Sunday, October 22, 2006

Obama Opens the Door to Presidential Run, Could Receive Wide Support in Maryland

On Meet the Press this morning, Senator Barack Obama admitted that he was considering a run for the Presidency. It's not a huge surprise given his Time magazine cover and all the buzz that has been swirling around him.
His running would vault him into the short list for Maryland's support in the '08 election, including support from important donor communities in the Washington and Baltimore suburbs. To start with, Obama would likely garner massive support from the 25% of Maryland that is African-American. But he will also have a serious shot at getting support from the progressive activists in the state who have not yet aligned behind any of the '08 candidates. There's simply no doubt that he has generated more excitement on his few visits to Mayrland than any other local or visiting politician.
Of course, he'll have some serious challenges in the state. Maryland's labor movement will likely be leaning towards Edwards, especially given his speech a few years ago at the Progressive Maryland dinner (if I'm remembering that correctly). John Kerry still maintains a dedicated group of partisans in the state. The anti-war activists in the inner DC suburbs and Baltimore City might lean towards long-shot candidate like Russ Feingold. And, of course, there's Hillary. But in any case, his few lines on TV just made the next couple years a lot more interesting.
Link to AP article here.


Blogger Rfustero said...

Other than meeting the age requirement- what makes him qualified to be President?

10/22/2006 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger Bruce Godfrey said...

Approximately the same thing that makes Feingold, Hillary or Edwards qualified - experience in the Senate and not that much else at the personal level.

I would be interested in a comparison of the committee assignments of the various Senators seeking (or probably seeking) the nomination.

10/22/2006 04:20:00 PM  
Blogger Eric Luedtke said...

Robert, what makes him not qualified to be President? I'm not sure that the presidency is something you can be prepared for. I mean, Clinton was a small-state governor, and he was pretty successful.

10/22/2006 05:39:00 PM  
Blogger jsmdlawyer said...

Bob, is there anything the national Democratic Party (a) has done this year, (b) proposes to do if it takes over one or both Houses of Congress, or (c) has suggested ought to be done, that you approve of? Just wondering.

10/22/2006 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger Matthew Jerome said...

I'm certainly a fan of Obama, but there is such a thing as peaking too soon. He hasn't been held to any real scrutiny yet, the media and the Democratic public are still in the honeymoon phase.

And perhaps rightfully so--the party of Gore, Kerry, and Reid could certainly use such a genuinely charismatic, communicative, and inspirational politician as Obama as its leader. But he's still green, and I think he needs more time on the national stage.

He's got all the time in the world. I think he should take a pass for this one, and aim for 2016. If the Dem base will let him wait that long.

10/22/2006 08:49:00 PM  
Blogger Bruce Godfrey said...

Speaking only for myself, I wish that Obama were a little less willing to praise Bush and to pander to theocratic constituencies. If I wanted that I would seek out a nice moderate Republican.

10/23/2006 01:24:00 AM  
Blogger Rfustero said...

JSMD- well the idea of an increase in the minimum wage is a good idea.

Maybe if they found a way to provide affordable housing for the middle class.

If they nominate John Edwards for President, and Bayh for Vice -President.

Maybe if they get off their high horse and start acting like the Democrats of old-- you know, more pro-labor, more people oriented and less whinning and crying.

I am not saying that obama is not qualified, but I dont see anything in his record that would entice me to vote for him.

It seem that everytime a new flavor pops up in the media- the Dems go crazy as if that person is the savior of the world, or at least America.

Remember Kathleen Townsend- theywere touting her as a future Vice president or even President based on what- her name, her record - the Dems need a centrist(like Clinton) without much baggage, and some sound ideas that affect the midle class- nothing too far left or too far right.

10/23/2006 08:18:00 AM  
Blogger Eric Luedtke said...

Washington Post's "The Fix" weighs in:

10/23/2006 09:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: "I am not saying that obama is not qualified, but I dont see anything in his record that would entice me to vote for him."

Bob, what was it again that should have enticed voters to elect you County Executive?

10/23/2006 12:24:00 PM  
Blogger Rfustero said...

Sara da muse; you mean besides my charming wit and personality, and good looks?

Whatever it was- it wasn't enough

10/23/2006 01:27:00 PM  
Blogger michaelraia said...

"I wish that Obama were a little less willing to praise Bush and to pander to theocratic constituencies."

I personally think its past time that Democrats start talking about religion. You can have faith and still respect others rights to practice their own, which is something that Obama has been very apt at showing by example.

I'm not advocating Dems run to the Religious Right and embrace folks at Bob Jones University, but we ought to be talking with people of faith about how the Democrats' commitment to the working poor and human rights is much more in linewith the teachings of the Christ I was taught to follow at Gonzaga that the GOP commitment to tax cuts for the rich and unprovoked war in foreign lands.

I hope to see more Democrats talk about religion the way Obama does, Kennedy did and Jed Bartlet would (if he were real).

10/24/2006 12:47:00 AM  
Blogger howie said...

I generally agree with your thought that we should be able to show the alignment of our positions with those of religious teachings as long as we do it without the swaggering judgmentalism of the Christian right and speak to all of the mainstream religious, not just the evangelicals.

Still, this kind of talk gets people, including myself, nervous. The secularly political, and I consider myself a part of that group despite my weekly church visits, see all religious political activity through the actions of the Robertsons and Falwells. I'm old enough to remember the civil rights marches and how important churches were in that movement, however.

My point is that that ground should be trod on carefully, we need to not be hostile, but at the same time avoid the phoniness which occurs when we require every candidate to discuss his/her "deep faith". Show how much our positions are in line with the individual's beliefs; do not wallow in fake religiousity. We should not be theocrats; neither should we be hostile to those who are religious.

Interestly, I heard a woman on the Ron Smith Show on WBAL yesterday making the case for secular conservatism, because political position (my add-she only stated conservative positions) should be based on thought and reason.

Maybe, one day, the two parties will actually be back in the same place on this issue.

10/24/2006 09:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home