• Home
  • Blogs
  • From The Road
From The Road
December 28, 2007 9:15 PM

A Refresher on Obama's Senate Race

Posted by Dean Reynolds
(CBS)
From CBS News National Correspondent Dean Reynolds, who's covering the Obama campaign:

Barack Obama likes to tout his electability before the large crowds he draws here in Iowa. The statement is supposed to draw a contrast with Sen. Hillary Clinton who, polls show, has very high negatives among the electorate. Obama recalls carrying some of the "reddest" districts in his Illinois Senate race back in 2004. While it is true that Obama won in a landslide, his opponents had a lot to do with it.

A little history.

Obama won the Democratic Party senatorial primary after one of the leading candidates imploded in a mess of divorce papers strategically leaked by his ex-wife.

Obama then faced the Republican Party challenger, Jack Ryan, a tall, good-looking, wealthy guy who spent time teaching at inner city schools after making his fortune. Unfortunately for Ryan, he also spent time frequenting some shady bars in Paris where live sex acts were apparently part of the draw. Nor did it help that Ryan's ex-wife alleged that he urged her to participate in said acts when they were married.

Ryan, after first stating that he had no intention of withdrawing from the race, changed his mind and left after the party hierarchy abandoned him.

Then the party was left with no candidate and began plumbing the shallows for someone to run against Obama, who by then was something of a political rock star after his spectacular oration at the Democratic Party national convention in Boston. No one raised a hand.

The Illinois Republican Party has been in something of a valley for the past few years and it was no surprise that party chieftains had a hard time coming up with someone willing -- and able -- to make a race of it.

It turned out that no Republican from Illinois wanted to.

So the party looked ... and looked... and finally found somebody -- in Maryland.

Alan Keyes, the perennial presidential candidate. An African-American in the Clarence Thomas mold. Conservative and pro-life, Keyes could also give one heckuva speech. Unfortunately, very few people wanted to hear him.

Yes, he moved to an apartment in Calumet City to show his -- not very deep -- Illinois roots. Frankly, Keyes could have moved into the Water Tower on Michigan Avenue in Chicago and it would not have helped. He lost the election. Big time, as Dick Cheney might put it.

So when Barack Obama talks about electability, one should know that he has not really been tested.
Tags:
Obama ,
Senate ,
electability
Topics:
Barack Obama
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

More From From The Road

Add a Comment See all 21 Comments
by croft777 December 30, 2007 1:33 PM EST
I believe that Clintons aim toward healthcare for all is way passed due.Its not a new idea, there are other countries such as Canada who have benefitted from this.Who wouldn''t want everyone to have the same health benefits? I''ve seen enough of everyday people without health insurance.Do we want America full of ill people? Because that is whats happening.Whats going on in the other parts of the world such as Pakistan, its sad. But remember,its not America, we need to worry about the problems here first,we need to be a strong country before we can help others out.Theres been to many issues here that have been placed on the back burner, such as health insurance, the many American jobs that have been sent over seas for so long that we are now dependent on these other countries.I think its sad that greed has placed us in this position. We need American products produced here.If they want to produce the products over seas for pennies, then won''t they sell them over seas for pennies, instead of bringing the products over here and charging outrages prices.Tax these companies big time.
Reply to this comment
by bbword-2009 December 29, 2007 2:14 PM EST
Thank you for the information about Barack Obama''s landslide Senate Race. What strikes me is the amount of enthusiasm he is now receiving under entirely different circumstances for higher stakes and formidable competition. I would say that Obama''s election history, as stated in your article, throws light on how far he has come and the seed of hope that continues to grow exponentially.
Reply to this comment
by wthcb December 29, 2007 1:51 PM EST
I''m embarrassed for you.
Reply to this comment
by mg1220 December 29, 2007 1:48 PM EST
Obama has the POTENTIAL to have the right kind of experience. Unfortunately, now is not the time and the Oval Office is not the place to be earning and learning that experience. No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an Inexperienced person would fail.
One judgment call on the Iraq issue does NOT mean Obama would have good judgments on a gamut of complex issues. He only has very limited experience to showcase an array of judgment calls, which did not even do that except showcase tasks that he did just as he ought to. America does not live by "Iraq" alone.
His policies are hybrids from policies that have been strongly initiated by and identified with his rivals. He talks of what%u2019s wrong with past policies and other candidates%u2019 policies but does not have an original policy of his own. He wants people to look only to the future because he has INsufficient past to substantiate the rhetoric he gives in the present. Obama uses hope in manipulation of a people''s desperation.
Reply to this comment
by dndobson-2009 December 29, 2007 1:15 PM EST
Well to be air then, Clinton really only was able to be a New York Senator thanks to the fact that she was married to Bill Clinton. So she really hasn''t been fairly tested. She''s never had to stand on her own. But of course this is all absurd. Each succeeded in their own way at the right time and place. Being able to take advantage of opportunities is not a bad thing until you start to unfairly exploit other people for your own gain. That''s why the negative campaigning has hurt Hillary.
Reply to this comment
by decider11 December 29, 2007 12:44 PM EST
What change does Obama really mean?
Cahnge the whole structure of government in Washington? Change the democratic process? Driving the course of the USA into the future, I would pick an experienced, tested, and intelligent driver anytime over somebody who just by luck/circumstance happened not to vote for Iraq. It is hypocritical to use that as a lithmus test and to claim better judgemment just on 1 vote. That would be like saying Bush is a good president because he decides and stays the course. The world is more complex than that. Hillary will be able to achieve more than the Obama. His words of change will be nothing more than empty promises(anything to get elected). He is not ready, and he is not the best candidate, not even the top 3 (Behind Clinton, McCain, and Biden. Obama supporters, ask yourselves-- what chage is he actually talking about and how is he going to get it done? Otherwise you are just like mindless drone chantin change, change, change... eating up the propaganda by Axelrod (Obama''s Karl Rove).
Reply to this comment
by decider11 December 29, 2007 12:43 PM EST
What change does Obama really mean?
Cahnge the whole structure of government in Washington? Change the democratic process? Driving the course of the USA into the future, I would pick an experienced, tested, and intelligent driver anytime over somebody who just by luck/circumstance happened not to vote for Iraq. It is hypocritical to use that as a lithmus test and to claim better judgemment just on 1 vote. That would be like saying Bush is a good president because he decides and stays the course. The world is more complex than that. Hillary will be able to achieve more than the Obama. His words of change will be nothing more than empty promises(anything to get elected). He is not ready, and he is not the best candidate, not even the top 3 (Behind Clinton, McCain, and Biden. Obama supporters, ask yourselves-- what chage is he actually talking about and how is he going to get it done? Otherwise you are just like mindless drone chantin change, change, change... eating up the propaganda by Axelrod (Obama''s Karl Rove).
Reply to this comment
by formlessness-2009 December 29, 2007 12:33 PM EST
Obama won that election because of his integrity, his honesty, his judgement and the way he talked to us. I remember it well, i was working for my college newspaper and we endorsed Mr. Obama. Now you should''ve pointed out that the republicans used all of their dirty tricks to try and blemish Obama, but they couldn''t which to me says he has been through the GOP gauntlet and not only came out on top he surged to national acclaim because of his victory. Now I know the real reason you''re writing this article, and it''s not going to happen, no matter how much the clinton''s pay you to write this trash, we see right through it.

Obama ''08 or else it''s too late
Reply to this comment
by jkojs December 29, 2007 11:41 AM EST

NO more Clinton dynasty and corrupted Health Industry.
Its time to end 20 years of Clinton/Bush political
dynasty.

!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON IRAQ.

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON IRAN.

BARACK OBAMA WAS RIGHT ON PAKISTAN.

BARACK OBAMA HAS RIGHT JUDGEMENT FROM THE BEGINNING.

BARACK OBAMA''s JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY''S WRONG
EXPERIENCE.


!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!
Reply to this comment
by ladyvet1 December 29, 2007 11:08 AM EST
Wow, did your article miss the mark! Skinny kid biracial kid, funny name, no father, no connections. Moves to Chicago without knowing a soul and within some years becomes the brightest shining star in the state. And does it without losing his principles and morals. This writer probably thinks someone "gave" Obama the Harvard Law Review president position as well.

Admit it, man, you''ve never seen anyone like this before. He''s the real thing. And he''s going to be one of the best Presidents we''ve ever had. The right man for the time.
Reply to this comment
by ladyvet1 December 29, 2007 10:52 AM EST
Wow, did your article miss the mark! Skinny kid biracial kid, funny name, no father, no connections. Moves to Chicago without knowing a soul and within some years becomes the brightest shining star in the state. And does it without losing his principles and morals. This writer probably thinks someone "gave" Obama the Harvard Law Review president position as well.

Admit it, man, you''ve never seen anyone like this before. He''s the real thing. And he''s going to be one of the best Presidents we''ve ever had. The right man for the time.
Reply to this comment
by alietzow December 29, 2007 10:09 AM EST
julianbook, Awesome post; spot on!
Reply to this comment
by alietzow December 29, 2007 9:36 AM EST
Interesting take on things, Mr. Reynolds & others. A few points...

The Repubs could only find Alan Keyes, once the scandals toppled their previous candidate, because any candidate in his right mind knew he would need a bundle of money. He''s not Swift-boatable, like HRC, or JE!

Incredibly brilliant, exceptional orator, electrifying to crowds which continue to grow, so personable as GW Bush, but with substance; authored two spellbinding, easy to read best-sellers, conveying his message about his life and vision for America, and what''s -- apparently missing the MSM radar -- he''s in the pole position in Iowa, NH, and SC to become POTUS! Holy Cow -- now there is a man bites dog story! That''s the real story, Dean!!!

Makes me wonder if he could be the next JFK, FDR, or Abe Lincoln?

Now, you may think it''s easy for a mixed-race man to become POTUS, or to even have the strong lead which he currently enjoys; I do not. Look who he is running against now -- the wife of an x-President and the former VP nominee!

HRC - Best suited for Sec''y of Education. JE - Best suited for AG. Barack Obama- Best suited for POTUS, bar none.

As others point out, any Republican who runs against him appears to be doomed!

In Iowa, his train is just about to pull out of the station, so folks, it''s not too late to climb aboard. Tear off that Hillary sticker, Dean, and join the movement for "Change We Can Believe In"! Obama ''08!
Reply to this comment
by julianbook December 29, 2007 9:22 AM EST
Hillary is a farce. Bill was elected promising universal health care. The Congress was democratic. Eighty percent of the public was behind it. The economy could easily support it. Yet her program was 1000% failure. She had another 6 years to try to revive it. Nothing happened. Can anybody actually be that incompetent? Let''s hear the excuse for 8 years of failure on her supposed pet program - when her husband was the president no less. Now there''s an election, she''s promising you healthcare again just like Bill did - with an unworkable mandatory plan to force down people''s throats - a windfall to the insurance lobbies that fund her. The theory is that if you can fool them once, you can always fool them. As Geffen says, "the Clintons lie with such ease, it''s troubling". and the NY Times'' William Safire called her a "congenital liar". Hillary flunked healthcare. She flunked Iraq. She flunked Iran. She even flunked the Washington bar exam twice, and is a serial failure as a housewife. That''s her record - her so-called experience. What a hoax. She cannot even take care of her household, but wants to be your president, and leader of the free world. All we need is intelligent and honest leadership. Obama is a brilliant and visionary leader with a powerful brain. He graduated first in his class at Harvard. That''s not easy. He''s a uniter that gets all the difficult things right.
Reply to this comment
by wooha3 December 29, 2007 8:43 AM EST
Polls have shown consistently that Senator Obama can appeal to Republican and Independent voters in a general election with much more success than any other Democratic candidate. Obama has appeal that goes beyond the Democratic Party. And part of it has to do with the tone that he uses and people have a sense that he listens, that he is not trying to stir up and score political points all the time.
There are a lot of disaffected Republicans, a lot of Independents who are Republican leaning who are really disappointed and so they are willing to give Obama a chance. The other side trusts Obama to at least be honest about how he is approaching problems. And he has a track record of being able to get Democrats and Republicans working together. This is going to be important in this upcoming election. Because we%u2019ve got an opportunity in this election to actually get the country to come together in a way that we have not had for a long time precisely because of the failures of George Bush.
Reply to this comment
by ebonydusty December 29, 2007 7:33 AM EST
@drbob10001... i am surprised you could call an unbiased article like this misleading and snotty, with countless of it written about HRC,... you would have said otherwise, now what seems to be like a fair criticism of obama seems to be misleading.. ooh pls, Obama aint no saint!!!
Reply to this comment
by chimeremma December 29, 2007 3:05 AM EST
Would I dignify your post by posting a comment? I think not. My advice: Just acknowledge you are a shadow writer working for HRC...
Reply to this comment
by lapis6 December 29, 2007 3:02 AM EST
Someone beat me to it, but I''ll echo the sentiment -- since you''re in such a mood to set the record straight, you might also note the elections of HRC and Edwards. Hillary won a far easier primary campaign than Obama and her Republican opponent was a joke. Edwards has won a single (a SINGLE) election in his entire career and didn''t run for senate two terms in a row because he knew he''d be crushed. And you conveniently left out that even after Hull dropped out of the primary, Obama had to beat the favored son of Chicago machine politics. He didn''t just win, he took a MAJORITY in a primary with SIX CANDIDATES.
Reply to this comment
by lapis6 December 29, 2007 2:55 AM EST
Someone beat me to it, but I''ll echo the sentiment -- since you''re in such a mood to set the record straight, you might also note the elections of HRC and Edwards. Hillary won a far easier primary campaign than Obama and her Republican opponent was a joke. Edwards has won a single (a SINGLE) election in his entire career and didn''t run for senate two terms in a row because he knew he''d be crushed. And you conveniently left out that even after Hull dropped out of the primary, Obama had to beat the favored son of Chicago machine politics. He didn''t just win, he took a MAJORITY in a primary with SIX CANDIDATES.
Reply to this comment
by drbob10001 December 29, 2007 2:27 AM EST
OK, And Hillary''s opposition was this tower of Republican power, what''s his name? AND Edwards was a ONE TERM senator, because his electability chances were so low for a second. Your post is not only shamelessly biased, it''s misleading and snotty.
Reply to this comment
See all 21 Comments

About From The Road

Description for From the Road