This is a bit worrying if Obama turns out to be a DLC type because that will mean he not only hurts our movement but is good at it which most DLC types... aren't.

I agree that Obama has structured his announcement well but the bigger picture is that as a candidate his honeymoon will end.  It always does.  Always.  Ask Howard Dean.  Because the system forces these candidates to announce a year before the first primay or caucus some may tire of them by the time the real voting starts.  Everything Obama does now will be seen through the distorted carnival funhouse mirror of presidential politics.  

With the media attention comes added scrutiny. Iraq, of course, will be the issue. Will he follow Edwards in opposing funding for escalation? The country, especially progressives, will be watching. By not saying he'd block escalation, he's already dug himself a little hole. If he doesn't vote to block funding, he's gonna catch hell with the base; if he does, the media will say, "he's capitulating! His reputation as a unity candidate is threatened!"

It's never easy, not even for Barock star.

I think you're overestimating the amount of press coverage Obama will receive. I don't forsee any of these guys having any sort of different media coverage during this "exploring window". It's not like CNN or MSNBC is going to be doing 24/7 ObamaWatch.

At least I pray they won't.

No one has commented on what this means for HRC ... it's not good news for her .. can she win the nomination running to the right of Obama? ... and I don't see how she can now run to the left of him ... she'll also have a lot of explaining to do about her vote for Smirk's misadventure

!!!

She apparently postponed her press conference on Iraq that was scheduled for today, in light of Obama's announcement:

UPDATE: Interestingly, the woman viewed as Obama's top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination at this moment - U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, who was originally supposed to appear at a 2 p.m. press conference to discuss her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, suddenly has no public schedule today.

The press conference, at which Clinton was to be joined by her fellow travelers, U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, D-In., and U.S. Rep. John McHugh, R-Watertown, has been moved to tomorrow at 3 p.m.

meh.

Even though I doubt he will run...

Al Gore would drown out any media focus on Obama as the media would take at least two weeks talking about why or why not Gore should run...

"With the media attention comes added scrutiny. Iraq, of course, will be the issue. Will he follow Edwards in opposing funding for escalation?"

Obama leads Edwards (and Clinton) on Iraq

1. Obama opposed Iraq. Edwards and Clinton voted for it.  We need a president who gets the war/peace issues right the first time.

2. Obama (way before Edward's NO announcement muff) called for US withdrawal from Iraq by 2008 and redeployment to get Bin Laden.

So Obama owns the Iraq issue. The only candidate who got it right on Iraq.

No doubt, if he follows through, Obama will be strong with young progressive voters in the primary.  But in watching his pre-announcement video he made a classic mistake that was bad enough 4 years ago, but we should be so beyond now.

In describing the new economic realities that Americans have to deal with he touched on the escalating cost of college and how we worry about "how to pay for college for your kids."

As if only parents vote, and as if only parents deal with the problems of rising college cost and burdensom student debt.

I think a young voter hears that and they get a message about who he is talking to: Parents.

I think he can do better, and all our candidates need to do better in reaching out to young voters.

I'm not sure I agree with your thesis, Chris. Though lesser known candidates are put in a tough spot given Obama's excellent earned media position, I'm not sure its going to play the same way for Clinton.

The story is going to be that a Clinton (a woman) and Obama (a black man) are facing off for the Democratic nomination. That was going to be the story months ago, a la the Time magazine cover a while back. If anything, Clinton will be forced to enter early to stoke that horserace narrative and piggyback on her top competitors earned media. She's not boxed in -- she's still the frontrunner.

I don't buy that this is a problem. Anybody who announces will get some free press and none of the non-top tier candidates will get much without fighting for it - their route to the nomination can only come by taking the place of one of the other leading contenders.

If Clinton gets in soon, then there could be problems as the narrative would probably be that they're the only two serious contenders, but for now it's not a death blow to anyone.

Has anyone checked on Stoller?

I'm worried what he may do now that Obama made it official.

;)

Nobody will get the press and media attention that Senator Hillary Clinton will get when she announces she is running.  It will make John Edwards attempts to get seen on every tv show in the country look like the minor league.  Hillary's been laying the groundwork for her Presidential campaign for years and not just in New York but all around the country. And she will have President Bill Clinton promoting her everywhere.

I do wish Barack Obama the best of luck.  He would be wise to run a positive campaign and not lash out at the 110th Congress the way John Edwards has done.

I just watched it. He said nothing that couldn't have been said by a reform-minded Republican. Seriously. His singular message was that our politics are broken. He sounded like Ross Perot.

I like Obama and I think he's probably a progressive, but this is taking caution to a new level.

More good news for Edwards.

And Mary Contrary: it's a pleasure to see you. I'm honored to be on the same thread as Hillary's one netroots fan.  

Well david mizner, our next President will be Hillary Rodham Clinton.  It's annoying to the netroots but the netroots represents a very very small percentage of the Democratic party.  Bad news for John Edwards!! :)

"If Obama were in the U.S. Senate in 2002 and Edwards running for Senator in Illinois a year and a half later, their positions could have easily been reversed."

But they are not and Obama owns the Iraq issue and the person was speculating on what happens if Iraq is the central issue of 2008...which it likely will be since Bush Jr's 20,000 troops will make no change in the nightmare scenario.

Edwards chose poorly. Perhaps he would make similar poor choices as president.

Obama is the only major candidate in the field who was right about Iraq.

Obama as of now reminds me of Edwards' campaign, circa Jan 2003. At first no one could quite believe he'd gone ahead and done it on such limited experience, then there was a series of quotes about what a "natural" campaigner he was, then the stories about his early fundraising prowess and he was, briefly, the front-runner in the then-important Shrum primary...then came Dean.

Edwards eventually regained his footing once he had thought through his message and his campaign style, and thats not easy. He's had 4 years more to think it through and its clear he's got a strong sense of why he's running and how he wants to go about it.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to be riding the buzz far ahead of any serious thinking about an agenda or a strategy, especially a strategy. Can anyone seriously lay out a scenario in which Obama wins the nomination?

I think by June, we'll start seeing stories about "what happened to Obama"?

I agree that the timing of Senator Obama's announcement is very crafty, and good on him.  I am very interested to see the suggestion that HRC may not even run because I have a feeling that just might happen, as unlikely as that may seem today; her minders can't run a negative campaign on Obama, nobody dares at this point (Biden 'He's a quality guy'). So what is she left with but an overdue penance for her 2002 Iraq vote; not a great way to start a campaign.  She would be a great Senate Majority Leader though, wouldn't she?  Maybe she will just bide her time.

And as for Barack's reticence on the funding attack now being proposed, I think he is carefully avoiding a pitfall which John Edwards, and others, have unfortunately had no choice but to risk.  They don't have Obama's credibility on this issue and are overcompensating.  This funding issue is a tar-pit which will prove problematic later for Democrats who are unwary.  Ted Kennedy can get away with it; he's not running, is he?

So far, so good.

Obama was probably helped by that visit at the California drug rehab center. He knows where to go and who to meet with and that is a major advantage from my point of view.

I heard to about a visit at the clinic Narconon Vista Bay, but I don't think this was trully a problem. It must have been something else!