I believe this should be in IMHO but if it should be in GQ, mods please move as necessary.
I’m not being a smart-ass (or maybe I am) but what is the big deal with Obama? The man is a first term Senator and limited national political experience. From the instant he appeared on the national scene he has been pushed by the media like he is the new JFK who will do everything including return us to Camelot, save the republic, defeat Emperor Palpatine and cure halitosis. OK, that was a little smart-ass.
Really, though. Can someone please explain just why a freshman Senator is the media darling and being pushed into Presidential contention? He’s a likable guy, intelligent and well-spoken, honest about his past. But I think he needs to at least complete one term and show us how effective he is before the press holds a coronation.
I would really like to hear views of what his strengths are that makes him better than any of the other candidates (from either party).
I actually got to meet Obama a few years back whilst my employer was trying to woo him with a fundraiser. I can tell you this much: he’s a powerful persona. Just commands a room, totally charismatic, instantaneously likable. He has “it.”
I think for me it’s just that he’s so NOT George W Bush - not white, not old, not from Texas, not a Republican, not for war - that makes him so attractive.
Although I still think I’m going to vote for Hillary in the primary and hope Barak is still interested in leading the country in 8 years. We’ll see.
I think many people are starved to see someone who is well spoken and intelligent in the office. Hillary has those things but maybe isn’t quite as likable. Obama seems to have the full package, sans the experience to go along with it. And yet, something tells me he has a better grasp of things such as the Middle East than the current guy.
He apparently gave a bang-up speech at the 2004 Democratic Party convention. In a nutshell, his skin is black but he comes across as a politician for all people, not a “black activist” (e.g., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel).
I’m with you on the second part, at least. I was very upset he threw his hat in the ring this year. I would have liked to see him in the Senate for a couple of terms, and bring some of that charisma and energy to that group of old white guys.
He really just does have “it:” he’s a terrific speaker, great personality and ability to connect with people, and appeals to people on both sides of the aisle because he doesn’t come across as a partisan. Also, he’s a good writer… but that mostly appeals to me.
Hillary rates about even with eels on the likeability scale, it seems to me. She’s a skilled politician, has a lot of experience and other things to recommend her, but she doesn’t seem to make that personal connection with people.
How many well spoken, intellegent, charismatic Democrats do we have that aren’t tainted irrepiarably with scandal?
Hillary - shrewish, tainted with Clinton scandals
Kerry - well spoken was bascially his problem
Gore - problem with charismatic.
Richardson - apparently the women will come forward with Clintonesque speed.
My husband met him at a small gathering in 2003 (and decided to keep volunteering for the Kerry campaign, even though Obama asked him personally to join his campaign :smack: :smack: :smack: ) (he was just doing ordinary volunteer-type stuff, handing out literature, making phone calls, but STILL) and…where was I…oh, yes, my husband said Obama was absolutely phenomenal. So full of charisma, brilliant, pragmatic, inspiring - just lit up the room.
I heard his speech declaring his candidacy. It was so good I was thinking I should move there just so I could vote for him. And while he may not have been in federal politics long, he was a state senator from 96 to 04 which is a goodly amount of time.
He’s got a pretty good resume, too. (Pardon laziness w/accent). You aren’t necessarily the best person to be in government just because you’ve been there forever. He’s 45, he’s done some good work, and he’s got the ‘it’ factor.
And - totally goofy comment - but he’s half and half - hell, if that’s not good for uniting people what should be?
Bwahaha - I’m trying to remember whose house it was at, some rich person who invited people over to meet candidates up close. It was so cool, having that access - it only happened because we’d donated money and they wanted more (naturally). And we’re not wealthy people, not by any measure, BUT I won some dough on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” the year before, so we were able to donate a several hundred dollars. Absolutely worth it.
Hey thanks! I was there, standing at the edge of the crowd, far enough away that I couldn’t hear much of what he was saying. Everybody seemed to be in a good mood though, despite the cold.
OK, I agree that he has “it”. He’s a charming guy and all that. He is charismatic and handsome, as were JFK and Bill Clinton. But his rise to success strikes me as too contrived, too artificial. It appears like he is being groomed, ala Bill McKay in The Candidate. Are the puppetmasters and spinmeisters putting up a two-dimensional figure with no depth?
I want to know what, besides his “it” factor or outright disgust at Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, GWB, etc. Why should I vote for Obama and not just be voting against anyone elese.
I have this same impression. The “candidate for all people” will not be seen coming from a million miles away … it’ll be someone walking in through the back door.
Good point. There’s a difference between black politicians and politiicans who happen to be black, and the latter usually have the most success among white voters. They don’t want to feel like they’ll be ignored for a larger “black agenda” that doesn’t address broader neesd faced by the entire population.
