Okay, it's been over three days now...
...And no one has brought up Obama.
What up with that?
Not surprisingly, I adore him, and am squarely in the camp that his "inexperience" is a positive rather than negative, and I like that the majority of his resume is in local public service. He's passionate, and I tend to agree with him more than anyone else in the senate aside from maybe Feingold, and much more so than with either of my own senators, particularly Clinton. So yeah. He's got my vote, and he's polling at 81.8% in a Rocky Mountain News Straw Poll, but I can't even guess as to how soft those numbers are.
Anyway, what do y'all think? The man for '08?
What up with that?
Not surprisingly, I adore him, and am squarely in the camp that his "inexperience" is a positive rather than negative, and I like that the majority of his resume is in local public service. He's passionate, and I tend to agree with him more than anyone else in the senate aside from maybe Feingold, and much more so than with either of my own senators, particularly Clinton. So yeah. He's got my vote, and he's polling at 81.8% in a Rocky Mountain News Straw Poll, but I can't even guess as to how soft those numbers are.
Anyway, what do y'all think? The man for '08?
posted by Pascals Bookie @ 3:00 PM
2 Comments:
As I've said before on this very blog, I would be fine with an Obama candidacy. Even more so if it means Clinton stays in the Senate!
I tend to agree that the Obama-mania can't sustain itself until 2012 or 2016. By 2012, he'll have inevitably been proven mortal in some way and he will have lost some of the magic.
Should he seek the post in '08, I think his relative inexperience in governing could be mitigated by a Gore Vice Presidency. If Gore were truly dedicated to bettering the country, rather than setting up his own future bid - and I'm undecided on this - he would see the logic in this at once.
Why does it make sense? First off, Gore has none of the negative baggage from the Clinton years, and all the benefits of the prosperity. So the impression would be that Obama-Gore would be sound economically.
At the same time, Gore could use the VP's office to create his ideal energy policy. I think the country's more ready for it now, don't you?
Not only that, if Gore were to back Obama, it would (finally!) create a legitimate opposition to the Clinton steamroller. As I've said before, she's far more cautious than her husband, so the very idea of going up against Obama-Gore might dissuade her entirely and keep her in the Senate.
There are other benefits as well. A Democratic victory in the '06 mid-terms and an Obama-Gore victory in '08 would "broaden the franchise," so to speak, of people who could be considered eligible for the Presidency. The GOP would have to react in a sensible fashion - especially after Rove-ism is discredited in '06 and '08 - and that can only be good for the party and the country.
Yeah, I'm totally behind Obama running in '08, even if I don't vote for him!
For the first time in a couple months (and I miss it, don't you) we find ourselves in complete agreement.
I hadn't thought about another Gore Vice-Presidency, and even though it would take a stronger man than I (and a better constitutional scholar than I to make sure that it would even be legal) to do that job for that long, I think Gore would be willing. I still respect him, and I still believe that he puts his principles above his ego.
Okay, now I'm just salivating over the thought of it.
And, for the record, I'm also interested in a post-Rove GOP, more interested in truly conservative ideas and policy than the current crop, and would welcome them personally into the Capitol Dome. I don't need to repeat how much of a loyal Dem I am, but anybody in power needs thoughtful, assertive opposition, and I've met enough toughtful, assertive Republicans to know that the current powers can be fully replaced by more competent representatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home