Cubs Combat Casino
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Notre Dame Fan Takes It Too Far, Allegedly Punches Clausen
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
After careful thought and consideration about whether he will run for President in 2008, Senator Barack Obama announced today that he will begin even more serious thought and consideration today.
In a statement (view it here), Obama said he “didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago,” which is funny because pretty much everyone else did. The rest of the statement touches on the issues that Obama has covered before including health care, working people, oil, Iraq and the need to set aside partisan politics. Finally, Obama said that he will announce his decision on Saturday, February 10, just in time to hit all the Sunday morning talk shows.
The non-announcement announcement and its accompanying Web site shouldn’t be any surprise as Obama’s chief adviser David Axelrod said earielr that the first step in the process of decision would be the formation of an exploratory committee. This piece from NPR explains that exploratory committees allow candidates to shield themselves from full financial disclosure. Speaking of Axelrod, the Trib profiled his inner circle over the weekend.
We’re still not sure which way the Obama pendulum will swing, but either way, we’re marveling at his command of the news cycle. In the past several months, he’s been used by everyone from the MSM to his fellow Illinois senator Dick Durbin to draw attention to one issue or another. Whether he officially declares as a candidate or not, Obama’s shrewd manipulations will steer the debate in ’08.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I know Barack wants to strike while the iron is hot, but does anyone else hope he decides to wait until at least 2012? I also realize that the longer you're in congress, the more your opponent has to use against you in terms of voting record, but it just feels like he's letting his constituents down by jumping right into the presidency.
I am not in love with Barack the candidate, and I agree with 2012. But the voting record will be a problem if he is in the Senate for very long and right now he has one HUGE plus:
He wasn't in the Senate at the beginning of Iraq and so wont have to explain a "yay" vote like Hillary and Edwards.
Mike: exactly how do you think Barack is letting his constituents down? Has he missed any important votes in the Senate that have ramifications for Illinois? Not that I've heard. If the man wants to run for President and he thinks his run will be positive for the country, then he should do it. What's he got to lose?
Howard Dean:2004::Barack Obama:2008
Howard Dean:2004::Barack Obama:2008
HAHAHAHAHA!!
Inaccurate, but funny.
Andy,
I agree with Mike. Barak is letting his constituents down.
I cannot believe that with all this going on (election pandering) he could in any way be focused on his constituency and their needs. We (the voting public) hired him to represent Illinois for the FULL 6-year term.
I resent his using OUR time to do this.
He may not "miss a vote", but he simply cannot represent us properly with this major distraction.
Of course, this is Democratic Illinois, perhaps he has a son/daughter that can step in to finish his term...
I agree with Mike. Barak is letting his constituents down.
I cannot believe that with all this going on (election pandering) he could in any way be focused on his constituency and their needs. We (the voting public) hired him to represent Illinois for the FULL 6-year term.
I resent his using OUR time to do this.
Yeah, it would totally suck if the President were a Chicagoan.
I think Todd Stroger should run for president. It would be great to vote for a man who had to work hard for everything he has achieved.
I think the whole "no voting rcord" is such a non-issue. It's clear that if he runs, he'll run on what's going on in Congress, not on any record he might have. His will most likely be a candidacy of coalitions and unity among Democrats, something Hillary can't bring to the table, for sure.
I like Edwards. A lot. I voted for him in the '04 primary, knowing that he didn't stand a chance, just because I liked his ideas so much. And 11% of the vote, after it's obvious that you aren't getting the nomination? People are ready for some good old fashioned class politics.
As for letting his constitutents down, pretty much everyone I know that voted for him wants him to run for the White House, so it seems to me that he is just doing what his constitutents want. And the people that didn't vote for him? They won't be happy, no matter what he does.
I am very much looking forward to his run for Presidency. I also think many of us ARE....
I am very much looking forward to his run for Presidency. I also think many of us ARE....
He wasn't in the Senate at the beginning of Iraq and so wont have to explain a "yay" vote like Hillary and Edwards.
Rachael, I'm not trying to pick on you about spelling, but this cracked me up. "Yay! War! Woohoo!"
obama/clinton 2008
*or*
clinton/obama 2008
?
All I can say is, if you've read Obama's books then you know that they come from a writer who is suitable for the White House. And I happen to believe that he HAS done a lot of soul-searching. If you thinks he ought to run, let him run. The country is ready for something more than just "experience" when it comes to being president. As someone else put it, McCain has the experience of Vietnam and yet all his "wisdom" amounts to calling for escalation in Iraq! A person's character comes from more than just experience.
I loved Obama's quote while giving a speech in front of Mayor Kellogg in Harvey yesterday
"If you want to make money, get a job. Don't run for office."
4point44: Clinton on any part of a presidential ticket in 2K8 will result in a loss for the Democratic Party. She's too polarizing a figure, much like the dipshit we currently have as President.
Unfortunately, it seems as though a lot of older, institutional Democrats seem hellbent on ramming a Hillary candidacy down our throats. Her carpetbagging to New York to run for an open Senate seat could still be fresh in the minds of a lot of voters in the flyover states.
I know it is in mine.
I actually like the idea of a Hillary/Obama ticket -- but will the people the red states go for that? They aren't known to be the most progressive of folks, and as the last two presidential elections have shown, they can effect the outcome.
You would think those Red State folk would like Hillary, seeing as they aren't all that progressive. And neither is she!
Kevin, you and I both know that red state/blue state is a myth. One need look no further than Illinois to see that just because a state went one way in an election, doesn't mean that the whole state's voting pattern is even.
Illinois is a red state with a spot of blue, like a dress my grandmother once spilled ink upon.
I really hope Obama will wait. He is in a unique position to make a real difference in the legislative process in the country, and I hope he'll take up that opportunity. If he shoots for the moon and falls short, it'll be a spectacular crash from which it'd be hard to recover.
And call me crazy, but my prediction is that Hillary won't actually run. I lived in NY during her first election, and let me tell you - it was nasty and uncomfortably close while facing one of the more disgusting candidates I've seen from the Republicans. She will be absolutely torn apart in a national referendum and so far her candidacy is simply the wet dream of Chris Matthews and all the other beltway pundits. She's smarter than them, currently has a very powerful position in the senate, and enjoys the respect of her constituents. My bet is she'll keep it that way.
Edwards will be really, really interesting. I voted for him in the 2004 primary as things were starting to gel around Kerry. He seems to be running a textbook ol'-fashioned liberal agenda, which we haven't seen played out for decades. Not sure it'll fly, but I can't wait to find out and sure wish him the best!
Illinois has not voted for a Republican president since 1988 when it only barely went to BUSH. (mainly because Dukakis was so unappealing)...
The map may look mostly red because of a mysterious concept called population density. It's almost as comfusing as evolution but I'm sure the folks downstate will catch up.
Right. But that means the way they approach governmental affairs throughout most of the state is decidedly "red," which tells you more about the state overall than anything else. Just because there are more people in Chicago, doesn't mean that the majority of the state has Democratic ideals.
Hell, Daley doesn't even exhibit Democratic ideals most of the time.
What are Democratic ideals? equality? freedom of speach? anti-slavery? anti-war? pro-science? pro-worker? pro-taxes? The only way to measure peoples leanings are through these 'elections' they hold every once in a while and in the last one there was a ***brush*brush*sweep*sweep*** blue up n down the state ticket. ahhem Boo- to the- Ya