Barack Hussein Obama. Recently he has been compared to John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and the second coming of a Democratic Governing Majority. Democrats, understandably, are aching for a clean politician to carry their mantle in 2008. They long for a leader who sounds hopeful, idealistic, and energetic. Never mind the hard stuff, let's feel good while listening to this good looking and affable man give a speech.
Not since 2000 have I seen such outpouring of energy for one man. Barack Obama is attractive, has a great story, and is, by all accounts, a very bright man. Running for President is about credentials. Policy, campaign finance prowess, nationally known and respected staff, national security experience, and international connections are all key factors.
Most Republicans felt the same way in 1999 and 2000. We were similarly fatigued by eight years of the Clintonista regime. Frankly, Republicans self-generated much of the drama beginning with the impossibly petty "impeachment" proceedings against then-President Clinton. Our prayers were answered with George Walker Bush. Circumstances today notwithstanding, Republicans in 2000 were ecstatic with support for our nominee.
Before Obama ever faces the Republican electioneering machinery... he must demonstrate the ability to compete — and beat — all Democratic challengers. He possesses great ability in persuading media and the masses. Both of Obama's books are wonderful. He is a gifted speaker and clearly, his passion for public service is authentic. He appears to have harnessed raw ambition and changed it to fuel his drive all the way through November 2008.
His chief competition, Senator Hillary Clinton, has enormous advantages. She has scooped up a lot of players but has also created a lot of enemies over the years.
To defeat Hillary Clinton may be easier than withstanding the media's microscopic examination of his entire life. Once the honeymoon period is over, Obama must demonstrate he is a serious contender. He must secure resolute, motivated, and nationally respected fundraising operatives. Without thirty to forty million dollars in his presidential campaign account, Obama will be seen as a flash in the pan. Gravitas is about more than his national security creds.
As an American, I think it’s high time we picked nominees from both parties who represent the best talent, best ideas, best character, and best leadership we have to offer. Doing what is best for our country used to be seen as an honorable thing. Perhaps Obama can facilitate the Audacity of Hope for more than a little media shine. Let’s get down to the issues at hand: Iraq, terror, equality, pay, healthcare, education.
May the best man, or woman, win.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
Obama was, until two years ago, a state legislator. One of about 5000 nationwide. He has served two years in the Senate, the lowest-ranking minority member of the Environmental Resources Committee. Am I missing something?
2 - Bliffle
"Running for President is about credentials. Policy, campaign finance prowess, nationally known and respected staff, national security experience, and international connections are all key factors.
Most Republicans felt the same way in 1999 and 2000. ... Our prayers were answered with George Walker Bush. Circumstances today notwithstanding, Republicans in 2000 were ecstatic with support for our nominee."
Huh? Based on what? "...national security experience, and international connections..."?
"As an American, I think it’s high time we picked nominees from both parties who represent the best talent, best ideas, best character, and best leadership we have to offer."
Is that what you were thinking when you supported GWB in 2000?
Until you improve your own confused thinking your political judgements will be suspect, with me at least.
3 - dan
Yes you have missed something. Obama is intelligent, capable, and articulate. He has a strong and positive message. Works well with people of other political and spiritual persuasions. Is open minded and thoughtful. Has vision for energy independence and climate change. Would not have started a war in Iraq. Etc etc etc etc etc.
4 - Donnie Marler
Hillary Clinton also has enormous disadvantages as the potential nominee.
She is one of the most polarizing personalities in the political spectrum who inspires more 'love or hate' reaction than any other, and has shown no strong ability to bring the undecided into her camp.
I do not believe she can win, even if nominated, and I do not expect her to be nominated.
Obama seems to be a man of strong character and intelligence. I consider these to be far more desirable and important traits in a candidate than a number of years spent in the halls of power gaining 'experience.'
5 - Bliffle
Donnie has it right when he describes Hillary as 'polarizing', but that may not mean that she is unelectable. You don't have to get EVERY vote to win, and Karl Rove has shown us that a really expert political operative can use polarization as a tool. In the right hands, if you can accurately gauge political factions you can use polarization to deride heretics and drive them back into the fold, and, more importantly, get them to the polling places. I haven't seen such a genius among the democrats, but better informed people tell me that Rahm Emmanuel is such a one and demonstrated his skill in the recent elections.
6 - D'oh
Ah yes, another shill for the Republicans blogging, and this one has the lack of taste to use a bombastic headline with "Hussein" in it.
Spin harder, those who support the intellectually bankrupt and proven incompetents in the current regime need all the help they can get.
Ho about recognizing and realizing that there would be no Iraq problem, if this Administration had not deliberately chosen a bad war, and that the problems might be a lot less severe if they had not royally fucked up the running of the occupation due ot listening to KBR, DynCorp and other mercenary "consultants" on the handling of it.
Until the day that partisans on both sides of the aisle can see a Humvee run over a dog,and agree on what happened rather than trying to tell the public that it was "attempted suicide" by the dog, then We the People are just straight fucked.
Apologists and shills have a special circle of Hell waiting for them,along with other betrayers and liars.
7 - Clavos
You don't have to get EVERY vote to win, and Karl Rove has shown us that a really expert political operative can use polarization as a tool. In the right hands, if you can accurately gauge political factions you can use polarization to deride heretics and drive them back into the fold, and, more importantly, get them to the polling places. I haven't seen such a genius among the democrats, but better informed people tell me that Rahm Emmanuel is such a one and demonstrated his skill in the recent elections.
Isn't it a shame that our electoral process has descended to such manipulative depths instead of, as Lizzy says in the article,
"May the best man, or woman, win."
8 - Dave Nalle
Ho about recognizing and realizing that there would be no Iraq problem, if this Administration had not deliberately chosen a bad war
So you think that Saddam Hussein murdering about 50 people a day on average was not a problem? Typical leftist selectiveness.
Dave
9 - D'oh
Dave, and you think that the more than 100 Iraqis a day being killed by the current situation is better?
Typical fascist selectiveness.
Saddam was indeed a bad guy, there are a plethora of bad guys running governments, should the US intervene in the problems of these sovereign nations, or go after the folks we have national security problems with?
Like, finishing the job in Afghanistan, stopping the 95% of the world's opium production there that finances the Taliban and bin Laden?
Or are you among those who appear to have conveniently forgotten what the US is supposed to be fighting against in your pathological need to try and justify the needless (from a national security standpoint)invasion of Iraq on a political and not strategic timetable?
Oh wait, I almost forgot, Dave is one of those shills and apologists.
10 - Media Lizzy
Neither vulgarity nor hysteria further inform a reader on any topic. All such behavior really does is reflect on the hysteric - rather than the topic at hand.
Obama is positively the walking epitome of an Aaron Sorkin-esque character. What remains to be seen is if he can muster the resources necessary to compete with establishment Democrats. Until Obama becomes master of the Democratic party and it's machinery, Republicans need not focus on him. There is MUCH housecleaning to be done on our side of the aisle.
11 - D'oh
As for vulgarity, fuck censorship. As for your accusations of hysteria, nice try at distraction and framing, but ineffective.
Your own agenda has been made plain, and is amplified by your following the Rovian tactic of placing Hussein in the title of your article.
So anything you write is therefore immediately categorized as partisan shilling for the Administration, which you openly admit in another article.
That's fine and well within your rights to do so, but pure hypocrisy if you attempt to pass off your PR pieces as anything other than spin.
12 - Media Lizzy
Having manners has nothing to do with censorship. Frankly, I'm grateful for your willingness to be transparent. It makes such an easy mark for partisans like myself.
My admiration for Barack Hussein Obama is genuine. His speeches, and his writings, are filled with an innate ability to hear and respect all sides of an issue. Which is why his greatest hurdle is a Democratic primary. In a General election - he would be far more formidable than Hillary.
As for noting his entire name, Barack Hussein Obama - it's just a name. I find it refreshing that even in the face of a war in Iraq, and with jihadists globally - that the greatest hope Democrats have is with a man whose middle name is Hussein. It's cool that all Americans aren't hysterical and paranoid.
Silly boy.
13 - Media Lizzy
I was a partisan long before I met W and Karl Rove. Rove was, once upon a time, the preeminent strategist. What's important is to identify the next Karl Rove, or James Carville.
What happens NEXT is what matters. But for the record, my Republican roots were planted and nurtured in Georgia. I grew up in Newt's district. He's our "ideas" guy.
14 - Media Lizzy
Thanks, Clavos for reading the entire piece. Our nation needs more fair minded listeners.
15 - D'oh
Ah yes, again nice try at framing and distraction, I don't think you will find me "easy" in any way, shape or form.
Don't mistake me for a democrat, nor any kind of Obama supporter, I have yet to study or make up my mind about him, and I follow neither political party myself.
My entire problem with the bullshit in this article has to do with the deliberate conflation between Obama and Saddam that you attempted with the title of this article.
Merely by doing so as you did, you instantly revealed yourself and your purposes, agitprop.
As for manners, it's funny to hear you complain about such after doing what you did with the title of this article. It may not fit the legal definition of slander, but it IS a clear example of attempted defamation of character.
All the more insidious by doing as the snake does in a Jungle Book, or Wormtongue himself, smiling and honeyed words while the knife is sunk deep into a back.
Your title did not cite his entire name, "Hussein by another name" appears to be a blatant attempt at conflation in pure swiftboat fashion, and I find it personally detestable.
Hence my response.
Oh yes, I also adhere to good manners with those that deserve such, or even strangers.
Not shills or apologists, marketers or PR leeches.
16 - Media Lizzy
Nothing warms my heart like hate mail. It is exactly why Republicans working at the presidential campaign level are successful. Bush-haters & Democrats employ nasty language and emotion - hoping against hope it will trump sanity, techique & technical details.
Case in point... when they are losing an argument they say KARL ROVE. If that doesn't work, they say "SWIFT BOATS."
The Swift Boat guys were magnificent. Those men earned their right in blood & treasure to speak publicly. Hiring a group of competent political practitioners was brilliant.
As for my detractors, I appreciate your eager willingness to spar. You are the easiest of marks. It is absolutely delightful!
17 - D'oh
Well then, allow me to delight you further.
Do you deny a cynical and political motivation for using the title you did in this article?
Do you deny the motivation was to conflate Obama with Saddam?
Now we will go with your "ideas" man, Newt.
You are aware that he divorced his first wife, in her hospital bed dying with cancer, so he could marry a much younger woman who had been his intern , and that he later divorced her for another even younger woman who had been his intern?
How about the fact that he had been the chief political editor fo rFox news, while spending more than half of each month fund raising for the Republican party? (that's from his own online itinerary)
Perhaps you would care to defend Newt taking a stand that free speech should be curtailed as outlined in this article here on BC?
Spin as you like, which is what you get paid for. Try and distract from objective facts all you desire. One would think that this past election results have shown that the vast Middle of American politics is quite tired with the "throw red meat to the base" politics is about over.
Now, as to your love of "hate mail", do note that this is nowhere near "hate"... disgust, yes.
Again, feeble attempts at framing do nothing to further your points of contention, nor move the discussion along towards resolution.
I'll gladly leave it to those who decide to read this thread about who is "losing" here. I could care less about such. I merely operate under the strong desire to cut the bullshit out of the process, and call them like I see them.
I do greatly appreciate the fact that you own up to being a partisan shill, that bit is quite refreshing, now if we could just get you to stick to facts and dealing with the issues under discussion rather than vain attempts a the cyber version of character assasination, we might make some progress.
If nothing else, I am glad that this thread has indeed exposed your own positions and motivations.
Do you getpaid by the word for all this?
Final note, you style yourself a "fresh conservative" type of person, your thoughts on the fiscal disaster the GOP held Congress and White House has made?
As for "easiest of marks", interesting that you should use the terms of a con artist, again revealing your inclinations and motivations.
But you might want to be careful that you don't dislocate your arm patting yourself on the back in self congratulations. "Mission accomplished" is once again premature.
18 - Dave Nalle
The author COULD have called him Barrack Osama and resisted. That should earn some credit.
Plus, aside from the title, the article itself is fairly neutral. It's hard to resist a snappy title.
Dave
19 - Baronius
Based on Dan's comments, I searched the web for information about Obama. This guy is really unimpressive. I read a copy of a speech he gave on energy independence. He's not especially articulate; his proposals are cookie-cutter Democratic. I can't imagine the Obama boom lasting too long.
20 - Dan
The problem for Democrats is that the population still hasn't reached the tipping point where they can embrace openley their anti-white, anti-male, hostility. They still need to cloak their agenda to fool as many morons as they can.
Fair minded minorities and women are mostly conservatives. The minorities and women who rise through the ranks in the Democratic party do so mostly by making racist and sexist appeals to heavily liberal districts, as do the white guys. Thus, they become tainted in their national appeal.
Obama represents an opportunity for them. Since he doesn't have much of a track record, and can articulate their deceptive euphemisms and platitudes, he may be able to ride the tidal wave of hysterically fawning media bias into office.
21 - Col. Mustard
The title is terrible. Since his middle name is Hussein, he is not "Hussein by Another Name". Now, "A Hussein of a Different Stripe" would have made more sense, but then anyone who thinks GW had "national security experience, and international connections" has questionable critical skills regardless of what they have written about themselves in their bio.
"I think it’s high time we picked nominees from both parties who represent the best talent, best ideas, best character, and best leadership we have to offer."
Considering your party didn't do that in '00 or '04, readers should take this suggestion with a grain of salt.
"My admiration for Barack Hussein Obama is genuine."
Who are you kidding? Check the books you have selected from Amazon. He doesn't use his middle name, so why are you? It's not something you do with everyone because you didn't use the middle names of the Kennedys. The true reason for your use of his middle name is pathertically transparent.
22 - Col. Mustard
Baronius, Lincoln served one term in the House before getting elected. How did he do as President?
23 - D'oh
Colonel Mustard, in the Conservatory, with pure logic and the pipe wrench.
24 - Dave Nalle
but then anyone who thinks GW had "national security experience, and international connections" has questionable critical skills regardless of what they have written about themselves in their bio.
Then you're not familiar with some of Bush's 'off the record' activities during the 1980s.
"I think it's high time we picked nominees from both parties who represent the best talent, best ideas, best character, and best leadership we have to offer."
Considering your party didn't do that in '00 or '04, readers should take this suggestion with a grain of salt.
So you think the proper response to making a mistake is to NOT correct it and do better next time? Is that how things work in the democratic party?
Dave
25 - D'oh
Dave says, "Then you're not familiar with some of Bush's 'off the record' activities during the 1980s."
Like drunk driving and cocaine?
Is that what passes for foreign policy expertise in the republican party?