Well, I don't disagree with your conclusions at all. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. clearly lacks any qualification at all to be President of the United States. He has never run any operation larger than his Senate staff, and he hasn't done that for long. There is a good reason this country often elects Governors and Generals and almost never Senators: the former positions qualify an individual by experience in managing a large operation, while the latter does not.

Veeps are a strange phenomenon: we often do give the nod to the sitting Vice President, but up until Mondale most of them were kept completely out of the loop. Harry Truman, for example, didn't even know we were putting the finishing touches on The Bomb until after he was sworn in.

Still, this is Obama's moment to run. He is new on the scene, and the fawning media coverage allows him to define himself. He can hide his history of leftist positions behind platitudes and bromides without being held to account. As anyone who has been married can attest, though, honeymoons seldom last forever. If Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. has any ambitions to run for President, he may as well strike while his iron is hot. This is his best chance. After the next cycle, he will be just another Senator with an inflated sense of self-importance, and there will be about 99 others just like him.

His only chance to win the nomination is to become the alternative to Hilarity! early on. There is really only room for one in the race. Iowa may not impact who that is because their Governor will be running, but it is doubtful many campaigns will survive beyond New Hampshire and South Carolina. I'll be shocked if there are three viable candidates still in the race after Nevada, although inertia might keep someone with money left over in it, or a publicity whore like Sharptongue.

That said, I don't see how Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. can win a general election. His ADA ratings show he is too far left for America. The Presidential campaign isn't like a midterm where you can say one thing in Indiana and North Carolina and another in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

One minor quibble: it is a bit of stretch to accuse Wallace of giving the 1968 election to Nixon. While most Wallace voters were nominally Democrats, they were also very conservative and very pro-Vietnam War. Certainly Humphrey was anathema in the South, and it is doubtful that Wallace voters in other regions would have voted for Humphrey if Wallace hadn't run. IF they couldn't stomach Nixon, they would have stayed home. Remember, the Democratic Party was hopelessly fractured over the war, LBJ had become widely detested on all sides, and Humphrey was his hand-picked successor.

The Kennedy tax cuts were ushered through Congress and signed by LBJ, whom I notice you don't give any credit or compare to Bush. The 91 percent tax rate on marginal income greater than $400,000 was lowered to 70 percent. He also closed some tax loopholes and increased child care deductions.

Serious progressive taxation on marginal incomes over certain thresholds were abolished during the Reagan era.

GW Bush abolished the 39.6 percent tax bracket, leaving the top rate at 33 percent for incomes over $136,750 (or $151,650 for couples), and has relentlessly pushed for larger tax loopholes and rebates for just about everyone to the maximum extent possible.

Yes, they are both tax cuts. But a knife and a MIRV nuclear warhead are both weapons, too.

However, I concede that there are some similarities. JFK was in fact very anti-Communist and pro-defense spending, and like GW Bush, lead our country into a disastrous open ended war. So maybe they're more alike then I would like to believe.

DJ

An interesting analysis. I am a dem, slightly to the left of center. I see nothing yet which would lead me to vote for him. But 2 years is a very long time.

I have one challenge though. You, almost off-handidly , described him as possessing "moral inadequacy". Upon what do you make that judgment? I'm interested to know what makes you describe him that way. Thank you.

very good. I change my prediction to Hillary/ Ford. Gets one state she needs.

Obama's biggest hurdle will be his lightweight stature. One stint at the federal apple does not a President make. I would hazard that even Hillary will blast him in that regard.

Besides what's his rush? He's young.

I'd quibble that Wallace and Perot cost Humphrey and Bush the election. Wallace took mainly from Nixon - the results pretty consistently showed Nixon underperforming in states where Wallace did well. As for Perot, his votes would have gone to Bush around 40-30, with 30% staying home, which wouldn't have changed the result. Neither Bush nor Clinton got a majority of the vote in any state, except Clinton in Arkansas. Had Perot been taking mainly from Bush, you would expect Clinton to rack up massive margins in the Democratic states. Instead, he only managed 47% of the vote in MA, worse than Mondale in 1984.

As for Obama, I'm in agreement with you that it's too early. One great speech and one election victory against token opposition does not a president make.

Barack Obama has a bit of an ethics question surrounding the acquisition of his personal residence. It was linked to a deal that involved a developer under investigation. Probably not something that can't be overcome.

Right now, Obama is a media creation without much substance. All hat and no cows.

Thanks for the gut buster of the day Hugh:

"I am a dem, slightly to the left of center."

Yeah, and Los Angeles is slightly west of Moscow.

I personaly like the guy. I'm part way through his book "The Audacity of Hope". I find he's much more gracious and forgiving that I sometimes am. I think he models much of the behavior that Christ instructed us to practice. I think he could draw evengelicals, especial after they way they've been mocked by this administration.

Don't get whacked out, just read a bit of his book before you comment.

I think the thing what will hold him back from being president is oddly enough - his name.

Remember how they morphed Max Cleland's face into Osama? It's childish, but the flying monkey right will start hammering on how Barack Obama sounds like Osama, and pundits will start calling him "Barack Osama, ummm... I mean Obama".

It's the old rhyming game, like in "The Music Man"

"Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "P"
And that stands for Pool."

They'll also start hammering on his middle name, Hussein. Addison is already starting to promote this meme. Hmmm... Perhaps he's related to Saddam Hussien?

So he's got both Osama and Saddam all rolled up into his name. The FMR will have a field day with this, the electorate will get an uneasy feeling, and his poll numbers will drop. When asked people will say, "I don't really know anyting about him, I just don't like they guy".

Dad should have named him Steve, or Earl or Mike...

John -

"Remember how they morphed Max Cleland's face into Osama? It's childish,"

Cildish, no. Stupid, yes.

"but the flying monkey right will start hammering on how Barack Obama sounds like Osama, and pundits will start calling him "Barack Osama, ummm... I mean Obama".

Actually, that really happened, except it was Ted Kennedy who did it.

I don't agree with DJ on this one. Of all the wannabees on the left, only Obama is the one who strikes me as having a real chance.

Check out this post I did (if you want) on Obama over at Hang Right Politics. One of the things I urge is conservatives to drop the "lightweight" argument because I think it's a non-starter.

http://hangrightpolitics.com/2006/12/05/the-obama-gasm/

(part 1 was on why Hillary won't be president)

"Yeah, and Los Angeles is slightly west of Moscow."

Well, that depends on your perspective. Based on, say, the distance between stars, the distance between Moscow and Los Angeles is indeed slight. Alternatively, you can go the other way and say that Los Angeles is to the east of Moscow.

While you ponder that, could you please tell me what exactly entails the "center"?

I'm not being saracastic here. I'm genuinely curious.

RB,

The center is wherever one sits. For example, any of these nutjobs of whatever stripe will loudly proclaim that THEY are in the mainstream.

Ask the biggest loon here, and he'll swear he's in the majority.

And so will I.

We've been so fragmented that we'll all swear up and down that everybody else is an extremist. Traitor.

The truth is there is no center. I'm a progressive that drives an SUV, is fiscaly conservative, pro gun, pro choice, anti entitlement, pro conservation, anti land regulation, pro military, anti war.....

No center. No easy answers.

all the obama rhymes with osama jokes aside, the fact remains that obama is a muslim name; whose father (whether he is close with him or not) his father practices Islam. Sorry. It just ain't going to fly with most. (no, it's not prejudice, it's pragmatic...imagine; after World War II, and the memories still fresh of Pearl Harbor - if a Japanese American tried running for President?

The wounds would have been too fresh to see anything objectively.

And of course, as is stated, this young senator has barely got his feet wet in the Senate. Nope.
Not going to be.

rb, to your statement "the center is wherever one sits" ...how would you like to buy some tickets to the SuperBowl (football game) on the 50 yard line and then get directed to your seat in the endzone? Frankly, I don't think there's any such thing as living 'in the center' of life...ie: I'll agree with guy A when convenient for me and I'll agree with guy B over there if in that moment it goes along 'for me' (forgetting that my agreement with guy B contradicts my words to Guy A) Such ways will eventually drive one 'crazy.'

OBJECTIVITY. There is a REASON for why actions
are either right or wrong and it's not based on getting along with any other 'weak' mortal who is 'the same' as 'me'/it's not about getting the most weak mortal persons to like me. There is an objective source to why we should do [fill in the blank] And that is TRUTH. And that TRUTH comes from a good SPIRIT. (SPIRIT aka GOD) There is also the opposite spirit of good...and that spirit is 'all for self' (indulgence, pity, pride, self glory, self self self) That spirit has been called 'the devil' or 'satan' or 'fallen angel.' (whatever you wish)

OBJECTIVITY. Actions done will in the long run benefit THE WHOLE--it will make one WHOLE and
ironically as you yourself said, NOT fragmented persons - torn every which way trying to figure out how to simply be pleasing. WHOLE as in HOLY. 'perfect' as your Heavenly Father is perfect. (your Holy Father, Spirit who loves forgives the sinner but not the sin, who demands we give to Him our weak selves - that His life will guide us, seek the Kingdom of God above all other mortal persons whims...and you are on the path to living THE TRUTH...to being WHOLE (holy)

Not a bad word - Holy. (and you don't have to walk around with hands folded and eyes always lifted up; you simply have to HONOR what is objectively true)

Life is sacred; and the only choice is do you wish to enter into a commitment of authentic spirit love - whereby a special intimacy evolves; that creates NEW LIFE/if not stay single.
(that's the choice) Fiscal conservative - virtrue prudence. (using resources abundant or otherwise with thought and care), prudence will also be gentle with the earth's resources; and so that will tell you whether you need to drive an SUV. (and if for some reason you really do need to, you will at least keep the engine running well, so as not to waste or burn excessive gas and oil) pro-military means that you objectively know there are those not of the same spirit of good, and the good have a right to defend their RIGHT TO HAVE LIFE. If one must defend oneself against aggressors to our peace - than war unfortunately
will come.

But of course, your right - the answers don't come easy - it takes a coming out of 'our self'
to hear the TRUTH speak. (that comes through a humbling that being mortal - and only flesh, we need to sometimes step back and go deep to hear that whisper from the soul - where we find GOD)

So John, the center is whereever one sits? Say, I've got some tickets to the SuperBowl on the 50 yard line; oh and don't worry if they lead you to a seat in the endzone...the center is whereever you sit.

Having said that; I think there is a confusion with words. I think people confused 'centrist' with a person who is CENTERED. A centered person is by definition: Self-confident, goal-oriented, and well-balanced.

What is that makes one self confident and well balanced. Knowledge of THE Truth. Objective truth to why an actionn is right or wrong irregardless of the 'subject' who speaks an idea.

We don't need centrist candidates. We need CENTERED candidates who can speak articulately on why they believe as they believe and why something is right or wrong in respect to the common good. A centrist candidate on the other hand is not well balanced...he or she is always leaning this way for that person or that way for another (sometimes contradicting what was said to guy a to please guy b and eventually losing his own way in the trying to please)It's no wonder a centrist is fragmented.

CENTERED not CENTRIST candidates. There is a difference.