national experience — and at a time when the country was facing its biggest crisis ever. i'm not comparing the two, but funny things can happen in election years.

I’m sorry to say this to my fellow regs here at PA, but many of you are truly, truly fucked up.

Obama is as much of a real deal as anyone who has a good chance of winning the electoral vote. He is whip smart, charismatic, the product of an amazing life experience, and habituated to success. God forbid that we nominate some one with a first rate legal mind who can reach out and excite blue collar voters. Actually, we have done that recently, 1992 and 1996.

Wesley Clark? I have a bath sponge with more personality. He makes Michael Dukakis seem like Mr. Excitement. Puleeese!

Global – Sam Nunn? Good Christ. (Happy Hanukah, btw)

A slim resume? I recall another pol from Illinois who had a slimmer vita, he did ok.

Gore and Hillary – more baggage than my boyfriend at a Macy’s sale.

In politics, timing is everything. As the old idiom advises, “Strike while the iron is hot.” The stars seem to be aligning and it sure seems like this is Sen. Obama’s time. Let’s hitch our wagon to him and enjoy the ride.

Of course few others (none?) on this board had a rich daddy with the connections that Bush did to make him a pile of money as the figure head of a connected conglomerate.

Interesting that the way supposed small-gov free-market and all that Bush made his fortune on a crooked land deal based on ripping off the taxpayers to build a baseball stadium.

Keith, to be fair I thought the whole discussion of Clark and Nunn was about Sec of Defense.

Keith G.:

Obama's peaking kind of early isn't he?

Disputo: consider me corrected re: Ryan

FAUXLib,

Shrub did not make himself a multi-millionaire by any of his doing. The deal was set up originally by a sweetdeal involving the land surrounding the stadium. The group that owned the Rangers could not develop the land themselves - However, in the event they sold the team, the new owner could develop the land. Bush was given money to invest in the team and also brought in as GM.

The group, including Shrub, sold the team to a Texas developer for mega bucks. This is when Shrub became a multi-millionaire.

It was the development rights which made the Rangers valuable, not the team itself.

Oh, by the way, after becoming Texas Governor, which does not have the power the Lt Gov does, Shrub appointed the buyer of the Rangers as a Regent of the U of Texas.

Doesn't Schaife have a research library?

Agreed with Keith G.

The slim resume charge is most bizarre. He was a civil rights lawyer, law prof, and IL State senator.

What people really mean by the charge is that he hasn't enough experience in big-time politics to have been bought off by big money. Of course, this is exactly what the voters are looking for, and this scares big money and the beltway elite.

Every time they say Osama Obama, it reminds Americans that it's been over 5 years and Bush still hasn't caught the bum.

I hope the new Dem congress investigates what really happened at Tora Bora, like how we had only 36 of our own soldiers up there when Osama walked out, a free man. For that, Franks gets the medal of freedom.

Does Bush rhyme with shithead? Too bad, because it fits.

Since when is Maureen Dowd part of the right wing attack squad?

She's not, but she is a mercenary on this particular battlefield.

Perhaps Stefan has made as much money as Bush, but few others on this Board have matched Bush's success in private industry.

Leaving aside for the moment the implication about Bush here - that he was actually personally responsible for his own wealth accumulation - his alleged "success" in private industry has no relevance to his ability to serve as president.

Don't think so? Name one great president who entered office with a track record of sparkling success in business. I can't think of any. About the only time people think this even matters is during Gilded Age periods like this one, or the late 19th century, when we've had a series of mediocre, forgettable presidents.

someone asked:
Since when is Maureen Dowd part of the right wing attack squad?

latts replied:
She's not, but she is a mercenary on this particular battlefield.

Amen. Dowd is a professional contrarian. Did no one read any of her columns from the 90s attacking WJC?

neocon "ex-liberal" wrote: As Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers, Bush made himself a multi-millionaire and made the silent parters a lot of money. Perhaps Stefan has made as much money as Bush, but few others on this Board have matched Bush's success in private industry.

I'd like to congratulate "ex-liberal" in surpassing even his/her/its usual standards of dishonesty. Yes, Bush himself always managed to land on his feet -- thanks in no small part to Papa Bush's cronies bailing him out of his failed business ventures, which have an astonishing record of leaving suckers holding the bag. Gee, who'da thunk his political career would follow suit?

Obama's peaking kind of early isn't he?

Eh, it's all relative. If he were truly a light-weight, a one hit wonder, this would be too early. And in fact, this scenario is really beneficial for us Dems. By busting into prime time now, in such a big way, his past will be examined with surgical precision. If there are problems, we will know way before next February and he will be 86’ed before the big show actually starts.

FWIW, I feel he has the goods and the smarts to maintain a survivable level of adrenaline through out the upcoming year. Once the new session of Congress starts, he will modulate his national presence for a while and work on behind-the-scene fund raising.

He is good. He can handle a room, or a reporter like no one I have seen for a while. He will be able to “re-peak” any time he wants to.

A while back someone mentioned that Clark wasn't eligible to be Secretary of Defense until 2010. I'm pushing for Anthony Zinni myself, but was told he wasn't eligible either. Anyone know if that's true?

A Secretary of Defense cannot have been an active duty officer within the prior 10 years. Zinni, like Clark, retired in 2000 and will not be eligible until 2010 to serve as Secretary of Defense (really, if Clark were goint o serve in a cabinet position, I'd prefer him as Secretary of State, anyhow; though I'd rather have him in the military chain of command, but above the Cabinet level...)

As for someone for the SecDef slot, how about James Webb?

Yes, hitch your wagon to Obama. If he wins, the GOP's will be hitching all the mistakes of the Bush administration 2004-2008 to him too (2000-2004 is still being blamed on Bill).
Listen to Rush Limbaugh (for as long as you can without vomiting) and hear all the owning up to facts and taking of responsibility (about zero percent) that mouthpiece of Republicanism shares with red state America. He and his kind keep the hate going, and that kind of hate needs a focus of one kind or another (which is why "liberal" is now a swear word even my teenager dares not say).
I am afraid for any Democrat taking the 2008 election, but especially for Obama. I don't feel the Dems should roll over and die, but why make it so easy for the GOP as to hand them a fall guy in 2008. I agree with Obama taking 2012, let some mushy Rep (McCain) clean up the pig stall Bush and his ilk have made our White House into. Then the GOP can blame who, themselves? Ha.

Perhaps Stefan has made as much money as Bush, but few others on this Board have matched Bush's success in private industry.

Few others have the Saudi royals and the bin Laden family to underwrite their schemes and bail them out when they fail; heck, with that kind of backing, you'd have to be utterly incompetent not to make yourself a billionaire.

Jim Webb???????

And not a ripple in the Senate.

Shrub failed at Arbusto (Spanish for Bush) Energy.
Shrub failed at Spectrum

Shrub failed at Harken Energy

Shrub was given money by Daddy's friends, as described supra, to buy into the sweetheart deal with the Rangers.

Except for possibly dealing coke on the side, he never has earned a dime on his own, outside of government.

I don't feel the Dems should roll over and die, but why make it so easy for the GOP as to hand them a fall guy in 2008. I agree with Obama taking 2012, let some mushy Rep (McCain) clean up the pig stall Bush and his ilk have made our White House into.

The triple bank shot never works in politics, even if it wasn't self-defeating, as your suggestion is.

let some mushy Rep (McCain) clean up the pig stall Bush and his ilk have made our White House into

Sorry Zit, I don’t buy it. You are saying that there is no Dem who can handle the heat being the next president; let the Reps have four more years of leading the military, diplomacy, appointing judges?

No Fucking Way.

Obama smear, getcher Obama smears! I got yer fresh Obama hit piece right here:

www.usavoice.org/Article.cfm?ID=3622&C=Crime&T=Obama%20Corruption%20Scandal

how about James Webb?

That's not a bad idea. I feel like there are two major foreign policy goals that the democrats should run on. 1) To extract ourselves from Iraq and begin to repair our image at home and abroad. 2) Rebuild the military. I actually think 2) is the winning issue in 2008. It's not enough to "fix" Iraq. We need focus a national effort on giving the military some time to mend. The side effect allows us to take much of the more insane offensive military options of the table.

Obama smear, getcher Obama smears! I got yer fresh Obama hit piece right here:

The Trib had thoroughly covered that non scandal. There is no "there" there. That that is the best they can do, is more evidence that Obama is bullet-proof.

The more scurrilous charge in the article you linked to is the racist accusation from the author that Obama's wife is white (Oh, no! The Blacks are stealing our wimmin!). Well, it's racist, as well as being laughably incorrect. Obama's wife is more black than the he is.

Although, I suppose that if the MSM can collectively believe that Gore said that he invented the inet, then I suppose that Obama's wife can indeed be white.

Good example of the kind of crap we can expect.

Yawn. Link to something worth clicking on next time. Rush is dumb, but here he was just making fun of Obama's ridiculous sensitivity - whining to Dowd that she had written something about his ears. Nasty wench, that Dowder.

Kevin quotes Benen: "But in the meantime, we’re left with a progressive, church-going Democrat with big ears."

Oddly enough, that sounds like Dennis Kucinich. Progressive, church-going (Catholic), and big ears.

I think it was the big ears that hurt him in 2004. If Dennis Kucinich looked like Robert Redford, he would be President today.

Kucinich announced his candidacy for the 2008 nomination this week, and he's got my support, big ears or not. I agree 100% with his plan for Iraq: Congress should use its Constitutional power to cut off funding for the war and demand that Bush use the funding that is in the pipeline from the last SEVENTY BILLION dollar "emergency appropriation" to pay for bring the troops home, beginning immediately.

Good example of the kind of crap we can expect.

I expect something a little different. In the last election, whenever Harold Ford or Michael Steele came up, the GOP would provide a young, attractive African-American woman to spin for their side.

Expect the GOP to hire a lot of African-Americans, Latinos and white women, all with the purpose of chipping away at his credibility. The African-Americans will go after his commitment to the black community. The Latinos will preemptively attack him with calls for promising to bridge the divide between their communities. He will be asked to condemn every dubious quote made by every black person in history. The white women will go on and on about his "aggressiveness" just like they did with Harold Ford. Anytime he fights back over a smear, they will express shock at how angry, how almost violent he seems, and how that "temperament" doesn't fit the statesmanship required to be President.

We can also expect that his religious credentials will be challenged. Obama and his family are members of the United Church of Christ. The UCC is one step away from the Unitarians in being radically inclusive and politically progressive. They are the ones responsible for that TV ad awhile back celebrating diversity that several networks refused to air.

Expect the wingnuts to attack Obama for this.

Barukh atah Adonai, Eloheinu, melekh ha'olam

Blessed are you, Lord, our God, sovereign of the universe.

For the record, you have not experienced cute until you have heard a two-year old say the blessing over the first candle in Hebrew. Her Mommy gets mad props for teaching her that.

David Rubenstein, co-founder/managing director of the Carlyle Group ( defense contractor powerhouse) reminisced in '04 that he put George Bush on the board of directors--agreeing to do a favor because someone (Fred Malek) said Bush was 'down on his luck, needed a job, needed some board positions.'
Rubenstein stated "you know, ...he (Bush)spent 3 years. Came to the meetings. Told a lot of jokes. Not that many clean ones."
After 3 years, Rubenstein told Bush "Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you are adding that much value to the board. You don't know much about the company." Rubenstein said, "if you said, name 25 million poeple who maybe would be President of the United States, he (Bush) wouldn't have been in that category."

Disputo: The UCC is one step away from the Unitarians in being radically inclusive and politically progressive.

I'm a Unitarian, which may explain why I always thought that Karl Marx was a reactionary.

GC, you sure she wasn't saying, "Baruch Obama, attaboy"?

Ya know, it's actually possible.

Maybe he'll answer my five questions.

Al: "Osama Hussein Obama will not be elected President."

Osama Obama? What part of better, as in "better idiots", don't you understand?
Wait, don't answer that. We don't have time.

Not to mention the LA radio station that HuffPo mentioned where a 3 person team spent a recent morning, guffawing over him only being half black and not raised around African-Americans - The female member of the team coined the term "halfrican" - So much hilarity from garbage right wing radio these days.

Name one great president who entered office with a track record of sparkling success in business. I can't think of any.

Sticking to the 20th century, the man with the most successful career in private enterprise prior to entering the White House was ... Herbert Hoover.

Any questions?

Since when is Maureen Dowd part of the right wing attack squad?

Since the nineties?

Among other jewels, she was responsible for the famous Kerry / Nascar quote from election 2004"“Who among us does not love Nascar?"

Go to thedailyhowler.com and search on "Maureen Dowd". It's an education.

And her recent comments about the furrowed brow of the Speaker of the House to be, Nancy Pelosi.

Also her snide remarks about Sen Kerry's wife.

Had only Shrub emulated Herbert Hoover's fine work in 1927 following that disastrous flooding of Louisiana.

One President of the last century actually failed as a business man - Only the civil war changed his path in life - Went from suicidal to becomine President - However, history does not look fondly on Grant's terms in office.

Wasn't Coolidge president in 1927?

Or did I get a bad version of History from Randy Newman?

Yes,m GC - But Coolidge refused to allow federal aid to those who suffered from the vast flooding of the Mississippi River - Hoover, having done yeoman humanitarian work in Europe following WWI stepped into the enormous work involved in aiding those victims - As a result, this catapulted him into the White House.

Ah. I should have known that there was more to the story, so to speak.

Judith Regan was fired today.

Whoops. Here is the correct link.

Ah, Karma - First the OJ debacle, then she was in the process of promoting a smear job on Mantle. Leave the old Kansas City Blues players alone - I heard that Mick ended up playing somewhere else for a spell, but Alzie has overcome me tonight.

You call him "progressive." I call him just another triangulating Ivy League lawyer phony.

They are not going after him as they think he is a flash in the pan who will be a small blip in a month. They picked our candidate for us and expect us to stick to thier chosen one: Hillary.
The fact is that everyone is underestimating him and it's fun to watch. Anyone can google and find out alot about him and alot of his positions are in a book. It's on the bestseller list. Not many candidates write thier own bestseller stating alot of thier postions. And that is just for starters.

I see Al is prognosticating again, even after being so dreadfully wrong about the 2006 election. It must be humiliating to be so goddamn dumb.

Here are some things to think about before deciding Obama is the next great hope. These are some of the people he has been involved with since winning office

Antoin Rezko http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2006/11/obama_land_deal.html

Alexi Giannoulias http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=19820

Forrest Claypool (whom backed Obama, and is a reformist County Commisioner) would not get the backing of Obama. Obama decided that he would stay nuetral in his race against John Stroger Sr. ,the county board president.

Todd Sroger is who Obama ended up backing once his father was determined unfit to run the county after a stroke and federal raid on county offices.http://sensiblemom.typepad.com/weblog/2006/09/todd_stroger_ca.html

When will he start to actually discuss how he is different from the other Pols?

Name me a state that Obama can win that Gore or Kerry couldn't.

Posted by: MaxGowan on December 15, 2006 at 4:17

Well, for starters: Ohio.

Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein as his running mate could beat a republican in Ohio in 2008!

The rightwingers will likely fail at slandering Obama, but they don't need to succeed. Hillary will do the job for them.

Most of what is written about him is positive. Prior to winning Illinois state senatorial seat, Barack Obama outran a bevy of six democratic contenders, achieving the nomination with over 50% of the vote.
His scholastic resume--Harvard Law School, president of the Harvard Law Review, taught at the University of Chicago School of Law. Hard to challenge that--so they'll focus on his ears?
Not a C student, like George W Bush, and look where the C student got the country..ultimately irrelevant that Dubya's resume included being a governor...that was always stressed as a big old plus by Bush's unabashed admirers at Fox News. Whoopie, at this point.
And some might have viewed John Kerry as having "too much" experience, really. People didn't seem to respect his resume, or his war experience. So who knows. Wooed over by the likes of the bumbling and inarticulate Bush? And the media, in 2000, made the talented, intellegent Al Gore seem like the most boring person on the planet--that seemed to be an endless refrain. (Of course, both--stolen elections)
Again, the media, as it focuses on appearance and clothing style, seeks to marginalize people.
The right wing noise machine fears Barack Obama's charisma and the excitement that he has generated. I look for the right wing to manufacture scandals and engage in the malicious, like their campaign ads that damaged Harold Ford's senatorial run in Tennessee.

As legal resumes go, Edwards' is far more impressive.

The guy actually won important cases and made a major difference in people's lives.

I agree that John Edwards is impressive.
I met his wife when they were campaigning. She came to Pennsylvania to a restaurant for a town meeting--just a small gathering,and she was similarly impressive,well spoken,caring,engaged.
I really wanted Kerry/Edwards to win, and, like so many,was in shock at the outcome.

Well, isn't that special - The fellow who ran the attack ads against Ford has been hired by Crooked Talk Express - I'm sure that John was quite stern with him about not running negative campaigns ads. Such a High Roader, he.

Dear consider wisely always:

You are absolutely right that Obama is a very impressive man - I think he can win easily in 2008. People are ready for a change from the incompetent and deeply criminal Bush administration.

However, the right-wing slime machine will be in full tilt boogie mode over Obama. They will use some slimy tactic like paying some bimbo whore to come forward and claim Obama fathered a child with her, just like they did with Bill Clinton. Count on it.

Conservatives can't win elections based on open and honest discussions of the issues, because the majority of Americans do not support their narrow-minded, exclusionary and plutocratic policies. So they cheat, lie and steal to win. Democrats need to get very vocal and public about these tactics, because just like the slime that grows under the rim of your toilet bowl, if you drag it out into the sunlight - it dies.

Peace,

TCD

I am hearing people in my neck of the woods talk about Mike Gravel. All I know about him is he was once a Senator from Alaska and he filibustered in the senate and ended the draft.

Because of this, I think, many, many young people (I live in the funky, artsy part of town where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a skater-punk) are embracing a potential Gravel candidacy.

Try this one:

Senator Obama is nothing more than Dick Durbin in a very pretty package. For all of the talk about charisma and charm, in the end, Senator Obama follows the Democratic Party's boilerplate. There is no position that Senator Obama takes that could not anticipated by just following the standard Democratic response. A perfect example is education where his solution is to give more money to the existing system.

And the Republican's boilerplate was sooooo well received on November 7th.

Perhaps the relative gentleness with which Senator Obama is being treated can be attributed to the fact that few people, even Republicans, actually dislike him. After all, what's to dislike? He's young, good looking, speaks well and sounds reasonable on most topics.

Sure, ideologues are going to try to stir up trouble for him, but it's a mistake to think that all conservatives or Republicans are nasty, brutish, and racist. All that does is perpetuate the national divide.

Even as a conservative, I have great hopes for Senator Obama, though I'd like to see a longer track record on the issues before deciding if he is Presidential material.

Well, trashhauler--good points about the attractiveness of Obama's gentleness, yet the republicans really do perpetuate the divisiveness in this nation. The administration linked voting democratic in the election to supporting the terrorists. That is about as divisive as it gets.

I don't know, consider wisely. Many of the Democrats on this board routinely treat Republicans as evil and stupid. That's kind of divisive in itself. Debates about who started it all seem pretty meaningless to me.

Trashhauler: You sound like a good person.
It's the Limbaughs, Glenn Becks & Sean Hannity's of the world that seem to own the airways, and really seem to try to divide people into us and them. And they have a broad audience.

And look how Karl Rove, Cheney all made horribly divisive statements. Democrats are fresh from losing two presidential elections, with election fraud clearly documented.

The republican congress pretty muched dismissed democrats in the past 6 years, and that is very fresh. Laws were passed with statements added after the fact.

Many, many things contribute, in my opinion, to the divide. Bush said he wanted bi-partisanism after dems won the mid-terms, but soon tried divisively to force the passing of Bolton as UN rep, wire tapping measures that were controversial, more, and of course, the Nancy Pelosi bashing started the day after the mid-terms.

Poor John Murtha--38 year Marine veteran eviscerated by the junior congressperson from Ohio, Jean Schmitt, and others--ruthlessly swift-boated and marginalized. It has been a bit much.
But I appreciate where you are coming from.

further upthread: Shrub was given money by Daddy's friends, as described supra, to buy into the sweetheart deal with the Rangers.

peter uberoth was head of the management team and he admitted they hired g.w. only because his dad was president at the time...

I don't know, consider wisely. Many of the Democrats on this board routinely treat Republicans as evil and stupid.

Tell me about it. I blame the liberals for all of this. They're the ones who are usually the culprits when it comes to anything underhanded or covered in excrement.

oh noes, he has big ears!!! I happened to have "Audacity of Hope" lying next to me. I've seen bigger ears and ones that stood out more. Man, if that's the only criticism they can come up with, the presidency is a done deal.

As to the whole experience and qualifications thing, it seems evident by now that the presidency is claimed by a large group of people, including advisors and lobbyists. They can and will substitute their opinions. The course of the presidency is determined in part by who the president listens to. So who are Obama's friends and who will want some payback if he gains the White House?*

*not that I've ever done any studies on the subject . . . but it sure seems like a presidential administration is far more than just one man at the helm. Lot of cooks with their hands in the pot.