In 2004, I listened to the keynote address at the Democratic Convention as Barack Obama made an impressive speech and wondered how he could be so superior (at least in speech) to Kerry and Bush. I told my wife that night that he would be first black President.
I watched some video clips tonight on his reception in New Hampshire this weekend, before he has even announced his candidacy.
I think Barack Obama will not only be the first black President but he will be the next President.
Any bets?
Yep. What odds and how much money do you have?
I think its possible, but he will have to overcome a bit of history: No party that has ever won back the House and Senate won the next Presidential election (at least according to the Atlantic Monthly). However, I think that its likely he could win in 2008 if the Republicans continue to self-destruct. I also think the Dems would be far better served nominating him than Hillary.
Spot
I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that a guy with such little experience would be elected President. Maybe a good VP candidate, but I think he needs a few years before he’s a legitimate candidate to get that nomination, much less get elected. Hard to say though given the apparent weakness of the Democratic pool of potentials.
I think Barack Obama will not only be the first black President but he will be the next President.
If the first black PotUS is gunna be a Democrat, I’d personally rather see Harold Ford, but what do I know?
What does Osama Obama bring to the table? I honestly don’t know that much about him.
I think Barack Obama will not only be the first black President but he will be the next President
I think with his name it will be almost too easy for his opponents to get people to subconsciously link him with Osama.
He doesn’t stand a chance in the voting.
What I know Of Barack Obama before this week:
He has a nice smile.
He speaks well in public.
No significant accomplishments.
What I have learned this week:
He is very charming in person apparantly.
His father was Kenyan, and his Mother was from Hawaii (I think).
Still no significant accomplishments.
All in all, he sounds like another JFK meaning that he is very media friendly. While I admit, it seems that is all it takes for a large number of people in this country to vote for someone, I need to see a little more meat on the bone.
The trend in recent elections is that experience (at least in the Senate) is a very big minus, makes it nearly impossible for your to remarket yourself as the candidate that fits the demands of the times. Less experience means you aren’t a Beltway-insider, but just enough means you know how the system works etc.
In this day and age, when message is so much more important that content (and we the voters are to blame for that), I think it is entirely possible for the right message and “look” to get elected, whoever that candidate might be.
I don’t think we as a country are able to elect a non-white male just yet, but we’re getting there. Being VP for Barrack would be a negative I think. Unless he was able to be the VP candidate, lose, keep his Senate seat, and run again in 2012. But that’d be incredibly complex to pull off.
He’d need a very strong VP, one who can be a real bulldog, and probably someone who is to the right of him on Iraq and National Security. Wes Clark might fight that profile. Hillary is too much baggage for him. There are probably other good profiles that I can’t think of.
Ha, it’d be funny to see Colin Powell as his VP. Or even Condi!
Being VP for Barrack would be a negative I think. Unless he was able to be the VP candidate, lose, keep his Senate seat, and run again in 2012.
I believe he is just a Congressman, not a senator.
Junior Senator from Illinois: http://obama.senate.gov/
He made a HUGE jump to get to Senate.
People want candidates these days they can believe in, and they are willing to invest a lot of hope and suspend a lot of disbelief if required. Someone whose speaking skills really resonate with a large and likely to vote set of groups will do well.
He’s a Senator for Illinois
.
He is a Senator from Illinois. However, he backed his way into the Senate seat through a series of fortunate events for him. Its really scary someone with such little executive level experience has a good shot at becoming the leader of the free world. He doesn’t even have enough experience to become a governor. He should go run for mayor of Chicago first. I would love to know if he can actually lead people or if he is simply a bunch of rhetoric.
He has a nice smile.
Don’t underestimate that characteristic in a population that places so much emphasis on visual appeal.
He speaks well in public.
Don’t underestimate that characteristic as well. Clinton was regarded as a very good speaker, and he parleyed that into a double term. It also helps greatly in debates.
Not only does he speak well … but he is outstanding. He brings people together, rather than divide people apart. He also seems to be heavily intilled with common sense. He also doesn’t seem to react or envoke knee-jerk emotion when it’s not called for.
No significant accomplishments.
As I pointed out in my interview where I had no previous experience … “Just because I haven;t done it yet, doesn’t mean I can’t do it … and possibly very well.” Worked for me. =)
More importantly he doesn’t have MISTAKES for his opponents to harp on full throttle during campaigns. I don’t think America gets all that hung up on what has he done in comparison to “do I like him?”
Still no significant accomplishments.
I’m wondering if this is as big of a component as some will make it out to be. JFK wasn’t a widely accomplished candidate either (unless we’re counting rigged elections at the cough local/smaller level). Seroiusly, many of our presidents that turned out to be “not so good” had accomplishments. I think at this point, perhaps having someone that’s not already “wrapped up in politics” (i.e., sold their soul) might be a welcome change.
It’s good for discussion regardess.
People are infatuated with Obama … what he stands for seems less important to how he presents himself and MOST importantly how he relates to people. I know many folks in Illinois were enamored with his “poor skinny black kid with a funny name” description of his youth. The common man, regardless of race/ethnicity likely has more in common with Obama than they do other candidates from weathly families and the traditional heritage. Sit back and watch him work his magic utilizing that to his benefit. He will claim to “understand people”, and he may very well be able to.
Remember Bush as the CEO President? The knock on his was he didn’t really have the chops for the job, but because he had business experience and an MBA he was smart enough to surround himself with the best and the brightest, let them be the experts in their areas, delegate what was needed, and then tie it all up together.
I was actually rather hopeful this model could work, and thought a lot of his original consolidation and standardization efforts were fairly well thought out.
Theoretically Obama could replicate facets of this model, though could probably say that his exposure to the Senate gives him insight into how things work, gives him connections across the aisle, etc. He can co-sponsor a bill or two with a Republican and check the “bi-partisan” box.
He’s one of the few Dems who is willing to speak on matters of faith, and doesn’t seem like he’s making it up as he goes.
If he gets involved in some of the ethics movements, that will play well as a reformist and straight-shooter. He can also try and get into some budgetary issues if he wants to try and play the fiscally responsible card as well.
He basically just has to not do something totally idiotic for another year while in Senate and then can be a full-time candidate. His main risk right now is that he has peaked too early. But if he manages to lower the intensity of the flame, let some of the others toss their hats in and take some of the heat, he has a chance.
I was also told by a few Hill staffers this weak that they expect Darfur to be one of the top 2 priorities in the next session of the Senate. He could hop on that bandwagon if he so chose, but best to wait it out and test the waters.
"Don’t underestimate that characteristic in a population that places so much emphasis on visual appeal. "
There’s a difference between appealing and Presidential.
"Clinton was regarded as a very good speaker, and he parleyed that into a double term. It also helps greatly in debates. "
But Clinton also had a bunch of experience including Executive experience as Governor.
"“Just because I haven;t done it yet, doesn’t mean I can’t do it … and possibly very well.” Worked for me. =) "
Glad it worked for you, but does anyone really want to test it out with a position like President of the United States?
I don’t think Obama is a bad person, or even a bad candidate, someday. I’m just not sure it will be his time yet next year. I think if he can get a full term or two under his belt, it will strengthen him later, and a smart guy might not want a defeat hanging around his neck a few years later.
His main risk right now is that he has peaked too early.
Not sure if he has “peaked” or not, but too much exposure too early could take some of the infatuation away by 08, and it could also draw out backlash from those that are tired of hearing of him, will despise him because “everyone” (or at least “the media”) likes him.
If nothing else, he, his presence, and his communication abilities will cause all other candidate to raise the level of their game. Nobody’s gonna win by default, like Bush did, because his opposition was as exciting as a cardboard cutout. Had Kerry been able to engage anyone on the campaign trail or in debates, he could have skated to a win. It wasn’t so much what he said (or didn’t say), but how he said what he did (Yawn). Obama will at least keeps things progressing and get to some real points, and well … people want to listen to him speak and seemingly cling to his every word.
He also supported by a major city and a large state.
He has been groomed for this. Perhaps he is being pushed too far too fast, but he seems smart enough to back away from something he’s not ready for. He’s also young, and geez, what do you do AFTER you’re the president?
The knock on his was he didn’t really have the chops for the job, but because he had business experience and an MBA he was smart enough to surround himself with the best and the brightest, let them be the experts in their areas, delegate what was needed, and then tie it all up together.
The expression in my field is “Do it, Delegate it, or Dump it.” … too much time spent on things that essentially don’t matter.
I’m going to check into his views and what “he’s about” a little more.
My though on the “peak” is that once you have your initial media infatuation, and even get talked up on Oprah, where do you go from there? I guess if he lowers the heat a bit he can try and get back on Oprah, but heck, the guy was on MNF tonight doing a voiceover (according to what I heard on the radio before the game).
Another drawback of too much early exposure is getting the focus of the opposition’s “researchers”. If the GOP intends to continue the Rovian model, or to even have him involved in 2008, then the GOP has either College Republicans or young staffers researching and monitoring everything Obama does and says. Anything they can use against him, they will.
What does Osama Obama bring to the table? I honestly don’t know that much about him.
You answered your own question.
There’s a difference between appealing and Presidential.
If he was simply appealing, I would agree. As to what is “Presidential” … who can define what that is given our last 3 presidents. Not that one mistake makes another mistake okay, or anything like that.
But Clinton also had a bunch of experience including Executive experience as Governor.
Yeah … of Arkansas. Insert hillybilly joke here. Arkansas, at the time of election, was one of the dregs in terms of education … that didn’t hurt Clinton a bit.
In terms of “that kind of experience”, is there anyone more qualified that Guliani? Mayor of THE major city, led through a tragety, etc. IMO, it depends where you were governor. Reagan was Cali, Bush was Texas, and only one of those is consdiered to be “Presidential”. I would gladly take Obama as the governor of Illinois. We’re in a slump.
Glad it worked for you, but does anyone really want to test it out with a position like President of the United States?
You know what I meant by that. I mean, when electing someone, you should also consider their potential, just not look at what they’ve done … because regardless of their previous position … it ain’t “The Leader of the Free World”. I’m not sure ANY job really prepares you fully for that role. I think you look at a person’s values, practices, personality, ability to relate to others, problem solve, etc … not just look at what bills their name was on that eventually got passed or what the economy looked like in the state they were governor … IMO, the governor is like the quarterback … more credit/blame than they deserve.
I’m just not sure it will be his time yet next year. I think if he can get a full term or two under his belt, it will strengthen him later, and a smart guy might not want a defeat hanging around his neck a few years later.
I agree with this, and think based on comments he has made about his candidacy, I think he will think it through seriusly, discuss with his wife (whom he seems to confer in regarding their life decisions), and realize that because of who he is and his demeanor will always be an appealing candidate for President.
I’m not electing or defeating him today, only suggesting that “lack of experience” isn’t the automatic disqualifier (and shoudn’t be) that some may make it out to be. I do think he is highly electable (not implying that he ‘should’ be), especially in our “flavor of the week” society.
He has a nice smile.
Don’t underestimate that characteristic in a population that places so much emphasis on visual appeal.
He speaks well in public.
Don’t underestimate that characteristic as well. Clinton was regarded as a very good speaker, and he parleyed that into a double term. It also helps greatly in debates.
Not only does he speak well … but he is outstanding. He brings people together, rather than divide people apart. He also seems to be heavily intilled with common sense. He also doesn’t seem to react or envoke knee-jerk emotion when it’s not called for.
**No significant accomplishments. **
As I pointed out in my interview where I had no previous experience … “Just because I haven;t done it yet, doesn’t mean I can’t do it … and possibly very well.” Worked for me. =)
More importantly he doesn’t have MISTAKES for his opponents to harp on full throttle during campaigns. I don’t think America gets all that hung up on what has he done in comparison to “do I like him?”
**Still no significant accomplishments. **
I’m wondering if this is as big of a component as some will make it out to be. JFK wasn’t a widely accomplished candidate either (unless we’re counting rigged elections at the cough local/smaller level).
I believe I basically said what was in your responses. He has media charisma, which is sufficient for a lot of people to vote. You know, the majority of people who really don’t want to dig into the issues, just be promised that the candiate will make their life better. Kennedy was the first to use tv to his advantage by being telegenic. Nowadays, it is a given. Look at nontelegenic- Bob Dole, Dukakis, versus telegenic - Bill Clinton, Edwards, it explains a lot.
Limited experience results in limited accomplishments. Doesn’t mean that there won’t be some someday. Also, it givens the benefit of a cleaner record with fewer boners. I prefer a scorecard that has something in both columns. I’m willing to take a few losses, so long as there are some outstanding winners.