A Gem from 2004
While searching for something else, I came across this National Review article published July 27, 2004. It's author, Jim Geraghty, points to the Democratic National Convention as evidence of how shallow the Democratic bench is. He leads off the piece by asking: "Who will be leading the Democratic party in 2008?" He then writes:
President Kerry, perhaps. There has been intense speculation that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton or John Edwards will compete for the presidential nomination if Bush is reelected this year. But beyond the party's White House aspirants, where are the future congressional leaders, the telegenic talking-head stars, the party's spokesmen, and salesmen, and new blood?Somewhat ironically, he then turns his attention to Barack Obama, suggesting that he's the exception that proves the rule, really the only bright spot the Democrats have going for them.
Looking over the list of speakers at this year's convention, there is little new blood to be found. . . . [B]y and large, the party's speakers are an endless cavalcade of 60-something or 70-something senators, Barbara Mikulski, Ted Kennedy, Bob Graham, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman. At this moment, the brightest rising star in the Democratic party is 42-year-old Illinois state legislator Barack Obama, who was welcomed to the national political stage with an appearance on Meet the Press Sunday and a glowing profile in the New York Times Monday morning. The Times quoted Kerry's communications director, Stephanie Cutter, as saying "he represents the future of the party."Geraghty goes on to say:
If he wins, Obama would not face reelection until 2010, in increasingly Democratic-leaning, 22-electoral-vote-possessing Illinois. For real far-off speculation about the future, think about how a second-term Sen. Obama would make a perfect running mate in 2012.Geraghty ends the article with this thought:
The bad news for Democrats is that so far, Barack Obama doesn't have much competition as his party's leader of the future.Bad news indeed. Whatever will we do.
posted by A.L. at 4:07 PM
4 Comments:
Actually, he's got a point. I wish Obama weren't the only charismatic, well-organized, fairly young, fairly honest politician of national scope in the party. I'm a big Obama booster (caucus delegate), but I wish we had others who are more to the left. I wish Obama himself had about 10 years more seasoning. I wish anybody in that age bracket had his positive qualities. They don't, which is why I voted for Obama, but it sure would be nice to have more good choices.
But hey, one is more than either side has had the last several times. And more may turn up.
Well, if Obama/Hillary doesn't remind you of Eisenhower/John Foster Dulles, maybe you just ain't old enough.
The next four years is very likely to deliver a series of terrible policy disappointments if you're a genuine Democrat; you can also expect to be consistently sneered at by the entire right wing of the party, while a beatific Obama pretends nothing bad is going on in the corner of the room.
If I'm wrong, you can sue me later.
Also a cautionary tail for the left, 4 years is a long time...
What to do??? Exactly what I am doing. Buying ammo, getting out of the stock market and into munis, looking into getaway property in a deep Red state, and researching how best to invest my kid's future inheritance in non-U.S. denominated assets through a Cayman Islands corporation.
James, above, need not worry. Because of economic, sociological, and demographic shifts, the left is firmly in control and will remain so on the national stage. What would be bad for the nation, however, would be if the red states got redder, and blue states got bluer. Then things would get interesting (which is why I am hedging with Red state property).
Nom Deplume
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home