America Won't Wait Forever, Mr. Obama
by Nancy Scola, Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:06:52 AM EST
Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Presidential (all tags)
by Nancy Scola, Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:06:52 AM EST
Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Presidential (all tags)
In my opinion this man is more a statesman than a politician. Yes, he will run. Will he announce this on Oprah? Maybe, maybe not. But this wouldn't surprise me. Obama is one to watch, for sure.
He'll run, I think. He won't have my support unless Edwards drops out. Or Gore enters.
On Rasmussen's favorables, Obama is second among the Democrats, only behind John Edwards (but with lower unfavs, too). Obama does about as well in their match-ups as Hillary and Gore (Edwards did the best), and he still has a pretty strong rating as a liberal, considering how little people know about him.
I'd be absolutely shocked if he doesn't. He's made every move you make if you're running for President short of actually declaring.
I guess I have to ask: what makes you think he won't?
I admit that much of it is that I worked for a guy (Warner) who also made most of the moves that you make if you're running. It caught me quite off-guard that he decided in the end to forgo the race.
In some ways whether or not to run is an emotional decision, and I've heard Obama say things here and there (and in Audacity of Hope) that make me think that he's concerned about the sacrifices that it will require of his family. With the new majority, he has an opportunity now to get some things done in the Senate. I think the question I have is whether he's going to weigh the possibly many-term career in the Senate with just a chance that he might make it to the White House.
I once heard or read some member of Congress say about President Bush, "I've been here a long time before he got here, and I'll be here a long time after." I think I still have the question in my mind that Obama might be thinking that Senator is a more sustainable, long-term career path. That said, I've also heard it said that he's hugely ambitious and the presidency is admittedly the most powerful job in town.
I just think that there are enough reasons why he might not run to make it possible that he might not. It sticks in my mind that I first heard his name just before he gave his speech in the convention in Boston. That was way back in the summer of 2004. Before that, he was a law school lecturer (I believe) and a state senator. Some part of me thinks that he himself is questioning whether he has enough governing experience -- especially in the absence of other executive experience -- to make a go of it.
He'll still be in the Senate if he is not President.
Not up for reelection until 2010.
Just meant that he held an outside job in addition to teaching courses every quarter; he didn't just show up and give lectures.
Adam, I'm glad you're here. I'm not all that clear on what they call things at law schools, and would just like to know for myself. If you don't mind me mining you for information, is lecturer (at Chicago at least) like an adjunct, a tenure-track assistant professor, or something else entirely?
It's like an adjunct; it's not tenure-track. They'd have loved Obama to go tenure-track, but he always was going to have a career beyond just teaching. Right now, he's listed as a Senior Lecturer in Law (on leave), along with the three federal appellate judges on the faculty and two other extremely distinguished longtime faculty members who are no longer full-time.
After law school, Obama declined higher-paying offers from big firms and joined a small civil-rights outfit in Chicago. But the partners at Miner, Barnhill & Galland never expected him to stick around. "There aren't many blindingly talented people, and most of them are pains in the ass," says George Galland Jr. "Barack is the whole package."The whole piece is a good read.
He's in. I think he should totally go for the Oprah announcement. It's a virtually unmatchable platform.
Political Wire says to watch for possible announcement on Oprah Wednesday.
Obama said he would make up his mind while on vacation. The vacation is over and he has not said he won't run. Instead, he is hiring.
Trust your brain, no matter how many nerve endings may be in your gut.
They lost a whole lot of winnable races in Virginia and Maryland a few years back and I was very unimpressed with their product. Lots of cookie cutter stuff.
My predictions are always wrong:
Obama won't run.
Hillary won't run.
No one will be front runner going into the convention. Al Gore will get in the race for California, like RFK, and will take the nomination at the convention on the second vote, will win the election in every state except AZ, AK, and GA.
Al Gore, next president.
I agree with you on both of these. Obama's better served by highlighting all his power right now, and becoming everyone's choice for VP candidate. Does he want to be President right now? With the mess we're in, that's gonna be a lot of janitorial crap, and not a lot of statesmanship. Better to learn the ropes for 8 years: he's in his 40s, right?
Obama's out. Clinton, I'm not so sure about, but I suspect she's out, too. She's watched Bill go from President to citizen, and she's watched him watch some of the best bits of his legacy ground into paste by Bushco: is she sure she wants to be done with politics in eight years? She can be the Lioness of the Senate for another 30 ...
But, um, I'm always wrong, too ...
He's in. I'm not 100% sure, but i'd bet money on it. Since he's been back from his "vacation" every indication has been that he will run. Had he decided not to run I don't see why he would be planning his announcement time so carefully. At first the argument was that he was letting the rumor mill spin so he could sell books, but that logic doesn't make sense anymore. I will be completely shocked if he announces he's not running at this point.
As a side note I have to add that I don't understand the title of this blog. "America Won't Wait Forever, Mr. Obama" seems to imply he has been stalling for far too long.
The only major candidate to make a decision thus far has been Edwards. We're still waiting on Giuliani, McCain, and Romney on the Republican side and Hillary obviously hasn't announced yet either. If he announces next week his decision will actually be early. It's not like it's March...
This is a totally ridiculous comment with no sign of worthwhile political analysis. An example of why blogosphere pundits are not given more credibility.
Has Clinton announced? Has McCain? Will "America wait forever" for them?
The weaker the candidate, the earlier they announce.
Obama's a serious man contemplating the most serious decision a person can make.
Many criticize Obama for the media hype around him (something he didn't generate except by being the most charismatic, articulate and progressive Democrat present) and then criticize him for being very cautious about giving in to the hype and seeing how broad and how deep his support really is before making a huge decision.
I think you're missing the tone of the post:
"For a bit of Sunday afternoon fun, is Obama in or out?"
But it's a totally stupid question. Not even interesting unless, like Nancy, you are anti-Obama.
At least make it interesting. At least show you have some understanding of the political dynamics.
Wow. This really is remarkable. From where are you diving the wisdom that I am "anti-Obama?" Have we gotten to the point that you can just make facts up about people and present them as truth?
anyone who says anything about obama which isn't obama can walk on water is de facto anti obama. didn't you get the memo?
That's a little catty Bruh. There is a fine line between insulting and constructive that several people don't seem to grasp. While someone like yourself who is a patron of the site is one thing, seeing those selected to write for the blog do it is quite another... given this is a partisan blog, I have always felt that the negative focus should be more on the GOP than on our Dems.
That being said, Brian was WAY OFF BASE on his comments here. Nancy didn't insult Obama at all.
"Brian was WAY OFF BASE on his comments here. Nancy didn't insult Obama at all."
I don't see any message in which I said Nancy "insulted" Obama.
Frankly that's her business if she wants to insult him, he's a public figure and fair game.
I don't see any message where I insulted Nancy personally. I did say her topic made no sense and reflected an anti-Obama bias.
Nothing wrong with having a bias for or against someone. I don't like Bush Jr. My right wing neighbors say I'm biased...dang toot'in. I'm biased against Kerry running again (sheesh after his 2006 election gaff, you'd think he'd realize he's not cut out for this).
Her thread title asks a question of Obama that would apply equally, if not more so, to McCain, the guy who shared the dais with Obama.
But if you posed that question to McCain, it makes no sense. If you pose that question about Clinton. It makes no sense.
As far as the question being politically savvy, I think it's a truism that the weaker the candidate is the earlier they announce. Vilsack, Voinovich, Dodd...all announced early because they are long shots. Edwards felt forced to announce earlier than Clinton and McCain because he was feeling the heat from the media hype about Obama.
In every case (and historically) the early announcers do it due to a real or perceived political disadvantage.
So...asking that question of Obama can legitimately be said to be showing a bias against Obama.
each person who responded as you did prove my point. if you read the diary it didn't attack him at all, but you read it that way.
If Obama ever walked on water then the MyDD Diary on the subject would be titled
"Obama Can't Swim".
(with aplogies to Rev. Jackson)
actually you play the attribution game that most obama supporters play. have you asked any non obama people who aren't online what they think? i would wager its not much different from what you read here. i did precisely this a few times, and across the board the questions were almost always the same. well, except the conservatives who like i said would put it much more harshly than you are hearing here. i think the people live in a vacuum are not mydd people who question obama but those who think these questions are hard questions. if you can't handle these questions tehre is no way you will survive the GOP onslaught which is for me a core issue.
"Have we gotten to the point that you can just make facts up about people and present them as truth?"
Is there any truth to the idea America is "waiting" for Obama, that Obama is any way "late" in making an announcement? Is Clinton late? Is McCain late? No.
I think your topic reveals your bias.
Who else would start a thread titled "America Can't Wait Forever Mr. Obama"?
McCain shared the dais, yet a poll "America Can't Wait Forever Mr. McCain" would be totally senseless for the same reasons this poll is senseless.
There's no reason for Obama to be announcing early so your entire premise is meaningless unless you have an anti-Obama bias, making a lame attempt at sly digs with the suggestion that Obama has the world "waiting" and is somehow not decisive.
They obviously don't like Obama - please read their comments and pieces on Obama to get a fuller picture of their views on Obama. So what do they do? Concot a "America won't wait forever" childish post, and in the comments Nancy does a surreptitious "I don't think he has the experience" canard all in an attempt to pound Obama though in a manner not obvious to those who haven't been paying attention.
Gawd, I miss Jerome's level-headed posts on this blog, and I wish he'd post more often. He genuinely put some of these front-pagers to shame.
PS. Hey Nancy, has Richardon, Biden, Hillary Clinton formed exploratory committees yet? Please cut the hypocritical posts. You should know better.
Whaaaa Whaaa people don't like Obama waaaaah....
Now who's being the child?
Forgive those who think two years in the Senate does not a president make.
Where in the world are you getting the idea that I "don't like" Barack Obama? It's a simple poll on a simple question, like betting on who is going to win a football game.
I can't begin to imagine that it's not clear that "America Won't Wait Forever, Mr. Obama" is just poking fun at the whole process of how we wait with bated breath for our presidential candidates to make their announcements. I mean, really. Were you seriously offended by that in some way?
As for the experience "canard," I'll admit to a bias: I happen to believe that the presidency is a job that benefits from being filled with someone with national governing/policy-making or executive experience. There are other candidates who have more of that sort of experience than Obama does. Does that make him a bad option? Heck no. But it should be a factor taken into consideration as we go about finding the best possible nominee.
For the record, I worked for Mark Warner. After that experience ended, I proactively made a decision not to work for any other presidential candidates. If I come to the point that I am actively supporting one candidate or another (beyond forming a personal preference as an informed voter), you won't it have to suss it out of my posts. I will tell you perfectly clear.
advice, which you can heed or ignore: the posting is meant to make you defensive. don't play into it.
He sure looks like the easiest target to pick on and make funny posts about. It's becoming a trend on MyDD.
Matt Stoller hardly trains his "progressive" litmus tests on Hillary, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, etc. for whatever reason I don't know. But Obama is easy prey for Matt's rants.
There is definitely something below the surface that these so-called progressives are afraid to admit to themselves.
I was wondering how long it would be before it came down to "Against Obama=Racism"
Nice Reply Nancy... and that's from a staunch Obama supporter. I think Stoller crosses the line from constructive to insulting on Obama (but he has posted some very insightful constructive pieces as well and as a bit of self criticism, I am not very fond of him... to put it politely... and that might cloud my views at times of his work) a little too much, but I haven't really seen anything by you that has crossed that line. I took your title to be a cute satirical one that fit the piece well and several are just over-reacting or simply just don't understand the underlying satire.
You've done a good job so far. I don't agree with all you write (but such is life... I don't agree with everything anyone on here rights nor everything Obama, my fav candidate says)but you have done well on MYDD. Keep up the good work.
dont take this the wrong way but you are the first obama support who has written something I found to be open minded rather than jumping down the throat of anyone who says anything they dont like about obama. more of your approach would go a long way to allaying what I suspect is the deeper fear about obama- namely that many of his supporters have this cult of personality quality about his candicacy about theml
To be fair, I have jumped down people's throats... BUT I try to reserve that for non-constructive comments... I will admit Stoller has gotten me seeing red MANY MANY times with comments that really aren't constructive... Frankly when I see people on here write comments on Obama that are worse than stuff they have said on Bush, it does bother me.
To be fair, I have seen supporters of many of the candidates past and present act similiar... some even snapped at constructive criticism. I first found this site March or April of 2004 and I remember the responses of many people on here to the constructive comments people made about Dean. BrionLutz looks tame compared to those. If you said something innocent like "Maybe Dean could have found a way to include his wife more in his campaign" people would jump on that person calling him or her a troll, saying it was a media conspiracy etc. Clark supporters, Edwards Supporters and Gore supporters have all done this as well. Frankly we should all keep an open mind and not attack constructive criticism. We should also try not be trollish toward other Democratic candidates, even the Big Pink Elephant in the corner (HRC)... Example... Obama not having the experience to run is constructive.... Obama being a souless sellout who doesn't care about the party is NOT constructive.
But being open minded is good and those supporting Obama need to be that way. We can't jump down people's throats because they don't support him. Hell... That doesn't mean they don't like him... I'm not supporting Edwards or Clark is Obama runs, but I still like both of them. Just not as much as Obama.
I do think that when one really likes a candidate... be it Gore, Obama, Dean, etc... many really almost see them as a friend or family (at the least the good ones). This makes you defensive for two reasons... 1) it seems like they are pickign on a friend of yours and 2) sometimes people feel that not liking their candidate is akin to calling them stupid... its not true and not logical, but MANY MANY people feel that way (you see it with sports teams a lot as well) unconsiously.
As I understand it, Senator Clinton is just now preparing to form an exploratory committee, although I believe there has been a great deal of behind the scenes exploring going on for quite some time. Hillary has a huge organization with outreach in every state in the country so a lot of their work is not necessarily on the radar or being reported in the news. As for Obama, he's a great guy - I really like him - but I don't think he should run for President just yet, even though I have a strong feeling he intends to do so. I have also heard that Senator Clinton will be a guest on Oprah, following her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I believe obama will run and if he wins I think he will be an exelent president.I would like to see gore run,he's my pick,but if not gore than my next choice is obama.
I am delighted that Obama has quit saying that we must work with the President because Bush is our commander in chief, which Obana was still saying early this week.. Continuing to say this would have doomed any chance he had for the Democratic nomination.
It is fine for him to say we must work in a bipartisan way, because since Wednesday this means working with Republicans to oppose escalation, but the insistence on working with the President was suicide-city for his chances.
I think he will run.
I hear ya', Nancy, re: being a bit apprehensive following your experience with Gov. Warner.
My take: Sen. Obama's running.
Sure, there's the momentum, the book sales, the Oprah appearance (the last one, not the rumored one this week), the Bears "endorsement" (smartly done and not too cute), but, more than anything, I get a sense that the guy understands this could be a pivotal time in history. His time, in many ways. That draw has to be powerful.
Just my take.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
16
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
me0
me1
me2
me3
me4
me5
me6
me7
me8
me9
me10
me11
me12
me13
me14
me15
me16
me17
me18
me19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
do0
do1
do2
do3
do4
do5
do6
do7
do8
do9
do10
do11
do12
do13
do14
do15
do16
do17
do18
do19
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
57 Comments