Obama, Pro and Con
Over the past couple of days at the Washington Post Website, political blogger Chris Cillizza has given reasons why Barack Obama should or should not run for president in 2008. The should side basically consists of the facts that he's popular and he can raise money. The should not side argues that if he runs and loses, it could undermine the rest of his career.
I live in Illinois, I strongly support Obama, and I'm glad he's my senator. Yet I fall firmly in the shouldn't run camp. For all his plusses and advantages as a political figure, he's just not ready yet. He's not had a hard-fought big campaign yet. In the 2004 Illinois senate primary, Obama started out pretty much as an unknown. When the rest of the field did what Democrats seem to do so well these days--essentially self-destructed--Obama was left as the best man standing. He won the primary (somewhat surprisingly) pretty easily, but by the time the ballot actually came around, he was clearly the obvious candidate. What did he stand for? Well, we weren't so sure, but he certainly cut an impressive and charismatic figure over the rest of the field. In the general election, you might remember Republican Jack Ryan, who was forced from the race (for a fairly lame sex scandal, quite frankly). When Illinois GOP couldn't come up with a viable candidate to replace him, they brought Alan Keyes in from out of state to do the job. Keyes never amounted to a realistic alternative, so Obama didn't need to campaign terribly hard. In fact, he partially began building up all the good faith he has with party regulars by campaigning for candidates in other races.
Another strike against an Obama run is the fact that he's still a cipher in many ways. He hasn't had time to build a substantial record (which is probably a good thing in presidential politics), so we're not sure precisely where he stands on everything. Therefore, he's still available to function as a dream candidate. We can fill in the blanks in our own image.
I have complete faith that Obama can grow to become a significant and successful presidential candidate. But that doesn't mean that 2008 isn't premature. For another side of this argument, take a look at ArchPundit from about a month ago. He maintains that machine-candidate Dan Hynes ran a strong campaign in the Democratic senate primary and Obama simply outmaneuvered him. While Obama did do some clever campaigning, my memory is that Hynes vastly underperformed. I'll let you know what I find out if I ever take the time to research the question.
posted by Doug @ 11:47 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Doug, I couldn't agree with you more. Obama seems to be a decent guy, but as a politician is, as you say, a cipher. He hasn't built up a significant set of core beliefs or opinions, except for his faith-based speeches (which I find slightly embarrassing). I'm not sure he's a good senator.
If he cares about being President he's in a tough spot. But I think he has to do it now. Whatever transpires between now and 2016 (his next reasonable chance) his star power will have faded.
As for campaigning, between now and any Presidential bid anytime, there's no chance - zero - that he will face any tougher election than he already has before a Presidential bid. Whether or not we think that would help him, it will no more be the case in 2016 than it is today.
As for him being a cipher, even if true, how does that make him any different than Kerry? Or Gore? Being in the Senate lots of years doesn't make your positions more clear, just the opposite.
I can't speak to what kind of Senator he is from a constituent persepctive (I would invite you to trade spots with a Tennessean for comparison...) but I can't think of a single important vote where I disagree with him, and he's been against the Iraq War from the beginning. And what do they do that's much more important than voting? I wish he had opposed Rice as Sec. of State, but hardly anyone did.
If his positions are vague, it's only in a kind of politician's platitude sense. He hasn't been the open fighter that Feingold has, nor the blowhard that Boxer has, and both of them usually make me happy when they do that. But I think his measured approach makes him a better Presidential candidate. I guess I'm just not sure that from the POV of potential presidential aspirations, what better kind of Senator could he be?
His podcasts are a good way to get to know what he cares about, and reveal him to be pretty wonkish, but concerned with a wide berth of issues. I find him to have especially compelling thoughts on education and the environment. So far as I know, there's only been the one significant "faith" speech and with the exception of 1 or 2 straw man Republican arguments I found it to be about as inspiring and insightful as I'll ever find someone who believes in God to be when it comes to that stuff. The whole thing in context makes for a pretty good speech. But he *was* speaking to a religious group. And that topic is far from his central theme.
There will never be a time for him to run that will be a sure-thing victory. It will always be taking a chance. I'm not even sure I would vote for him in a primary--depending on how it goes for him. But I think this train is at the station only so many times in a person's life and if he ever cares to ride it, he'd do well to get on board now.
Sorry this is too long.It's Friday afternoon and all, what else am I gonna do.
that being said, I don't think he *will* do it. Though he'll get alot of pressure to be the VP won't he? no matter who the nominee is.
In devising a response, I'm finding that this is a trickier subject than I'd even initially expected. Although I didn't convey it in the original post, what I'm really afraid of is that, in our desperation for a leader to take us to a Democratic promised land, we're loading Obama up with hopes and expectations that he can't possibly fill. When he inevitably falls short of what we wish him to be, will we accept him for what he is, or will we toss him aside and seek out another messiah? I'm not sure I'm cautioning against a premature Obama candidacy as much as against our overeagerness that will force the issue.
In calling Obama a cipher, I don't mean it as a criticism. The guy has been a senator for barely a year and a half. He hasn't had much time to develop his views and promote them to the rest of us. I haven't been listening to his podcasts, but it's possible that in those he's providing just the kind of information that I'm asking for. But I don't see our understanding of Obama to be comparable to how we see Kerry or Gore at all. We knew what we should've been able to expect from those two men (and we expected and should have received competent campaigns, but that's a whole other issue). We're not sure what to expect from Obama other than--whatever it is, it's bound to be incredible! That's our only real expectation, and frankly, that immensely unfair to him.
I also disagree on the star power issue. If he's the real deal that we hope he is, the star power may shift somewhat, but it will still be estimable in ten years or even twenty. Familiarity doesn't have to diminish appeal--take a look at Clinton, who, despite what can reasonably be called unwelcome overfamiliarity in some areas, still maintains a certain celestial power of gravity. If Obama can't hold our interest as a senator until 2016, it's better that his star fade in the U.S. Senate than in the Oval Office.
I agree, Don, about his speech last month to religious progressives. A few questionable elements were lifted out of it (I especially enjoyed the irony that his phrase "context matters" was taken somewhat out of context), but for the most part, I didn't have much problem with what he said. Here's the whole thing if anybody hasn't read it. But the reaction to that speech is all part of the vetting process he has to go through as we decide how much we can support him. As we learn more about him, we'll find where he agrees with us and where he doesn't, and in the balance of that, we'll come to a decision of how strongly we can back him. My fear is that a lot of people seem to have already decided to back him wholeheartedly before they know all the details.
Stu: I'm curious why you wonder if he's even a good senator in the first place (particularly since you're the first person I knew to put an Obama sign in the window during the primary). I haven't agreed with everything he's done, and I've wished that he'd taken a firmer stand on a couple of issues, but I can't think of anyone else I'd prefer to see in that seat at the moment.
Post a Comment
<< Home