« Spot The Argumentative Flaw | Main | Bring On The Government! »
October 25, 2006
Obamarama!
I've certainly said my piece doubting the left's wisdom in swooning over Obama, and many others have said their pieces in disagreeing with me. The most convincing of these, however, has got to be Hilzoy's take, which is almost enough to get me to join the Obamarama. I would suggest, as rejoinder, that everything Hilzoy points out makes Obama a very good senator rather than presidential candidate, and would seem to militate for him remaining where studious and diligent legislative wonkery is rewarded, rather than the presidency, which demands a bit more in the way of cosmic vision. That said, her take is important even removed from the presidential debate, and folks should read it. Obama is making a contribution, and were he in the majority, his impact could be great indeed.
October 25, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
I'm not buying into Obamarama--I'm an Edwards guy--but I think you could make the case that an Obama presidency would alter people's perception of the United States around the world (and is there more important challenge facing the country?)
For example, he went to Africa and was treated like an hero, especially in Kenya, where his father was born. He gave a respectful but tough speech about government corruption. He also talked eloquently about Darfur and publicly took an AIDS test. Of course, policy would have to accompany symbolism, but what's the presidency if not symbolism? A black man leading us would say more than pr platitudes our committment to democracy ever could.
Still, too soon, too soon.
Posted by: david mizner | Oct 25, 2006 1:44:28 AM
Agree 100%
Obama is great on many levels for many reasons.
But you gotta be F'n crazy to be giving this guy serious thought for 08. He has barely grown out of his political diapers and we are talking president? Come on now.
Posted by: Tony | Oct 25, 2006 2:44:25 AM
I'm befuddled as to what's going on with Obamarama. It sure looks like this is just about selling books and positioning himself for the #2 spot, but what if he really pulls the trigger and runs?
I can't figure out what that race would look like.
-----
S'weird. After a year and a half of a static HRC/Edwards/Warner race, suddenly big name folks are popping in and out of the race on an hourly basis. John Harwood even mentioned on MTP that a Clinton insider had told him HRC wasn't going to run.
And wherever the action is, there is David Axelrod showing up like forrest gump. Dude is proving to be the most important guy in the party who's not in the Clinton mafia.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 25, 2006 3:04:03 AM
First, I thought it was Obamapalooza. Obamarama seems so 80's.
Sounds like he ought to stay in the Senate. Of course, if he becomes VP, he can still work the Senate, so that does not argue against Obama joining Warner in the VP race.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 25, 2006 9:20:50 AM
You know, as soon as Obama accidentally cuts himself and is caught on camera bleeding, the entire thing is going to fall apart.
Posted by: August | Oct 25, 2006 9:48:49 AM
August: Nice Kipling reference.
Ezra: I think Sirota has the best take on Obamamania...
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota
Like the Elephant graveyard, I think the Senate is where good progressives go to die.
Posted by: fightingdem | Oct 25, 2006 11:40:43 AM
Agree 100%
Obama is great on many levels for many reasons.
But you gotta be F'n crazy to be giving this guy serious thought for 08. He has barely grown out of his political diapers and we are talking president? Come on now.
Posted by: Tony
I have no comment on what the lack of experience would mean for Obama the executive, but for Obama the candidate it could help. It's just impossible to say this early. The country still could be in a "throw the bums out" mood by then, and things could go in any direction on a number of issues, and so on. And if the "time in the wilderness" that sane Republicans keep hoping for their party hasn't paid off by then, a temperment-moderate but policy-liberal (or is it the other way around?) like Obama might be just the thing.
After reading Hilzoy's piece, I actually feel a lot better about Obama as a candidate and as a president than I used to. Which isn't saying much. At first I had been deeply cynical about it all. This conciliatory moderate with next to no experience was getting showered with praise based on... having a nice smile and appealing to so-called moderates who can't get past liberals' shrillness or "tone" on religious issues. (Not that politicians don't need to address such people somehow to get elected, but doing it by contrast to that horrible boogeyman The Left is a pretty damn bad way to do it.) Call it the Bull Moose demographic, and if that sounds like an insult to people making that argument, it's intentional. And the occasional Kos diary about him enabling this or that Bush initiative doesn't prove much, but sure didn't help.
But, according to Hilzoy, there are some much more justifiable things to shower praise on him for. Good.
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 25, 2006 12:35:19 PM
I too think Sirota has Obama correctly positioned. I suppose many or most pols do the kind of conscious triangulating that Obama seems to pursue (including the post-healthcare-debacle of Bill Clinton).
But I'm beginning to believe that Obama is more of a legislator than executive leader - a man destined for a long Senate career supporting good work, like Ted Kennedy, for instance.
In any event, 2008 is way too early in my opinion for Obama to be considered either for the Pres. or VP slot by the Dems.
Even with his political caution, he would be just too easy a target for swift-boating wingers (Chicago Democrat, Black, LIBERAL (LIBERAL, LIBERAL), no executive experience, positions on issues that are way too subtle (I voted for that before I voted against it....).
If (big IF) he has Presidential ambitions, he'd best figure out how to get elected as governor of Illinois (and restore some integrity to the Dems in that state), and then he'd be a great choice for Pres/VP on a Dem. ticket. That sounds to me like year 2016 or later. All things in their time....
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Oct 25, 2006 12:51:12 PM
*Pun warning*
If he were to become president, it would be an obamanation.
Posted by: david mizner | Oct 25, 2006 12:59:40 PM
I would suggest, as rejoinder, that everything Hilzoy points out makes Obama a very good senator rather than presidential candidate
Our system would work a lot better if we had as many people striving to be Senate majority leader as President.
This country needs 3 strong branches of government, not a strong president, a rubberstamp congress and a toothless judiciary. Unfortunately, too many Senators see the president as The Boss, instead of as a peer.
Posted by: Mike | Oct 25, 2006 2:11:46 PM
Hilzoy's post made Obama remind me of Al Gore, actually. And if Obama runs in '08, he'll have spent the same amount of time in the Senate before his first presidential run as Gore did. Interesting.
Posted by: Greg | Oct 25, 2006 2:14:27 PM
This country needs 3 strong branches of government, not a strong president, a rubberstamp congress and a toothless judiciary. Unfortunately, too many Senators see the president as The Boss, instead of as a peer.
Posted by: Mike
If 1 president = 100 Senators (actually, 1 president = 535 Congressmen, and I hope I got that number right), then it would take an egotistically deluded Senator to see himself as an equal to the president. Just nitpicking, but anyways.
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 25, 2006 2:30:45 PM
And if Obama runs in '08, he'll have spent the same amount of time in the Senate before his first presidential run as Gore did.
Al Gore had also been a Rep for 8 years. After the 1988 election he served 4 more years in the Senate and 8 as VP, making him far more experienced (and more qualified) than he was earlier.
The main argument against Obama isn't that he'll never be qualified, but that he hasn't got the experience after (currently) 2 years in the Senate.
Posted by: Mike | Oct 25, 2006 2:44:10 PM
it would take an egotistically deluded Senator to see himself as an equal to the president
Not if he was the leader of the Senate, it wouldn't. Besides, the point isn't that Senator X == President, but that Congress == Executive.
The Senate and House have spent the last several years thinking of themselves as cheerleaders for the president's policies, stifling debate, review, oversight. That's what has allowed Bush's mistakes to mushroom until they've become unfixable.
Posted by: Mike | Oct 25, 2006 2:52:03 PM
Posted by: Mike | Oct 25, 2006 11:44:10 AM Al Gore had also been a Rep for 8 years. After the 1988 election he served 4 more years in the Senate and 8 as VP, making him far more experienced (and more qualified) than he was earlier.
There's a point there ... some people would draw a big difference between 8 years in Congress and 8 years in State Senate. Shows the benefit of being born into a political dynasty.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 25, 2006 8:22:36 PM
I was mostly amused at the attention my senator was getting at first. But, I've seen some of his appearances in the senate. And I know his rep. in our state senate as a brainy guy and not a speaker.
His legislation is pretty much on par with his style. He actually is not seeking attention but, rather attracting it.
I am in a wait and see position but, wouldn't mind him running. I do think he'd be quite good.
I am impressed with the high endorsement of my other senator, Dick Durbin. And he's been wanting him to run for a long time. I personally liked the speech I saw on Cspan at Harkin's steak fry more than the famous one in 2004.
Mostly, I'll see who is running and go from there but, as when I voted for him as senator, I was impressed. I'm usually not too impressed with most of these guys. Especially these days.
Posted by: dlake | Oct 26, 2006 12:46:32 AM
JFK...
Posted by: Ross | Oct 26, 2006 1:08:46 AM
some people would draw a big difference between 8 years in Congress and 8 years in State Senate.
Of course there's a difference. Congressmen routinely deal with issues of foreign policy including trade relations, diplomatic initiatives, military spending, and the decision to go to war. They also deal with national issues such as immigration policy and national security.
State Senators, don't.
These are the same issues that any president deals with, thats why ,if a candidate is seeking the presidency, experience in Congress trumps experience in any State Senate.
Posted by: Mike | Oct 26, 2006 4:20:18 PM
Dude, seriously. Full court press for Gore.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Oct 26, 2006 11:03:25 PM
