Obama launches presidential exploratory committee

The writing was on the wall, and today he made it official: Barack Obama announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, with a formal announcement due in Feb. 10 in Chicago.

Obama’s move dramatically punctuates the extraordinary arc of a political career for a man who said he had trouble even renting a car to attend the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in 2000. But his stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004 catapulted him to a hybrid status of politician as celebrity that continued with his election to the Senate and his status now as the first African-American candidate considered a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination.

He is expected to face two daunting challenges, one to raise up to $100 million for his campaign and the other, to compete with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, among many others, in what would be the longest and most expensive presidential campaign in history.

His announcement today was the filing of a presidential exploratory committee, a step that allows him to immediately start to raise money in advance of a more formal announcement of his candidacy, which Obama said would come next month.

By any reasonable measure, Obama enters the race in the top tier, which now appears to be a triumvirate of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Obama. Anyone who doubts whether the rookie senator can make a serious run for the nomination is underestimating a rare political talent who inspires supporters, can raise money with ease, can compete anywhere in the country, has a top-notch staff, picked up quite a few chits campaigning for other Dems throughout ’06, and enjoys rock-star appeal everywhere he goes.

What Obama lacks in experience, he makes up for in vision, intelligence, and natural leadership skills. Anyone who’s ever seen Obama in person knows he’s a force to be reckoned with. I remain entirely neutral on the race — indeed, there are about six likely Dem candidates I could support enthusiastically — but objectively speaking, I expect Obama to do very well.

As for this morning’s announcement, the video is online at Obama’s website and on YouTube. Because I know many of you can’t watch clips on your work computers, I’m including a transcript below:

“As many of you know, over the last few months I have been thinking hard about my plans for 2008. Running for the presidency is a profound decision – a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone – and so before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the country.

“I certainly didn’t expect to find myself in this position a year ago. But as I’ve spoken to many of you in my travels across the states these past months; as I’ve read your emails and read your letters; I’ve been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics.

“So I’ve spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need.

“The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place. Our economy is changing rapidly, and that means profound changes for working people. Many of you have shared with me your stories about skyrocketing health care bills, the pensions you’ve lost and your struggles to pay for college for your kids. Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk. And we’re still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged.

“But challenging as they are, it’s not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It’s the smallness of our politics. America’s faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

“And that’s what we have to change first.

“We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

“This won’t happen by itself. A change in our politics can only come from you; from people across our country who believe there’s a better way and are willing to work for it.

“Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things.

“So even in the midst of the enormous challenges we face today, I have great faith and hope about the future – because I believe in you.

“And that’s why I wanted to tell you first that I’ll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I’ll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.

“In the meantime, I want to thank all of you for your time, your suggestions, your encouragement and your prayers. And I look forward to continuing our conversation in the weeks and months to come.”

Gotta admit, a Bill Richardson / Barack Obama ticket would thrill me to death.

  • I am cautious about an Obama candidacy, because of the level of racism in America; I want a winning candidate with few impediments.

    Harold Ford lost in his contest to Bob Corker to replace Sen. Bill Frist. Did Harold Ford because he was African-American or because he was unmarried?

  • Steve, you can’t get much closer to making an endorsement.

    Really? I honestly didn\’t intend it that way at all. I said equally complementary things about John Edwards when he kicked off his efforts a couple of weeks ago, and commenters said I sounded like I was endorsing him.

    My comments were intended to be objective. Obama brings a lot to the table and I expect him to do well in the race. I also expect Edwards, Clinton, and maybe a couple of others to do well. None of that should be taken as an endorsement.

  • I am cautious about an Obama candidacy, because of the level of racism in America; slip kid no more

    I hope we can do it without racists, chauvinists, or any other kind of unsavory ists because frankly I don’t want their support anyway.

  • Massachusetts is not entirely free of racism. Yet this state overwhelmingly elected an African-American governor, Deval Patrick. Patrick is much like Obama in that he’s the kind of person folks just naturally seem to take to-like Ronald Reagan if you need a cross-ideological citation.
    As it happens, Patrick and Obama are fellow Chicago homies. They’re friends, too. Patrick also led an enormous volunteer army of citizen-Democrats, many of whom would be more than willing to flood New Hampshire on Obama’s behalf.

    For the record, Patrick is endorsing Kerry on the “home state senator” grounds. That wouldn’t keep volunteers from working for Patrick’s SECOND choice, however.

  • SKNM (#3) does raise a valid question. But I think the answer is there in the question. Harold Ford ran a putrid, conservative Republican-lite campaign. Did anyone who read anything he said or watched him say anything get really, truly interested in him as a candidate? I’m sure the majority of the voters he got were “dutiful” Democratic voters, and that there was little enthusiasm.

    I’m old enough to remember hearing Martin Luther King speak in person, and I haven’t seen an African-American since – including Jesse Jackson in 1988 – with a similar appeal on a personal level to Dr.King… until Barack Obama. He also reminds me of Robert Kennedy.

    Of the three top-tier candidates, he is definitely #1 on “inspirational.” Edwards being right behind and Hillary somewhere over on the north 40 behind that line of trees.

    I’d be happy to vote for him in the top spot or the #2, and I think there are a lot more Americans who will find over the next 22 months that they could do so enthusiastically too, that he could go the distance.

    Comparing Barack Obama to Harold Ford is like comparing a Formula 1 world champion to a broken tricycle.

  • I disagree with Lou, and I would hope that even if Steve makes an endorsement that it won’t affect how we all act here at CB. He’s just as free as any of us to do so.

    I will endorse whoever is a) electable AND b) the most serious about solving our kid’s number one problem, the climate crisis. Everything else is pretty minor by comparison. And Obama is right on key (it would appear) when he says:

    “Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk.”

    Indeed. Solve the oil dependence problem, and a host of others fade to irrelevance. And amazingly, there is a solution waiting to be implemented*. All we need is a leader with the charisma to make it happen.

    * http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

  • Hey CB, what about the primary process this time? Terry McAuliffe favored a front-loaded primary season to shorten the time to coalesce behind a candidate. With Obama and all of the other fine candidates, shouldn’t primary season be long enough for all of the voters (like myself) to listen to the candidates–and make our voices heard?

  • “Enthusiasm” is wonderful. Wish I had more of it.

    I would have been “enthusiastic” about Russ Feingold.

    I would keep my fingers crossed & hope for the best with Barack Obama or John Edwards… and would hope to be able to reach “enthusiasm” at some point for either of them…depending upon positions taken. (I was “enthusiastic” over Obama after his 2004 speech….more wait & see about him at this point due to his careful maneuvering in Congress. I really like John Edwards a lot… he was one of the few democrats who actually backed Lamont ) Now if Elizabeth Edwards was running….I would be ecstatic! She is great…which also says something about John Edwards.

    I would deem Hillary Clinton only marginally acceptable…. ( pre 9-11 I was more in her camp…but no longer) I also do not think her odds of winning would be as good as Obama or Edwards.

    Of the players mentioned I think Obama stands the best chance of winning an election unless unforeseen problems occur downstream. He is charismatic and inspirational and America is thirsting for those qualities right now. Thankfully he is also intelligent and appears not to be corporate owned yet.

  • The ONLY reason Obama is being considered as a serious presidential candidate is the color of his skin. Forming a campaign committee will allow him to receive a considerable (according to my pocketbook) amount of money and, don’t forget, owe favors to those who contribute and/or endorse him. Jesse and Al have been supplanted.

  • Among CB’s 6 unnamed candidates there are 30 permutations … ordered Pres-VP pairs:

    6! / (6 – 2)! = 720 / 24 = 30

    I could easily live with any one of them. Assuming Gore isn’t among the 6, and assuming it important to have at least one with national campaign experience, my preference would be an Edwards-Obama ticket.

    Such a ticket would have the energy, stamina, traditional Democratic ideology (work-for-a-living families), charisma, oratorical and debating skill, and fresh ideas to win, with none of the baggage of triangulation or dynastic entanglements.

    I don’t think either of them could be easily ridiculed (as was Gore) or swiftboated (as was Kerry). I believe both of them could easily subdue any combination the GOP could put up against them; in the vernacular, they’d kick some serious butt. The result could be a victory of FDR proportions.

  • With Obama and all of the other fine candidates, shouldn’t primary season be long enough for all of the voters (like myself) to listen to the candidates–and make our voices heard?

    Sounds great to me, SKNM, but time will tell if it plays out that way. Ideally, I’d like to see a system whereby voters outside Iowa and New Hampshire have some say in who the presidential nominees are.

  • Yesterday I got my first Obama hate-mail in my inbox. It went to great lengths to connect Obama with Islam and was clearly written by, and to, people who equate Islam with terrorism. It had the same flavor about it as the Klan speeches in the 60’s (yes, I remember them) talking about protecting the purity of our white Christian women folk. It came from a college-educated widow who lives in a beachfront house in a very upscale town less than 50 miles from Times Square. She was one of 50 or more recipients and she forwarded it to 50 or more people.

    The elephant in the room is, will this country elect any non-white, non-Christian or woman to the presidency in 2008? I think not. Sit down with a map of America and some crayons. After eliminating the Confederacy it becomes clear that we’re banking on Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon and Florida. Miss one and we have a Republican president again.

    I didn’t vote for Kerry because I didn’t like him and I dislike the idea of choosing some second rater because he’s electable, but nominating Clinton or Obama will guarantee a Republican victory.

  • Steve: “My comments were intended to be objective. Obama brings a lot to the table and I expect him to do well in the race. I also expect Edwards, Clinton, and maybe a couple of others to do well. None of that should be taken as an endorsement.”

    OK. I elicited a response. But, I don’t think I actually crossed the line and accused you of making an endorsement. And I also should not expect
    that this democratic site to be overly objective when it comes time to point out any negatives on any of your favorite candidates. When you are in the game, you have got to remain politically viable. Understood.

    Have I met the challenge? Can I post my comments about Obama now?

  • Racerx: “I will endorse whoever is a) electable AND b) the most serious about solving our kid’s number one problem, the climate crisis. Everything else is pretty minor by comparison. And Obama is right on key (it would appear) when he says:

    “Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk.” ”

    Perhaps it would be wise of you to read an excerpt from a column by Sebastion Mallaby written a couple days ago in the Washington Post:

    “A mistaken focus on energy security can undermine good policy on climate. If you just want to cut imports, switching cars to corn-based ethanol sounds great: The United States will get its fuel from the Midwest rather than the Middle East, a politically irresistible promise. But corn-based ethanol is only marginally better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse emissions. Federal subsidies for this technology would be better spent elsewhere — for example on next-generation cellulosic ethanol.

    The same is still more clearly true for oil shale and coal-to-oil technology. Both sources of fuel are abundant in the United States; both promise “energy security”; and both are disastrous from a climate perspective. Oil derived from coal puts about 75 percent more greenhouse gases into the air than plain oil, according to Richard Newell of Resources for the Future.

    So it will be interesting to watch the administration’s energy policy. Does it want to address climate change or merely the chimera of energy security? Is it ready to support the tripartisan cap-and-trade bill introduced last week by Sens. John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama? But while you are watching the administration, keep a wary eye out for Democratic inversions, too. In a mistake he needs to disown fast, Obama recently co-sponsored a bill to subsidize coal-to-oil conversion.”

    smallaby@washpost.com
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400888.html

    This illustrates an important point about Obama. When he finally does get into the weeds of policy making, some of his high sounding and inspirational rhetoric meets the real world — his constituent ties to coal and corn (Illinois has an abundance of both) will conflict with sound policy judgements on climate and energy. I am glad that at least some in the press, like Mallaby, are watching closely and calling him on it.

  • Tom Cleaver,

    Of the three top-tier candidates, he is definitely #1 on “inspirational.” Edwards being right behind and Hillary somewhere over on the north 40 behind that line of trees.

    Absolutely right.

    FWIW: here are some tickets I would not only support, but would be excited about (in no particular order):

    Gore/Obama
    Gore/Clark
    Gore/Edwards
    Clark/Obama
    Clark/Edwards
    Obama/Clark

  • Oh shoot, I forgot to mention my dream ticket:

    Unholy Moses/Lance

    with Mr. Carpetbagger as the campaign spokesperson.

  • Oh shoot, I forgot to mention my dream ticket:

    Unholy Moses/Lance -Edo

    I call Secretary of State! No take backs!

  • I call Secretary of State! No take backs!

    Its all yours. I call “no position of any kind”! Think of it as my home base.

  • Comments are closed.