From what I've seen on TV, I like Obama, but I am a cautious sort and worry that there is something wrong with the senator from Illinois -- something that will become obvious after election time has passed. It wouldn't be the first time.
He mentions Martin Luther King without reminding you of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Like Colin Powell, the senator from Illinois makes you forget he is any colour.
He is also clever enough not to sound condescending or to tie himself into the kind of mental pretzels that strangled John Kerry.
His inexperience in the Senate may turn out to be an asset and he has the same talent that JFK apparently had of appearing glamorous and humble at the same time.
[ .. ]
When pressed about an apparent admission in print that he had smoked marijuana, Barack Obama replied: "Yes, and I inhaled. That was the point."
[ .. ]
Hillary's supporters are constantly coming up with reasons she can overcome her limitations. Barack's supporters wonder whether he has any.
Cited story.
.
- Log in to post comments
His limitation remains inexperience. The concern would be that he, like Clinton before him (the comparisons to Clinton are getting pretty consistent, if yesterday's Times editorials have anything to say on it), will try to "refresh" Washington by bringing in new, also inexperienced, people (Stephanopoulos, for example), which in turn will be far too easily blamed for mistakes that they didn't make.
Personally, I don't want him in 2008 'cause 1) the Senate still needs him, and 2) the 2008 president will be blamed for not being able to solve Iraq, no matter who gets it, even if we pull out during that time.
I wrote here a procedure for how to get Obama to win in 2012. In particular, it addresses a trend that shows he would lose in 2008, as would Hillary: nobody has won the presidency without being a VP or a Governor, since JFK. "Executive experience" ranks high on the resume requirements in the modern politic these past 4 decades.
My proposal suggests how to answer that without wasting 4 years away as a VP, which would involve doing nothing while other senators, governors and the president get the glory.
The thing about the "lack of experience" issue, as far as I'm concerned, is that this isn't a problem unique to Obama-- it's also a problem frankly shared by most of the other Democratic frontrunners. As of 2008, Obama will have four years of Senate tenure; John Edwards, six; and Hillary Clinton, eight. On top of this one will have previously been a state senator, one a trial lawyer, and one a first lady. Bill Richardson will have been a Governor for five years. Wesley Clark will have a long military career and no elected experience of any kind. Unless Joe Biden or Mike Gravel somehow manage to pull off the unlikely trick of transforming into serious candidates in the next couple of months, or Al Gore changes his mind and decides to run, basically the only actual candidate for the Democratic nomination with any noteworthy quantity of experience is Evan Bayh, and seriously, who's heard of Evan Bayh?
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson and Clark look like total equals to me on the experience front. Since this is basically the entire field of Democratic candidates right there other than Bayh, the important question to me is, which candidate will be able to be effective despite-- and be able to compellingly convince the American people not to worry about-- their inexperience?
Am I out on a limb in thinking that Obama's inexperience might, in some ways, be a good thing? As in, her hasn't experienced all the ways a politician should be a conciliatory pandering lapdog?
His inexperience isn't a big deal. Modern America won't elect a senator with a long record. Due to the way the senate works, a long-time senator can have a record that is easily misrepresented. With the amount of spin both sides fire out nowadays, a long record in the senate is death.
Experience is a wonderful aid when performing the office. But as Kerry, Gore, and Mondale have shown, experience functions as a database one's opponents can cherry pick, spin, and misrepresent, wrecking a campaign. In my view, Clinton has by far the most experience - but I can't see that as an asset unless she makes it to the office. (Which is unlikely - again, Clinton's strongest supporters in the past were anti-war, anti-government-control of BC, and so forth. Many of us feel betrayed, and will unless and until she repudiates her bizarre swerve toward the radical right.)
Senator Barack Obama Announces... [YouTube]
I agree with the whole 2012 thing - 2008 is too early, and the senate needs him. (I was also glad that he enhaled...). I'm hoping Hilary steps forward - although she's probably a long shot - but I'd like to see it anyway.
The problem he will face is the press. The press cares about stories. Right now they are building Obama up for a Presidential run. As soon as he runs that story will be old and they'll start looking for flaws. As I think that story you quoted mentioned (I think it was that one) lots of candidates look fantastic until they start being against positions you feel strongly. (i.e. they are popular as much out of ignorance as anything) Then the media and political opponents will start looking for minutae to attack him on. AT that point political naivete becomes a big liability. He might make it through it. While I disagree with him on many policies he honestly does look like a decent person. And we need more of those in Washington.