It seems like the Dems will be taking both houses of Congress.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Elok
It has something to do with his being the only known Democrat to possess any form of charisma. Better to be a novice with personality like Obama than a soulless leather veteran like Kerry, IMO.

Reality check: all politicians are soulless, plastic ****heads. Who cares if this one hides it better than others?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I'm agnostic about Obama, but here's what I think the deal is him right now -- speaking a lifelong Democrat.

In spite of what one hears on Fox news, the Democrats really do have a core set of beliefs. They really are liberals, in the mid-century sense. The problem is, they've been running from that label, thanks to its demonization by conservatives. But every once in a while, a Democrat not only articulates those values, but affirms them so clearly and so eloquently that the Dems forget their fear for a brief moment, pause, and think, "Yes! That's who we are! That's what we stand for! And who we are, and what we stand for, is good!"

FDR was brilliant at evoking that response. Hubert Humphrey was good at it. Bobby Kennedy did it well throughout teh first six months of 1968. Ted Kennedy, in his one truly Kennedy-esque moment -- his speech at the 1980 convention -- did it as well as RFK at his best and better than JFK ever did.

The last master of this mode was Mario Cuomo, whose 1984 Keynote address at the Convention was the last great articulation of Democratic ideals by a national political figure until Obama's Keynote address in '04. In the wake of that address, Dems begged Mario to run in '88 and '92, to no avail.

That's why Obama. Dems have plenty of wonks who can craft policy, and plenty of politicians who can win elections. What they generally lack is a leader who can stir their souls. After 20 years, they may have one again.

[Ramo]

Yep. These four sentences sold me on Obama:

If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandparent. If there's an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work.

There's no major player in the party who can articulate the moral basis for progressive politics more effectively than Obama. All things considered, I'd prefer Feingold, but I don't think he could win.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yep. These four sentences sold me on Obama:

Compare Cuomo in 1984:

We believe we must be the family of America, recognizing that at the heart of the matter we are bound one to another, that the problems of a retired school teacher in Duluth are our problems; that the future of the child -- that the future of the child in Buffalo is our future; that the struggle of a disabled man in Boston to survive and live decently is our struggle; that the hunger of a woman in Little Rock is our hunger; that the failure anywhere to provide what reasonably we might, to avoid pain, is our failure.

[Ramo]

It all comes back to Eugene Debs:

Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

[realpolitic]

If Spitzer gets things done as governor, he's got a shot in '08, I think he's got the name recognition.

Maybe it will be him against Guliani, two rabid New Yorkers. If it is, it may be the first general election where neigther survive to the election!

[Ramo]

No, he doesn't. The '08 campaign season has already started (see Vilsack, Hunter). Unless he can magically fix all of the state's problems in a couple months, he doesn't have a chance.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ramo
It all comes back to Eugene Debs:

There is a great divide.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by realpolitic
If Spitzer gets things done as governor, he's got a shot in '08, I think he's got the name recognition.

Maybe it will be him against Guliani, two rabid New Yorkers. If it is, it may be the first general election where neigther survive to the election!

Spitzer running after half a term as governor would be even more dubious than Obama running after 2/3 of a term in the Senate. Look for Spitzer in '12 if the Dems lose in '08.

As for governors in '08, I don't think we'll see one -- except maybe Vilsack, who doesn't have a chance -- unless Hillary doen't run. Then, look for either Richardson or Rendell (or both).

[Darius871]

Sorry to waste your time, but quoting a speeches will never abate my cynicism toward politicians.

Of course plenty of citizens indeed hold those beliefs, but there's no evidence for me that he - or anyone else in DC for that matter - is not perfunctorily regurgitating what constituency X wants to hear. His taking the time to prepare admittedly heartwarming speeches or memorizing catchy sound bytes won't convince me of anything other than keen political sense and skilled oratory.

Personally, I blame John Baird.

[Drake Tungsten]

and while there is a criminal element I am of it

I couldn't think of a more succinct description of what the Democrats stand for. Debs...

[Adam Smith]

Rufus, Ramo:

I am not so cynical as to think, like Darius, that the people you quoted are mouthing the words solely for political effect. I tend to take them at their word, and in fact share their values as might be applied to most specific issues. (Note that sexual / reproductive issues are not mentioned in either the Cuomo or Obama quotes.) But I would like to make two observations.

First, the idealists can certainly provide the vision you say the Democratic Party lacks. But I think that the prevalence of wonks arises from the realization, through experience, that policies and programs have to perceived as affordable to voters and likely to succeed. (e.g. current costs of Great Society programs; mechanics of Clinton health care reforms, to name two.) Is this reflected in Cuomo’s “provide what reasonably we might”?

Second, as I am sure you know, Obama’s quote makes explicit religious reference. (“Am I my brother’s keeper?” Genesis 4:9, RSV) Even if one believes the caricature that “the evil evangelicals and conservative protestants who have taken over the Republican party don’t share these values”, there is still a large swath of religious people who do share them. Do you view Obama’s quote as, in part, as an admission that important core values of religious belief are also important core values of the Democratic Party?

[Jon Miller]

I have always maintained that Christians should be socialist..

JM

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I have always maintained that Christians should be socialist..

Or perhaps more to the point, it's been the unabashedly atheist orientation of so many socialists that cost them support of the masses they represent.

One of the biggest and most deleterious political blunders in human history IMO.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


That's the most depressing post in the history of Apolyton.

Hey -- what is depressing about Obama ever becoming a Democratic candidate?