in the tradition of adlai stevenson, jr...and paul simon...he'll get my vote

I've been high on Obama ever since I read his first book, "Dreams From My Father", which as Joe Klein says in Time, might be the best memoir ever written by an american politician. I was really moved by it, and I think his experiences seeking an identity mirror the struggles that many americans face in this world. I also like his basic theme which is universalist, we are all connected, we are all invested or should be invested in each other's lives.

I also think having a black man as president would have enormous historical significance, and would help towards healing the racial tensions in this country that have been particularly inflamed since hurricane katrina.

I also admit to being very upset with Hillary Clinton at the moment over her equivocating on the torture issue. We must have zero, ZERO, tolerance on torture and I was deeply distressed that she doesn't see it that way. Its enough to make me not want to support her in the primaries. I don't think Gore's going to run, and I don't think the party is going to nominate Kerry or Edwards again, since they lost four years ago. I think maybe its Obama's time.

If he runs, its going to be an exciting next two years!

But it does raise the question, "can a black man win a general election presidential race"? The same people who will insist Hillary can't win because she's a woman will probably say Obama can't win because he's black. I hope he can. I hope this country's to the point where skin color or gender doesn't disqualify somebody. I read that Obama is watching the Tennessee senate race closely, because if Harold Ford, the black democrat, can win there, the case can be made that Obama could win there too. Lets keep our fingers crossed!

Seriously? Who says that Hillary shouldn't be elected because she's a woman? Who? When? Where?

Back it up, because that's a strawman. I can't recall ever having heard that.

But they use code words. They come up with other things to say that imply it without coming right out and say it. Thats why I said before, the right wing is very good at sending blatant signals, in the sense that they are obvious if you see them coming or know what to look for, but not so visibly out in the open that they'll be called on it. Nobody is going to come right out and say, "she can't get elected because she's a woman", or "he can't get elected because he's black", but they'll find five hundred ways to say it without saying those exact words.

Are you going to honestly tell me that Hillary's gender ISN'T part of the reason her negatives so high. She's more unpopular than her husband, and always has been. She shouldn't be, he's the one who was President. Figure it out. Some people are VERY uncomfortable with women in high places of power, because its not the woman "knowing her place" I believe Hillary is villified, certainly on the right, as much because "she doesn't know her place" in their minds" as because of her politics.

I don't think Obama will necessarily have the same problem. Some people won't vote for him for the wrong reasons, but he is a guy, and that alone will make some people more comfortable with him than with Hillary.

But I digress, back to Obama! Here's a big reason I think he might be the ideal choice to be the next President, his background. His mother's family were christians from Kansas, his father's family were muslims from Kenya. If you read his first book, he talks about growing up in Indonesia, a muslim nation where the ex-pats were mostly christians. His mother wanted him to respect and appreciate both religions, she did not want him partaking of a segregated faithwise world view, because she didn't want him alienated from either side of his family. So she had him going to school some of the time at the muslim school, and some of the time at the christian (catholic) school. When he moved to Hawaii, he was exposed to Buddhism and other faiths.

In this world we live in now, who would be better to help bridge the chasms between christian countries and muslim countries, than one who has been all his life influenced by both.

This excerpt from the Meet the Press Q&A that followed the Obama interview on Sunday:

[b]MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, before we go, you just heard Senator Barack Obama, who nine months ago said, "I will not seek the presidency or vice presidency." And today, he rather candidly said, "Well, that's what I believed then and I may be changing my mind." What's your take on that?

MR. BRODER: He's under a lot of pressure and is riding a wave of his own in terms of publicity, to jump in. It would be a big gamble for him because his potential is so huge and he is, at this point, pretty green in terms of experience. Lacks any executive experience. Never has had to sit in a job where he was the single decision maker, as a president is. But he is an enormously attractive candidate and I thought he handled it--you very well this morning.

MR. NOVAK: Certainly, Tim, I, I took that as an announcement of possible candidacy that was, that was making news on, on MEET THE PRESS. I think he's a very attractive personality, but I think the fact that everybody's so excited about him, and everybody's writing about him, indicates there's a lot of vote--of Democratic resistance to Hillary Clinton and the whole field that we have. Because I have seen the candidates who have really been inspirational candidates with their rhetoric: John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton. And talk about a loser from Illinois, Adlai Stevenson. I don't see this in a Barack Obama; I don't see much humor, I don't see much irony. I'm not yet convinced that that--this is the answer to, to a Democratic victory.

MR. HARWOOD: Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Voters seem more...

MR. HARWOOD: ...I talked to a former top aide to Bill Clinton last night who said Barack Obama will run in 2008, Hillary Clinton will not. So we'll see what happens there.

MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton will not?

MR. HARWOOD: That was his prediction. [/b]

Could it be that Obama-mania convinces Hillary not to run for President at all, that she ends up deciding to say and run against Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader?

Obama is a great speaker and very smart, but these qualities don't mean he will be President. One thing I don't love about him is that he is very middle of the road on most issues. He is like Bill Clinton that way, and because of Clinton the Democratic party is in terrible shape today. We need to find a voice first, then a candidate. The best thing he has going for him is that he is one of the few politicians today who speaks about hope and idealism, which is nice. Reminds me of JFK in that way, he could pull it off but I still think Edwards is the man to beat; Populism is the wave of the future.

In what way is Obama "middle of the road" on issues? He has been strikingly consistent on his views about the Iraq war, against it from the start, and senate voting records show him as one of the more liberal members, more liberal than Clinton and Kerry. By any definition, I think you'd have to say John Edwards is more of a centerist, more middle of the road than Obama. What is your definition of "populist" anyway? I regard Obama as the consumate "populist" because he is a passionate advocate of democratic principles, which is how I define it.

Here's one of the big reasons to consider Obama and not Edwards or one of the others-- the generation gap. We have a major problem these days with young people feeling alienated from the political process. There is a generation gap between the people who connect with Edwards, Kerry or Clinton, and the younger generation who wants a new and different voice that reflects them as much or more than their parents. Barack Obama can bridge this gap, because he has the charisma and personality to capture the young peoples' imagination. If you get these young people to vote and be passionate about the democratic nominee, then it is more likely that the democrat will win. In the 2004 cycle, young people got vocal and excited about Howard Dean and almost put him over the top. But the older generation of party regulars shot him down and nominated Kerry again. The young voters didn't go for Kerry, didn't turn out for him or work with any passion for him, and he lost. By nominating the safe choice, the party regular, the democrats lost the votes and support that in the end could have put them over the top.

Put succinctly, neither John Kerry, nor John Edwards, nor most of the other candidates, have crossover appeal to voters under age 35. We need young voters to win. If general elections continue to be decided by just voters age 35 and up, and mostly by voters age 45 and up, republicans will continue to win. We need a candidate like Barack Obama to bridge that generation gap. Obama will cause a lot of people, not just young people but others who have too often not voted due to feeling alienated from the process, to vote. With him as nominee, the Democrats can change the dynamics.

What kind of Barama weed are people smoking today?

You are comparing low turnout numbers among young voters with even LOWER turnout numbers in the past. Even though the numbers were up in 2000 and 2004, they still aren't where they could or should be.

According to the Census bureau, citizens age 65 and older had the highest registration rate (79 percent) while those age 18 to 24 had the lowest (58 percent). The youngest group also had the lowest voting rate (47 percent), while those age 45 and older had the highest turnout (about 70 percent).

Those numbers don't lie. 53% of registered voters age 18 to 24 stayed HOME. Whereas only thirty percent of registered voters 45 and older stayed home. If the Democrats got the same percentage of younger voters to vote as those 45 and older, they'd have won.

Barack Obama has crossover appeal, he's young and he's dynamic, he will sell to college age kids, and those 25-30 and younger in a way John Edwards, Kerry, Clarke or others simply can't. I'm saying, in my opinion, this is the key to winning. We must have a crossover candidate, we must have a candidate who can change the current dynamics.

What I'm suggesting is just, leaving political philosophy aside, like the "Reagan Revolution" in the early 80's. By the late seventies, the GOP was floundering, and the Democrats had much of the power. But along came Ronald Reagan, who with his presence and charisma attracted a whole horde of young people who didn't vote before and hadn't paid attention to politics. Reagan changed the dynamics for the republican party by bringing in younger voters, who saw in him someone more vital than the boring old politicians as usual. It was these young voters who pushed him over the top and got the republicans back in office.

To really win power, we as democrats need a movement, and a star to lead that movement. Barack Obama could be to the Democrats what Ronald Reagan was to the GOP in the 80's, the match that lights the rocket! When I saw Obama last week at his B&N book signing at Union Square, I saw young people and old people in line to get autographs, and wide eyed old ladies and young kids who just wanted him to stand up so they could hug him. He's got something special, and its that something special that can appeal to young voters (and old voters) in a way that no candidate has in recent years.

I like the guy, too, Wallner, but what you're saying about Reagan isn't true, either. He was swept in because evangelicals came out to vote, which they hadn't previously done in such numbers and such partisanship.

I think you're making that critical mistake liberals just love to make again and again, which is looking for that one silver bullet, the knight in shining armor who will make everything OK. I heard similar arguments being made for Howard Dean back in the day, but you're going a step further because you're not familiar with the historical data.

Not true, I am familiar with historical data, I just quoted you some before. You just don't want to accept that data. I was in college back in the 80's when this Reagan Revolution deal hit its pace, he was hugely popular with kids on campus. It made me sick but it was so. I saw large numbers of young people going nuts over him. They weren't necessarily conservatives but they were looking for something, someone, different than politics as usual, and they sensed some kind of an energy or vitality in him or his campaign. Also if you knew your history, you would know that the evangelicals didn't embrace Reagan right away. Reagan was not a church-going man and he had been divorced. It was only after they saw his crossover appeal, that they jumped on the bandwagon and rode him through two terms in the white house.

I am telling you from first-hand experience that the energy and vitality I sense in Barack Obama, and the way young people react to him and get excited by him, matches or eclipses that of any candidate I've seen in the last twenty years, including Dean, Reagan, or others.

Also why do you think it is just "liberals" who look for a "knight in shining armor"? Most americans want a strong leader who can rise above the political corruption and speak of the greater good and unify the masses.

There have been times historically when we needed a "knight in shining armor" When things were so messed up that only a strong willed person with a clear vision could accomplish anything. Look at the Civil War, what would have happened without Lincoln's leadership? The whole future course of our nation's history was dictated by having elected the right person at the right time.

Barack Obama has been saying that one of the negative legacies of the baby boom generation is that as they have swept to power, they have increasingly made things so polarized that we are often at war with each other and no longer see ourselves as one community. As a result, there is, particularly among young people, an intense sense of alienation towards the political process. This is what happens when you pressure kids just getting involved that they have to pick sides. The right shows little tolerance, and even the left-- which claims to PREACH tolerance, actually often shows not nearly enough of it. Read this blog, read other leftwing blogs, and you'll see enough hate and venom as any rightwing blog, enough to turn anyone off.

What I have sensed in talks with young people and others at the two Obama events I have attended, is that they desperately want a leader who can bridge the gap, and help us rise above the partisan hatred and bickering. Back in the eighties Reagan won two landslide elections because people wrongly thought he was going to be such a leader. Democrats voted for him en masse, he carried California and New York, which could only have happened if politics had come to seem less important than the person. Similarly, when Obama ran for the Senate, he got forty percent of the *republican* vote.

People want a leader who stands for everyone and can make people believe in a message of tolerance and understanding. They want a leader who rises above political rhetoric and speaks to the higher good, who makes themselves feel good about themselves.

For this to happen, it has to matter just as much who this new leader is as what he stands for. Most of the top democratic politicians and top republican politicians have been in D.C. too long, have been too corrupted by power, to be seen as a unifier, to be someone the masses are going to really believe in. Yes, a knight in shining armor, and maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama can be that person.

I don't disagree that Obama is inspiring - he is. What I'm quibbling with is your use of data, which to me just doesn't add up. I'm talking about who got Reagan elected, and that was the evangelical shift in 1980 and the 'Reagan Democrats' in 1984. Those are just the facts.

Precision, please.