Barack Obama: The Anti-Hillary

WASHINGTON - Several months ago, long before the euphoria in Democratic ranks began to build about a run for the presidency by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a Democratic consultant in Washington told me that Sen. Hillary Clinton could afford to wait until much later than the other 2008 contenders to declare her candidacy.

He argued that Clinton’s non-announcement — holding off until as late as the fall of 2007 — would freeze the other contenders as the news media became obsessed with hand-wringing stories about “what will Hillary do?”

Her rivals would struggle to get attention during the media’s speculative Clinton fever.

Her late entry wouldn’t hobble her, he argued, since she could quickly raise immense sums of campaign money and catch up and surpass her rivals.

I spoke to that same Democratic consultant this week. Now, he said, Obama has fundamentally transformed the race and “he may force her to get in early.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15969751/


While it sounds bad, i.e. Hillary gets in sooner, if it hurt her chances of winning the nomination it has to be good for all things holy.

It would get them involved. And they should be constantly reminded that the current stste of our country has been brought to them by the oldest group of farts ever to run America. Besides Obama vs. Osama has a great sound to it.

Silly, Silly, silly.I don't want a media picked Prez. The only thing Obama has ever done is give one good speech . I have heard him speak on several other occasions and he isn't that much better than anyone else. He is just the media flavor of the month and I am getting tired of it. Let the guy get some experience please, then lets see what he can do.

about Obama. He seems to be a pleasant man and made a good speech , but what has he really done ? David Sirota wrote a good article about this very subject today. Most interesting.I believe one can go to ActForChange.com to read it.

and then he should run for president. Or better yet, why not wait until he's 70 like McCain? Those lengthy paper trails and votes in the Senate really do wonders for presidential candidates. I guess Obama needs to cast 1,000 more votes before he can win like Kerry...oops, I forgot he lost with all that experience he had.

to protect ALL of us but currently and in the past but whatever.And Why does supporting Obama become dissing Kerry? Kerry was NOT the subject of my post.

In my opinion this dishonors the institution and breaks trust with the people who put you there.

The position of "Senator" becomes a stepping stone and nothing else. The person who does this simply wants the title so they can say, "Look, at me I am a Senator".

But if they didn't win the presidency, the Senator will continue serving his Senate term and run for re election, unless he decides to run for the presidency.. in which case they will resign after serving one full term -both situations are given examples in the case of Senator John Kerry(continued serving his Senate term after losing his bid for president) and John Edwards(served one full term and reitred after deciding to launch a bid for president).

Clinton would never have taken office in 1993 if it hadn't been for John Kerry doing DOGGED investigations to uncover IranContra and BCCI. Imagine if NO ONE took on those investigations - NO ONE WOULD and Kerry had to force them and not give up.

This country would have been well on its way to New World Order by 1994 if Kerry was just gathering cobwebs in the senate as YOU are trying to claim.

BTW - I don't suppose you read his 1997 book, The New War - the one that warned of the growing threat of global terrorism and alerted to their funding networks. Of course, many in DC and the media probably never dusted the cobwebs off their copies - that worked out well for the 9-11 families didn't it?

Obama, unlike Hillary, voted against the Iraq War, and that could help him.

He was not in the Senate yet, so did not have a chance to vote either way. I think he said he WOULD have voted against, but is this completely different.

PS: I like Obama a lot, but I agree with the others that promise does not equal substance and that experience most definitely does not equal "cobwebs" (what a nasty and uninformed thing to say!). Things are tough people! Maybe the toughest they have been since WWII. We do need somebody with the maturity and experience to lead in these tough and unpredictable times. I am horrified by my own thoughts, but I may even prefer McCain or Giuliani at helm, much as I dislike them, than Obama who I truly like and see a great future for.

Maybe he would be more hawkish than we think he is.

Just because he hasn't been in the Senate for years and years, doesn't mean he's not qualified. Our last presidential candidate has been in the Senate for years and he couldn't win. Experience doesn't equal a win.

All the things he opposes that she is for and vice versa?

Get back to me.

logic and reason on DU concerning these two. There's hope yet. Thanks.
quickesst

He is also more progressive than her when it comes to social issues, such as gay marriage and abortion. To be honest, though, I would need to know more about Hillary's current position on the issues, since she has a tendency to move to the right and then back to the center, depending on which direction the political wind is blowing. Obama has been consistently left of center in his positions.

pretty much voted the way Hillary has on every issue. And he was against the Alito filibuster publicly before he finally sided with it.

It's what one chooses to do while in power that matters to the actual debate.

The fact that the media wants him in the game so badly is enough to make me wary. They seem to realize Hillary mightnot be as easy a sell as they had first anticipated. The big promotional push for all things Obamais just way too convenient.


Julie

:) runs from GD

A man that supported Lieberman and opposed the Alito nomination, even though he wasn't in the Senate.

and that means supporting the strongest and most viable anti-Hillary candidate that we can find that shares our values, particularly on the war and civil liberties.

It is too early yet to do this. Let's see how the race shapes up, and the candidates perform on the campaign trail. We may have to wait until after Iowa and New Hampshire, but not much later than that. In the meantime, we should support whoever we fashion.

;-)

Me, niether. :hi:

But to me, he always remains the empty suit we have come to love and admire. (snicker)

in all of the Senate, so why would progressives want to form a united front to oppose her? LOL

Lots of work to do in the 110th, and all the media cares about is "are you running?". This should get them off hers and Kerry's backs for awhile and let them answer questions about issues and BushCo investigations.

I wish DU would frame these discussions to incorporate Republicans our guys can be the "anti" of. Like the Anti-McCain, Anti-Guiliani, etc.

use feelgood preacher-type language when they speak, but rarely give specific details or solutions that emanate from their own bodies of work. Obama's withdrawal plann was just a rewriting of other plans put up last year.

They are never far from each other on their votes, either. So, how does Obama come out to be the antiHillary to you?

How did they both react to the Downing Street Memos and Alito filibuster and Iraq withdrawal plans?

I don't want to have to choose another Democratic nominee based only on "electibility".

When I saw Obama on the Charlie Rose show just after he got elected to the Senate, he said (paraphrasing), "I'm not sure where I stand on globalization." That weak language doesn't get me excited.

I hope we get someone else better than Obama or Hillary to choose from.

Congressional Scorecards on the Subject: Reduce Unnecessary FOREIGN WORKERS Visas (career) ...........
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?&Category=5&Status=Career&Flag=4">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?&Category=5&Status=Career&Flag=7">U.S. Senate

such as globalization. All or nothing just doesn't work, as we've seen with our skyrocketing trade debt. On the other hand, no trade equals higher prices, the inability to export products, and isolation in an ever expanding global economy. We need candidates who can balance these issues, rather than just choosing one side or the other to score political points.

And how hard is it to say, "I am against pro-corporate globalization that doesn't respect labor/environmental issues"?

I think our trade deficit was only about 100 billion in 1995. But "free trade" including granting "most-favored-nation-trading status" to China is causing the trade deficit to explode past 700 billion and by the end of this year, it will be 800 billion.

By the 2008 elections, our trade deficit will by over a trillion dollars, if policies aren't changed. I just don't think the Obama's and Hillary's of the world will take a strong stand on these "free trade" agreements.

Personally, I prefer Jack Davis's policy of "balanced trade".
http://www.jackdavis.org/new/speeches/balanced.asp

And if you read his current book, he goes into a lot of depth about valid concerns on both sides of the issue. He eventually sums it up this way:

"I am optimistic about the long-term prospects for the US economy and the ability of US workers to complete in a free trade environment- but only if we distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across the population."

I take this to mean free, but fair trade. CAFTA doesn't provide that, so he voted no.

Davis makes some good points, but we also need to look at US exports and how tariffs on imports could negatively impact major US exporters, such as the beef industry. Tariffs work both ways. And it's unrealistic to think we can impose tariffs and automatically rebuild a manufacturing community that has been hit so hard by globalization. Much of our manufacturing sector is simply gone. Where does the capital to rebuild come from? What happens if China objects to the tariffs by collecting on the debt we owe them?

Again, I'm certainly no supporter of CAFTA or NAFTA. At the same time, I recognize that the genie's out of the bottle and our nation's economy is a part of a global economy, whether we like it or not. The plight of American workers today pales in comparison to what would happen to the American worker if our nation's economy completely collapses. Of course, maybe it's already a foregone conclusion and we're just prolonging the suffering. It's a tough call.

It's true that both Obama and Hillary voted against CAFTA, but they both voted for the Oman Trade Agreement. About 2/3rds of the Senate Democrats voted against the Oman Trade Agreement.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/19/214246/569

If Obama votes as Hillary Clinton, then my guess is he will support many other ones that aren't as high-profile as CAFTA... For example, Hillary voted to give Most-Favored-Nation-Trading status for China... Also, she voted for the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

But someone like Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan votes against all of them... He also wrote a book called "Take This Job and Ship It.".. He just seems like he has a lot more passion on this issue.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/28/10717/7510

Also, both Obama and Clinton votes for most of the Guest Worker Visas, whereas Senator Dorgan and Representative Dennis Kucinich votes against them.
Congressional Scorecards on the Subject: Reduce Unnecessary FOREIGN WORKERS Visas (career) ...........
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?&Category=5&Status=Career&Flag=4">U.S. House
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_list.php3?&Category=5&Status=Career&Flag=7">U.S. Senate

And perhaps, we should stop exporting agricultural products, and let other countries develop their domestic industries, because so many 3rd world workers are small farmers... I think it's something like 50% of 3rd world workers are small farmers.

But yes, I agree, we can't have super high tariffs all at once... I think we should gradually raise tariffs, so that there is time to restore some of the lost manufacturing sector... Also, "balanced trade" does imply some industries will remain in other countries... But instead of most everything leaving to wherever the labor is cheapest, "balanced trade" will ensure we have an equal amount of imports as exports.

.

between two candidates that the re:puke:s don't fear at all.

all of a sudden?

All this media hype is the makings for a big ass let down. Just wait a little longer and MSNBC will be writing scathing articles about the young Obama.