"Obambi"
The Great Green Hope
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
John Fund summarizes some of the reasons why Barack Obama might not run in 2008. This is really the biggest political strategy question of the year: should he run?
There are a number of reasons why Obama should run now, but also a number of reasons why he shouldn't:
Read On...
First, the pros:
1. Seize the moment. Obama could run and win; his popularity is sky-high right now. For presidential candidates, like college athletes who could go at the top of the NFL or NBA draft, the usual rule of thumb is, if you can do it now, do it now. The moment may not come this way again.
2. The short trail. Obama's record in 2 years in the Senate and in the Illinois Legislature is one of unvarnished liberalism. The longer he stays in the Senate the longer that rap sheet will be. Better to run now while he can still create some uncertainty as to what he stands for. Relatedly, Obama will lose some of his "fresh face" appeal the longer he remains in DC.
3. The map. The red states that went for Bush in 2000 gained electoral votes in the 2000 census, placing Bush in a slightly more favorable position in 2004. That will happen again by 2012. That's not to say it's impossible for Democrats to break the GOP's hold in those states (in some of them it looks rather tenuous after 2006), but the most reliable blue states are shrinking and the most reliable red states are growing.
4. The GOP field. To avoid running too closely associated with Bush, two of the stronger GOP candidates (Jeb Bush and Condi Rice, who may match up especially well with Obama) will sit out 2008 (although it's not impossible that Secretary Rice could get a VP nod). That leaves a GOP field that isn't exciting the conservative base, and the likelihood that Republicans could nominate either a candidate some Republicans might stay home for against a non-Hillary opponent (McCain or Giuliani) or a guy with as little experience as Obama (Romney), or that the party could splinter with a third party run, the best hope for Democrats who have won a national majority just twice since FDR died.
5. Bush fatigue. 2008 is the end of Eight tumultuous years of GOP control of the White House. The political stars may not favor the Democrats as much by 2012 or 2016, especially if Hillary wins this one and especially if Obama runs with the baggage of an 8-year Clinton Administration and the associated scandals that comes with that (ask Al Gore).
That said, there are also persuasive reasons to sit out 2008:
1. Obama's color. No, not black - green. This is Fund's main point. We've had an astonishing proliferation recently of candidates who either never ran for public office (Wesley Clark), have yet to finish a term in statewide office (Obama) or served just one term and didn't run for re-election (Romney, Edwards, Mark Warner). (This would be an issue for Rice as well, but Rice has been in the national spotlight as perhaps the President's closest foreign policy adviser for six years of war, so she's more like Eisenhower in 1952). Such candidates are often better served by adding a VP run or a term in the Cabinet or something before trying for the big job. Indeed, the general consensus is that Obama's best bet may be to run as Hillary's running mate.
2. Hillary! John Edwards may have forgotten quite how rough the Clintons play against members of their own party, but as Fund points out, Obama lost his first race for federal office against a candidate endorsed by Bill Clinton. Does Obama really want to be painted as the man who is against strong women in public life, who wants to deny little girls everywhere the role model of the first female president? (Yes, you know Maureen Dowd, Anna Quindlen, Margaret Carlson and Eleanor Clift already have those columns written). Is he ready for how nasty that race will be? Would he rather line up behind the Hillary bandwagon and assure himself a similar coronation by a unified party in later years?
3. The Pelosi Factor. This is more of a wild card, since we don't really know how long the Democrats will be in power, but there are plenty of reasons to think that the Democrats will take all sorts of counterproductive steps the next two years. Obama may be better served waiting for Pelosi to leave the Speaker's chair and the old Class of 1974 Democrats to leave office, and perhaps run against a Republican Congress down the road.
4. Iraq. Yes, Iraq and the War on Terror will still be a significant issue in 2008. Perhaps, in years to come, less so. Obama's conspicuous lack of experience or interest in foreign affairs could be less of a liability in less tranquil times.
If I had to guess, I'd say Obama will ride the groundswell for a while, and bow out of the race on terms that make it hard for the nominee to resist putting him on the ticket. But we shall see.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | "Yes, But . . ." And Why I'm Not Supporting McCain '08 — Comments (103) »
"Obambi" 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The other downside then is running against an incumbent. Unless it's McCain and he's too old to run again.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
he's betting that the second Clinton administration will be a good one, since he'll be riding Hillary!'s coattails in 2016. On the other hand, if Hillary!'s adminstration turns out to be the second coming of Jimmy Carter, then his time as her VP will be the end of Obama's political career.
He's the Jerry Brown in '76 Gary Hart in '84, Al Gore in '88 "fresh face" candidate. After 2008 he won't be fresh. If he loses and gets the VP slot, that should give him capital for the future, win or lose. He's a conventional left-wing liberal. That platform never ages well.
He can't wait. The Hollywood money is telling him to go now, and the very reasons which tell him to stay out are the reasons which will compel him to get in: money. The very raison d'etre for Obama is that he is "not Hillary", which speaks volumes about her viability against Rudy or Mitt Romney.
If Barack should become a substantive, magnetic candidate, Democrats will flee Hillary. Trust me on this. Democrats are looking for an excuse to abandon her. They know she will lose to Rudy or McCain.
I don't know how much personal depth Barack has, but if he's going to go, he has to start assembling an issues team now. Otherwise, it's "Obambi" for sure....
Finally, I do see Rudy picking Condi as the VP.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
I dunno, I think Rudy will want a pro-lifer with solid conservative credentials. Also, Rice brings a bit too much baggage from the last 8 years for this cycle.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
She's still pretty popular in the country. If Obambi doesn't go and Hillary picks Obambi as the VP, Rice is almost a lock as the VP pick. If not, then Jeb. We have an embarrassment of riches here.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Condi Rice has a lot of baggage with conservatives. Just start with her pro-choice position and her recent conversations which tend to be nothing more than selling out Israel.
Jeb as a VP pick? Third Bush is the charm? I think that would go over like a lead balloon.
Where you see an embarrassment of riches, I see a presidential wasteland, at least at this time.
One of the reasons we got smoked this time was because we got satisfied electing people who didn't talk to regular folks about issues that affected them. I'm as pro-life as the next conservative, but I want to win in 2008. Most people will vote on pocketbook issues that they can do something about, not red button stuff like abortion and gay marriage. You'd be surprised how much the political terrain will change by 2008. I'm not saying that we need to change the platform or anything like that. I am saying that we need to place the emphasis on war, judges, spending, and economic concerns that affect the day to day lives of real people.
If you let Democrats dominate the pocketbook issues, they win. Period. You can't let them do that. You have to speak with ordinary voters about issues they care about.
BTW, Rice is not selling out Israel. That's just a canard. Just because that crazy blogger who writes Atlas Shrugs screams about her all the time doesn't mean Condi is selling out the Israelis. Israel's misfortunes of late have to do with the misadventures of its own incompetent government. I would have hoped that Rice's recent statements about Iran and Syria would have provided some reassurance to the pro-Israel community, but I guess not.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Another factor in the '08 Presidential race: the possibility of more "9/11" terrorist attacks happening from either within the U.S. or from outside of the U.S. or both during the next two years. This possibility could dramatically change the "political winds" back to being much more "Republican favored".
I keep looking for the the people that are supporting a Hillary run for President. So far these rare and exotic birds have been elusive to spot. Even in the safe surroundings of Manhattan I cannot find anyone who is warming to a Hillary nomination.
Virtually all Republicans loathe her. Half the Democratic Party dislikes her. And the other half of the Democratic Party thinks that supporting her is like buying a first class ticket on the Titanic.
Obama is trying to get his name out there so that he can start the bloodletting early. Hopefully he learned from Clark that you can't wait until the last second to jump into the race.
If I had to put money on it I would go with a Obama/Clark ticket for 2008. Warner and Richardson are the dark horses but they need to overcome some considerable charisma issues.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
that will truly signal the end of the "American Century." A pair of lightweights if there ever was one.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Why is a the former Supreme Allied Commander European Forces a lightweight?
Can you explain why Rudy or Romney are heavyweights but Obama and Clark are lightweights?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
With the concession that all of them have more managerial experience than, say, me. The fact, however, remains that the trend over the last few decades has favored Governors over Congressfolk; one reason for this is very likely that the voters have a subconscious preference for people who have actually run things. Sen. Obama doesn't have much on his resume in that regard - and Gen Clark has the wrong kind. Rudy's a successful former mayor of The City and Romney's... the former Governor of MA; they'd come into the fight with the assumption that they know how to run things already pre-loaded in the electorate's operating system. Just the way it is, man.
Besides, Clark's kind of weird.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
But that doesn't make them lightweights.
John was suggesting that the end of America was upon us if we were to actually elect Obama and Wesley Clark. That speaks to the people themselves and not their resumes and the relative strengths of said resumes.
Clark's personality is why I think he is better as a Veep than a Prez candidate.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
can occur with any number of possible "tickets", not just Obama/Clark and not all Democrat; the Obama/Clark pairing was the particular one on offer. Frankly, as much as I dislike Hillary and everything she stands, for I suspect whe would make an order of magnitude better president than Obama. When people vote for style over substance, regardless of the party to which they belong, we risk a great deal.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Does not make him an image only candidate.
There is a tendency by some to discard charismatic figures simply because they are charismatic.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
is a direct result of there being no 'there' there. There is no significant substance, no significant record to criticize or applaud.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
it being a matter of record.
What was George W Bush's record prior to 2000? Sure he was Governor of Texas. But what was his actual record?
If you are actually interested in some of the things he's done have a look here
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
that many of you seem to ignore is that he is inspirational to a lot of people. His words resonate with many people. In a world where we are increasingly told how much different we are from each other, he brings a message of unity.
Here is a clip from his speech in New Hampshire that I just read. He gave essentially the same speech in NJ right before the election when I saw him speak. It is exactly the sort of thing that people identify with..
I was doing a book signing [and] the title of the book that I just wrote is called “The Audacity of Hope.” And some people have asked me about the title and where’d I get it from. And some people recalled that I actually used the phrase in my convention speech down in Boston in 2004. But I’m here to confess … that I actually stole the line from my pastor … on the South Side of Chicago. I had just gotten out of college and like most 21-year olds I wasn’t exactly sure of what I wanted to do with my life. But one thing I knew I wanted to do was somehow be involved in rebuilding and renewing America — particularly in low-income areas. . . . [He goes on to explain how he got hired by a group of churches as a community organizer in a poor, deindustrialized area in Chicago. He also explains that he got invited to a church and, since he was working with churches, he thought he should start going to church.]
So I walked in one day into this church, Trinity United Church of Christ, and the pastor was there. And the title of his sermon was “The Auduciaty of Hope.” And his premise was very simple. He said, “the easiest thing in the world to do is to be cynical. You have every good reason not to expect much. You open up the newspapers, you look on television, what do you see? You see violence, and strife, and corruption, and injustice, war, poverty, famine. So it’s easy to get discouraged.
It’s easy to at some point say to yourself ‘that is the world as it is.’ And there’s not much you can do about it. In fact, maybe your best strategy is to withdraw as much as possible. Draw a circle around yourself. Protect yourself. Make as much money as you can. … Don’t anticipate that you can have much say over the course of the world. It’s too difficult. It will break your heart.
What’s hard — what demands courage — what’s risky — what’s truly audacious is to hope. To believe that somehow the world as it is, is not the world as it has to be. But through the application of will and imagination, you can make the world anew.”
There is a reason why people compare Obama to the Kennedy brothers.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
There is a reason why people compare Obama to the Kennedy brothers.
I'm surprised that a non-partisan moderate like you would think that such a comparision works to Obama's advantage. How did Ted's last presidential run go?
I was referring to John and Bobby, not Ted.
I figured you guys would be able to realize that fairly easily. But I didn't take into account your willful desire to twist my comments to suit your needs.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
He specifically mentioned Ted.
I am unaware of any stories of Bobby being a womanizer or a drunk. Care to back up the claim?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Obama is a paper tiger. If there ever was a clear example of the definition "he can talk the talk but can he walk the walk".
The best way to describe him is like the facade of a building on a movie set. From dead on center it looks majestic, but look around to the side and back and it's just plywood being held up by sticks. He has shown he is thin skinned, scripted, and speaking in platitudes will only get you so far.
Well I have to give you credit for bringing up such an originaly criticism.
You have examples of Barack Obama being thin-skinned, scripted and plywood?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Not so much as a candidate, but if he became Commander in Chief. There was an incident under President Clinton where some Russian troops had landed in an airport in Serbia during the Kosovo intervention. Clark, as "Supreme Allied Commander" had given the order for NATO forces to take the airport by military force, which was fortunately disobeyed by a British general who worked out a deal with the Russians, that they would hold the airport temporarily until NATO forces arrived.
Had Clark's order been obeyed, he could have provoked war against Russia (which all the Cold War presidents managed to avoid) over temporary control of an airport in Serbia. Do we want this man as Commander in Chief?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
She knows that someone like Rudy will hammer her nationally. Why not let the young man get hammered. On the off chance he wins, then she can get the VP nod and play Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.
It works SO much better for her. No one really trusts her.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
Hillary's popularity with the Dems is leftovers from her husband's tenure. At this point it appears to be about as plentiful as Thanksgiving leftovers.
She has been crowned the heir apparent without even trying. The reason may have as much to do with her pre-Obama opponents than her husband's popularity. Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, Clark, a loser, another loser, yet more losers, and so on. With Obama throwing his hat in the ring, suddenly the Dems have a candidate that has not yet been identified with the stable of past losers.
Obama is everything that Hillary is not. Anti-war from the beginning, not strident, no scandals yet. He gets the ever-unimportant DU/Kos vote without alienating Democrats who are still pro-American.
The more important question is how do the current crop of Republicans fare against Obama or Hillary? McCain is one melt down away from losing. Romney will have much, much difficulty getting the GOP faithful to trust him. Rudi much the same.
If the GOP cannot inspire the base, any Democrat wins.
I must take issue with point #3, "The Map." While it's true that US population is shifting south and west, I don't think anyone should take that to mean that this gives red states increased power, or at least not the way you might think. When Northerners move south, they take their political leanings with them, thus "bluing" a red state and making it easier for Democrats to win. Virgnia and North Carolina are good examples of this. Also, western states like Colorado, Montana, and southewestern states like New Mexico, all beneficiaries of this population shift, are proving increasingly winnable by Democratic candidates.
Therefore, it seems to me that the challenge facing the Democrats is not winning now while they can, but continuing to broaden their appeal. I recommend Thomas Schaller's "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South." Although I'm not certain I agree with all of Schaller's assertions, it's an illuminating read nonetheless.
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense
While we tend to look at the national map as one of red state and blue state it really boils down to population density. The more densely populated an area the more blue they usually become.
So states like NJ, CT, RI, and MA, the most densely populated states in the country, are some of the most staunchly blue states while states like Wyoming and the Dakotas tend to be deep red.
Obviously there are always exceptions but this rule holds true in most cases.
Suburban areas tend to be very purple as surbubanites tend to embrace both blue and red policies.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...the Democrats have recently made some gains in western states, which is interesting. Considering the streak of libertarianism that seems to exist out there, perhaps it's not surprising that westerners would view Democrats as an increasingly acceptable alternative to an increasingly evangelical GOP. That's not to say that every Republican is a member of Focus on the Family (far from it), but I don't think it can be reasonably denied that the GOP has become more and more beholden to a conservative brand of evangelical Christianity. The almost obsessive Republican focus on same sex marriage and abortion, and the widely unpopular federal intervention in the Schiavo matter, spurred primarily by Republicans, certainly don't jibe well with libertarian views.
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense
Obama does have some scandal in his background, not well reported except in Chicago, where he saved several hundred thousand on a house purchase because of his connections to a very marginal local politician. Illinois is full of political corruption - see our current and previous governors if you need any examples.
Obama may have more similar problems come out in the future, and despite what flyerhawk says, he is a lightweight (yes, I read the link, and I'm not persuaded). That, plus Hillary's private detectives, may give him pause.
The classic scandal that no one is talking about. Perhaps because that particular scandal has no legs. It is a story of a local political operative who saddled up to Obama, as he does to many Chicago up and coming pols.
There is zero evidence of Obama even knowing that something was amiss.
I guess if you say something enough then it becomes true.
I am fully cognizant that I am not going to win the hearts and minds of the people of RedState regarding Barack Obama. And honestly, it is probably better for Obama for the right to dismiss him as a lightweight, and empty suit. Keep your focus on Hillary. That serves two purposes that I like. Obama is ignored and Hillary, whom I vehemently oppose, gets beat up.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Look in any politician's background and you'll find something less than savory. The question is if there's something toxic enough to derail a presidential bid. Seven years ago I would have thought that a history of drunk driving would have been sufficient to nix presidential aspirations, but Bush was so skillfully sold that it didn't matter to a majority of voters. (Well, actually, since he wasn't chosen by a majority of Americans maybe it DID matter, but I think my point stands.)
Regarding Obama, I'm not sure how to feel about him. True, he doesn't have much experience in federal government, but if his spin doctors are clever they can make that a point in his favor. I don't know how well a black man's going to sell in the South, either, but then again the Democrats are most likely going to lose most if not all of the South in any case. I guess it depends how well he endures the rigors of the primary and adapts to changing circumstances. That's the nice thing about American rough-and-tumble elections; they help shake out the truth about candidates. Or at least they should. :-)
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense
...didn't win the popular vote in 2000, we can all sing along by now. Jeebus, you'd think that they would've stopped chewing that bone after the 2004 election...
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
To me, a lightweight is someone who isn't all that smart, all that capable, all that profound. John Edwards is a lightweight. Dan Quayle is a lightweight. I suspect Wes Clark might be a lightweight once you get past the uniform.
Obama, love him or hate him, is not a lightweight. He's a brilliant guy with a brilliant guy's record - head guy on the Harvard Law Review, professor at the University of Chicago, partner in a nationally prominent law firm, author of two well received books, deliverer of the best convention podium speech in the last twenty years.
I wish I were such a lightweight.
What he is is undefined. My mom, a traditional southern conservative of the old school, thinks he's great. She loved his speech in 2004. As she gets to know his politics - his very, very liberal politics - that will change. She will decide that she and he have different views on the issues, and if the GOP nominates anyone worth spitting on in 2008 (at this stage, a somewhat dubious proposition) she will return home to her roots.
The Chicago house purchase thing is, at best, a semi-scandal. It was, I believe, disclosed at the time. It wasn't your typical under the table Chicago thing, for which Obama gets some credit. All the same, it reflected very poor judgment on Obama's part. He has acknowledged it as a mistake, and done his mea culpas, which won't make it go away, but between the apologies and the contemporaneous disclosure I don't think it's going to be a defining factor.
It is, however, one of many things that will be used to chip away at him, and to define him as just a person who sometimes screws up, not a superhero or a savior of the nation.
There will be more of these little things, and you can count on the Clintons to make sure we hear about them all. If his wife has taken corporate money by serving on a board, and the company is at all questionable, we will hear about it. If he crossed the street despite a no walking sign, we will hear about it.
Here's the deal on Obama from the Republican perspective. Some of the steam will come out of the Obama movement. People from all walks will take a closer look, and figure out, like my mom will, that he's not what they are looking for after all. For some, he's too liberal; for others, he gets along too comfortably with machine politicians and corporate overlords. He will gradually get brought back to earth, and we will be well past the mania phase when the voting starts.
But that won't make him stupid, and it won't make him an empty suit. Like Bill Clinton, he's scary smart and a natural politician, and even when he's brought back to earth he will be a formidable figure to contend with. We had better have our own good candidate if he is the Dem nominee, and we will need to all work together to win.
Since when was Obama a "partner in a nationally prominent law firm"? He was a summer associate at a nationally prominent law firm, but his bio lists this for full time legal employment:
Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.
Of Counsel, 1996 - present
Specializing in civil rights and voting rights litigation, employment law, and the representation of not-for-profit and community development corporations in urban redevelopment activities.
Associate, 1993 - 1996
Litigated voting rights and employment cases, wrote appellate briefs and argued appeals in the United States Court of Appeals, helped to structure and finance efforts to construct mixed-income housing to replace public housing in and around Cabrini Green, served as general counsel to community health clinics, social service agencies, and charter schools throughout Chicago.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I really don't understand the fascination with Obama. Where did it come from? Two months ago, hardly anyone outside of politics-land had heard of him. Now it's suddenly "Obamamania!" What news story sparked these thousands of fawning press articles of late? Where (how? why?) did it originate? I must've been asleep for an entire day sometime last month when he.....did something? that warranted all this attention. It's the only explanation.
As for Obama himself. Well, he knows how to talk the talk. And he's apparently a pretty smart guy. However, just because he looks pretty, speaks pretty, and can do the Sunday NYT Crossword puzzle does not mean I have to support his candidacy for President.
I've heard from a few of my fellow acquaintances that since I supported a powerful speaker before (Reagan), I should support another one. This on its face is laughable. Reagan, for one, actually had executive experience before becoming President, and also backed up his words with action. Obama, so far, seems to be the kind of person who won't rock the boat and will instead go for consensus. That kind of mentality wouldn't have worked at Reykjavik.
Obama is not a lightweight; however, he IS untested. The reason for his popularity thus far is due in part to his speaking ability, as well as due to the fact that he is an unmolded piece of Play-Do in which each person shapes his own beliefs into. Once the molded shape of Obama is seen, his popularity will fall. Maybe he'll still get the nomination (if he runs), but I don't expect the stratospheric popularity ratings he currently enjoys to hold.
Nobody said you had to support Obama, or Edwards, or Cookie Monster for president. (Although Cookie Monster would make an *awesome* president. I can just hear his State of the Union address: "'V' is for veto, that good enough for me!") But I digress.
Also, don't be so sure that people will fall away from Obama once they learn about him. If I may, I'll share a few observations about Americans and politics:
1) Most Americans don't ascribe very strongly to political philosophies; they go with what works and with what they like. For example, they may not like big government, but even that reddest of red state, Mississippi, was pleased to accept federal largesse after Katrina landed. Therefore, Obama the Liberal won't bother voters overmuch if they think he's also Obama the Problem-Solver. Obviously, making them think that will be the job of his handlers.
2) Most Americans (and most human beings, I daresay) make decisions emotionally, whether in their lives or in the voting booth. They gravitate towards the choices they like, regardless of the rational implications of those choices. Therefore, Obama's job with most voters will be not to convince them that he's smarter or more competent, but that he's trustworthy, dependable and likeable. They say that, given the choice between the Scarecrow (all heart and no brain) and the Tin Man (all brain and no heart), Americans usually pick the Scarecrow. I can understand why.
Those are my observations; take them or leave them as you will.
Wearer of Muppetskin and Bearer of No-Nonsense
I didn't mean to imply that I would "have" to vote for him, although I see how that can be construed from the way I constructed the sentence. Mea culpa. In any case, it was more a refutation of the "how could you not vote for this guy"? mentality I've personally experienced outside this forum.
Although many Americans DO vote based on emotion, or the feeling they get from a candidate, I hope that is not the case with the majority of people. In 2004, the media presented us with the "uber-intellecutal" Kerry vs. the "dunderhead" Bush, and Bush still won. This may appear to support the theory that Americans will vote for "heart" over "brain;" however, in each election, the media maintains that the Republican is ALWAYS the dumber of the two major candidates. Personally, I think people voted for Bush over Kerry because Bush had substance, whereas Kerry was an empty slate who would believe whatever you believed, and no matter what the job was, he would do it "better" than Bush.
In order for Americans to view Obama as a problem-solver, as you have stated, they will have to see evidence of his problem-solving abilities. What problems has he solved? Sure, he talks a good game, but has he done anything? Has he even had the time or seniority to do anything? Does he have "gravitas"?
Many previous candidates have appeared competent, likable, and dependable, as you have stated, but have still lost. Adlai Stevenson comes to mind, as does Walter Mondale. Perhaps my memory is fuzzy with these two examples, as Stevenson was around before I was even thought of, and I was only five years old when Mondale faced off against Reagan. However, I had always heard from family and co-workers that they were upstanding guys who were genuinely liked.
It is my personal belief that, in the end, substance will win, and that is why Obama will not. I may turn out to be wrong, but I think executive experience, or at least a good 10 or more years of legislative experience, is a near requirement to be elected President of the United States in today's political climate. In any case, I would certainly hope it is something beyond speaking well and having been editor of the Law review.
I meant to click on the "reply to this" link beneath TrackerNeil's post. Dang it.
In any case, there also appears to be nothing which can explain Obama's recent rise in the public profile. Seriously, can ANYONE name ANYTHING he has done in the past month to warrant this collective media orgasm?
if anyone's opinion is important in America its flipping Oprah!
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
It's just possible that his best long term career move would be to run as Hillary's VP, and have Hillary lose in the election. With Hillary's pre-existing negatives taking the lion's share of the blame, that leaves him the presumptive frontrunner in 2012.
I'm willing to help him with the "Hillary loses" part.