Currently, Barack Obama is filling a vast leadership vacuum - in fact a nearly perfect one - created by 12+ years of bad turns and poor decisions and further perfected by six years of staying the wrong course.

A year ago, on his then new CD "Living With War", Neil Young and others were "Lookin' for a Leader" and many believe that they have found him in Obama:

http://www.neilyoung...

Listen closely to the dialogue between the musicians as they learn more about Barack Obama from one another, just one year ago...

Thanks!

Steve

Steve,  I'm wondering why you are including Bill Clinton in your opinion that we have experienced a vast leadership vacuum for 12+ years?  I'd say that the peace and prosperity that President Clinton delivered was good for the nation.  (I hope I've just misread your comment.  Were you speaking of Clinton?)

In 1999, during the ludicrous impeachment fiasco, the LA Times reported the following in an article by Susan Pincus about President Clinton's popularity and approval ratings:

http://www.latimes.c...

....what is bolstering Clinton's popularity is that virtually all Americans (89%) think the nation's economy these days is doing well (32% very well and 57% fairly well), while just 8% say badly. They also describe their own finances as secure, except for many of the poorer Americans (those earning less than $20,000) who say their finances are shaky (55% v. 45% who say secure). A majority of Americans (53%) also say the country is going in the right direction, while 37% say the country is seriously off on the wrong track. This good feeling about the country has not changed since a January 1998 Times poll showed virtually identical results (53%-38%).

And the extensive article about Clinton's popularity goes on to say that 65% of the American public did not want President Clinton removed from office during the politically-motivated impeachment hearings.

The American public liked him, leaders of foreign nations liked him, Allen Greenspan liked him (saying he was the most engaged President he'd ever dealt with on the economy), and he still remains liked and endeared to this day.

Again, I hope I've just misread your comment. 

...combined with six years of W's uninspired lack of leadership.

Bill Clinton was not included in the intent of my statement; I strongly supported and voted for Bill Clinton and would do so again today, or tomorrow.

Further; had Al Gore enlisted Clinton's support in 2000, Gore would have been President and this would be a very different world indeed.

Hope this helps...

Thanks!

Steve

does clarify things. 

To be brutally honest I think Clinton prepared the way for a lot of the problems we have now. Apparently the Patriot Act was sitting around waiting to be activated during the Clinton years. Noy sure if he knew about that, but he sure as heck knew about NAFTA and you see where that has gotten us.

I just think Clinton did a lot of things behind the scenes which were detrimental to our Democracy. And most presidents have contributed their share to our brutal foreign policy. Its time we started watching our presidents more closely.

You have a very good point. I think "traditional" Democrats are thinking that the Clintons have the financial and rhetorical arsenals necessary to fight a Republican presidential nominee.
But when you start looking at their mishaps that have led to 9/11 (after all Osama Bin Laden has launched two of its major attacks during the Clinton's presidency), the issue with North Korea and of course Monica-gate then you can see how strong a case one can build against Mrs Clinton.

The comments of David Geffen were just a very small foreplay of what is going to come.
Once all theses past issues are raised, I just don't think she will have enough credibility to win the presidential race.

Their "mishaps" that led to 9/11?  And how can "Monica-gate" build a case against Mrs. Clinton? 

I'd guarantee you that if Bill Clinton had been President, he wouldn't have invaded Iraq! 

This is no great revelation.

Obama is an extraordinarily articulate and gifted speaker. He is in command of his message - Audacity of Hope, just as Jim Webb was in charge of his "Born Fighting". Both have messages layed out in books which helped each candidate project what they believed in. When they give speeches, what one hears is what they believe in.

The messages are simple, focused and popular. New voices in the renewed Democratic Party .... high time too.

Obama is positioning himself to lead what is essentially a new movement or wave of populism along trails blazed by the likes of Tester and Webb. The old school Democrats like Clinton and Edwards have a bit too much political history behind them (drag) to rise up and grab the wave.  Obama .... from Hawaii and elsewhere, is up on the board just starting to surf this wave.

20,000 Texans gather around Obama???  Gnarley dude!!! .... all those other candidates are likely to get run over.

Really, What policy release or rollout has Obama done that indicates that he is a populist.

I can think of two votes of his in the Senate immediately that says he is nothing of the sort.

He voted for the Bankruptcy bill that has hurt almost every southerner so damaged by Katrina that they  had to declare bankruptcy. That was the most abominable of the GOP bills he voted for.

A close second is the tort reform bill. he had to go apologize to the organizations that the used to organize for. He KNEW BETTER than to vote for that thing.

I am so sick and tired of people treating Obama like he is somehow above the fray. He is just like any other candidate and should be scrutinized as such.

I didn't know of these two votes from Obama.  These are two strongly pro-corporate votes.

If you have a link showing his vote for the bill please provide it.

I was wrong about the final vote. I was caught up in the back and forth that went on in committees on that one. This is from  Harpers Weekly, ". Obama voted against the bill, but Williams was pleased that he did side with The Bond Market Association position on a number of provisions. Most were minor technical matters, but he also opposed an important amendment, which was defeated, that would have capped credit-card interest rates at 30 percent. "He studied the issue," Williams said. "Some assumed he would just go along with consumer advocates, but he voted with us on several points. He understood the issue. He wasn't closed-minded. A lot of people found that very refreshing."

Williams is of the Bond Market Association. That group HATES working people and consumer advocates. He is expressing sentiments that these hyperconservative people were refreshed by him.

"He has voted with conservatives on tort reform and industry-friendly provisions in the bankruptcy bil

what Bobby Kennedy was to our parents.  He offers this new kind of hope that we can, as Americans do great things, come together as One Nation and accomplish great tasks. 

He isnt a Kennedy - but he is a different kind of politican.  And people see that, and we are desperate for that in this country.  He isnt a Clinton, he isnt John Edwards, people we already know (and for the most part have opinions on already.)

He brings something completely different to the table and Americans are ready for it.

..except that RFK had been in public life since the early 1950s, including a stint serving under Joseph McCarthy and another as Attorney General under JFK, by the time he ran for President in 1968.  Obama has only been in public life a few years, having been first elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 (in 2000, Obama lost a bid for the U.S. House of Representatives).  In 2004, Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he has served for just over 2 years.

on Bobby Kennedy.  He was also a Senator from NY. 

Bobby Kennedy doesn't reach that status without a very powerful father. If Barack Obama acheived all he did coming from nowhere, I can only imagine what he'd be doing if he came from a powerful family.

I certainly wasn't meaning to denigrate Barack Obama's accomplishments in any way. 

their lists of accomplishments has little to do with the comparison. It's about the intangibles.

It may be wishful thinking, but I think that many are finally awakening to the necessity of doing something for change.  We had an increase in activist support in 2004.  But I think 2008 will be a watershed year for involvement.  Let's hope.

On the other hand, the media has helped create this balloon of support.  And as the media giveth, it also taketh away.  We've all (or nearly all of us) learned that the hard way.

I think we should just look at all of the crowd levels for all vs the repubs. 

Obama fevor will die down in a couple of months.  When he only takes about pie in the sky stuff and not about actualy issues. 

I think that is when you will she Edwards and Clark come back out.  They both have actual plans.  They just need to be consistant with their message and the hype of Obama (which is a great guy) will die down.

but no analogy is perfect at every point, as RaisingKaine's careful readers point out. I am a little uneasy, though, since the two do have much in common psychologically as leaders, and Obama has clearly spooked the right wing from the very beginning. Only, remember what happened to Bobbie?  Remember why Colin Powell's wife was afraid for him to run for office? I hope Obama is being careful. Ugh.

Obama has wide support as the anti-establishment candidate for the younger generation but not just of Ds of all moderates.  I loved his speech in 2004 I listened to parts of this speech and it sounds good.  He never got into the specifics though.  Time will tell on him.  You can't help but feel something when he talks.

Hilary is the centrist and safe money candidate

Edwards is the true liberal candidate

The longer Edwards and Obama stay in Hilary gets stronger.  For Hilary to lose one of those guys has to drop out

As for me go McCain :)

http://www.johnmccai...

a two-person race is a theory that numbers can't back up. Hillary is the second choice of many Demsocrat, and beats Edwards or Obama handily in a two-person race.

People really, really like him. Remember, Dean had great ideas, but he's a mediocore politician. Dean + Charisma = 20,000 people. Of course no one in the race is exactly like Howard Dean, but Obama's as close as it gets imho.

 

Dean actually had substantive policies to promote. Obama has NO solutions. NONE, ZIP, NADA. He wants everyone to "trancend" politics and get along and sing kumbaya. I hear a lot of very beautiful talk and speeches. (and man can Obama give one hell of a speech) but I want to know the he has some idea of how he can fight the right wing. I don't think he does. Mostly because he just doesn't have the depth of experience needed to be Prez.

At least Dean was willing to fight the bastards on the right.

I lived in Austin for about 8 years, and alot of this has to be attributed to Austin's unique vibe. Liberals and Dems there are super active, informed, and civically engaged. There's always a parade, a festival, a protest going on. And people are intrigued by Obama, no doubt. I'm still skeptical, personally, just because I think we need leaders with foreign policy chops in this moment, and I don't think he does (I'm a Clarkie).

they also could/would have gotten 15,000-20,000 people for a rally?  Just curious...

Oh, no, I doubt that -- 20k is indeed impressive. Obama definitely has the IT factor going, and he has a number of admirable qualities and potential. Austin is just always keyed in to these types of events, but I can't say with any certainty what the multiple is. Obama has definitely shown that he can harness the younger crowd, so probably a lot of support from UTexas students helped add to the numbers.

I think it does show that there is a deep, deep yearning for leadership out there, and everybody is wishing today was January 20, 2009 -- people are just that sick of Bush, et al. Austin was WAY ahead of the curve on that last part. People are hoping Obama is the next great leader, so I think that explains the early huge crowds.

Do you live in Texas?

I live in Alexandria now. But I was in Austin until last summer. Saw the whole rise and fall of Bush from the heart of the empire!

[And believe the hype. Austin really is a kickass place to live, if you can stand the six month summer.]

A lot of people need to realize the activist climate that is Travis County TX. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is as liberal as San Francisco.

That being said. It is also accurate that people are looking for something, ANYTHING that is different from the current leadership. Bill Maher was talking about this the other night. The level of engagement at this point in the election cycle can be directly attributed to the disaster that is the Bush admin. People want change and are excited about the possibility.

Obama talks about the problems we have in a very eloquent way. He is probably the best speaker since Bill Clinton. I still don't see any depth past his recognition of the problems. I want solutions. I want real depth. Whining about the problems or even just recognizing the problems is not enough. I hope Obama has more than just the golden charm of Clinton. I hope he can have the vast intellect and policy understanding of Clinton.

I think you've hit it on the head:  "I want solutions.  I want real depth.  Whining about the problems or even just recognizing the problems is not enough." 

The candidates will have the opportunity during this year to make a case for their candidacy.  And that should include solutions with details and depth, a vote record that support's Democratic values and principles, and an ability to debate and make clear his/her position on each of the issues that are important to us. 

But a six-month Texas summer?  I'm not so sure about that, especially when global warming kicks it into a 7 or 8-month scorcher!

I must point out that it is common political knowlege that the last thing a candidate ever wants to present in an election is a specifics... ie the "how to" or "plan" to fix or change things.

So for all of you who want to see what Obama's plan is - keep waiting. As long as he is getting 20K showing up to hear "vagueness", you wont get a sentence of detail.

My God, it's Feb. 2007 and a lot of people want detailed plans and 10-point specifics? There's a long way to go. You don't think that Obama believes he can just go out and give good speeches and that's it? Of course, he'll unveil plans. But he'll do it in a smart way, perhaps one topic per week in order to generate media interest. Why would he go ahead now -- in FEB. 2007 -- and unveil everything? Be realistic. The primaries aren't next month. Be patient.