Great Expectations
People expect great things of Barack Obama. His first year in the Senate -- in which he’s shown a deliberative and sometimes surprising streak -- has by design been a relatively quiet one.


By Jodi Enda
Issue Date: 02.05.06



By 30 minutes and several days, Barack Obama is running late. He is supposed to be at his grandmother’s in Hawaii -- his wife and daughters already are there -- but the Senate is still voting on some fairly significant legislation. So here he is, stuck in Washington nine days before Christmas. Illinois’ junior senator just came from the Senate floor, where he and his fellow Democrats scored big by blocking a Republican drive to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act. He appears at once exhausted and energetic as he carefully places his finely tailored, charcoal-gray suit jacket on the back of a chair and centers his long, lean frame on the sofa beneath a large oil painting of an Illinois cornfield. Some of his heroes stare down at him from his office walls: Abraham Lincoln, JFK, and Mahatma Gandhi to his left; Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and Nelson Mandela across the room. A White Sox cap lies atop his desk, a symbol of triumph secured after years in the wilderness.

Obama closes his eyes and turns his youthful, angular face upward, as if he is contemplating all the world’s problems from a place deep inside himself. His head rests against the back of the gold couch; his left fingertips touch his forehead. His right leg, long and crooked at the knee, is stretched across a coffee table. He speaks softly and slowly, pausing frequently to choose just … the right … words.

The question on the table -- and the reason for the pause -- is the future of the Democratic Party. It’s not an easy question for anyone these days, and it’s not a question that is normally asked of a first-term senator with only one year’s experience. But Obama is not a normal first-termer -- not after the slew of national magazine profiles that ran before he was even elected (and while he was still a state senator), and definitely not after The Speech, his electric keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which catapulted him from obscurity (people sometimes called him “Alabama”) to the national A-list. These days, people want to know what Obama thinks about everything, from baseball to foreign affairs.

His party, it’s worth remembering, didn’t even want him to get to the Senate -- Illinois’ historically muscular Democratic machine backed a party insider in the primary. But Obama blew away that opponent, and five others, winning an outright majority of 53 percent of the vote. Now, at 44, Obama embraces his role with confidence, a great deal of pleasure -- and no small amount of care. Speculation swirls about his becoming America’s first black president (he is the biracial son of a black, Kenyan father and a white, Kansan mother), even about the possibility he will launch a surprise run in 2008.

Obama is coy about that. But he has little doubt about what he views as the role he should play in the Senate, within his party, and even as a force in shaping the nation’s future. He wants to change things, and he envisions himself doing so. There is about him a sense of, well, destiny; his background, his charm, his intellect, and his way with words have marked him as someone special. Obama is aware of this, and every so often, he will say something that tacitly acknowledges as much. But usually he manages himself well, upward and downward, mindful to show the proper respect for his colleagues, some of whom have been in the Senate for most of his life, and for the voters who sent him to Washington with extraordinarily high expectations. He tells me he was happy to have made it through his first Senate year without falling “flat on my face.”

That he has not pushed through major legislation matters hardly at all, not to him, not to supporters. He is a fledgling in the minority party and, during his first year, 99th in seniority. No matter. Obama has bigger ideas.

Back to the Democrats. The first part of his answer involves some boilerplate about the usual list of issues -- education, health care, energy independence -- peppered with deferential language about wanting to “be a part of the process.” Then, he gets to the business about what makes him different: “Where I probably can make a unique contribution is in helping to bring people together and bridging what I call the ‘empathy deficit,’ helping to explain the disparate factions in this country and to show them how we’re joined together, helping bridge divides between black and white, rich and poor, even conservative and liberal.” Later, in a similar vein: “The story that I’m interested in telling is how we can restore that sense of commitment to each other in a way that doesn’t inhibit our individual freedoms, doesn’t diminish individual responsibility, but does promote collective responsibility.”

Obama wants nothing less than to redefine progressive values, make them more universal, and unite the country around them. His staggering 72 percent approval rating in Illinois -- a number that reflects strong support not only in and around Democratic Chicago, but from Republican downstate as well -- shows he may be figuring out how to do that. His first year in the Senate suggests a man on a long, ambitious, and intricate journey. It’s not too much to say that the future of the Democratic Party, and maybe even the country, could be profoundly affected by where that journey ends.

Like any freshman, Obama didn’t know exactly how to get around in the Senate. But unlike any freshman, save Hillary Clinton in 2001, he came to town with a national platform. All eyes were on him, and hopes, particularly among liberals, ran high. Obama took things slowly at first. He didn’t want to arrive in Washington looking “too big for his britches,” says his communications director, Robert Gibbs. So he turned down repeated invitations to appear on national talk shows (and most of the 300 or so solicitations he received each week) and focused instead on such issues as veterans’ disability pay and money for locks and dams back home. He wanted to demonstrate to the people of Illinois that he was working for them, and to his fellow senators that he was “not just a show horse,” said his political consultant, David Axelrod.

He surrounded himself with people experienced in Senate protocol and procedure. He hired as his chief of staff Pete Rouse, who for years held the same position for former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. He took the unusual step of hiring a policy adviser, nabbing Karen Kornbluh, who had been deputy chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. But even with a star staff, Obama has moved slowly; one senior aide told me that if Obama has one regret about his first year in office, it is that he occasionally has been “late to pull the trigger.” A case in point is an immigration bill sponsored by Edward M. Kennedy and John McCain. The two Senate titans asked Obama early in his term if he wanted to sign on to the bill as a cosponsor. Brushing aside the advice of his staff, he declined, saying he hadn’t had a hand in crafting the bill. It was only in December, after it became clear that immigration would be a hot topic in 2006, that he attached his name to the legislation. At the same time, he told Kennedy he would like to strengthen the section on border security by adding some measures from a Republican bill.

His concern about border security shows a side of Obama that occasionally has taken some liberals by surprise. It would be far too strong to say that he’s been heterodox -- after all, he has voted for the liberal position the vast majority of the time, and the initiatives and bills he has emphasized in his year have been solidly progressive. But he has thrown enough curves to keep people guessing.

When George W. Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state last January, Obama resisted pressure from liberal groups and civil rights advocates and voted for her confirmation. In that case, he was with most of his fellow Democrats in backing Rice. But two weeks later, when the Senate voted on a Republican bill to limit class-action lawsuits, Obama was one of 17 Democrats to oppose the trial lawyers -- who contributed more than any other special interest to his 2004 campaign -- and support the bill. He said at the time that he remained a “strong believer” in class-action lawsuits, and he briefly explained why he supported a bill that would move more of the suits from state to federal court. “When multimillion-dollar settlements are handed down and all the victims get are coupons for a free product, justice is not being served,” he said in a statement. “And when cases are tried in counties only because it’s known that those judges will award big payoffs, you get quick settlements without ever finding out who’s right and who’s wrong.”

Obama sided against many of his natural allies on that vote, including labor, consumer and civil-rights groups, and environmentalists. Yet, the fallout (or lack of it) demonstrates that he has a way of communicating with people so that these breaches never grow into outright rifts. Todd Smith, immediate past president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) and a Chicago lawyer, paid a visit to Obama shortly after the Senate passed the bill. Smith told Obama how disappointed he was that Obama voted for legislation the trial lawyers considered to be bad for “regular Americans.” Obama told Smith he was unhappy with mailers the group distributed throughout Illinois saying he was “depriving poor people of the right to go to court,” according to one of his senior aides.

“It was quite open,” Smith recalled. “He said, ‘Todd, go right ahead, speak your mind.’ And I did. He believed there needed to be changes and, on balance, he felt it was the right way to go.” Smith, who chairs the Board of Trustees of ATLA’s political action committee, said he intends to continue to back Obama with campaign contributions. “I don’t think your support for somebody rises or falls on a single issue. He will be there for regular people and their rights the vast majority of the time and when he’s not, it’s going to be, at least in his mind I’m certain, for solid reasons,” Smith told me. “He’s an outstanding U.S. senator already.”


Obama almost goes out of his way sometimes to challenge members of his own party and their loyalists. In a move that was highly unusual for a sitting senator, he took to the blogosphere last fall to confront progressives who criticized two other Democrats for voting to confirm John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court. Although Obama opposed Roberts, he defended his colleagues, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, during a frank exchange on Daily Kos -- the largest liberal Web site and home to the ferocious “Kossacks,” who usually lambaste politicians who deviate from the accepted line.

What Obama wrote speaks volumes about his political philosophy and independent streak: “… to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, ‘true’ progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive ‘checklist,’ then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted. Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won’t be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate.”

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the site’s proprietor -- sounding not unlike the ATLA’s Smith -- said the main reaction among site visitors was one of “gratitude.” “He didn’t come to pander, but to take a stand that might not have been all that popular with a certain segment of the community,” Moulitsas says. “That showed a level of leadership that is oftentimes missing in a party more afraid to offend than in taking principled stands on issues.”

These deviations from the script have caused some concern. One leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party said he thought Obama was demonstrating a “Clinton sensibility” by standing up to liberals. The leader, who asked not to be identified because of his relationship with the senator, said Obama did not take on centrists when they wanted to purge the party of anti-war liberals. “That’s defining himself as Hillary Clinton defines herself -- as needing to get to the center -- which I think is a mistake in strategy, but one that he is flirting with,” the leader said. Obama ran as an anti-war candidate. Last November, after a small number of his colleagues had begun calling for a quick withdrawal, he told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that “U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq” and came out for a phased withdrawal. He reiterated the message from Iraq in January.

Obama told me he viewed the give-and-take on Daily Kos as a “teachable moment” and rebuffed the notion that he was trying to score political points. “What I want to be able to do if possible, and it’s not always possible, is to engage people who disagree with me in a dialogue,” he said. “One of the assumptions I think that a lot of progressives in a sort of knee-jerk way make is that if you stray from the progressive orthodoxy then you automatically must be doing it for political reasons -- that you must either be getting campaign contributions from somebody, or you’re positioning for national office, or you’re a wimp, right? They never assume that you just don’t agree with them on something. And so part of what I like to do is at least try to dispel that cynicism about motives.”

He is tranquil: before his convention speech, consultant Axelrod recalled, “I was a nervous wreck. I remember him patting me on the shoulder and saying, ‘Don’t worry about it. I’ll make my marks.’” He is charming, and sets people at ease with his warm, big-toothed smile much the way Bill Clinton did with his intense, blue-eyed gaze. He is, oddly enough, a Grammy Award nominee for narrating his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. He is a policy wonk. He is the rapt father of Malia, 7, and Sasha, 4, and a protective spouse to Michelle (he once insisted on interviewing someone who was trying to hire her). She, like him, is a Harvard-educated lawyer and now a vice president at the University of Chicago Hospitals. He is a habitual exerciser. He is unfailingly polite (when he was 30 minutes late for our interview, he made a point of coming to the outer office himself to escort me in).

From the time he was born, Obama was different in an intriguing way -- and to the extent that he is different from most politicians, his background surely is a big reason. He grew up in Hawaii, then Jakarta, then back to Hawaii; he saw his father, an economist for the Kenyan government, just once after the age of two; though black, the only family he knew -- his mother and her parents -- were white. He made it to Columbia, worked in Chicago as a community organizer, and then went to Harvard Law School, becoming the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.

Judd Miner remembers the day he read in an obscure Chicago publication that an African American from the South Side was joining a silk-stocking law firm. Miner, a partner in a much smaller firm that specialized in civil-rights cases, decided to give the guy a call. He phoned the law review.

“The young lady said, ‘He’s not in, but is this a recruiting call?’ I said, ‘I guess so.’ She said, ‘I’ll put you on the list, you’re number 643,’ or something like that,” Miner told me. The two met for lunch. After several weeks and many lunches, Obama decided to skip the glitzy, high-paying firms and join Miner’s because it fit with his commitment to community work, Miner said.

Miner is just one of a band of Obama friends who swear that all the hoopla surrounding him is warranted. After Obama’s primary victory, Miner began to get calls from the editors of national newspapers and magazines. They were concerned that their reporters had been snookered into believing the hype. “The stories they were getting back were puff pieces. They thought there must be some flaw. They thought it couldn’t be,” Miner said. What he told them, and me, was: “When you do political stuff and you run into a Barack, you think, ‘Oh, there’s hope!’”

Supporters in Illinois say Obama represents something of a Rorschach test: people project their viewpoints onto him. Valerie Jarrett, a longtime friend and the treasurer of his political action committee, said that people see something of themselves in him. The danger, she said, is that they assume Obama will do what they would do, vote the way they would vote. That could backfire on him, but it hasn’t yet. “He has the ability to touch diverse crowds and there’s a sense of clicking,” Jarrett said. “And because he can click with so many different kinds of people, the expectation is that because I clicked with him, he’s going to agree with me.”

Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. still hasn’t gotten over a scene he witnessed the day he accompanied Obama on a campaign swing in the predominately white, southern part of the state. “A little old lady said to me, ‘I’m 86 years of age. I hope I live long enough because this young man’s going to be president and I want to be able to vote for him.’ It was a little old white lady! It was astounding,” says Jones, who was something of a mentor to Obama in the state Senate. “There were 3,000 people there. There were three blacks: him, me, and my driver. People are drawn to him. He talks to people on the same level … It resonates more.”

It may be that the very universality of his personal appeal prevents Obama from appearing, or wanting to be, overtly ideological -- as if his life story and his gift for connecting with people are too large to be categorized. He clearly wants to be thought of differently, as too complex to be encompassed by one label. When I ask if he’s liberal, progressive, or centrist, he says: “I like to think I’m above it. Only in the sense that I just don’t like how the categories are set up.” He describes two common Democratic caricatures: the “DLC-centrist-Joe Lieberman-Al From types” and the “old-time-religion-Ted Kennedy-die-hard-liberal types.”

“There are dangers in both camps,” he continues. “Sometimes the DLC camp seems to want to run to the center no matter how far right the Republican Party has moved the debate -- that sense of ‘let’s cut a deal no matter what the deal is.’ The old-time religion school sometimes seems unreflective and is unwilling to experiment or update old programs to meet new challenges.

“And the way I would describe myself is I think that my values are deeply rooted in the progressive tradition, the values of equal opportunity, civil rights, fighting for working families, a foreign policy that is mindful of human rights, a strong belief in civil liberties, wanting to be a good steward for the environment, a sense that the government has an important role to play, that opportunity is open to all people and that the powerful don’t trample on the less powerful … I share all the aims of a Paul Wellstone or a Ted Kennedy when it comes to the end result. But I’m much more agnostic, much more flexible on how we achieve those ends.”

And yet, for all these demurrals, when he finally did decide to occupy the spotlight last year, it was on a tried-and-true liberal issue. After Hurricane Katrina hit last August, Obama decided that it was time to speak out. As the Senate’s only African American and as someone who had worked on poverty issues, he knew people would be looking to him for leadership. He traveled to Houston with former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton. He went on ABC’s This Week. “Whoever was in charge of planning was so detached from the realities of inner-city life in New Orleans ... that they couldn’t conceive of the notion that [residents] couldn’t load up their SUVs, put $100 worth of gas in there, put some sparkling water, and drive off to a hotel and check in with a credit card,” he snapped. But he later said Democrats must accept some of the blame because they, too, had downplayed poverty as a national issue [see Ezra Klein, “Poverty Is Back!,” page 45].

On other issues, too, Obama has stuck close to the traditional liberal line. Just two months into his term, he became the first senator to speak out on avian flu, spearheading an effort to spend $25 million to prevent a pandemic. In November, he introduced a bill that would help underwrite health-care costs for automakers that produce fuel-efficient cars. And, invoking a pragmatic political strategy, he has repeatedly teamed up with Republicans to accomplish worthwhile goals. He has worked with the ultra-conservative Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to stop the Bush administration from awarding no-bid contracts for post-Katrina reconstruction projects. Most notably, Obama has developed a particularly close relationship with Indiana’s Richard Lugar, the well-regarded chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The two inspected nuclear and biological weapons sites in the former Soviet Union last August, then cosponsored a bill to reduce stockpiles of conventional weapons.

Obama thinks Democrats need to talk more concretely about health care, energy, globalization, and education -- issues on which he says he will spend his time in the next year. Beyond that, he says, they need to address the values problem.

“I do think that there’s a strain of the Democratic Party -- it’s not uniform -- that is somewhat patronizing towards people who go to church,” says Obama, who attends the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, which is Congregationalist, and keeps a Bible in his car. “If you go to a black evangelical church, there may be traditions that secular humanists might be uncomfortable with -- hoopin’ and hollerin’, wavin’ and dancin’,” he says, purposefully slipping into the vernacular. But, he says, the preachers and the parishioners are talking about the same things that Democratic leaders are: “They’re talking about health care and looking after our seniors and trying to salvage young men from going into the prison system. So there’s nothing alien about it. And yet sometimes, the Democratic Party, I think, just assumes that as long as people are in church that somehow we can’t reach them, that we have nothing in common. That’s simply not true and certainly hasn’t been true historically.”

There is also a strain of the Democratic Party -- and a broad one -- that is promoting Obama as the party’s savior. “He represents the future of the party for a lot of people, which is good because a lot of people question whether we have a future as a party,” said strategist Jenny Backus.

Harold Ickes, a high-ranking White House aide under President Clinton and 2000 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton, said Obama is poised to speak to issues that “have gotten short shrift in the past two decades among progressive Democrats,” like poverty and income distribution. “He’s a powerful spokesman and he comes into Washington fresh, not encumbered by Washington mentality,” Ickes said. “He certainly has the capacity to speak out on issues and get attention. And that’s no small accomplishment. … I personally have high hopes for him.”

Senator Dick Durbin, Obama’s Illinois partner and the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has no doubt about the future of his state’s most popular politician. “He’s an odds-on favorite to run for higher office,” Durbin predicts. “If you are a personal investment banker, you certainly want to invest in the Barack Obama IPO … It is a solid investment in the American political scene.”

It’s ironic, all this talk, given that his party didn’t even want him in the first place. Many party leaders backed Dan Hynes, the state comptroller and Cook County political scion. There’s a lesson the party needs to learn here about nurturing and developing such obvious talent (do the Republicans ignore their Obamas?). In any case, his party can’t get enough of him now. Obama has bolstered his status within his party by raising huge amounts of cash for his colleagues’ campaigns. His political action committee, Hopefund, raised an estimated $1.8 million in 2005. That doesn’t count the millions he has raised for and donated to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and to individual candidates. In one night alone last fall, he raised $1 million for the Arizona Democratic Party by drawing 1,400 people to a dinner. And with one e-mail, Obama raised $800,000 for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a powerhouse who first was elected to the Senate nearly three years before Obama was born.

Most of his fund-raising trips are not on his public schedules. And Obama’s staff, quick to tout his 39 town hall meetings in 31 Illinois counties, claimed not to know how many fund-raising events he attended around the country the past year. A fair assumption might be that Obama is collecting chits and loyalties and building a national political machine, a precursor to a presidential run. It’s something that everyone around him talks about. The senator himself is more understated. “I think it’s flattering,” he says of the conjecture. “It indicates that I’m doing something right. But I try not to get too far ahead of myself. And I find that I perform best when I’m focused on being useful as opposed to becoming something.”

Undoubtedly, pressure and speculation will grow as 2008 approaches. Even if Obama doesn’t run for president then -- and his advisers insist he won’t -- another kind of pressure will present itself: to use his unique talents and his bully pulpit to further a progressive agenda. Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, the first labor union to endorse Obama during his primary campaign, said he’d like to see Obama lead on issues that are critical to working people. “America needs champions right now. And he has that ability and potential,” Stern said. “My New Year’s resolution for him is not wait in line but seize the time.” If Obama indeed is destined to do great things, the time may be right for him to step more forcefully into the spotlight that beckons.


http://www.tompaine.com/

Al Gore's one and only choice for his Vice President.

Does Al have a choice in this decision?

Seriously, it looks like Obama is wisely taking his time in establishing his record. He appears thoughtful and moderate, and definitely liberal. But if he ever decides to run for President or accept the VP nod, what kind of national campaign would he run? We really need more information in that department, at least I do, to make a judgment on him for that kind of office.

Barack is one of the few who still publicly berates offshoring.
There's not a middle or lower class person in this country who
supports offshoring so that issue alone would get a lot of votes.

Obama is setting the ground work for a run at the presidency. It will not be in 2008. That does not mean he won't accept a VP nod in 08. I think he would be very careful about who he'd accept a VP slot from because his goal will be to run for president in the future.

marie

It obviously will only be either Al Gore or Hillary for him to take a VP with, as
no one else stands a chance at winning.

AL Gore will not come back not to make an historic chioce, and Hillary will not lose one vote taking Obama (and theoretically it can be an all-Illiniois ticket as Hill is from there)

No...

Absolutely not.

He is a freshman senator ---

Come on --

We can do better than this in our party.

Barack's leadership has yet to surface.

His first year as reported was quiet as it likely should be.

What if the rest of his years are quiet?

Before I put someone up for the presidency or the vice presidency I base it more than on one speech ---

I base it in a record of demonstrated leadership.

What has Obama done?

On what issue has he demonstrated leadership or leadership ability. The potential is there.

Prior to the choice of John Edwards --- look at Democratic candidates for the presidency and vice presidency--

Kennedy/Johnson -- both had multiple terms in the US Senate and House of Representatives

Johnson/Humphrey --- likewise

Hubert Humphrey/Edmund Muskie -- likewise ---

George McGovern/Shriver... likewise -- Shriver -- 5 yrs in the navy --- director of the peace corps --- director of the inaugural office of economic opportunity -- and Ambassador to France...

Carter/Mondale ---- likewise

Mondale/Ferraro --- a weak Vice Presidential candidate and we see where that got us...

Dukakis/Bentsen -- likewise

Clinton/Gore ---- multiple term Governor/senator -likewise

Gore/Lieberman -- likewise

Kerry/Edwards --- again a weak VP choice...

We should demand candidates with demonstrated leadership not just ability -- but results...IMHO...

I wouldn't rule out Obama, but Taz raises some good, if not definitive points. (And I did vote for Edwards in the primary, and he is on my preliminary tentative shortlist for 2008.)

All potential candidates have their strengths and weaknesses. Taz pointed out some key weaknesses with Obama. But it is still early, and such weaknesses may not be fatal. Obama may be very impressive over the next two years or so. May be. It is a bit early to tell.

And let us not forget that in discussing the merits of various potential candidates for President and Vice President, the decision of these people themselves on whether to run or accept the VP nod is important too. Often they have personal reasons not to. (And Obama is quite young. He can wait. People talked about Clinton's potential for so many years that it became a joke. But he did eventually run, and the rest is history, however we want to judge it.)

you have mediocre people that all act the same/look alike/white bread/boring types

And you have someone that can help get the 9 percent of black voters John Kerry blew in 2004

Those 9 percent can actually swing the electionnationwide

If the idea is to win, you go with the strongest election possiblity

I think Edwards was forced into being weak. They were in that
'what do we say about the war' box because they didn't have all the
evidence that we have now.

Your opinion. Probably true for some, probably not for all. I think that being a white male is not necessarily a negative. (BTW, why should an Administration flunky like Condi be so exciting simply because of her gender and skin color?)



Important consideration, but not the only important consideration. And is Obama the only one who can do that? What about Harold Ford Jr.?



Yes, but there is a legitimate debate as to what that is. The answer is by no means as obvious as you seem to think.

After Katrina, if you don't give something back what is it we are fighting for?

Harold Ford is running for Senator in Tn. Al Gore cannot run with someone from the same state.

If history is not made with choices this time, you will permanently lose the base next time...what more needs to be said?

Yes, Condie, who is one of the most powerful people in the country, should deserve consideration for the top spot. Just because the democrats don't like her?

What I would hope is, if she became President, she would remember where she came from.
And she rose from affirmative action, so maybe she would end up doing more for civil rights than Bill clinton ever did, who took it all away in the first place

I just don't accept your premise that the only alternative to Hillary HAS to be Gore. Gore may not accept that premise.



That the possibility of choice does not end in 2008. And Barak Obama may not accept your premise on that one either.



The Republicans can nominate Elmer Fudd for all I care. (Actually I do hope that they can get out of the thrall of the hard Right, but that will take some time.) But I see no reason to vote for her. How does her gender and skin color make the world better for my children and children all over the world like them? Maybe she has some hidden progressive economic views (she is supposed to be a moderate on social issues, which would probably doom her as the Right would hate her for that) but she is certainly dubious on foreign policy, to say the least, even if she is not a signed up neocon. (And if she does have hidden progressive economic views, they are very well hidden.) And I don't know who "deserves" consideration for the top spot, this is not a prize for being best kid in the class.

I do think Condi is very intelligent, probably one of the most intelligent in that Administration, but she strikes me as a rather weak leader. Which may be why Bush seems to like her better than he liked Colin Powell.



It may be a very fond hope. She might first remember the powerful people who supported her first, just like her current boss does.

But I really don't think that she would have much of a chance to get the Republican nomination. Getting over the hurdle of establishing credibility with the Right would be a huge hurdle for her.

Remember, too, with Obama, that he doesn't have any of the taint of corruption. His past record outside the Senate could be as important as what he's been able to accomplish within the Senate at this stage.

All I know is that when I heard him speak last year, I immediately called my children and told them that I'd heard the man who will probably be the first black president of our country speak. (I'm middle class Caucasian, by the way). He is so charismatic, obviously intelligent, I think he'd be a wise and winning choice for Kerry, for Gore, for Hillary.

You may be right. I just tend to be cautious about making such judgments when it is so early in the game. Will he live up to his promise? And another important thing, while I know that he is generally liberal, I don't know how solid he is on issues which are important to me. Lieberman is generally a liberal too, but he is weak on several issues with me (though strong on others).

If its not Gore, Hillary won't have a challange at all.

Congratulations Madame President

I'm not sure what Obama may decide to do or if/when he'll be called to the Prsesidential or VP slot....I mostly posted the article because it gave a glimpse of the man and how he thinks and what motivates him. We usually hear very little about him. He's an interesting as well as intelligent man, and I'd certainly vote for him at some time in the future. In fact I have him on my wish list.

P.S.

Obama will be with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi at the Great Hall of the Library of Congress to unveil the "DEMOCRATS' HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT" it will be aired at 2pm ET on C-Span. Today



January 18, 2006
Two Parties Rush to Offer Proposals to Curb Lobbying

By CARL HULSE



WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 - House Republican leaders laid out a proposal on Tuesday to rewrite House rules governing lobbying as they moved to contain the political damage from an election-year scandal over undue influence and access afforded to lobbyists.

In the first of a series of competing packages of legislation, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert called for a ban on Congressional travel underwritten by outside groups, tougher restrictions on gifts and favors and the elimination of privileges for lawmakers turned lobbyists in response to three bribery and corruption convictions that have reached into the House. Inquiries related to those criminal acts are continuing.

Congressional Democrats plan to issue their own overhaul plan Wednesday, and Senate Republicans are preparing one as well in a game of one-upsmanship touched off by guilty pleas to corruption charges by the high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate and a House Republican's admission to taking bribes.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics...z8oU0qDvFhquo0Q

I do not know, I still have not seen anything in him that particularly strikes me as amazing or exceptional. I just have not seen what the deal is as of yet. I could not consider him as a VP or Presidential hopeful, though perhaps a few more terms in senate, then I would consider him.

My choice has pretty much been Gore, Kerry or Warner. Gore would be my dream candidate, besides, we are not yet in the primaries, Warner seems to be doing well in his leg-work, and I met some of the ones pushing for him, I would not discount him as a contender once primaries start.

There are too great expectations for Obama, I tend to want him to show his luster a bit more before considering him. That lobbying bill is a start. I apologize if I am slightly skeptical of glowing praises for him, as he has not impressed me thus far.

Consider this from a Democratic leaning Independent, as that is what I am registered as. I have been eyeing Obama however, as many here seem to have a high esteem for him, but I also have noted how many was angry with him for supporting the Condoleeza Rice appointment. As I mentioned, I will keep an open mind about him, but for the moment, I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

You believe she is electable now?

Likely because he does not have much experience...

Just let him try and keep that clean record running for national office...or against a well funded challenger...

Absolutely, and too Obama's credit he has something that many candidates lack in addition to his speaking capabilities he has a charisma and ability to attract moderate voters of all backgrounds...

This should not be underestimated.

I am always a fan of executive experience.

I would love to see him run for Governor of Illinois --- show he can do it all.

He beleives Bush Sr. annointed her around 1960.

The problem with G4A's analysis is that it is self-refuting. He asks us to believe that Gore is both a superpatriot and our sole salvation yet we also have to beleive that such a person even consider letting our Republic die by not running. Yet Gore shows no indication of running and even G4A is losing hope that he will run.

Three years before my birth...I must have missed that....

Has anyone here ever played Diplomacy?

(If anyone answers yes I will show the relevance of this question.)

Yes.

And let me guess the relevance. As I recall, the game involves secret deals and shifting alliances. As a result, none of the players could ever have a complete picture of what was really going and even the most powerful could be back-stabbed at anytime. Spectators to a Diplomacy game were even more confused, since all they could see were peices moving on a map without know why they were being moved.

So, if members of the DLC have made a secret deal to stab Hillary in the back, she won't know until it is too late. And we may never know.

Thanks for updating with this info. This ought to tell us what the dems think of Obama. I think he could run on "A man of integrity..."

Not a bad guess, but that's not what I was thinking of. (But of course I am unfairly asking you to read my mind.) What you are saying could be part of it.

What I was thinking was that the most powerful players are those at the edge of the board, Britain, France, Russia, and Turkey, especially Britain which is surrounded by water. They are relatively easy to defend, so they can concentrate more on offense, and thus are powers that usually stay in the game and win often. The powers in the middle, Germany, Austria and Italy, have more difficulty because if they have too many enemies they can be cut to shreds relatively early. But they still can win with luck and skill. (Although I have never seen Italy win.)

I think Hillary is Britain, Gore might be France or Russia. Most of the other candidates would be the middle powers. Some will be cut to shreds quickly, but one or two who are lucky enough to survive might very well be serious contenders.

You're welcome to start shortly!!

Well, Barack is out front to the right of Harry Reid.....not bad

Actually I think a Bayh/Obama ticket may be a possiblity. I'm not sure Obama would run with Hillary. Just the "vibe" I'm getting. He may also consider a run with Biden. but after that I'm not sure of who else.

gotta go with the "vibe" he's a pretty reliable source.

Interesting analogy. In real life, Britain and Russia were the two nations that could never be conquered. Britain has the advantage of being isolated by water and freedom of the seas due to her navy. I say that's Al Gore, who has the advantage of being outside the beltway and able to do and say whatever he wants. Russia had the advantage of size and resources. That's Hillary with the power of the DLC at her disposal.

And Turkey is the Republican Party - like the Ottoman Empire - apparently large and strong but really weakened internally by corruption.

Barack will be key speaker after Pelosi

I thought Barack gave an excellent presentation....he certainly has a resounding voice and he captures attention...he also appears very fair-minded.

Good Job Barack

DEMOCRATS PLEDGE TO PROVIDE HONEST LEADERSHIP, OPEN GOVERNMENT

Congressional Desk



The Congressional Desk provides information, news releases, and announcements obtained from communication and public relations offices.


By Congressional Desk
January 18, 2006
Democratic Leaders Rally across the Country to Clean up Washington

Washington, D.C. – Democrats from across the country today unveiled their Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. In the Great Hall of the Library of Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi were joined by Senator Barack Obama and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and their Senate and House colleagues to shine a spotlight on the Republican “pay for play” politics that put special interests first at the expense of the priorities of the American people, and sign a pledge to restore honest leadership and open government.

“There’s a price to pay for this corruption in Washington, and we can see it in the state of our union,” said Leader Reid. “From seniors who cannot afford their prescription drugs to soldiers sent to war without body armor and middle-class families living on a financial cliff, the cost of corruption is very real. Today, I challenge President Bush – the head of the Republican Party – to match our commitment to honest leadership. When leaders are accountable to people, not lobbyists, there is no limit to how far America can go.”

“An ethical cloud hangs over the Capitol,” said Leader Pelosi. “For years Democrats have called for an end to the Republican culture of corruption, but Republicans have resisted every effort because they benefit from allowing it to continue. This poison tree of corruption has borne the fruits of bad legislation – legislation that has come at great cost to the American people. Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress we have ever seen into the most open and honest Congress in history.”

“The corruption of Washington has done far more damage than sending politicians on golf junkets or showering them with gifts. It has shaken the faith of the American people in a government that looks out for their interests and upholds their values,” said Senator Obama. “The hired guns on K Street who’ve been allowed to help write our laws have gotten exactly what they paid for – massive tax breaks for the oil companies, giveaways to the drug industry, and no-bid contracts for Gulf Coast reconstruction. Meanwhile, hardworking Americans across the country who can’t afford their own lobbyist wonder when someone in Washington will help them send their kids to college or pay their medical bills or guarantee their pension. It’s time we answered their call.”

“Mr. Abramoff and his associates will be held up as the beginning and end of our Congressional crisis, but they are just the symptom of a larger problem,” said Congresswoman Slaughter. “The disease is here, with the party of power in Washington. Now is the time to realize that the Republican Members of Congress who put America up for sale have neither the ability, nor the credibility, to lead us in a new direction. But the Democratic Party can. And today, we are demanding the restoration of democracy itself to our government.”

Democrats today announced the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, a comprehensive government reform plan that will clean up and protect the government from the Republican culture of corruption and quid pro quo politics. The Act will reinvigorate Congressional ethics rules and institute broad-based lobbying reforms to ensure that the representatives of the people are operating in the people’s interest, not the special interests.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act offers the following reforms:




The Jack Abramoff Reform: Fix the gift and travel rules that allowed Republican lobbyists to buy influence in Congress.


The Ralph Reed Reform: Increase transparency and accountability in government: holding Members of Congress accountable to ethics rules and allowing the public to see exactly what their elected representatives are doing in Washington.


The Tony Rudy Reform: Close the revolving door between government and K Street lobbying firms by strengthening the ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress and senior government officials after they leave to work in the private sector.



The cost of Republican corruption is felt by American families every day as they try to heat their homes and send their children to college. While seniors struggle with a confusing and poorly implemented prescription drug program and middle-class families desperately try to pay higher bills with lower wages, special interests reap rewards and giveaways. Republicans created laws that provide billions to oil companies already making record profits and a multibillion dollar slush fund for the pharmaceutical industry, and allow friends like Halliburton to receive no-bid contracts. At events throughout America today, Democrats pledged to clean up Washington so that the people’s interests will come first.

“We are committed to immediate change to lead this country in a new direction, to put an end to Republican business as usual, and to make certain this nation’s leaders serve the people’s interests, not special interests,” pledged Democrats while unveiling principles for reform. “With honest leadership and open government, America's leaders can once again focus on the urgent needs of the American people: real security overseas and at home, economic strength and educational excellence, affordable health care, energy independence, and retirement security.”

At an event in Columbus, Ohio, Democrats led a charge to fight against the Republican culture of corruption that is so pervasive in Ohio and to restore honest leadership. At the same time, Democratic Governors continued to work to reform ethics laws and restore honest leadership in state and local government. Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan asked the Legislature to support a series of reform measures to strengthen ethics laws and increase disclosure while Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia enacted several amendments to his state’s Ethics Act to close the revolving door to ensure the people’s interests come first.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT

Democrats offer an aggressive reform package to reverse Republican excesses and restore the public trust. Our program for change embodies the following provisions:

The Tony Rudy Reform: Close the Revolving Door. Close the revolving door between the Congress and lobbying firms by doubling (from one year to two) the cooling-off period during which lawmakers, senior Congressional staff, and Executive Branch officials are prohibited from lobbying their former offices. Eliminate floor privileges for former Members of Congress and officers of the Senate and House who return to lobby.


WHY: Republicans’ Revolving Door Lead to Criminal Activity. “Abramoff developed a close relationship with [DeLay] deputy chief of staff Tony Rudy. ‘For all intents and purposes, Tony worked for Jack,’ contends a former Abramoff associate, who tells TIME that Abramoff even bought Rudy a text-messaging pager so that they would never be out of touch…When Rudy left DeLay’s staff in 2000, he joined Abramoff at the lobbying firm of Greenberg Traurig. Rudy now works for Buckham at Alexander Strategy Group, another lobbying operation.” In addition, “Identifying [former Bob Ney Chief of Staff Neil] Volz only as ‘Staffer B,’ the Abramoff plea agreement suggests he may have lobbied Ney, members of his congressional staff and the House Administration Committee only one month after leaving a staff position on Ney’s committee - far short of the one-year cooling off period required by law.” [Time, 1/16/06; Copley News Service, 1/5/06]

The Ralph Reed Reform: Toughen Public Disclosure of Lobbyist Activity. Significantly expand the information lobbyists must disclose – including campaign contributions and client fees. Require them to file disclosure reports electronically, and increase the frequency of those filings. Require lobbyists to certify that they did not violate the rules, and make them subject to criminal penalties for false certifications.


WHY: Michael Scanlon and Ralph Reed Secretly Exploited Voters by Not Disclosing Clients. “Abramoff partner and former DeLay aide, Michael Scanlon, paid Ralph Reed $1.2 million to help oppose a new tribal casino that would compete with the casinos run by Abramoff’s tribal clients. Ralph Reed used the money and his Christian Coalition network to raise grassroots opposition to the competing casino without disclosing to his followers that their anti-gambling efforts were being funded by a competing gambling interest. [Washington Post, 8/30/04]

The Jack Abramoff Reform: Ban Lobbyist Gifts and Travel. Prohibit the receipt of gifts, including gifts of meals, entertainment and travel, from lobbyists.


WHY: Lobbyists’ Gifts Created Unethical Relationships Among Republican Congressmen. “First came the dinner invitations, then the tickets. Staffers in the office of former House Majority leader Tom DeLay could dine -- usually, free of charge -- at Signatures, the expense-account restaurant conveniently owned by lobbyist Jack Abramoff…the DeLay staffers began to think that Abramoff’s box at the arena was their box, and, in the cozy way of Washington, it might as well have been.” Abramoff also reportedly flew aides to Sen. Burns and Rep. DeLay to the 2001 Super Bowl and, during that trip, provided each with $500 worth of gambling chips on a SunCruz ship partly owned by Mr. Abramoff. [Newsweek, 1/16/06; Washington Post, 3/5/05; The Hill, 12/7/05]

The Grover Norquist Reform: Shut Down Pay-to-Play Schemes Like the “K Street Project.” End efforts like the “K Street Project,” which Republicans created to tell corporations and lobbying firms whom they should hire in exchange for political access.


WHY: Republicans Dictated Hiring at Corporations, Trade Associations and Lobbying Firms — and let Special Interests Dominate the Republican Agenda in Return. “DeLay, Santorum, and their associates organized a systematic campaign, closely monitored by Republicans on Capitol Hill and by Grover Norquist and the Republican National Committee, to put pressure on firms not just to hire Republicans but also to fire Democrats. With the election of Bush, this pressure became stronger…Several Democratic lobbyists have been pushed out of their jobs as a result; business associations who hire Democrats for prominent positions have been subject to retribution.” In addition, “while it’s not uncommon for lobbyists to have a hand in writing legislation on the Hill, the Bush administration has sometimes shifted the locus of executive policy making so far towards K Street that Bush’s own appointees are cut out of the process.” [New York Review of Books, 6/23/05; Washington Monthly, July/August 2003]

The Scully & Tauzin Reform: Disclosure of Outside Job Negotiations. Requires lawmakers to disclose when they are negotiating private sector jobs, and requires Executive Branch officials who are negotiating private sector jobs to receive approval from the independent Office of Government Ethics.


WHY: Jack Abramoff Offered Lobbying Jobs to Congressional Staff for Helping his Clients on Legislation While Members and Executive Officials Took Lobbying Jobs After Regulating Industry. “Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin, who exercised jurisdiction over the industry as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, will become president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America on Jan. 3, when he retires from Congress…As a committee chairman in 2003, Tauzin helped to write the law to provide outpatient prescription coverage under Medicare.” Thomas Scully, the former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, held job negotiations with the same industries he regulated while also drafting the Medicare prescription drug bill. [Los Angeles Times, 12/16/04; GovExec, 4/9/04]

The Frist & Hastert Reform: Prohibit “Dead of Night” Special Interest Provisions. Require that all conference committee meetings be open to the public and that members of the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on all amendments. Make copies of conference reports available to Members, and post them publicly on the Internet, 24 hours before consideration (unless waived by a supermajority vote).


WHY: Frist and Hastert Inserted a Special Interest Liability Provision in the Middle of the Night. According to Congressman David Obey, “The conference committee ended its work with the understanding, both verbal and in writing, that there would be no legislative liability protection language inserted in this bill…But after the conference was finished at 6 p.m., Senator Frist marched over to the House side of the Capitol about 4 hours later and insisted that over 40 pages of legislation, which I have in my hand, 40 pages of legislation that had never been seen by conferees, be attached to the bill. The Speaker joined him in that assistance so that, without a vote of the conferees, that legislation was unilaterally and arrogantly inserted into the bill after the conference was over in a blatantly abusive power play by two of the most powerful men in Congress…” [Congressional Record, 12/22/05]

The Halliburton Reform: Zero Tolerance for Contract Cheaters. Restore accountability and openness in federal contracting by subjecting major contract actions to public disclosure and aggressive competition; criminally prosecuting contractors who cheat taxpayers, with penalties including suspension and debarment; imposing stiff criminal and civil penalties for wartime fraud on government contracting; prohibiting contractors with conflicts of interest from conducting oversight or writing contract requirements they could bid on; mandating full disclosure of contract overcharges; creating tough penalties for improper no-bid contracts; and closing the revolving door between federal contract officials and private contractors.


WHY: No-Bid Contracts Bilked American Taxpayers. In March 2003, in what the top Army Corps contracting officer at the time has called the worst case of contracting abuse she ever witnessed, the Pentagon awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraqi oil fields and conduct “operation of facilities and distribution of products.” The initial deal was thought to be worth as much as $7 billion dollars. Halliburton is the largest private contractor in post-war Iraq, with potential deals totaling well over $11 billion. It continues to receive major federal contracts despite over $1.4 billion in disputed billing charges and numerous other abuses. Before becoming Vice President, Dick Cheney served as Halliburton’s Chairman. [Los Angeles Times, 5/7/03; Washington Post, 2/10/04; AP, 9/26/03]

The Brownie Reform: Prohibit Cronyism in Key Appointments. End rampant cronyism by requiring that any individual appointed to a position involving public safety possess proven credentials, and training or expertise in one or more areas relevant to the position.


WHY: Cronyism Led to Incompetence in Key Agencies like Michael Brown, the College Roommate of President Bush’s 2000 Campaign Manager, who was Appointed to Head FEMA and Presided over a legacy of neglect at the agency. Like David Safavian, who was appointed to head the government’s procurement office with no experience and was later arrested for lying to the FBI, Michael Brown was appointed to run FEMA without the requisite experience. According to Time, “this [second] Bush Administration had a plan from day one for remaking the bureaucracy, and has done so with greater success. As far back as the Florida recount, soon-to-be Vice President Dick Cheney was poring over organizational charts of the government with an eye toward stocking it with people sympathetic to the incoming Administration…Bush has gone further than most Presidents to put political stalwarts in some of the most important government jobs you’ve never heard of, and to give them genuine power over the bureaucracy. Some of the appointments are raising serious concerns in the agencies themselves and on Capitol Hill about the competence and independence of agencies that the country relies on to keep us safe, healthy and secure.” [Time Magazine, 10/3/05]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...?articleID=4947