Barack Obama forms exploratory committee

January 16, 2007 9:00 AM

A message from Barack Obama
posted by empath (95 comments total)

Text of message here.
posted by Atreides at 9:04 AM on January 16, 2007

Even though this was expected, it's still exciting!
posted by miss meg at 9:11 AM on January 16, 2007

Unless the statement is "I'm too skinny to be president" ... oh, wait, it turns out it's actually "I'm too wet to be able to decide for myself if I want to be president, I'm going to set up a committee to examine the possibility of examining the possibility of being president".
posted by bonaldi at 9:11 AM on January 16, 2007

"presidential exploratory committee"? ... rhetoric and waffling aren't enough ... obama, are you going to DO something and what are you going to DO?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:11 AM on January 16, 2007

He's running for VP.
posted by euphorb at 9:12 AM on January 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

There's no way I would have found out about this important news if I hadn't checked metafilter today.
posted by interrobang at 9:12 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Be sure and let us know when he clips his toenails. Preferably with a youtube link.
posted by 2sheets at 9:17 AM on January 16, 2007

Fantastic.

Like a lot of people, I was electrified by Obama's speech to the DNC in 2004. It seemed he had a rare gift to speak across the political divide, one which was sustained by his extraordinary biography. It was bizarre. I was in a library watching the CSPAN live feed in a tiny window on my computer. But by the end, I was literally standing on my feet, breathless with the thought that this could be our first black president. His senatorial campaign in Illinois, and his ability to attract support even in the conservative collar counties around metropolitan Chicago only made this seem more and more likely. Getting his ass kicked by Bobby Rush taught him a lot, I think.

In the meantime, though, a lot of the luster has come off. Obama is preternaturally good at the domestic politics game. He tacks to the middle in a way that makes his critics look small, something Democrats have had a very hard time doing in the last few years. But he still seems like a lightweight on foreign policy issues, something that will matter more to voters in 2008 than anything else. And he hasn't shown us that he can take the gloves off and fight hard when he needs to.

So, I'm hopeful, but not sanguine about his chances. If he can develop a critical rhetoric that doesn't descend into shrillness or vacuity, he'll go a long way toward looking presidential in exactly the way that matters today. And if he can formulate serious policy positions and fresh ideas about how to combat terrorism, get us out of Iraq and repair our ties to erstwhile allies...well...almost nothing will be able to stop him.

In any case, I know where I'll be volunteering in 2007.
posted by felix betachat at 9:17 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Can we please.... pretty, pretty, pretty please... not have every little move of Your Favorite Candidate between now and election day dumped onto the front page? Please????? This shit doesn't even rise to the level of newsfilter; its ObviousStuffThatIHopeHasSomeImportanceFilter. How can this possibly qualify as a Metafilter post under any rubric whatsoever?

It's Jan. 2007. The election is not until Nov. 2008. That's almost 2 years from now. Do we really need to suffer through this crap for 2 straight years?

Look: there really are other sites out there that focus exclusively on the daily minutia of politics. Try them; you might like them a lot.

But don't kill Metafilter. Please. Save us admins!
posted by dios at 9:18 AM on January 16, 2007 [5 favorites]

He's actually running for Secretary of Poorly-Streamed Video.
posted by koeselitz at 9:18 AM on January 16, 2007

Obama on youtube in case anyone here isn't sure what the fuss is about. A persuasive speaker, sounding slightly to the left of David Cameron when viewed through the spectrum of UK politics.
posted by imperium at 9:18 AM on January 16, 2007

pyramid termite: If he just came out and said "I want to be president" he would look a bit too ambitious, I think. He has to play it as if he's being pushed into it.

"Having greatness thrust upon him."

I also distrust him, though. I just don't know where he stands on anything.
posted by empath at 9:19 AM on January 16, 2007

Presidential Exploratory Committee. The first thing that came to mind was latex gloves and a full body cavity search for Bush.
posted by augustweed at 9:19 AM on January 16, 2007

Once again, Copernicus is proven wrong. Everything revolves around the USA.

On preview: Dios 2008!
posted by GuyZero at 9:20 AM on January 16, 2007

And yeah, this is a silly post. Flagged as 'noise.'
posted by koeselitz at 9:20 AM on January 16, 2007

2sheets: Well done, I've been meaning to take my office nail clippers home to trim my toe nails and have been continually forgetful. Now my sheets will be safe!

His shirt wasn't symmetrical enough for me. He's no David Palmer.
posted by biffa at 9:21 AM on January 16, 2007

Matt should consider implementing the Breaking News RSS feed from CNN.com on the front page. Maybe that would reduce the likelihood that this kind of thing being posted.
posted by Flem Snopes at 9:23 AM on January 16, 2007

That video would have ruled if there was one of the Fat Boys in the background beat boxing over it.

NEW RULE DECREED IN STRAIGHTENARIA

All presidential hopefulls shall announce their candidacy to the rythym of a beat boxing Fat Boy.

America would be fucking awesome if I was running shit.
posted by The Straightener at 9:24 AM on January 16, 2007

1. Can someone buy Mr. Obama some books to fill the shelf behind him? I heard those Potter books are a fast read.

2. It's 2007 and technology advances in leaps and bounds. So why does Mr. Obama still need to talk to the guy standing over my right shoulder?
posted by NationalKato at 9:24 AM on January 16, 2007

Why does Barak Obama hate Safari?
posted by evoo at 9:24 AM on January 16, 2007

I for one welcome our new coherent english speaking overlords.
posted by faithnomore at 9:24 AM on January 16, 2007

Shit, I made this a "favorite", when I was really trying to flag it! AND NOW I CAN'T REMOVE IT HOPE ME
posted by interrobang at 9:26 AM on January 16, 2007

America would be fucking awesome if I was running shit.
posted by The Straightener


So - what are you calling your exploratory committee?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:29 AM on January 16, 2007

This is not noise. This is the announcement to form a committee to explore the possibility of maybe making some noise.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:30 AM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

Presidential Exploratory Committee

People, Mitt Romney has also formed one of these, and he's already been running since he was elected Governor of Massachusetts.

Here's an explanatory bit from NPR:

Under the rules, exploratory money may be raised without the full disclosure of sources required of true candidates. Only when the candidate drops the exploratory label does the full responsibility of transparency apply.

posted by mkb at 9:31 AM on January 16, 2007

If he just came out and said "I want to be president" he would look a bit too ambitious

we don't need someone who's too ambitious for themselves, but we're in desperate need of someone who's ambitious for the country and for a political program that's ambitious
posted by pyramid termite at 9:31 AM on January 16, 2007

Never before in my almost six years here have I said 'meh' to a post, but here it is:

meh

Obama is just more of the same but with better rhetoric.

But, there is someone running who is worth getting excited about.
posted by pandaharma at 9:33 AM on January 16, 2007

On preview: Dios 2008!

Damn, I better burn my purple shirts then.
posted by Freen at 9:34 AM on January 16, 2007

It still makes me happy.
posted by FlamingBore at 9:35 AM on January 16, 2007

we're in desperate need of someone who's ambitious for the country and for a political program that's ambitious

I agree that the need is indeed desparate. But, I think the country has to tank a lot more visibly (Katrina and Iraq are apparently not enough for most) for there to be any kind of momentum behind that.

Obama is just more of the same but with better rhetoric.

That's enough for me at this point. After 8 years of triangulation (well, 6, after he got immasculated in 1994), and 8 years of Suck it, I'm going to do what I want... I'll fucking take better rhetoric. If things are going to continue to go to hell here, I'd at least want the President to sound like he gives a shit about it.
posted by psmealey at 9:36 AM on January 16, 2007

I'm suspicious of the "Obama is all rhetoric" and "what does he stand for" memes. Obama's voting record is not long, but it places him close to Russ Feingold.

I'd be happy to vote for Feingold, for that matter. But given that he's not running, I'm overjoyed to have an alternative to the likes of Clinton and Edwards, both of whom voted for the war before they voted against it. The smell of waffles isn't wafting out of Obama's camp.
posted by shunpiker at 9:36 AM on January 16, 2007

pandaharma: "But, there is someone running who is worth getting excited about."

Indeed.
posted by koeselitz at 9:36 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

koeselitz, we don't need a fat-ass Jack Bauer for President. [NOT RACIST!]
posted by NationalKato at 9:38 AM on January 16, 2007

I like how a single line post which could easily be passed over, sends folks into delirious fits of frothing madness.

I pass over and ignore a number of posts per day on the blue, some that I feel certainly don't match the perceived requirements for existing. The amazing thing is, I don't feel compelled to enter those threads and gripe about it. Try it. Its fun.
posted by Atreides at 9:39 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

haters can suuuuuuuck iiiiiiit
posted by radiosig at 9:39 AM on January 16, 2007

Well, I just got all warm and fuzzy inside. And I intend to stay that way, no matter what all you naysayers have to say about it.
posted by crackingdes at 9:40 AM on January 16, 2007

This reminds me strongly of how "the other side" responded to Dubya, back at the turn of the century.
posted by zennie at 9:41 AM on January 16, 2007

obama, are you going to DO something and what are you going to DO?

He's going to deliberate. It makes sense for someone in Obama's position to tread with care on making this decision; he's been in national office a whopping two years. All logic would indicate that he's not supposed to be making a run for president at this point. And yet, there's a lot of grassroots support for the idea, for the reasons he gives in the video. He's a smart guy, and dedicated to his job, his constituency, and his country; he's not going to compromise his ability to do what he sees as important work in the senate unless he thinks he has a real chance to take his service to the next level.

I actually just finished reading "The Audacity of Hope" last night. While I don't agree with everything he proposes (and, granted, his proposals can be a bit vague), there's certainly far more common ground than not for me to share with him. That, combined with his intelligence, eloquence, and humility (to say nothing of crossing the low bar of sanity), makes me want to support him for president.

That said, the cynic in me says that he can't win. I'd like to believe that people are ready for a change in the rules for politics, to elect leaders who are nuanced and sophisticated in their platforms, addressing an ever more complex national and world stage for politics. The last seven years have pretty much beaten that hope right out of me.
posted by Brak at 9:42 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Anyways, I'm looking forward to the probable Obama campaign. I heard him speak this summer and it was an excellent speech. I fear that he may not meet the "experience" meter, but perhaps that won't be as much an issue this election.
posted by Atreides at 9:42 AM on January 16, 2007

Atreides: "I like how a single line post which could easily be passed over, sends folks into delirious fits of frothing madness."

Well, since we're talking about things we like, I like how people post the most idiotic, useless shit on Metafilter, and then try to weasel out of taking responsibility for their shit by saying "well, if you don't like it, you don't have to read it." If you don't want to post interesting/useful/good links, you don't have to post on Metafilter. That's what I like.
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 AM on January 16, 2007

I'll take the first president to have grown up abroad in a developing country over most of the "foreign policy experience" touted on behalf of Your Favorite Candidate. Any day.

The reason he is taking baby steps is obvious: he gets more attention by deliberating and making the decisions suspenseful. It shows you how good he is as a politician that he has paced this process so carefully and steadily to come from nowhere to lead the pack.

I don't like all the religion talk either, but we need to have a serious conversation across the "cultural" divide that has been so opportunistically widened into a chasm by the right over the past couple of decades. If Obama can advance that dialogue as president, and continue to carefully bracket faith as a matter of private freedom and individual responsibility as he has, mostly, done, it's not an issue for me.

You have to go with your gut at this point, and in such matters generally: Obama is the first viscerally exciting candidate we've had in a long, long time -- he's just different (and it has little to do with being black), and I think a lot of Americans are ready for that. The comparisons to Clinton are obvious; the gamble is that Obama is less reckless, just as smart, and at least as charismatic. I don't think his idealism is at all phony.
posted by spitbull at 9:42 AM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think Obama running for president at least rises to the level of Beckham coming to the US.
posted by empath at 9:44 AM on January 16, 2007

Exploratory committees are, as far as I know, required as the first step to becoming President. Sometimes they explore something, sometimes they are pro forma.
posted by MythMaker at 9:44 AM on January 16, 2007

He's actually running for sheriff of Rock Ridge.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:44 AM on January 16, 2007

I'm overjoyed to have an alternative to the likes of Clinton and Edwards, both of whom voted for the war before they voted against it. The smell of waffles isn't wafting out of Obama's camp.
If Obama had been in the Senate then, he would have voted exactly the same way they did. Obama also has already Sister Souljah'd all of us who don't want religion interjected into our government. He's much more like Hillary than you think he is.

So far, he's done nothing--let him show some leadership and/or courage on something--anything--now that he's a Senator. I'll wait.
posted by amberglow at 9:44 AM on January 16, 2007

Born in 1961, Obama is technically "Generation X" (according to the dates set by Strauss and Howe). It would be remarkable if the "slacker generation" takes power after only 4 Presidential terms of Baby Boomers (each generation is 20-years or theoretically 5 presidential terms long).
posted by stbalbach at 9:46 AM on January 16, 2007

I like how a single line post which could easily be passed over, sends folks into delirious fits of frothing madness.
posted by Atreides at 11:39 AM CST on January 16

Who is suffering from delirious fits of frothing madness?

I see people hate this post, but it is less about the post itself and more about what this post represents: an early salvo in the overwhelming deluge of absolute shit that is to come for the next 650 days until the election. As every bore on this website who is hyper-obsessed with the ultimately irrelevant minutia of the American campaign post every stupid fucking minor event in the campaign as if it is important.

If you are really interested enough in this news to care about it, then you are already the kind of person who should know (and probably reads) political blogs. Why not go there for this crap?
posted by dios at 9:46 AM on January 16, 2007

And in a little-noticed parallel, Republican firebrand Tom Tancredo has also formed an exploratory committee today, which is as good a piece of news for Democrats as anything Obama could do. Please let Tancredo last through the late primaries, ohpretty please.
posted by spitbull at 9:47 AM on January 16, 2007

Even this announcement is not really anything--it's wimpy and tentative.
posted by amberglow at 9:47 AM on January 16, 2007

spitbull, Brownback/Tancredo would be a dream ticket to run against--both batshit insane and way way too far right.
posted by amberglow at 9:48 AM on January 16, 2007

I got excited when I saw this post. I was hoping the message was something like, "I've decided to make legalizing cocaine my highest priority as Senator," or, "As of this moment, I am sending legislation to the Senate floor to allow Canada to annex the United States. We're too screwed up to fix anymore." But: "Hey! A lot of you like me because I'm a really good speaker, so I'm going to think about running for President" is something we pretty much already knew.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:48 AM on January 16, 2007

amberglow:

I don't think he would have voted for the war:

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
posted by empath at 9:48 AM on January 16, 2007

empath: "I think Obama running for president at least rises to the level of Beckham coming to the US."

How about "Obama announcing that he's taking one of the formal first steps toward running for president, as he's told everyone he will already and everyone knows?"

This post is less like "Beckham coming to the US" and more like "Beckham getting on the airplane to come to the US."
posted by koeselitz at 9:49 AM on January 16, 2007

I disagree, empath--nothing in his behavior in the Senate has shown anything but follower behavior. He and Hillary get enormous media attention, but neither have used it for real purposes that matter--they both use it solely to show how they're not like traditional Democrats.
posted by amberglow at 9:50 AM on January 16, 2007

amberglowIf Obama had been in the Senate then, he would have voted exactly the same way they did.
According to MSNBC, Obama was on the record as against the war in 2002.
posted by spaltavian at 9:51 AM on January 16, 2007

actually, this post is more like Beckham went to a travel website to price tickets to America.
posted by amberglow at 9:51 AM on January 16, 2007

Anyone else notice that he's running on the exact same platform as GWB in 2000? About coming together and dropping all the partisan B.S.

Wake me up when he takes a daring stand or does something interesting.

I'm so sick of "electrifying speeches" and "great rhetoric" being the measure of a good president. People wanted to have a beer with bush, and now they want to have a beer with Obama.

I don't think Obama would be anything like bush, obviously. But, I do think Obama needs to at least say what his solutions to the problems he claims we face are. Anyone can recognize problems, lets hear how he would fix them.

I'm suspicious of the "Obama is all rhetoric" and "what does he stand for" memes. Obama's voting record is not long, but it places him close to Russ Feingold.

Voting records are somewhat meaningless, and can be easily manipulated. Joe Lieberman comes off as pretty liberal if you look at the actual voting record, because what he does is negotiate for his vote and use it only when necessary, otherwise he'll vote in order to rack up points with the various special interest groups in the democratic party.

Tom Delay once said that "The best thing we can do for America is to maintain the Republican majority" At this point, I think if you switched "Republican" with "Democrat" at this point you'd be about right. Dems need to fight back a bit and not always roll over and turn the other cheek, and I feel like Obama represents that. His campaign seems to be predicated on the idea that everything is fine in the US and we can just go back to the Clinton (Obama seems a lot like Bill Clinton to me and there were a lot of things wrong with the Clinton era too)

I suppose I'm rambling, Obama seems to be all about personality, tone, and rhretoric. And I want to see a candiate who stands out based on ideas and policy, not to mention someone with the courage to call bullshit bullshit. That's why I was hoping Finegold would run. Ah well.
posted by delmoi at 9:52 AM on January 16, 2007

Barack: Stop being coy and put out already. Your eyes say all I need to hear, baby.
posted by boo_radley at 9:53 AM on January 16, 2007

He was on record against it, but was in no position to do anything--he wasn't in the Senate then. What did he do besides go on record as being against it? He certainly wasn't organizing nationwide opposition nor going to Congress to speak out against it, nor marching against it, ...
posted by amberglow at 9:53 AM on January 16, 2007

Gore/Obama would be my dream ticket, personally, and they'd be a good match.
posted by empath at 9:54 AM on January 16, 2007

spitbull, Brownback/Tancredo would be a dream ticket to run against--both batshit insane and way way too far right.

Intrestingly, Brownback just came out against the war. He could be the main "conservative" candidate to run against McCain It's hard to imagine this guy winning the republican nomination.
posted by delmoi at 9:56 AM on January 16, 2007

Can we please.... pretty, pretty, pretty please... not have every little move of Your Favorite Candidate between now and election day dumped onto the front page? Please????? This shit doesn't even rise to the level of newsfilter; its ObviousStuffThatIHopeHasSomeImportanceFilter. How can this possibly qualify as a Metafilter post under any rubric whatsoever?

Um, it's a spank film for liberals?

Should probably have a (NSFW) somewhere in there.
posted by dw at 9:57 AM on January 16, 2007

I don't like all the religion talk either, but we need to have a serious conversation across the "cultural" divide that has been so opportunistically widened into a chasm by the right over the past couple of decades. If Obama can advance that dialogue as president, and continue to carefully bracket faith as a matter of private freedom and individual responsibility as he has, mostly, done, it's not an issue for me.

You know, even though the conventional wisdom is that Obama's use of religious language is a ploy to pick up support from the religious right, I think there's a lot more going on than that. This guy cut his teeth doing community work on Chicago's south side. I think he knows very well how progressive politics and religious belief can mutually sustain one another, and how religious discourse can elevate debate beyond policy and connect it with real values.

So I'm thinking he's a smart guy. And that you're right, he's invoking religion to advance our national dialog. But I also think he's doing it much more to demonstrate to progressives that they can articulate their values in language that evangelicals can understand.

Just this morning, I was translating Levitucus 25 and reading up on the laws of the yovel (jubilee). It's amazingly progressive stuff for its time and I wondered why its language hasn't been adopted in the progressive discussion on economics. Nothing exposes the ethics of savage plutocracy at the core of American evangelicalism like a confrontation with the parts of scripture they choose to ignore.

If Obama can confront supposed Biblical literalists with the message of economic justice at the literal core of their own scripture, this can only be a good thing. The people who wrote the Bible cared a lot more about debt servitude and economic oppression than they did about fetal stem cells and feeding tubes.
posted by felix betachat at 9:57 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

an early salvo in the overwhelming deluge of absolute shit that is to come for the next 650 days until the election.

Well, and here I thought that political posts on the blue were an excellent opportunity to hear the fine, smart folks in this particular community talk politics!

I don't understand hating on this thread (or any other short, political post): if you don't like it, don't clicky. I, for one, am glad things like this are posted, because it provides a specific forum for those in this community to discuss what are, after all, tremendously important issues. I welcome the opportunities for the Metafilter community to talk politics--if you don't want to have that conversation, don't click the link to the thread.

Having said that, I'm excited Obama looks like he's running. Something is seriously wrong with this democracy if our presidents are Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. (And I don't want a Republican--any Republican, after the last 6 years--in the WH next time.)
posted by LooseFilter at 9:59 AM on January 16, 2007

amberglow: What did he do besides go on record as being against it?

Impressed people in the Illinois state house so he could run for Senator, so he could run for President, so he could speak and people would actually listen.

There are plenty of anti-war activists. Much more valuable is an inside man. But you won't trust him until he blows is cover; this is what the lefts always tries to do to Democrats.
posted by spaltavian at 9:59 AM on January 16, 2007

It was only last month that his first bill finally got thru--On December 22, 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act", marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. (and that really isn't too relevant to voter needs)
posted by amberglow at 10:02 AM on January 16, 2007

Beckam perusing Orbitz.
posted by dreamsign at 10:02 AM on January 16, 2007

If Obama had been in the Senate then, he would have voted exactly the same way they did.

Can you back that up?

When you look at the National Journal Composite Liberal Score, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden form a rough fault line in the party, with most of the senators ranked less liberal voting for the Iraq resolution, and most of the senators ranked more liberal voting against it. (Senators Byrd and Kerry are notable exceptions to each side.) Obama ranks to Hilary's left, and just to the right of Russ Feingold.

There's a new generation of Democrats in the ascendent that aren't just rolling over for the Republicans, and it's about time. Look at 2004: Kerry (old school) got the nomination, but he lost the election. Dean (new school) lost the nomination, but he helped to win the midterms in 2006. Obama was elected in 2004, and I think there's reason to believe that he belongs to the new school.
posted by shunpiker at 10:04 AM on January 16, 2007

Brownback/Tancredo would be a dream ticket to run against--both batshit insane and way way too far right.

It'd be even better if someone could convince Jim Inhofe he had a chance. Inhofe makes Brownback and Tancredo look like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

Inhofe would be playing the Alan Keyes role against Obama, that's for sure.
posted by dw at 10:05 AM on January 16, 2007

Well since no one else has brought it up, I might as well point out that Barack Obama is black. His middle name is Hussein.
Far be it from me to be Captain RealPolitik [NOT RACIST], but is there really any chance that Obama could win the presidency?
Don't get me wrong, I love his rhetoric as much as I can possibly love any middle-of-the-road humdrum Democrat's, but he's black and his middle name is Hussein. This is not trivial. If you think it is, come down to my town and go hang out at the bar.
If he runs, chances are he's got MY vote, but historically my vote hasn't been a good predictor of who wins the presidency.
posted by eparchos at 10:05 AM on January 16, 2007

spaltavian, a doorknob could have won against Keyes. I'm not impressed. Hillary is in the same boat with me--what has she done? Show me real accomplishments that made life better for Americans. Show me primary sponsorship for important and needed legislation. Show me the organizations they started that actually do good work (see Edwards). Show me how they've used their media access for the good of all and not just themselves or some desired voter bloc. Show me courage and real leadership. Show me when they've been the first to do something. Show me when they bucked conventional wisdom and the desires of their party to speak out and act decisively on something. So far, both Hillary and Obama have not done any of those things.
posted by amberglow at 10:06 AM on January 16, 2007

I like how a single line post which could easily be passed over, sends folks into delirious fits of frothing madness...

The amazing thing is, I don't feel compelled to enter those threads and gripe about it. Try it. Its fun.
posted by Atreides at 12:39 PM EST on January 16

Exactly. Where were all the objections to the iPhone post, news which was readily available all over the net?
posted by juiceCake at 10:06 AM on January 16, 2007

Can we please.... pretty, pretty, pretty please... not have every little move of Your Favorite Candidate between now and election day dumped onto the front page?

Can we please.... pretty, pretty, pretty please... give up on the idea that one person -- any person -- working within the system will make a damn bit of difference?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:06 AM on January 16, 2007

I see people hate this post, but it is less about the post itself and more about what this post represents: an early salvo in the overwhelming deluge of absolute shit that is to come for the next 650 days until the election. -Dios

The mood was pretty evenly balanced, about those who liked or disliked the post at the time of your post. Which in reality was just an extension of your profile's rant towards posts of this nature.

Like it or not, politics in the last six years have gained increase interest, and for some, relevancy. I would rather our candidates for the next election be discussed, examined, and put through the intellectual wringer from now until Nov '08. I didn't put up the post, but I do enjoy the discussions (which is going on in this thread), because snarking aside, MeFites are pretty darn good at it (hence why I'm glad the person posted here). I want to get their input on the matter.

However, when we have ten posts a day, discussing what type of underwear, shampoo, and fondest pet memories of presidential hopefuls, I'll happily join your side in this argument.
posted by Atreides at 10:07 AM on January 16, 2007 [2 favorites]

"Yes, your honor, I've been masturbating in public for years now. No, I don't think it's offensive or disturbing; see, if people don't like it, they can just go somewhere else, or not watch. I don't see why they have to come up to me and complain about it when they have every right to move on without commenting."
posted by koeselitz at 10:07 AM on January 16, 2007

Are you still ready for some political football?
posted by thecaddy at 10:08 AM on January 16, 2007

Great. Another committee...because they get things done. I'll bet they can't even explore properly. I can't wait for the paperback edition of the PEC official report for purchase at B&N for $10.
posted by Asherah at 10:09 AM on January 16, 2007

amberglow, you aren't thinking clearly: Edwards voted for the war, and only came out against it when it was politically convenient to do so. Barack was a young, ambitious politician who came out forcefully and eloquently against the war when it was an unpopular thing to do.
posted by empath at 10:09 AM on January 16, 2007

I suspect we'll see a lot more of this sort of crap in 2007.
posted by felix betachat at 10:11 AM on January 16, 2007

Just this morning, I was translating Levitucus 25 and reading up on the laws of the yovel (jubilee). It's amazingly progressive stuff for its time and I wondered why its language hasn't been adopted in the progressive discussion on economics.

Heard of Jubilee 2000?

Admittedly, the total number of evangelical leaders that hopped on that train could be counted on one hand (Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, and I think Rick Warren; everyone's favorite closeted gay preacher Ted Haggard never signed up but has publicly shared some of the values). It was much bigger with evangelical churches in Europe.

Obama's church isn't what you would call "evangelical;" it's definitely "mainline." I have a hard time seeing him gaining any traction with the fundamentalists, but he's got enough of the language and shared history and practice that he should do well with the evangelicals. There's some significant ferment in their ranks right now.
posted by dw at 10:14 AM on January 16, 2007

I'll be astounded if his middle name actually becomes an issue. Astounded in that way where one is astounded and not astounded at the same time, and so is doubly astounded and meta-astounded.

Well, and here I thought that political posts on the blue were an excellent opportunity to hear the fine, smart folks in this particular community talk politics!

Agreed. But they will also clearly serve as the virtual toilet of dios in which he can shit in and vomit venom in. Thus, in addition to any interesting discussion, we'll have some entertainment value from the g.g. allin of MetaFilter with accompaniment from the hypocrite ensemble.
posted by juiceCake at 10:19 AM on January 16, 2007

this seems worth noting to me, though not unexpected. I mean, this is kind of historic, isn't it? He's the first black candidate who's a serious contender for the nomination of a major party.

I already put in my 2¢ in the recent thread on his candidacy. I think I'm kinda hoping for Gore/Obama at this point, but I haven't heard anything about Gore...
posted by mdn at 10:21 AM on January 16, 2007

amberglow, you aren't thinking clearly: Edwards voted for the war, and only came out against it when it was politically convenient to do so. Barack was a young, ambitious politician who came out forcefully and eloquently against the war when it was an unpopular thing to do.

I know what Edwards did, and i know what he's done since leaving the Senate (a lot). Obama only did what most of us here did, and what millions of us all over the world did--speak against going into Iraq. That's it. Most of the world did that. It's no great achievement--it only means he's not an idiot. He's not against using force against Iran--at all. (that's the rightwing NY Sun, btw, and they like him)
posted by amberglow at 10:23 AM on January 16, 2007

(In other words, it wasn't at all an unpopular thing to do for human beings. For US politicians it might have been, but he wasn't in any kind of position to affect things, nor did he try to. We all spoke out against it.)
posted by amberglow at 10:25 AM on January 16, 2007

I like Obama an awful lot. I think he is a very strong candidate. Those critical of his less than radical career in the senate are holding a monkey's paw making wishes. "What I really want is someone who through their actions demonstrates that they have no interest in being president. That's the kind of guy I want to be president."
posted by I Foody at 10:27 AM on January 16, 2007

"Yes, your honor, I've been masturbating in public behind a closed door with a sign above it saying, "Masturbating man inside. Feel free to check it out." for years now. No, I don't think it's offensive or disturbing; see, if people don't like it, they can just go somewhere else, or not watch. I don't see why they have to come up to me and complain about it when they have every right to move on without commenting."

There, fixed that for you.

Do you have any other purpose here other than to shit on the thread?
posted by Brak at 10:27 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

from that article: ... He has shied away from rigid deadlines and has even spoken of keeping American troops in Iraq if Iraqis can settle their differences. "He's been very thoughtful and judicious about what our stakes are in the conflict," a State Department and National Security Council official under President Clinton, Susan Rice, said. "He basically presaged the Iraq Study Group's comments." ...

(not leadership positions)
posted by amberglow at 10:27 AM on January 16, 2007

Can we please.... pretty, pretty, pretty please... not have every little move of Your Favorite Candidate between now and election day dumped onto the front page? Please?????

Yeah.

Lets not see any of this until the "Time is right."

It's not important: The first viable Black candidate, a Senator, to run for the leadership position of the most powerful country in the history of the planet, a country that used to enslave his ancestors and a country currently embroiled in a civilization altering war with Brown People, should never be discussed or talked about on MeFi until the randomly appointed time.

A time to be decided by Dios et al. YEAH!

GYOFB Obama!
posted by tkchrist at 10:27 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Deletion coming... git yer comments in now.
posted by The Deej at 10:28 AM on January 16, 2007

He's not too skinny according to this hot swimsuit photo.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:29 AM on January 16, 2007

good for Obama... a much better and more electable candidate would be Governor Schweitzer of Montana - the rise of the western Dems is on.
posted by specialk420 at 10:31 AM on January 16, 2007

Dead thread walking.
posted by keswick at 10:33 AM on January 16, 2007

When Barack Obama was a 2004 Senate primary candidate, he was against a $87 billion appropriation for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now a senator poised for a White House run, Obama is undecided on Sen. Ted Kennedy's proposal to bar spending for escalating the Iraq war without congressional approval.
The Illinois Democrat on Sunday avoided committing himself when asked several times about Iraq war funding on CBS' "Face the Nation."...
posted by amberglow at 10:34 AM on January 16, 2007

mathowie's forming a committee to explore the possibility of maybe deleting this thread.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:34 AM on January 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Brak: "Do you have any other purpose here other than to shit on the thread?"

Posts go on the front page, guy. Bad posts get deleted. That's policy, site-wide, so I don't know why people think they can get away with posting uninteresting/useless links with the argument "move on if you don't like it."

I wouldn't have stepped in to say this if people hadn't trotted out this stupid line of reasoning yet again.
posted by koeselitz at 10:35 AM on January 16, 2007