![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
rw wrote:
Opus wrote: See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance. Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that doesn't exist. ... McDopus doesn't live in the real world. In the real world only the people who are elected get to govern. I rarely agree with _Chicago Tribune_ editorials, the Trib usually comes across as a Republican mouthpiece and cheerleader, so this one surprised hell out of me. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...ewsopinion-hed December 6, 2006 Obama should run With the 2008 presidential field taking shape, the striking thing is how little excitement most of the possible candidates are likely to evoke. There are the polarizing figures: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich. There are the candidates who've been here before, such as Sens. Joe Biden, John McCain and John Kerry. There are the little-known politicians whose best hope may be the second spot on the ticket, like Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former New York Gov. George Pataki. There are the capital veterans, including Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), whose importance inside the Beltway may make them imagine they have electoral strength beyond it. And then there is Barack Obama. It's safe to say that when he decided to run for the Senate in 2004, he didn't imagine there would be lots of people now urging him to seek the highest office in the land. But ever since his electrifying address to the last Democratic convention, he has been marked for greater things. To run for president would be a big leap for someone who just a couple of years ago was commuting to Springfield as a state senator. There is a plausible case why Obama should bide his time and burnish his credentials for the future--plausible, but not persuasive. When a leader evokes the enthusiasm that Obama does, he should recognize that he has something special to offer, not in 2012 or 2016, but right now. What would he bring to the race that others don't? The most obvious is an approach that transcends party, ideology and geography. In his convention speech, Obama demolished the image of a nation of irreconcilable partisan camps: "We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states." No one else has shown a comparable talent for appealing to the centrist instincts of the American people--instincts that often go unsatisfied as each party labors to rally its most uncompromising factions. After the divisive events of the last decade, the nation may be ready for a voice that celebrates our common values instead of exaggerating our differences. Any presidential race is a long shot, and there is no guarantee that Obama could succeed. But he may never again find such favorable circumstance. With his unifying themes, he would raise the tone of the campaign. His intellectual depth--he was editor of the Harvard Law Review and taught law at the University of Chicago--and openness would sharpen the policy debate. He could help the citizenry get comfortable contemplating something that will happen sooner or later--a black president. His magnetic style and optimism would draw many disenchanted Americans back into the political process. He and the nation have little to lose and much to gain from his candidacy. Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... rw wrote: Opus wrote: See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance. Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that doesn't exist. ... McDopus doesn't live in the real world. In the real world only the people who are elected get to govern. Good thing that you weren't around in 1854, when the Republican Party was a third party movement. We might only have a one party system today. I suppose you'd rather the two independents in congress vote with the Repubs, rather than taint the Dems. right? Op |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Now that cabin fever has set-in, properly. | Opus | Fly Fishing | 7 | December 6th, 2006 12:21 AM |
Cabin Fever | Mike Connor | Fly Fishing | 0 | October 25th, 2005 07:47 PM |
Cabin fever anyone? | Roger Ohlund | Fly Fishing | 68 | December 16th, 2004 11:26 PM |
Cabin fever is setting in already.. | Frank Church | Fly Fishing | 19 | December 21st, 2003 10:41 PM |
Cabin fever at it's worst? | Jeff Taylor | Fly Fishing | 3 | December 16th, 2003 01:41 AM |