The Case for Obama

The other day I explained why I thought Barack Obama should run for president in 2008, if he's going to run at all. I suggested that it will be difficult for him to maintain his current rockstar status and positive media coverage indefinitely, and therefore, he may never have a better opportunity than he does in 2008.

Judging from his appearance on Meet the Press this weekend, I would guess some of Obama's friends and advisors are telling him the same thing.

While I did not intend to suggest in that post that Obama was my candidate of choice, it's clear that a number of people took it that way, perhaps understandably. To be clear, my point was only that opportunities in politics can be fleeting and that Obama would be wise to reconsider the wisdom of those who counsel patience.

That said, I do think there is a strong substantive case to be made for an Obama candidacy, and I intend to lay it out in this post. Before I do that, though, it's worth considering the obvious counterarguments, a number of which were raised by commenters in response to my previous post. In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Ezra Klein lays out the case against Obama:

OK Democrats, deep breath. Despite Obama's undeniable magnetism and star power, he's not your guy. Not yet.

For now, Obama is a cipher, an easy repository for the hopes and dreams of liberals everywhere. He had the good fortune to run his first statewide (and nationally noticed) election against Chicago investment banker Jack Ryan, who dropped out because of a sex scandal, and then the brilliant performance artist (c'mon -- you don't really believe that guy's serious, do you?) Alan Keyes. It's easy to focus on lofty ideals and shining rhetoric if you don't have an opponent and need never enter the muck of a competitive campaign.

But if Obama avoided being battle-tested in 2004 by the grace of God, it's his own timidity that has kept his name clean since.

Given his national profile and formidable political talents, he could have been a potent spokesman for Democratic causes in the Senate. Instead, he has refused to expend his political or personal capital on a single controversial issue, preferring to offer anodyne pieces of legislation and sign on to the popular efforts of others.

The closest he came to a showdown was when he sought to ignore John McCain's bipartisan group and decided instead to draft strong new ethics rules for the Senate. McCain flew into a public rage, and Obama backed down; no powerful bill was ever passed.

Indeed, Obama is that oddest of all creatures: a leader who's never led. There are no courageous, lonely crusades to his name, or supremely unlikely electoral battles beneath his belt. He won election running basically unopposed, and then refused to open himself to attack by making a controversial but correct issue his own.

Is that evidence of youth, or timidity? Does he hold no unpopular opinions, or does he simply avoid conflict? How would he react to fusillades launched by able opponents?

For now, nobody knows. But given the smear campaign launched against every recent Democratic nominee, grace and strength under fire should be proven qualities before Democrats even consider a potential candidate.

There are, to be sure, ways Obama could prove his mettle, not to mention his priorities. He could, say, make universal healthcare coverage his public obsession or demand an end to the war in Iraq. He could fight for full public financing of all campaigns, or seek a national living wage.

But until then, if Obama gleams, Democrats have no way of knowing if it's because he's truly an action hero or because he's refused to step out of his packaging. And until that question is answered, the hardened fighters they know are preferable to the attractive cipher they don't.

Ezra makes a number of good points, but I think they are ultimately less persuasive than he thinks they are.

While it's true that Obama has yet to face any serious competition, it should be apparent to everyone by now that he is an extraordinarily gifted politician. It doesn't always take a race to know you have a fast horse. Moreover, it's not as if the other potential candidates are just going to roll over and hand him the nomination. If he were to succeed in winning the Democratic nomination, he would necessary have won a hard-fought battle.

Ezra's substantive criticisms are more valid. Obama has seemed rather hesitant to step into the fray over the last two years. While he has ultimately voted the right way on most issues, he hasn't been the one leading the charge. As Ezra puts it, he has "refused to expend his political and personal capital."

To some extent, this criticism is unfair, though. Obama is the new kid on the block, the most junior member of the United States Senate. Had he come into the Senate with guns a blazing, he would have alienated his colleagues and may well have flamed out early. He may well have decided that his political and personal capital could be spent more productively down the road (like, say, in a presidential election).

Ezra complains that "[t]here are no courageous, lonely crusades to his name, or supremely unlikely electoral battles beneath his belt." I don't think that's necessarily true. Arguably the most consequential political decision of our time was the decision to invade Iraq. On October 26, 2002, as most Democrats with ambitions of higher office were tripping over themselves to vote in favor of the Iraq War resolution, Obama spoke at an anti-war rally in Chicago:

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

It's easy to forget, in light of how things turned out, just how courageous and lonely those words were at that time--less than a year after 9/11--particularly among Democratic politicians who wanted to be considered "serious" on matters of foreign policy. Al Gore was viciously derided by even liberal pundits for a similar speech he delivered around the same time. Had the war turned out the way everyone seemed to think it would, Obama's "dumb war" speech might well have nipped his promising political career in the bud. Clearly Obama does not always take the path of least resistance.

Perhaps more to the point, though, it strikes me as somewhat unrealistic to expect a serious presidential aspirant to routinely engage in lonely crusades and quixotic battles. How many successful presidential candidates fit that description? The only Democrat to win a presidential election in recent times, Bill Clinton, was guilty of far worse acts of political expediency than anything Obama is even accused of doing. And as much as I admire the principled, lonely stands taken by someone like Russ Feingold over the years, there's reason to doubt the wisdom of following such a strategy if your goal is to become the next president.

I think ultimately Ezra's critique boils down the same one offered by a number of commenters here, i.e., that Obama just hasn't earned it yet. He's not sufficiently experienced, and he doesn't have a long enough record of achievements.

I understand this argument, but I tend to be more utilitarian in my approach to the issue. I care less about whether a candidate "deserves" the honor of being president and more about what that candidate is likely to be able to accomplish, both electorally and in an executive capacity. More than anything else, a president is a spokesman. He (or she) serves as the face and mouthpiece to a whole slew of ideas and policies. And the fate of those ideas and policies largely rests on the effectiveness of the spokesman. We like to think that there's some huge substantive difference between the various potential Democratic candidates. The fact is, however, that if elected, most of the candidates would surround themselves with the same advisors and assemble very similar cabinets. The difference between an Obama administration, a Clinton administration, and an Edwards administration would depend far more on their effectiveness as spokesmen than on any ideological differences they may have.

And I think therein lies the strongest argument for an Obama candidacy. Despite his lack of experience, Obama is unquestionably a very intelligent and articulate person. I have little doubt that, as president, he would surround himself with smart, capable people and would weigh their advice carefully. What Obama really brings to the table, though, is his charisma and natural political talent. Not only would those traits serve him well in a general election, but they would be an enormously valuable asset should he ever have the bully pulpit of the presidency at his disposal.

It's hard to understate just what a watershed event it would be, both for the U.S. and the world, if Obama were elected president. It would be a truly historic moment, one that a skilled politician like Obama could seize and use to great and lasting effect. I suspect that Obama, more than any other presidential aspirant, has the potential to reach out not only across party lines but to people who don't normally pay attention to politics. And because of that, I think Obama might be able to accomplish things that others could not, to sell policies and ideas that others could not have sold.

A lot remains to be seen, obviously, and I plan to withhold endorsing any candidate until much later in the process. I do, however, think a strong case can be made for an Obama candidacy and it certainly wouldn't hurt to have another strong candidate in the field.

UPDATE: Atrios writes:

FWIW, if Obama's running he's really running for Vice President. Far from blunting the Hillary machine, he'll reinforce it.

I couldn't disagree more. Obama would top everyone's shortlist for Vice President even if he did nothing between now and 2008. He doesn't need to run to put himself in position to be considered for that job. If anything, an unsuccessful run for president would tarnish him and weaken his appeal as a vice presidential candidate. I don't think Obama will run unless he thinks he can win. And frankly, I don't see why he can't. I don't see Hillary as having any obvious advantage over him in a primary contest. In fact, I suspect that Obama's testing of the waters is causing a great deal of concern among Team Clinton.

Moreover, it's not at all clear to me why Obama would want to complete a Hillary ticket. If she goes down in flames, she could drag his career with her.