"Shake hands with tomorrow. It's here."

[RunInRed 16,492]

Op-Ed Columnist

The Obama Phenomenon

By BOB HERBERT

The historians can put aside their reference material. This is new. America has never seen anything like the Barack Obama phenomenon.

I was surprised all day Thursday, before the results of the Iowa caucuses were in, by the apparent serenity of the Obama forces here in New Hampshire. The stakes were enormous, but the campaign staff members and volunteers seemed as cool as the candidate.

The students, veterans, middle-aged moms, retirees and others working steadily to make Barack Obama president seemed to accept as fact that the country is ready for profound change and that their job is to help make it happen.

“We’ve been busy knocking on doors, making phone calls, inputting data and basically just spreading hope,” said Kathryn Teague, a 19-year-old who has taken a year off from Keene State College to work in the campaign.

There is no longer any doubt that the Obama phenomenon is real. Mr. Obama’s message of hope, healing and change, discounted as fanciful and naïve by skeptics, drew Iowans into the frigid night air by the tens of thousands on Thursday to stand with a man who is not just running for president, but trying to build a new type of political movement.

By midnight, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd had been chased from the race; John Edwards was all but literally on his knees; and the Clintons were trying, for the umpteenth time, to figure out how to remake themselves as the comeback kids.

Shake hands with tomorrow. It’s here.

Senator Obama’s victory speech was a concise oratorical gem. No candidate in either party can move an audience like he can. He characterized his stunning victory as an affirmation of “the most American of ideas — that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.”

Mr. Obama has shown, in one appearance after another, a capacity to make people feel good about their country again. His supporters want desperately to turn the page on the bitter politics and serial disasters of the past 20 years. That they have gravitated to a black candidate to carry out this task is — to use a term I heard for the first time this week — monumentous.

The Clintons, especially, have seemed baffled by the winds of change. They mounted a peculiar argument against Senator Obama, acknowledging that voters wanted change but insisting that you can’t achieve change by doing things differently. Senator Hillary Clinton has had a devil of a time trying to cope with the demand for change while shouldering the legacy of an administration that defined the 1990s.

Barack Obama has none of that baggage.

But for all the talk of change, it’s just one of the factors driving the Obama phenomenon. The simple truth is that hardly anyone — in politics, in the news media or anywhere else — realized what an extraordinary candidate Senator Obama would turn out to be.

He’s smart, hard-working, charismatic, good-looking and a whiz at fund-raising.

He has an incandescent smile, but it’s not frozen in place. He seems authentic. When he laughs, you have the feeling it’s because something is funny.

People are lining up to believe in him. He has the easy demeanor (in a long, lanky frame) of someone who’s comfortable with himself. Even when he fires up a crowd, he doesn’t get too hot. He has the cadences that remind you of King but the cool that reminds you of Kennedy — John, not Robert.

If the Clintons are going to stop Mr. Obama, they need to do it now. If he wins the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, the news media will go nuts and he will head toward the Jan. 19 caucuses in Nevada and the Jan. 26 primary in South Carolina (where half the voters are African-American) with incredible momentum.

I expect that African-Americans, under those circumstance, would view his campaign with almost religious fervor. All those questions about whether he’s black enough would be history. Mr. Obama would be perceived by many as within striking distance of the presidency, and there will be very few blacks in favor of stopping that train.

However this election turns out, Mr. Obama can be credited with a great achievement. He has drawn tons of people, and especially young people, into the political process. More than anyone else, he has re-energized that process and put some of the fun back into politics. And he’s done it by appealing openly and consistently to the best, rather than the worst, in us.

[Justin5 20]

He's not my first pick - but he's in my top 2 .

[otterinbham 0]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

[RunInRed 16,492]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

You hit the nail Otter. Many of his supporters are independents and republicans. More than anything, people believe he can end the partisan gridlock that has defined washington for most of our entire lives. He's pretty inspiring. This is going to be fun to watch...history in the making to say the least.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

Obama seems geniunely likable, unlike his competition. Edwards? I didn't think it was possible to give the term "smarmy lawyer" a bad name. Clinton? Her problem is she isn't tough enough to be President. There is a big difference in being a total byotch and "tough." Total byotch she is -- that debate is over. Tough she is not -- what word can you call a woman who tolerated her husband's behavior? I call it a pushover, a doormat, an enabler and I have a hard time taking that person seriously. A tough woman would have dropkicked the fool at the very first instance. Whomever gets elected President will be called on to make tough decisions at some point in their term. Hilary has a long track record of consistently avoiding tough decisions.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

Obama seems geniunely likable, unlike his competition. Edwards? I didn't think it was possible to give the term "smarmy lawyer" a bad name. Clinton? Her problem is she isn't tough enough to be President. There is a big difference in being a total byotch and "tough." Total byotch she is -- that debate is over. Tough she is not -- what word can you call a woman who tolerated her husband's behavior? I call it a pushover, a doormat, an enabler and I have a hard time taking that person seriously. A tough woman would have dropkicked the fool at the very first instance. Whomever gets elected President will be called on to make tough decisions at some point in their term. Hilary has a long track record of consistently avoiding tough decisions.

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to show how deep Clinton Derangement Syndrome runs on the Right.

Back to Obama...

[otterinbham 0]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

Obama seems geniunely likable, unlike his competition. Edwards? I didn't think it was possible to give the term "smarmy lawyer" a bad name. Clinton? Her problem is she isn't tough enough to be President. There is a big difference in being a total byotch and "tough." Total byotch she is -- that debate is over. Tough she is not -- what word can you call a woman who tolerated her husband's behavior? I call it a pushover, a doormat, an enabler and I have a hard time taking that person seriously. A tough woman would have dropkicked the fool at the very first instance. Whomever gets elected President will be called on to make tough decisions at some point in their term. Hilary has a long track record of consistently avoiding tough decisions.

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to show how deep Clinton Derangement Syndrome runs on the Right.

Back to Obama...

What? I'm not dissing on Clinton. I just don't think she'll make a very good leader.

Overall, that's been the problem with the Democratic Party in presidential elections. They keep nominating presidential candidates as if they were hiring the CFO of a corporation. The truth is that people are looking for leaders. Humphrey was too close to Lyndon Johnson and was hobbled by George Wallace, McGovern was a total disaster, Carter slipped into office because of Watergate, Mondale and Dukakis were disasters, Gore looked like a mannequin, and Kerry just wasn't all that. Quite frankly, if Gore had looked as if he had the faintest wisp of leadership ability or connection to the American public, he would have been elected in 2000.

Same thing with Clinton. I don't think anybody would disagree with the statement that she has the brains to be president. However, leadership is about inspiring trust and nobody, even inside the Democratic ranks, trusts her. She can't seem to relate to the average person on the street the way Obama does, and that means a heck of a lot. So people in Iowa, and apparently now in New Hampshire, finally took the time to look at candidates and just couldn't bring themselves to vote for her.

That being said, the American voter doesn't want another iteration of the Bush/Clinton/Bush cycle. I think that's obvious in Iowa, which should have been a walk for Hillary a scant three months ago. What's more, Obama will prove a much more difficult candidate for the Republicans to beat in November. And, if they nominate a political hack such as Huckabee, it will be a slaughter at the polls.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

Obama seems geniunely likable, unlike his competition. Edwards? I didn't think it was possible to give the term "smarmy lawyer" a bad name. Clinton? Her problem is she isn't tough enough to be President. There is a big difference in being a total byotch and "tough." Total byotch she is -- that debate is over. Tough she is not -- what word can you call a woman who tolerated her husband's behavior? I call it a pushover, a doormat, an enabler and I have a hard time taking that person seriously. A tough woman would have dropkicked the fool at the very first instance. Whomever gets elected President will be called on to make tough decisions at some point in their term. Hilary has a long track record of consistently avoiding tough decisions.

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to show how deep Clinton Derangement Syndrome runs on the Right.

Back to Obama...

What? I'm not dissing on Clinton. I just don't think she'll make a very good leader.

I wasn't responding to you.

[otterinbham 0]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

Obama seems geniunely likable, unlike his competition. Edwards? I didn't think it was possible to give the term "smarmy lawyer" a bad name. Clinton? Her problem is she isn't tough enough to be President. There is a big difference in being a total byotch and "tough." Total byotch she is -- that debate is over. Tough she is not -- what word can you call a woman who tolerated her husband's behavior? I call it a pushover, a doormat, an enabler and I have a hard time taking that person seriously. A tough woman would have dropkicked the fool at the very first instance. Whomever gets elected President will be called on to make tough decisions at some point in their term. Hilary has a long track record of consistently avoiding tough decisions.

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to show how deep Clinton Derangement Syndrome runs on the Right.

Back to Obama...

What? I'm not dissing on Clinton. I just don't think she'll make a very good leader.

I wasn't responding to you.

Oh. Damn. And here I thought it was all about me. I am the center of the universe, you know. Heck, maybe I should be running for president.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

Obama seems geniunely likable, unlike his competition. Edwards? I didn't think it was possible to give the term "smarmy lawyer" a bad name. Clinton? Her problem is she isn't tough enough to be President. There is a big difference in being a total byotch and "tough." Total byotch she is -- that debate is over. Tough she is not -- what word can you call a woman who tolerated her husband's behavior? I call it a pushover, a doormat, an enabler and I have a hard time taking that person seriously. A tough woman would have dropkicked the fool at the very first instance. Whomever gets elected President will be called on to make tough decisions at some point in their term. Hilary has a long track record of consistently avoiding tough decisions.

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to show how deep Clinton Derangement Syndrome runs on the Right.

Back to Obama...

What? I'm not dissing on Clinton. I just don't think she'll make a very good leader.

I wasn't responding to you.

Oh. Damn. And here I thought it was all about me. I am the center of the universe, you know. Heck, maybe I should be running for president.

You'd be one of the more appealing Republicans in this field.

[otterinbham 0]

Why thanks, TT...I think.

My platform?

1) No Christmas decorations in retailers before Thanksgiving.

2) Death penalty for telemarketers.

3) Eliminate the designated hitter in baseball.

Other than that, see Ron Paul's platform.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Why thanks, TT...I think.

My platform?

1) No Christmas decorations in retailers before Thanksgiving.

Quit interfering with the free market.

2) Death penalty for telemarketers.

Generally opposed to the DP, but maybe...

3) Eliminate the designated hitter in baseball.

Sold.

Other than that, see Ron Paul's platform.

He's a little whacky, and yet the voice of reason in Republican debates these days.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

You hit the nail Otter. Many of his supporters are independents and republicans. More than anything, people believe he can end the partisan gridlock that has defined washington for most of our entire lives. He's pretty inspiring. This is going to be fun to watch...history in the making to say the least.

Bingo. I likely won't vote for him, but I think he'd do a good job overall despite my misgivings on some issues.

[rexbo 104]

Why thanks, TT...I think.

My platform?

1) No Christmas decorations in retailers before Thanksgiving.

2) Death penalty for telemarketers.

3) Eliminate the designated hitter in baseball.

Other than that, see Ron Paul's platform.

You would get my vote; except I'm still not sure about Ron Paul's foreign policy, he is borderline isolationist for me. I'm not too sure he would have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11. And I'm pretty sure Obama wouldn't have either...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Actually, Obama has stated every time that he supported the war on Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, he feels Iraq distracted us from taking care of Afghanistan the way it should have been.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Actually, Obama has stated every time that he supported the war on Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, he feels Iraq distracted us from taking care of Afghanistan the way it should have been.

Don't confuse him with pesky facts.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

The interesting thing is how many Republicans like Obama. They don't like his economics, but I think the electorate as a whole is really desperately trying to find a candidate who will shatter the ossified structure of power in this country.

Obama seems geniunely likable, unlike his competition. Edwards? I didn't think it was possible to give the term "smarmy lawyer" a bad name. Clinton? Her problem is she isn't tough enough to be President. There is a big difference in being a total byotch and "tough." Total byotch she is -- that debate is over. Tough she is not -- what word can you call a woman who tolerated her husband's behavior? I call it a pushover, a doormat, an enabler and I have a hard time taking that person seriously. A tough woman would have dropkicked the fool at the very first instance. Whomever gets elected President will be called on to make tough decisions at some point in their term. Hilary has a long track record of consistently avoiding tough decisions.

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to show how deep Clinton Derangement Syndrome runs on the Right.

Back to Obama...

What? I'm not dissing on Clinton. I just don't think she'll make a very good leader.

I wasn't responding to you.

You missed the point -- it's not about Hilary and never was. Many people vote by process of elimination. Part of Obama's "appeal" obviously lies with the fact that there is a dearth of appealable candidates running against him. It's no secret that I won't ever vote for Cinton -- I'll go on record right here saying I'll never vote for a candidate unstable enough to fling a lamp at the wall when they're in disagreement with their spouse. That's just how I roll. But even that's not the point. I wasn't voting in Iowa and won't be voting in NH either. Obama appeals to voters because he is relatively new. He may carry an inexperience factor about him but at least he doesn't carry any negative baggage with him, unlike ... Edwards and Clinton.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Who do you honestly think is more taken aback, shocked and dismayed at the iowa numbers concerning barack ?

A ) " White Bread ", Mr and Mrs Mid America ?

B ) Al Sharpton/ Jessie Jackson and the NAACP crowd ?

[otterinbham 0]

Who do you honestly think is more taken aback, shocked and dismayed at the iowa numbers concerning barack ?

A ) " White Bread ", Mr and Mrs Mid America ?

B ) Al Sharpton/ Jessie Jackson and the NAACP crowd ?

I'd say B. The New York Times on Saturday had a really interesting story on the reaction of black America (if there is such a thing) to Obama's win in Iowa. Basically, the gist of the story is that nobody really expected Obama to be a serious candidate, because of the belief that whites will not vote for a black man. Iowa proved that assumption wrong, and New Hampshire looks as if it will follow suit. So suddenly, the race baiters have lost their role as power broker. As it turns out, a black candidate who holds mainstream priorities is a viable candidate. Pretty interesting stuff, indeed.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Mr. Obama has shown, in one appearance after another, a capacity to make people feel good about their country again.

I am definitely not comparing the politics of Obama and the person I am about to mention, but Ronald Reagan had that same ability to give people across all walks of life a sense of reassurance. It's an intangible, but a very important one.

I will be very interested to see how all of this plays out...Hillary is not bowing out without a fight.

[rexbo 104]

Actually, Obama has stated every time that he supported the war on Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, he feels Iraq distracted us from taking care of Afghanistan the way it should have been.

Don't confuse him with pesky facts.

Saying you support someone else pulling the trigger, and YOU pulling the trigger yourself are 2 very different things. In hindsight, after seeing it only took a few weeks to overthrow the Taliban, it's easy to say, "Oh yeah, it's a good thing we went in there, of course I supported going after al Qaeda." In the days after 9/11 there were many, many naysayers warning about trying to overthrow the Taliban and warning George Bush about what the Soviet Union got themselves in to in that country.

So, you want me to look at the facts? Show me what Obama was saying between 11 Sep 2001 and 1 Nov 2001 and then we can debate whether he would have invaded Afghanistan had he been President in September 2001. From what I've been able to read about him I just don't believe he has ever DONE anything. A look at his voting record indicates he is all talk, no action; especially when it comes to controversial decisions.

Obama’s Vote in Illinois Was Often Just ‘Present’

[RunInRed 16,492]

Actually, Obama has stated every time that he supported the war on Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, he feels Iraq distracted us from taking care of Afghanistan the way it should have been.

Don't confuse him with pesky facts.

Saying you support someone else pulling the trigger, and YOU pulling the trigger yourself are 2 very different things. In hindsight, after seeing it only took a few weeks to overthrow the Taliban, it's easy to say, "Oh yeah, it's a good thing we went in there, of course I supported going after al Qaeda." In the days after 9/11 there were many, many naysayers warning about trying to overthrow the Taliban and warning George Bush about what the Soviet Union got themselves in to in that country.

So, you want me to look at the facts? Show me what Obama was saying between 11 Sep 2001 and 1 Nov 2001 and then we can debate whether he would have invaded Afghanistan had he been President in September 2001. From what I've been able to read about him I just don't believe he has ever DONE anything. A look at his voting record indicates he is all talk, no action; especially when it comes to controversial decisions.

Obama’s Vote in Illinois Was Often Just ‘Present’

Iraq Speech (2002)

by Barack Obama

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago by Barack Obama, Illinois Senator.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. 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 arm-chair, 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.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

[rexbo 104]

That was a year after the Taliban had been overthrown, not too hard to stand up even at an anti-war rally and claim to have supported that action. What was his position on 12 September 2001? I've searched the internet high and low and found nothing. How would he really have reacted as President? At this point I still have not heard near enough to put the future of the United States in his hands...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

He wasn't in the Senate in 2001 so it's a little tough to expect to find that. But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that didn't support rooting out the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. It's not like overthrowing the Taliban was in any doubt. But before the Iraq War was ever started, Obama was stating his opposition to it and the desire to do the job right in Afghanistan. For you to say or imply otherwise is just pulling imaginary stuff out of your southern orifice.

[RunInRed 16,492]

He wasn't in the Senate in 2001 so it's a little tough to expect to find that. But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that didn't support rooting out the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. It's not like overthrowing the Taliban was in any doubt. But before the Iraq War was ever started, Obama was stating his opposition to it and the desire to do the job right in Afghanistan. For you to say or imply otherwise is just pulling imaginary stuff out of your southern orifice.

Exactly.

I've been following Obama for a while now and I've yet to see anything to suggest he was not 100% supportive of the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11. Further, his judgment, insight and instincts in reference to Al-Qaeda, Iraq and our foreign policy is pretty remarkable when you consider what we know now and what he was saying back in 2002. Maybe I'm not being objective enough but I'm not sure any other presidential candidate has demonstrated such judgment and intelligence. And to think, he can actually articulate all of this to the American people and the rest the world...what a breath of fresh air that would be.