I woke up late today and turned on MSNBC to hear Matthews talking about this big announcement.  To me, it wasn't a surprise, since I thought he already DID announce.  But the most interesting part I heard from the pundits was when they discussed how unlike any other candidate from either side, Obama gets the same huge crowd in all states, red or blue.

This will be very interesting.  Of course, I am still hoping for a Gore run, but...

Sad to say, Jaime, as I supported his draft thing.  But I think the stars aren't in alignment this year.  Gore is going to keep fighting Global Warming, and we'll have to find somebody else.

I probably won't support Obama, but who knows.

was the formation of an exploratory committee.

There are several other Democrats and Republicans that have not yet "officially" entered the race. Howard Dean didn't "officially" enter the race until very late into 2003. It's a cheap and easy way to generate more free publicity.

I'm having a hard time keeping track of who has "officially" announced, an who is merely "exploring" a run, etc.  It's getting ridiculous, but I guess more candidates is a good thing for our country.

Not quite Kennedy-esque, but very on message and "inspirational", I sent him 20 bones.

I absolutely love how this guy, much like Tim Kaine, isn't afraid to talk about his religious beliefs.  We may not see eye-to-eye politically, but Senator Obama has at least earned my admiration in that respect.

Obama played the right cards. In 2002 the entire Democratic leadership (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Gephardt, and Lieberman) capitulated in support of the Iraq war authorization.

Of the top tier candidates for president (Clinton, Edwards and Obama), only Obama spoke out against the war BEFORE it started. Furthermore, he has a very progressive voting record in the Illinois State Legislature and US Senate (http://www.vote-smar...).

Clinton meanwhile, has yet to repudiate her Iraq vote. More worrisome, after being burned by taking on National Health Care in 1994, her focus in the US Senate has been decidedly small bore. I do want to make clear that Hillary can win, but so could either Edwards or Obama. The problem is her presidency would probably be colored by cautious centrism an incremental policies. The times call for "bold persistent experimentation." For more on Hillary see:(http://www.theatlant....)

Edwards has not only done a 180 since his 2002 vote, but also since his 2004 position. Yes Edwards is now a powerful progressive voice, but his authenticity worries me. Why? When asked by Tim Russert last week why still he supported the Iraq War in 04, Edwards began his reply with this "I was in the middle of a very intense campaign" (http://www.msnbc.msn...) This reasoning is eerily similar to Bush's statement about why he would not fire Rumsfeld during the election campaign, only to do exactly that the day after the campaign. The last thing we need is another Democratic candidate afriad to speak the truth when the going gets tough.

Yes Obama is relatively inexperienced, but if experience was all that mattered then Cheney and Rumsfeld should have been great leaders. And we should nominate a Biden/Dodd ticket. Obama has courage, charisma, intelligence, vision, and judgement. Hopefully, we will have a vigorous, thoughtful and long presidential primary to truly test him. If Obama prevails, I think he will steamroll the GOP candidate.

I guess this country does need a president with a lot of experience as demonstrated through number of years in public service, i.e senate.
For let's us support Sen Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia and/or Ted Sen Stevens (R-Alaska) for presidents of the United States. Both have more than 100 years combined of congressional experience!