Obama Should Run in '08
I just finished reading Joe Klein's cover story on Barack Obama in the latest issue of TIME. The story is long and not particularly insightful or interesting, but I came away from it more convinced than ever that Obama's time is now.
The conventional wisdom about Obama is that, as a first-term Senator, he doesn't yet have the credentials to run for president, that it's just too early. The consensus seems to be that he should bide his time, pay his dues, and wait until 2012 or 2016 to run for president. In the meantime, he'd make an ideal vice presidential candidate.
But to read Klein's article is to be reminded just how fickle our press corps can be. Since his debut on the national stage two years ago, Obama has captured the imaginations of our elite scribes to a degree I never thought possible by a Democratic politician. If you read between the lines in Klein's piece, though--and Klein is a pretty reliable bellwether for elite opinion--you can tell that he is starting to grow a little impatient with Obama. Klein clearly wants to fall in love with Obama the same way he and his cohorts fell in love with John McCain in 2000. Klein even compares some of Obama's self-deprecating quotes to his fond memories of the Straight Talk Express. But whenever Obama fails to give the perfect answer or says something that strikes Klein as being typical of a politician (or worse, typical of a Democrat), Klein's disappointment shows.
There is no question that Obama is the biggest political star around at the moment, on either side of the aisle. He is hands-down the top fundraising draw, and he gets the most consistently favorable press coverage of any major politician (except perhaps John McCain). But that won't last. The longer Obama remains in the spotlight, the more he will be dragged down into the realm of ordinary partisan politics and the more he will appear to be just another talking head. The longer he remains in the political spotlight, the more time the Republican media machine will have to develop narratives to attack and caricature him. And most importantly, the longer he remains in the political spotlight, the greater the chance that our fickle press corps will get over their infatuation with him and start falling for the next big thing, whoever that may be.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Obama may never have a better chance than he will in 2008. If he decided to run, I don't think he would have much trouble securing the nomination. The very prospect of him entering the race has to be giving people like Hillary pause. Obama would certainly have to overcome his relative lack of experience, particularly if he faced someone like John McCain in the general election. But, on the other hand, Obama may be the only one on the Democratic side sufficiently charismatic and beloved by the media to defeat a press-darling like McCain. It's at least something to think about, both for Obama and for those of us who'd like to once again see a Democrat occupy the White House.
The conventional wisdom about Obama is that, as a first-term Senator, he doesn't yet have the credentials to run for president, that it's just too early. The consensus seems to be that he should bide his time, pay his dues, and wait until 2012 or 2016 to run for president. In the meantime, he'd make an ideal vice presidential candidate.
But to read Klein's article is to be reminded just how fickle our press corps can be. Since his debut on the national stage two years ago, Obama has captured the imaginations of our elite scribes to a degree I never thought possible by a Democratic politician. If you read between the lines in Klein's piece, though--and Klein is a pretty reliable bellwether for elite opinion--you can tell that he is starting to grow a little impatient with Obama. Klein clearly wants to fall in love with Obama the same way he and his cohorts fell in love with John McCain in 2000. Klein even compares some of Obama's self-deprecating quotes to his fond memories of the Straight Talk Express. But whenever Obama fails to give the perfect answer or says something that strikes Klein as being typical of a politician (or worse, typical of a Democrat), Klein's disappointment shows.
There is no question that Obama is the biggest political star around at the moment, on either side of the aisle. He is hands-down the top fundraising draw, and he gets the most consistently favorable press coverage of any major politician (except perhaps John McCain). But that won't last. The longer Obama remains in the spotlight, the more he will be dragged down into the realm of ordinary partisan politics and the more he will appear to be just another talking head. The longer he remains in the political spotlight, the more time the Republican media machine will have to develop narratives to attack and caricature him. And most importantly, the longer he remains in the political spotlight, the greater the chance that our fickle press corps will get over their infatuation with him and start falling for the next big thing, whoever that may be.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Obama may never have a better chance than he will in 2008. If he decided to run, I don't think he would have much trouble securing the nomination. The very prospect of him entering the race has to be giving people like Hillary pause. Obama would certainly have to overcome his relative lack of experience, particularly if he faced someone like John McCain in the general election. But, on the other hand, Obama may be the only one on the Democratic side sufficiently charismatic and beloved by the media to defeat a press-darling like McCain. It's at least something to think about, both for Obama and for those of us who'd like to once again see a Democrat occupy the White House.
posted by A.L. at 11:42 PM
37 Comments:
Yeah, right we'll just skip the voting part and let the 'press' pick the next President.
And that's different from 2000 + 2004 how?
Yeah, right we'll just skip the voting part and let the 'press' pick the next President.
Hey, I'm not saying it's fair, but to ignore the media's role is folly. Had it not been for the fact that the press corps absolutely hated Al Gore, he'd be our president right now.
And Gore should be the next President. I think Obama could be a good candidate at some point, but not now. Frankly, I haven't read the Time piece (and, BTW, who cares what Joe Klein says anyway?), but I think this time around we (meaning the whole country) cannot afford to mess around with untried candidates. The Bush administration has gotten us into deep, deep shit, and we need someone with a serious, well-established national and international reputation, based not on media-friendliness, but on long experience, correct policy points, and intellectual power. Obama may be like this in a few years -- and I would be all for a Gore-Obama ticket -- but right now we need the heaviest-weight we can get -- and, in perhaps more than one sense, Gore is that guy.
I've already signed up with a couple of Gore recruitment organizations, and I'm looking into how to get something small going locally for this purpose.
- JLB
JLB,
You're preaching to the choir regarding Gore. I think he's easily the most qualified candidate the Democrats could field. I worry, though, that the press corps' antipathy for Gore will resurface, particularly if he's pitted against someone like John McCain. Gore was savaged by the media in 2000; when they weren't ridiculing him unfairly, they were making stuff up about him. And despite the fact that Gore has been proven to be right about just about everything, he still doesn't poll very well nationally. That could change if he enters the race, but it's at least a cause for concern.
Had it not been for the fact that the press corps absolutely hated Al Gore, he'd be our president right now.
This point has some truth to it, but not for the reasons that its presentation of this thread seems to suggest.
2000 was STOLEN and chimpy was the candidate that the press chose to annoint. Witness how when this alcoholic/AWOL cocaine addict entered the race - the money for everyone else literally "dried up."
Chimpy had no real credentials, no real "track record" of success, and no understanding of global issues. Sure, the press did not like Al Gore, but how much of that was actually due to their shameless promotion of the ultimate political hack is hard to say.
In the end, the MSM failed this nation because they stood down and allowed a fraudulent election to be declared "close enough" and dutifully promoted the lie that it was time to "move on."
I haven't read the Time article either, but (as an Illinois resident who's politically active) I've certainly crossed paths with Obama more than a few times. He certainly commands attention and has an extremely charismatic presence, but hasn't exactly set the Senate on fire. In fact, he seems to be "playing it safe" and steering clear of taking a firm stand on any issues of import.
So far, then, I compare him to the tantalizing aroma emanating from a restaurant where you've neither perused the menu nor tasted the food. Who knows whether the food will taste as good as it smells?
Sorry, AL, this post is pretty "flat." Not trying to be snarky, people need to understand that we don't always hit "10s" each day.
TIME is a propaganda piece that proclaimed chimpy to the the MAN OF THE YEAR a while back. They also proclaimed hitler to be the man of the year.
The fact is obama has little going for him than a carefully cultivated public persona - sure - perhaps in time he can back that up with some meaningful political stances and/or advocacy.
Has he done it yet? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
I respect your opinion on things, but hope in the future you can do better than cite stories that are "not particularly insightful or interesting" from TIME as being important or even useful.
Gore polls, last I checked, at 20%, even though he is not running, which puts him second to Hillary (God help us). I wrote up a piece on some of the more abstract reasons (I think the concrete reasons speak for themselves) why Gore is attractive and, I think, electable. I was shopping it around as an Op-Ed, but nobody's buying (of course, I only tried the Times and the Globe), but I think I will just put it up on my blog in the next few days. When I do, I'll link it here in comments, and you can see what you think.
Best,
JLB
The Rep strategies have already demonstrated that it's how the message is presented that sways the Rep's not the logic or illogic of the message itself. What this president has demonstrated and indeed driven this country toward even more, is that of the utmost importance is a president who is fluent with wisdom in foreign policy. The next president, of necessity, will have to have depth of respect of world leaders...Gore has that. In his favor he also is spearheading the global warming initiatives which are a globally shared value. Obama has a natural charisma, he analyzes on his feet, speaks from a moral platform...but just as McCain sideswiped him earlier in the year, Obama deferred to the elder statesman...demonstrating he has the innate strength but not the battleworn survivor strength to go toe to toe with McCain or for that matter world leaders. Gore, on the otherhand would have had McCain driving a hybrid by the end of the day. So, the media may love Obama for the first round, but they'll side with the Lions.
He certainly commands attention and has an extremely charismatic presence, but hasn't exactly set the Senate on fire. In fact, he seems to be "playing it safe" and steering clear of taking a firm stand on any issues of import.
I agree. I think he's trying to accomplish a delicate balancing act: he doesn't want to alienate anyone, particularly not the bastions of the establishment media, so he's playing it safe and relying on his charm. The fact that he's on the cover of TIME this week is a testament to his success so far in pulling this off. But he won't be able to do it forever. Eventually he's either going to alienate voters by not taking firm enough stands on issues, or he's going to alienate the media. That's why I think he has to run now. He's not going to be able to stay "above the fray" for 4 or 8 more years.
I respect your opinion on things, but hope in the future you can do better than cite stories that are "not particularly insightful or interesting" from TIME as being important or even useful.
Fair enough, but just to clarify, I wasn't citing the TIME piece because it was intentionally informative. I was citing it as evidence of how people like Klein (who annoys me greatly) think. Whether we like it or not, people like Klein are influencial. Their opinions dictate what sort of coverage a candidate receives.
Gore polls, last I checked, at 20%, even though he is not running, which puts him second to Hillary
When I said that Gore didn't seem to poll well nationally, I was referring to the general election. He doesn't do when in national favorable/unfavorable polls.
I think you're right that Gore polls much better among Democrats. In fact, if he were to run, I suspect only Obama would have any chance at keeping him from winning the nomination. The question Gore is asking himself right now though is, having secured the nomination, how would he fair in the general election? He's certainly a great candidate on paper. But he'll have to convince Americans (particularly Republicans and independents) to look at him anew.
Obama hasn't the experience necessary to be my President. Also, his views on major policy issues are largely unknown.
Electability is also an issue although that shouldn't be the determining factor for a presidential run.
Where's our moral collossus Erie Bob Olberloon?
Hey, EBO!!! HELLLLOOOOO!
The woman who is likely to be Democrat presidential candidate in '08... is saying EXACTLY what I said about the torture issue!!!
http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/10/clinton_on_tort.php
al - thanks, didn't mean to make snarky remarks - this is a well-reasoned blog. I guess it is just frustrating to me to hear obama bantered about when I think he is more of a media creation and that he has not actually accomplished much yet - I am sure he will, just not sure that he can as our next president.
Let's be honest - chimpy and gang are looting the treasury and will leave the federal government in an absolute mess. I agree, Gore has some real strengths to deal with this that obama only has potential.
I would be careful with the "media darlings" - what the lying liars in the MSM can give, they can take away. Gore, on the other hand, has a real track record and a set of accomplishments.
Also - even though the SCOTUS sided with the chimperor in 2000, LETS REMEMBER, HE ACTUALLY WON THAT ELECTION!
He was able to do so even though the MSM was lying and slandering him 24/7 - he would be an even stronger candidate now as he has stood up to the smears and
"swiftboating" AND ACTUALLY WON!
I completely agree with "Anonymous" above:
"al - thanks, didn't mean to make snarky remarks - this is a well-reasoned blog. I guess it is just frustrating to me to hear obama bantered about when I think he is more of a media creation and that he has not actually accomplished much yet - I am sure he will, just not sure that he can as our next president."
Obama is a media creation. Which I think strengthens your point, A.L. Don't give people a chance to see through that media-narrative like McCain's doing to himself now.
What the hell, I'll throw this out there too:
I can't believe people who follow politics still think a candidate's stance on issues matters. A candidate's stance on issues is completely focus group derived. It's more important to know who backs Obama than it is to know his tailor made views on the first through 19th amendmants and the theories of the unitary executive. Obama will have better backers than Bush's robber barrons. Obama will be everybit as good as the big dog, me thinks. To say Obama lacks experience and transperancy regarding the important topics I think is naive and irrelevant. And when one looks at a media creation in comparison to Bush, I think that's unfair.
Matty - certainly chimpy and obama are VERY DIFFERENT media creations, so your point is well taken.
Guess I don't understand why obama's "backers", however, would be "better" than Gore's. Don't think anyone really can really say who is behind his "darling" status in the MSM.
Just remember, these are the same lying liars that brought us the chimperor and the WMD lies in iraq. Sure, obama probably has more integrity - but then again, very few would commit the war crimes and treason that this administration has, so not sure what that means.
I don't follow your point that To say Obama lacks experience and transperancy regarding the important topics I think is naive and irrelevant.
If obama is going to take meaningful stands on issues and be ready to handle the greatest challenges in the previous 70 or more years, then experience and a public record of achievement in national/international policies is extremely important.
To elect someone that does not have actaul executive-level experience of the highest order to clean up after the chimperor is naive. Let's face it - whoever is elected in 2008 is going to be severely challenged at best.
What does obama show that he is ready to handle this mess and swim with the sharks that are sure to follow?
I love Barack Obama. The NY Times has a short book review of Obama's new book. The review radiates the same common sense, uniter outlook that I get whenever I hear Obama
talk.
How could not a huge number of good-hearted
non-radical conservatives not fall for him.
Of course they will.
Unlike even Gore, he seems to be sincere.
Gore may be right, but he smells like a teacher's pet trying to please. Barack seems like a genuine guy trying to do right. More than anyone else visible on the left or right.
But for Mario Cuomo, and somehow he lost the
governorship of NY. So maybe my view is all wrong. I can't see how Cuomo or Obama could lose any election any where. Great guys with radiating
wisdom.
-Andy
-Andy
gag me with a spoon.....
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Sorry, haven't read anything that nauseating in a long time - really, Barack, don't troll the treads and beat your own chest.
...and we will all hold hands and sing along with barney the purple dinosaur.
Obama's a trimmer. In the intensity of his committment to progressive principles he makes John Kerry look like Eugene V. Debs.
Dear Anonymous (10:57 and 10:48 above):
You said, in response to my raw like of Barak Obama (and Mario Cuomo):
"Gag me with a spoon..."
Besides spewing an insult to my naive trust of a few, and only a few, people
in politics, what are you trying to say?
I admit two things:
1) My trust could be misplaced. Just because people inspire my confidence and
seem wise and fair when they talk does not mean they might not be deeply
duplicitous. Apparently, for example, some people on the right
used to have feelings similar to the feelings I have about Barack and Mario,
about George Jr. Bush. I wonder how many of George's remaining supporters now have
that kind of deep emotional trust or not (I wonder). In any case, it is
true that inspiring that kind of respect from me does not mean that the respect
is commanded from you, and vice verse.
2) Just because these two people seem deeply sincere, smart and wise to me doesn't
mean all others will see them that way. Apparently you don't.
But, I'd like to understand what you think are the bases for my being wrong about (1) and (2). Can you explain your thoughts? If you want to include the derogatory
sarcastic comments, at least can you explain them better?
Really, sincerely, I'd like to know what is wrong with my rosy glasses. Bust my
bubble.
Enthusiasm is fine - just saying that all emotional, feely-good stuff does not translate well to me. I prefer to see us talk about candidates we are enthusiastic about in terms of position statements and/or accomplishments.
Your statement Great guys with radiating wisdom. confuses me, because I don't see him as making any profound statements, just issuing sound-bites.
Sure, that plays well to the MSM, but remember, the lying liars are going to HAMMER a Democratic president and it will take real action and real commitments to undo the damage that our chimperor has wrought on this county.
Sure, enthusiasm is important, but enthusiasm without substance makes me ill - especially after watching the "enthusiastic" piece of crap that is currently pResident.
Umm, I think people such as Klein are giving Obama an opening, however narrow, because they don't want Democrats to win.
Obama has spoken well at times, but his scolding of Dems for not embracing evangelicals was ill-advised. In a time when there's ever more need to separate church and state, Obama was saying, in essence, that Dems were stupid to try to separate the two. Bad move.
When I found that Lieberman was the Senate's elder "minder" for the new Senator Obama, I pretty much wrote off Obama. If he was taking advice from the Democratic world's biggest scold, it was time to reevaluate Obama in the future. I think he's going to be long on talk and short on walk. Pushing himself toward the presidency in 2008 is a sure way for him--and Democrats--to lose, yet again.
I have a friend in southern Illinois, in an exceptionally red area of that state, with thirty years in Dem politics, who'd written Obama to ask him why he would not support Feingold's censure move. He got a stock non-answer from a staffer. He wrote back, asking for just five minutes' time when Obama was back in Illinois for constituent time to explain why it was necessary. He never got an answer. Three weeks after that letter, Obama was in this guy's home town giving a speech. He was given no notice of Obama's schedule and no opportunity to make his case.
Now, this was a guy who was in line behind Obama when they were both filing election papers in Springfield for the 2004 elections and had talked to Obama off and on for forty-five minutes and came away, then, with some very laudatory opinions of the man.
Now, for a multiplicity of good reasons, he's become completely soured on Obama. Talk the talk, or walk the walk? Obama seems mostly capable of the former.
If Obama makes a run for President in the 2008 campaign, he'll have his young legs cut out from under him in short order. He's too green, too priggish, too cautious and too timid. If he were running against McCain, even insane McCain could destroy him without effort. To wit: Obama helped sponsor a tighter ethics rule for the Senate, and McCain decimated him. Obama folded. Obama didn't understand, by virtue of position, that he was McCain's equal, and implicitly, gave ground on an issue he should not have and would have made political points by standing firm.
Obama has, still, a lot to learn. And, a lot to unlearn.
My Gore endorsement is up at: http://jlbarnard.blogspot.com/2006/10/gore.html
I disagree.
Obama is not the future of this party.
Lieberman was his mentor in the Senate.
Look at his voting record.
He voted to confirm Abu Gonzales.
He voted to confirm Rice to Sec of State after her disasterous stint as NSA. By all means, give that woman a raise and promotion after she had a record of repeatedly lying.
Obama can deliver a charismatic speech alright, but he is not the saviour of our Party.
Give me a Durbin or a Conyers any day of the week. These men are the real deal.
Not Obama.
Please forgive me for thinking that electability should not be the sole and unique criterion used for choosing a candidate. You are talking about choosing someone who could be the next leader of the most powerful country in the world. He needs more experience. Period.
Obama is one of those media darlings who are endless triangulators by choice. He's worse than Hillary.
People were obsessed with his "star power" as if that has any real bearing on being elected. Kerry had a great "narrative" and look what happened to him! Obama will be swift-boated immediately in the most savage manner.
Every redneck rascist trick will be trotted out -- and then piously denied. And all the rascists will be able to say "he's too inexperienced." Yeah, right! And Bush had LOADS of experience -- if you count driving Haarken Energy into the ground and then being bailed out by his Daddy's cronies!
But of course there won't be a remotely fair standard applied. Bush was the son of a President. Obama is a "horrible Negro"!
But the worst thing about him is that he just totally lacks the kind of hard edge you need to deal with the cutthroat attacks he'll face. He'll sit there and look bemused when they accuse him of being a pedophile or something and MSNBC asks him "Senator. What about all those rumors you like small boys?"
We need a candidate who will reach over and rip the commentator's throat out at that point.
Not only are the bulk of these posts spot-on, but we also need to talk about the fact that chimpy has totally screwed up the budget, Iraq, and his fake war on terror. The neocon/repugs know that they probably cannot honestly win the presidency in 2008 - not even with their pretend "maverick" little johnny mccain (of course, they didn't honestly win the presidency in 2000 or 2004 either).
The dem that will probably be elected in 2008 is going to need to be more than a talking head that gets rave reviews from TIME - he is going to have to either turn the mess chimpy has made around or he will be blamed for all of the problems, paving the way for another repug/neocon! Happy talk aint gonna do it.
Look, time made chimpy man of the year - they even had hitler as the "man of the year." That ragsheet is nothing but a propaganda tool - IF THEY SAY ITS OBAMA - THEN WE NEED TO FIND SOMEONE ELSE!
Time certainly does not have the best interests of the democratic party in mind.
Quite an interesting exchange, but too many anonymouses.
Obama is a thoroughly nice guy, a good senator and Democrat. He's blessed with tremendous charisma.
So far, at least, it apprears he's being guided by three of the most valuable characteristics of a leader: a keen interest in possibilities, a determination to be realistic and genuine humility.
However, when it comes to running for president, as Walrus points out, Obama's still too green. He's not ready. To the senator's great credit, he knows that and is forthright about saying so.
That's all the more reason to believe that farther along his day will come. When it does, Obama is likely to be unstoppable.
I don't share your admiration of Obama, but -- like you -- my horses never get picked to run either. That's because the Party elite over rule the Press elite.
The more I see of him, the more I like him. All the more reason to wait until he's gained experience.
I agree with AL here...I'm not sure if any of you heard that speech on energy Obama gave at an event sponsored by MoveOn a few weeks ago, it was amazing. I'm worried about his image being warped into something twisted in a national election (he's from Kenya, his name is "Obama"), but I think his charisma would penetrate whatever the GOP would throw at him.
I'm unconvinced he would win in 08 as president. I do hope he is on the ballot as vp.
Umm, just in case people on the left still think that, because Iraq is in flames, that tactics are dead:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116124898547462067
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home