Capitol Fax Blog Archive Site: Question of the day

He is great Senator.And be a great President. But he needs more time as A Senator..

Why doesn't he just go for emperor instead?

The media seems to think he is qualified. And since I believe everything I read, I would be more the happy to support him as despot.

SurveyUSA poll: Would you support Barrack Obama as Imperator?

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

RUN Prince RUN!!!

Prince vs Hilary in primaries.

Trashing each other as it gets close.

One for sure becomes a loser. Feeling so bad no VP spot for the loser.

The other gets beat up so badly they are easy prey in the general.

Be still my heart......

List of former senators the ran for president and how they fared:

2004: John Kerry (Lost)
2000: Al Gore (Lost, but to be fair, he was VP. He spent alot of time as a senator)
1996: Bob Dole (Lost)
1984: Walter Mondale (Lost, but like Al Gore, was VP, but mostly a senator)
1972: George McGovern (Lost)
1968: Hubert Humprehy (Lost, same as Gore and Mondale)
1964: Barry Goldwater (Lost)
------LBJ (won, but was Prez already)
1960: John Kennedy (Won, but he was a Kennedy)

Quite a gallant bunch of leaders, don't you think? If Obama wants to be Prez, he should run for governor first. Most of the presidents who have won have been governors first.

Our country needs hope. We've lacked hope for some time now.

At MotherJones.com you can read an essay he wrote on a vision for education. It's the first real sound evaluation on what we are lacking - HOPE for our young people to be able to become valuable citizens in a global economy.

Racist comments should be avoided at all costs. I've already deleted one.

Obama long has been on record saying he won't run in 2008. Anything else is just media-fueled speculation. Even HE knows he's not quite ready yet.

It is too soon for him, although I understand that one scenario being discussed (hoped for?, fantasized about?) in DC is a deadlocked convention with Obama then drafted.

It won't surprise me at all to see him at the top of many people's VP lists, however.

Just for hell of it, could you imagine a Richardson-Obama ticket!

The issue for me, and, I suspect, most Americans who view him with caution is not race (remember, he is biracial, emblematic of our increasingly diverse US population) but a sense that, although charming and articulate and obviously bright, underneath
he wants what all traditional black politicians appear to want...heavy taxes, huge entitlement programs,large expensive government bureaucracies
intervening in every aspect of citizens' lives...the ultimate nanny state. He has done absolutely nothing to counteract that impression during his admittedly brief tenure in the Senate.

If that's racist...sorry, but it's the way I see it. Not to say Blago isn't cut from the same policy cloth...the nanny state as an overriding policy goal is not confined to black politicians.

Hillary-Barack (in either order) would be a dream ticket. Working together with a new democrat majority in both houses of Congress, they would solve the social security "crisis", pay down the deficit just like Bill did, promote and pass a national health plan,and federaly fund education. Under Secretary of State Rod Blagojevich, America would regain the esteem and respect of the world. Under Attorney General Lisa Madigan human and civil rights would be restored to all Americans.
....and the first gentleman would have great parties in the west wing.
YES!!!!!!!!!!

That is some what presumptious isn't it?

Truth is, the more time he spends as a U.S. Senator the more baggage he gets and the harder it is for him to make the jump.

Who was the last sitting Senator to be elected President?

Sorry - I totally missed anon 6:54's post.

Sure, why not...the current president shows you don't need a lot of experience to mess up, er, I mean run the Country.

American needs hope? Is that going to come from the doom and gloom Democrat party that keeps telling us the economy is awful, that we are losing the war on terror, and that racism is worse than ever?
Facts are anathema to a liberal.

If we have learned only one thing from the presidency of George W. Bush it is this: An American can become president of the United States by having only three assets:
1) name recognition,
2) strong funding, and
3) the willingness to say he'll change the culture in Washington.

Barack 08AMA has those qualities and some of that "book learnin'" that been conspicuously – and willfully – absent in the current presidency.

Anon 7:50 -- If your concern is "huge [government] programs, large expensive government bureaucracies intervening in every aspect of citizens' lives" you should be very troubled by George W. Bush's policies of the last five years. He has created a bottomless money pit in Iraq and, through the Patriot Act, has permitted the feds to stick their noses into every facet of citizens lives.

But Mr. Bush refuses to actually fund his programs and instead uses money borrowed from the Chinese government -- a policy that puts the U.S. at the mercy of the nation that will be our biggest rival in the comming century.

"How many other freshman have accomplished major bill passages..."

What were Obama's major bill passages, Tessa? What specifically has he done during his one year in the Senate to qualify him for the presidency? What specifically did he do before being elected to the Senate that qualifies him for the presidency?

The only reason you Dems seriously think of an unaccomplished pretty-face as a serious Presidential candidate is because you lack anyone of character and your party is totally bereft of any rational ideas.
I mean, come on, you elected Blago to Governor and Princess Madigan to AG.

Austin Mayor's argument is the best. I guess Bush didn't need all that book learning to fool the whole world, including Bill Clinton, about weapons of mass destruction.

Which is it, is he dumb or is he the smartest conspirator on the planet?

I really love the constant harping about Republicans being dumb just because they didn't study French Literature or something equally insipid.

One year in the Senate and appearing on "The View" and "Regis & Kelly" does NOT a president make. Bush may be unpopular now, but he was elected chief executive of a major state TWICE, which makes for a legit candidate.
Obama needs time in the Senate to actually do something to be worthy of consideration for president or needs to run for governor.

Who's Barak Obama? He ran practically unopposed in his only significant election.

He's a bunch of media hype, and is too freaking liberal to get elected to anything beyond being Dick Durbin's junior senator.

He looks and talks pretty, but we still need proof that there is any there - there!

Go ahead and run, it might be his only shot. If he is all smoke and mirrors, the tide is running in his favor. If he really has something to accomplish, then he needs to accomplish them first.

The lefties love Barack because he is a secret liberal. They love Lisa Madigan for the same reason. The lefties know they cannot win an election on facts or ideas.

Who was the last sitting Senator to be elected President?

I know! I know!

It was John Kennedy in 1960.

Do I win a prize now?

No.

Although I do love the notion that because he's Black, he is uber-liberal and wants grand entitlement programs (by the way - did you mean like the MediCare drug debacle? Or $300 billion foreign adventures -- which types of mass spending do you suppose "liberals" want?).

Incidentally, how does one term in the Senate make one less qualified than six years as governor of a state with a very weak governorship. Ooooohhh - that's right. Obama's (or Edwards', for that matter) daddy wasn't president.

But I don't even think he's thinking of running - but the accolades are a good fundraising tool.

It is of particular concern for any Dem if John McCain can get past the flying monkey right of his party -- because no one's likely to beat him in the general.

Anon 9:20...the fact that JFK was the last senator elected president was posted at 6:54...so the only prize you get is being late to the debate...nice try though.

That's right, anon 9:19, they should steer toward lies, phony piety and fearmongering. It's worked so far for for Bush and Co.

John McCain is a wack job egomaniac. The only people I ever hear touting his candidacy are liberals.
They know one mention of the Keating 5 and Hillary will be immunized against many of her troubles.

An accusation of phony piety is a string about Emperor-in-waiting Barack? Too funny.

Wrong 9:29.

McCain is a conservative - no doubt. The difference is many Democrats trust he might tell the truth 10% of the time - which would be a dramatic improvement over the current administration.

And though he is an egomaniac - he has a Perot populist vibe - only with credibility.

I seriously doubt the Republican voters of NH - who preferred him over Bush in 00, are "liberals."

Who else might it be? Jeb (bush fatigue - and he's young)? Frist (serious ethical challenges - and videotaped diagnoses)? Rudy (the flying monkeys will destroy him - he's even got a Kerry moment - "I'm FOR gun control in cities -- AGAINST in the country...")?

Only a two sitting senators have been elected president --- Warren Harding and John Kennedy.

By contrast, four of the last five presidents have served as governor.

9:31 - explain.

When has Obama worn Jesus on his sleeve? Exploited religous people with phony notions of faith and morality?

No dice.

I believe that 9:37 just proved my point. Only a liberal would cite Perot alongside McCain as a reasonable alternative to an actual Republican.

McCain is best friends with Teddy Kennedy. He is so popular with his fellow Republican Senators that I cannot come up with ONE that endorsed him in the primary.

As for future GOP candidates, you missed a raft of possibilities. Of course that's because you don't pay attention to the GOP, because you are another lib/Dem supporter of McCain.

Hey 9:39: Check this out. Barack campaigning at a church.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_6_108/ai_n15686666

And yet, Barack supports the ACLU's effort to strip any mention of religion from government buildings, paper, etc.

Anon 9:28...can you show me where Bush & Co rounded up a group of Americans and put them in camps during a time of war...oh wait, that was the beloved FDR...my bad.

9:46 - no one proved your point - not even you. Best friends with Kennedy? Prove that.

And I wouldn't vote for McCain - nor would most partisan Dems. But the vast middle that actually elects presidents would.

9:49 - speaking in church(as Dems and Republicans both do), and using religion as a weapon and a crutch (Gay marriage, stem cell, abortion, the end times begin between the Tigris and Euphrates ...etc) are two different animals and you know it. Suggesting otherwise makes you a fool, a liar or both.

Fundraising won't be a problem for Obama, unless Hillary's ppl close the spigot.

But the guy hasn't done much in the senate.

He's not going to run in 08, so it's a moot point. But if there's anything the American people deserve after the last five years of complete disaster in the White House, it's someone like Barack. I can't wait for the day when he says he's in so I can drop everything I'm doing and work my nuts off to get him there. I just hope he asks.

Do we need him? Yes.

Would he be a great democratic (small d) leader for our country and the world? Yes.

Will he run? Not in '08.

Should he run? Oh yeah.

Besides, who needs Obama when we'll have the great Rod Blagojevich to run.

I'm not a fan of Sen. Obama but I don't think he needs to think about running for President in 08. He needs to take his time and get not only his name out there but gain some significant accomplishments. He either needs to become governor or if nothing else become a agency head or a department secretary. Or if nothing else become a leader in the Senate unlike the last Democrat nominee John Kerry. Did Kerry have any leadership role in the Senate?

Here's the real question that should be asked...when will Obama get his first about of negative press, and what will be the issue?

10:08 - I believe it is incumbent upon you to prove your initial argument that Bush is guilty of phony piety.

I have never been to a "Republican" church and I have been in many churches and a few synagogues. But it is routine in the very large African-American congregations to have Democratic politicians speak and even register voters. Arguably the greatest African-American Dem political/opinion leaders are all reverends who are also the best examples of "phony piety." Jackson, Farrakhan, and Sharpton are political animals who spew hate 24/7. There is no one among the religious right who could compare. Moreover, there is no one a knee-jerk liberal can cite who has been embraced by the GOP. Compare that to the Dem party which adores Jesse and his fellows.

Fact remains: Barack campaigns in churches.

Anon 6:54

Normally, I would agree with you. It drove me nuts when the Dems nominated Kerry, because Senators don't win unless they have done something else in between (like VP or Gov.)

However, look at how Kennedy won. He oozed charm and charisma, spent only a few years in the Senate, had a national profile and ran a heck of a race full of hope and optimism (with some help from a Daley). Obama has the power to do the same thing, and if he doesn't jump now, he risks being the next Cuomo.

All those who say Obama should wait are WAY off. Assume for a minute that whatever Dem is nominated in 2008 wins (a big assumption, to be sure).

That Dem Pres. is going to run again in 2012. Then you have a VP running in 2016. So we're looking at 10 to 14 years before Obama has another clear shot.

In the mean time, he is taking vote after vote in the Senate. Lots of those votes are on good bills with crap stuffed in them. That crap becomes fodder attack ads.

If he waits, he can't stay in the Senate. There are too many votes with too many things that can be put out of context in attack ads to stick around in the Senate for long and have any chance of being elected Pres.

However, if Obama runs now, he has the charm, the light voting record (little to attack), the intelligence, the fresh passion, the momentum and the "star power" of a Kennedy.

If he waits too long though, he needs to run for Gov. Else he'll end up like Ted Kennedy.

Wow -- I am going to back up Rich for a moment here.
Can everyone just take a deep breath?

You would think winning an argument or pointing out a mistake on these threads was the ONLY thing some of you have going in your lives. Some of the comments here are so arrogant -- people, get over yourselves.

God love Rich for providing this interesting forum for us political geeks who enjoy discussing the latest in state politics. Why do a few bad apples force him to scold bloggers like school children?

And I haven't even seen some of the trashy comments that were deleted.

Thanks again Rich for providing this service -- sorry some of us can't control ourselves.

I'm still in thanksgiving mode.
:-)

Hey 10:08,

You said to prove McCain and Kennedy are buddies. Check out paragraph 16 (or 17) in this article:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020325/newfield

Anybody who actually follows politics knows that bad-driving-Ted and RINO-McCain are buddies. Why do you want the GOP to nominate McCain so badly if you have no intention of voting for him?

I don't think anyone is being too mean here. You may not have ever witnessed an actual debate before, but mere disagreement doesn't warrant the thought police stepping in.

All democrats campaign in churches...why is this suddenly news to people?

11:07 - did you think I wouldn't look that up?

You said "best buddies." The referenced article said Kennedy had "formed warm, genuine friendships" with McCain - along with Alan Simpson, Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, and a whole host of PEOPLE HE HAS WORKED WITH FOR DECADES.

And the RINO thing - HI-Larious. He gets scores into the 80s from from the American Conservative Union, National Tax Limitation Committee and the Christian Coalition - and he's a RINO.

I see the Leader orphans are here.

And 10:59's attempts to suggest that a few marginal Black Dems (Jackson, Farrahkan, Sharpton) is the same as the GOP's religion policy isn't just disengenuous - it is idiotic (Justice Sunday anyone?).

Typical faux-con rules of debate. Change the subject a little here...change your answers a little there...

Contrary to typical pretend-conservative thought; you can continue to repeat it, but that won't make it true.

Best buddies or just drinking buddies, I wouldn't vote for anybody who thinks of Ted Kennedy as a friend. You know a person by the company they keep.

You libs can have McCain - the GOP won't nominate him despite your dreams to the contrary.

Man. You're gonna love Republican Nominee Topinka.

Jesse Jackson isn't a mainstream Democrat?

He was a very successful primary candidate, he helped counsel Clinton during his silly scandals, he raises money and organizes Black Dems all over the country, has placed his son in Congress, and has spoken at several Dem National Conventions.

What are you drinking?

Go for it Barrack. Not much negative baggage yet and the press is certainly on his side. If he loses in the primary, so what? At least he has made the race interesting.

Obama v. Condi in 2008

Obama shouldn't rush anything, nor should he worry about his star fading. This guy has done just fine by sticking to his own plan, he was obviously born under a lucky star and is smart enough to take advantage of it.

As for McCain, although he's more conservative than I am, I like him for the very same reason he scares the bejesus out of GOP insiders: he's his own man and doesn't take marching orders from K Street insiders, who he thinks have corrupted the nation he risked his life for, nor from right wing extremists, who were complicit in Bush and Rove's efforts to smear his reputation in the 200 primary.

Jesse did do better than expected as a presidential candidate.

Two decades ago.

Yeah, Jackson has some chops in the Black community -- but when was the last time any Democrat put him front and center, prime time.

Hell, you could make all of the same arguments about Pat Robertson, but outside of nuts like you, no one takes him seriously.

Of course, I'm honest enough to admit this, rather than try to make him the heart and soul of the GOP, as you're attempting to do with Jesse Jackson and the Dems.

Maybe you should have a copy of the ninth commandment next to the first amendment taped to your monitor.

This debate is happening on borrowed space -- we're long past a reminder to stick to the question (will Obama run for president in '08 - the answer is no, imo).

But hey, we'll have plenty of time for your venting as your red headed nominee sprints to victory.

Judy! Judy! Judy! Enjoy!

The lib who makes accusations about changing subjects brought up Pat Robertson out of the blue.
The hypocrisy is amazing.

Who said anything about Pat Robertson? When has he spoken to the RNC? Which President did he counsel? What campaign operation has he headed up?

BTW, not one Republican in the current field can beat McCain. When he joins the cadre of voices calling for a plan instead of a quagmire in Iraq, he will become the central candidate in the 2008 presidential race.

Yellow Dog Democrat joins the ranks of libs in favor of McCain.

McCain marches to the beat of the liberal press. Period.

Any freedom-loving American should be offended that he championed a law that actually cuts off criticism of political candidates in the thirty days prior to an election. (The fact that the S.Ct. approved that whole bill of McCain-Feingold nonsense is sad.)

12:12 - are you nuts?

Robertson RAN FOR PRESIDENT.

Robertson has spoken at the GOP Convention in 1988 in New Orleans (since you ask).

Robertson is a co-founder of the Christian Coalition (I suppose they have had NO SAY in Republican politics).

And it wasn't changing the subject - it was clearly comparing him to Jesse Jackson.

Your ignorance is glaring.

Sorry Rich, but to just irritate Yellow Dog and his ilk, I have to say this.

George W. Bush will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in the history of this country. Not a Lincoln or a Washington, but better than a Wilson and likely in the same tier as the Roosevelts.

By the end of his term there will be new democratic regimes in the Palestinian settlements, Iraq and Lebanon, with progress in Pakistan and Egypt. Syria will likely have new leadership and Iran will to, though it's not clear if it will be from an internal revolution, or from external forces.

Draining the swamps of despotic regimes in the Middle East had to be done. Democrats would have left it alone and it would have gotten worse. W did somewthing about it.

As to Obama, his best bet is getting tabbed as VP by Hillary in 2008. They will lose, but he will be frontrunner in 2012.

If he wants to run for president he needs executive experience. He should run against Blago in the primary. He'd mop the floor with the gov.

I agree completely.
Too bad these things have to be anonymous in case libs try to spam you.

"George W. Bush will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents in the history of this country."

I see they have the internet at the Methadone clinic now.

Good heavens.

12:29

I said it was funny that you mentioned phony piety in a string about Barack. You are now off on a tangent about Pat Robertson.
You accused me of liking him when I clearly don't know anything about him.
Why are you so concerned about that guy?

Tying this back to the purpose of the string. Barack is whatever you want him to be because he hasn't taken a stand on anything. You should run him now before he actually has to vote with his loser party on some other bad idea they come up with.

1) The phone piety comment hours ago referred to the use of religion in politics. Admitting Democrats -including Obama- speak in churches - no one can credibly make the case that they have politicized religion within a fraction of how it's been done on the other side.

2) Obama has never shown himself falsely pious. Has he invoked God in speeches? Sure. Spoken at churches? We know he has. Defined himself to religious people by his faith, and used it as a basis to advance his polictal agenda? No.

3) someone chose Jesse Jackson as an example of "Mainstream Democrats" using religion.

4) I countered by writing that Jackson is no more a mainstream spokesperson for the Democratic party than is Pat Robertson for the Republicans - in spite of similarly politically active lives.

This should clear that up.

Konerko's staying on the south side! WOOHOO!

Barack campaigns at churches he doesn't belong to. He therefore advances his political career through the use of religion.

That's par for the course with the Democratic party. Examples include the afore-mentioned Reverends, who are all currently involved in Dem politics.

(Pat Robertson never came to my church. My Republican senators/reps/etc. never come to my church either.)

And yet, the ACLU is an ally of the Dem Party and the Dem Party stands by while they and the People for the (Un)American Way try to kill any mention of God in any public forum in any locale.

If that isn't a whole party of falsely pious people it is a party of idiots.

The ACLU and the PFAW are the reason Bush got the majority of regular church-going voters. Keep playing with them - they cost you elections.

This is tedious, and it's getting stupid.

Everyone but you knows you're wrong.

Have fun.

Fine idea, Rich, but I really don't know if he will have the time.

Rumors are flying that he is working on a promising cure for cancer in his spare time, and is about to ink a mega-deal to star in a film opposite Julia Roberts. Plus, I hear his name is being favorably mentioned for the next Pope after the current occupant gracefully departs, with the only possible obstacle being that the Secretary General of the UN might resign in favor of Obama.

Man, 1:30...that joke is even funnier the twentieth time than it was the first.

Why run, he would actually have to accomplish something.

Can someone please explain what Sen. Obama has done to even warrant talk of the White House? It's pure media hype. What would make him a good candidate for prez? He can write and deliver a good speech? If we are being honest here, his race has an awful lot to do with the hype. He lost a bid for Congress and would have lost a bid for US Senate had Hull not hit his wife. He makes one speech and the national media makes him a star...overnight. Think I'm wrong about my race comment? Ask yourself if a state senator from Illinois would have been tapped for that speech if his race were different. Of course not. I'm not saying he shouldn't be president, but do something first.

Who Cares? PK signed with the Sox!

Of course he shouldn't run in 2008. He will be crushed in the Primaries by Rod Blagojevich, who will be fresh off of his crushing and decisive 2006 win over JBT in which he gets over 60% of the vote. The only reason that people are talking about Hillary or Barack for 2008 is that they want to distract the GOP so that they will be blindsided in 2008 by the Juggernaut candidacy of Rod Blagojevich, who is more respected nationwide than 5 John McCains or 6 Rudy Gulianis.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

While we're discussing young, up-and-comers in IL -- we should be asking, why not Frank Avila?

He's young. He's an extraordinarily accomplished lawyer (dare I say he might actually be MORE accomplished than you-know-who?). He's a veteran. And he's the leader of Illinois' Latino community!!!

Rich, there's your next question.

GO FRANK AVILA!!!

It seems that Frank Avila spends an inordinate amount of time on this blog either self promoting or trashing others with completely baseless claims. Get a life Frank.

Now's the time! He's untainted by this illegal war and the Clintons. He is not just another "fortunate son" or someone who thinks it's his turn. His wife keeps his head out of the clouds. He doesn't owe anybody anything. He is his own man! I will work as hard as I can for him. Start it now!!!!!!

He should wait...more experience will help, build his profile even more

and hey, come on people, the cheapshots are not what most of us come to this site for...

Can someone please explain what Sen. Obama has done to even warrant talk of the White House?

Just as soon as someonce can explain what the current occupant has done to warrant residency, thankyouverymuch.

Campaigning at a church and wanting to keep government out of the business of religion are not mutually exclusive, no matter what some wingnuts on this thread may write.

Has he done anything that would qualify him to be President as of yet?

I am sure that he is a nice guy, he seems to be a good campaigner, but I think a record is of some importance here...

He has still not had to run a real general election. He will actually have to stand by his record in IL and actually campaign instead of rasise funds for others

I like Barack Obama. I voted for Barack Obama. I gave him some miminal support (not that I was very critical)

However, I perhaps like the underdog better and when someone starts becoming too popular or powerful I get suspicious. I am not jealous, as I am not in competition, and I am not so called hating as I wish him the best.

On the positive side again, on the half dozen or so times I met Barack Obama he is nicer and humble than most politicians. He also has good academic credentials. But beyond his academic credentials, symbolic hope and biracial identity, and being articulate (there are more articulate also that is also exagerraterd) I am not sure what he has done.

I want to allow Barack Obama to accomplish things, and I don't want him to fail. But I am not sure what he is accomplished.

My opinion may be meaningless, but this Obamamania is not justified and out of hand. He is a politician. He has only been Senator for over a year. The media and some money people (Warren Buffet for example) have annointed him and that all cocerns me.

Give Obama time to really accomplish something. all this talk is a little premature if not exagerrated.

Barack Obama is too liberal to be President. His views are to the left of mainstream America.

He is not a story of rags to riches. He had a privileged life. He grew up with the white side of his family in Hawaii, went to private schools with his wealthy step father in Indonesia, and went to Harvard. He certainly studied and worked hard, but so did a lot of other people. Ivy League education alone does not make a President or leader, and in some cases may hurt. The bottom line this is not Horatio Algiers or even Jesse Jackson Sr. being born out of wedlock poor in South Carolina.

He is not a symbol for African Americans. But he can become a contrived symbol for a new multi-racial America. Barack Obama did not have to endure racism. He was abandoned by his black father, but that is a different and not atypical dynamic in modern society.
His father was an African black man and never was he a descendant of slaves. Many African American politicians and observers on radio etc, like Senator Hendon, Senator Trotter, Congressman Rush, and Senator Hendo supported him (among others) talk about how he looks silly trying to do raise the roof or dance or talk black. He is not an American black, he is not from Chicago, he does not step, he does NOT have a common background nor identity.

Barack Obama did NOT live in poverty he lived in a world of privilege and opportunity. He did not go to bad schools, he went to private schools. He did not even live around black people.

His educational credentials are excellent. However, beyond his education, he is somewhat unnacomplished. He worked for the now discredited United Neighborhood Organization as an organizer. Again, no private sector job experience. He did community organizing for overly political poverty pimp type of organizations. He did not start a company. As an attorney he was not on any big cases. He lost for Congress. He has only been in the Senate for a year. Most of Obama's life was outside of Illinois and Chicago, he has a very weak connection.

One should compare the way the media treated Jack Ryan, to Barack Obama. Ostensibly, Jack Ryan is more qualified than Barack Obama--he also went to Harvard law school and graduated with honors AND had an MBA. So Ryan actually has better credentials. Obama admits in his book that he used crack and smack (heroin) in college. Serious hard drug use. Jack Ryan was a little kinky with his own wife and his whole campaign and life are destroyed. Jack Ryan actually created wealth at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker with projects like Best Buy and others. Real significant private sector accomplishments and growing the economy, something Obama never did.

Obama has a great speeech about how we are interconnected and that a poor black kid on the South Side affects a rich Jewish family in Highland Park. I can agree to an extent. But what is Obama going to do or what has he done. Many of the policies he has supported have been failures. There is nothing innovate nor that could be considered necessarily conservative if anything conservative was right.

Obama in the Senate voted for partial birth abortion. Even Blagojevich signed this into law.
People who are pro-choice can recognize that a child living outside the womb should not be killed. Yes it is rare, but it happens and it happens to often and this is a civilized society that should respect life even at earl stages. Obama went along with the abortion on demand lobby to not even have restrictions on abortion post birth, equivalent, however justified, to post birth infanticide.

While Obama went to private schools, he does not give other parents the choice he had. Obama had a wealthy step father and was raised by upper middle class white family in Hawaii. He was world travelled before he ever went to Harvard, and where he never travelled to growing up were the west side or south side of Chicago.
Education is still a serious issue and what different or innovative approach has Obama offered besides good speeches.

I think there has to be some type of National Health Care, at least for kids and/or to feel the gaps.
I am partial to market oriented private sector initiatives. However, Obama has not even discussed the costs of a National Health Care program that he advocates, the quality of health care (usually poor in government run free institutions)

Obama voted against the war. Maybe he was right. But we all worship Obama but he never served in the Army, Air Force, Navy Marines. Obama has no military or foreign policy experience. There were other candidates running who had far more like General Borling who was an Air Force General and served 6 years as a POW.

Obama will go far. He already is a favorite child of the media. As other posters have noted he has done well with fundraising and lobbyists.

Illinois still lags behind other states in terms of economic growth, job creation, veterans benefits, and educational standards. Beyond being half black by genetics, and having a good education (like most of the Senate) and being a decent speaker, what has Obama done or even proposed to address these issues that make Illinois behind other states on these key issues.

What has Obama done on issues of corruption? Has he been a leader?
Has he spoken out? Is there any courage? It was Peter Fitzgerald and not Obama who put in Patrick Fitzgerald. Look at some of Obama's money people and it gives pause for concern on appointment to US Attorney. Tony Resko comes to mind. Jim Thompson also was a Republican Obama supporter (Sun Times indictments board, George Ryan scandals) His media guru Axelrod is defending Daley and Hired Trucks, hardly the issues I think one should be defending, does Obama agree with his paid media consultant? The Republican and Democratic parties have a ton of corruption,illegality and if not illegal unethical behaviour,--What does Obama say? What can he do? Is there at least a bully pulpit or leadership?

Obama has yet to prove he is a profile in courage. He is a profile in luck and being pushed by the people in power in our country. He has not been tested or examined like so many others.

When education really gets better for the kids that Obama talks about in his speeches. When Illinois starts changing direction with Federal leadership in jobs and economic growth. When Obama articulates a global vision beyond rhetoric or what is given to him by the powers that be that promote him in such an early and exagerated way--when all that happens, I will say that my doubts were wrong and Obama truly is a great Senator worthy of the Presidency, but that day is not here yet.

Usually if you doing something good, you get criticized a bit more, it scares me this love fest with Obama. I hope it doesn't change him or inflate his ego or make him bought and sold.

Some Republican wrote:

"American needs hope? Is that going to come from the doom and gloom Democrat party that keeps telling us the economy is awful, that we are losing the war on terror, and that racism is worse than ever?"

It is the Democrats' fault that this administration is a failure?

I would love to see the face behind anon 12:27 - who is questioning Obama's blackness.

Bet dollars to doughnuts it's a white guy.

And a handsomely misinformed one at that.

Anon 12:27 sets forth a compelling argument about Obama's shortcomings. I voted for him, but we should all see things clearly - not through a media haze of hype. And to the ignorant poster who questioned the race of Anon 12:27, who cares what race a poster is. The very question is racist. Furthermore, many Bobby Rush supporters who are African American made the very same observations. So button it up, people. Obama is a public figure and he can be fairly criticized without the critic being labelled a racist.

2:27 -- you're wrong.

Consider your logic for a moment - calling one white guy questioning another white guy's questioning the black experience of a black guy racist is a little thick-headed. Confused? I bet you are.

It isn't suggesting the poster is racist either - it is simply suggesting the poster is talking out of his or her behind - because it is an idiotic premise to begin with.

And a five-year-old whisper campaign out of the increasingly irrelevant Bobby Rush doesn't justify it.

Diehard - what on earth are you talking about? Do you even know?

Further, 12:27's post is full of inane and incorrect ramblings.

1) His bios clearly suggest a middle-class upbringing - and a product of divorce - so the idea that he was living on some plantation is just wrong. And he's never billed himself as a rags-to-riches person, so what's your point?

2) I'm pretty sure that in spite of his inability to, ahem, step, the black community has embraced him.

3) You come right out and lie about the drug thing. He admits to smoking pot and experimenting with powder cocaine (not crack). And specifically says "never smack." So, do you lie on purpose?

4) I can't even go on. Your post is so fraught with error and BS (IL lags behind other states? He's a FEDERAL representative. He voted against the war? When? He wasn't in the Senate then - and what does a lack of military service matter? Bush can hardly be considered a vet. Nor Cheney.

The guy's 99th out of 100 Senators in Leadership.

So of course he shouldn't run for president. But at least be a little informed when criticizing the guy.

Obama could not of voted against the war, but he was against the war, and his supporters were anti-war. He was also against the patriotic act.

That doesn't make him bad, I have doubts about the war, but it does make him against most of the other Senators and the sentiment at least at the time, is different than Obamas.

The issue of blackness, put forth mostly by blacks namely some fellow Senators and other elected officials who are black, is not critical. This is the era of sons of privilege and sons of immigrants. Obama may be privileged but he was not blessed like a Hynes, Madigan or Daley.
The issue of identification with the poor is more class than race, and the identification with Illinois for Obama is no worse than Bush Sr. with Texas, Rahm Emmanuel with the 5th District, or Hilary with New York.

Barack did have a quick rise after a good but not remarkable career in the Senate and a loss for Congress.

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

OK, that's enough. Everybody out of the pool. This thread is closed.

WE'VE MOVED TO A NEW SITE. CLICK HERE TO GO THERE

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Question of the day

95 Comments...