Too soon?
At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a mere two nights before John Kerry sealed George W. Bush's reelection by strolling out onto center stage and saluting the crowd like a douche, Senate candidate Barack Obama filled me and countless other viewers with the audacity of hope, fleeting though it may have been. He had -- and has -- the honesty and frankness that I have yearned for in a political candidate. He spoke of the American dream as if it still existed. He spoke of everyday Americans as if they cared about real issues, as if they were patriots regardless of their point-of-view on the Iraq war, as if their political affiliations had no bearing on whether they genuinely wanted what's best for America. He put a brief yet somehow lasting dent in my own personal deep-seated cynicism about politics.
And now apparently he's mulling over a bid for the presidency.
So the question I'd like to pose to the gallery, many of whom I know have also had their eye on Obama, is this: is it too soon? I mean, sure, Hillary as the Democratic candidate would make my vote for a third-party candidate a near certainty, and I'll bet I'm not the only one. But would Obama be jumping the gun by pursuing the nation's highest office before finishing out a full term as a Senator?
Discuss.
Update: In the comments, Jeff links to a Richard Cohen article about the potential of Obama's candidacy. I wanted to post that along with another link to a Charles Krauthammer article (can you tell Jeff and I grew up in Washington?) that suggests that Obama should run in 2008, because although he would lose, it would also make him more visible and appear more viable as a future candidate. They are both interesting reads. I particularly like Cohen's line about how he's excited because he has "read [Obama's] speeches". Indeed, maybe what the country needs more than ever is simply a president who can be articulate, who can inspire, and who is comfortable in front of the camera. We haven't had one since Reagan (and look how much we love him in spite of numerous harmful policies). You could argue Clinton but, c'mon, can anyone say "used car salesman"?
Song lyric of the day:
"And you're so occupied with what other persons are occupied with
And vice versa
And you've become what you thought was dumb
A fraction of the sum"
- Built to Spill, Carry the Zero
And now apparently he's mulling over a bid for the presidency.
So the question I'd like to pose to the gallery, many of whom I know have also had their eye on Obama, is this: is it too soon? I mean, sure, Hillary as the Democratic candidate would make my vote for a third-party candidate a near certainty, and I'll bet I'm not the only one. But would Obama be jumping the gun by pursuing the nation's highest office before finishing out a full term as a Senator?
Discuss.
Update: In the comments, Jeff links to a Richard Cohen article about the potential of Obama's candidacy. I wanted to post that along with another link to a Charles Krauthammer article (can you tell Jeff and I grew up in Washington?) that suggests that Obama should run in 2008, because although he would lose, it would also make him more visible and appear more viable as a future candidate. They are both interesting reads. I particularly like Cohen's line about how he's excited because he has "read [Obama's] speeches". Indeed, maybe what the country needs more than ever is simply a president who can be articulate, who can inspire, and who is comfortable in front of the camera. We haven't had one since Reagan (and look how much we love him in spite of numerous harmful policies). You could argue Clinton but, c'mon, can anyone say "used car salesman"?
Song lyric of the day:
"And you're so occupied with what other persons are occupied with
And vice versa
And you've become what you thought was dumb
A fraction of the sum"
- Built to Spill, Carry the Zero
4 Comments:
Obama might also turn out the racist vote, if you get my meaning.
Nonetheless....why not? There was a time when experience had an impace on whether one could win. I don't think that's the case anymore. Dubya had, what, one term as Governor of Texas? But he had a convergance of factors behind him - name recognition, a massive funding base, a near-lock on the extreme right wing, excellent marketing.
If Obama has the right mix of factors, I don't see why his inexperience would harm him. Indeed, having a shorter record gives an opponent fewer things to attack.
All valid points, and I echo Barzelay's prediction of a McCain landslide if it ends up being him versus Hillary (the 65% might be a slightly conservative estimate though).
Ben, I like your point about there being less to attack. And you're right that experience is not necessarily a major concern. We've had plenty of leaders (Abraham Lincoln anyone?) who entered the White House with little to no experience. The other advantage is he would appeal to the "no Washington insiders" crowd as he has been there so little.
But this is also where the Dems show the potential to shoot themselves in the foot. Consider 2004: while John Edwards probably had the broadest appeal, his other opponents used his lack of experience against him. Now there's a once viable candidate who would be clutching at straws should he attempt another bid.
However, ultimately Obama may want to make his move while he's still hot, for fear that by '12 or '16, he will have fallen by the wayside. And there are a lot of Americans for whom his message and outlook will be far more important than his limited time in office.
So, needless to say, I'm still on the fence with this one.
I think so, but I don't think the voters will care, and that's what matters. Fact is, Obama's the best of the bunch that's running right now. Sure, I'd like to see a little bit more legislative experience so he could avoid the "rookie mistakes" that Clinton and W fell victim to... but he still has the ability to be a damn fine president.
For '08 I'd probably prefer Janet Napolitano or Feingold. Trouble is that the former probably isn't running and the latter would have no chance in hell of winning. John Edwards (who would have been president if the Dems had reversed the '04 ticket) might be a good choice - trouble is he's just as inexperienced as Obama.
Seems to me, though, that if the Republicans nominate McCain, the Dem candidate has quite the uphill slog. They won't, though, because Republican primary voters are fools. The Democrat is more likely to face Mike "I Heart" Huckabee or Mitt "I'm Not A Conservative, I Just Play One On TV" Romney. Hillary could beat the former. The latter? Electoral weirdness could ensue.
And seriously, why do people hate Hillary? She's a bit conservative for my tastes, but she's not the devil incarnate...
Richard Cohen weighs in on Obama's possible maybe candidacy.
Post a Comment
<< Home