I’m an admitted Obama-phile. But I’ll agree that there are questions as to whether he should run in 2008. It is not a foregone conclusion that he is the best candidate–or best Democrat–in the field. He has a lot to prove over the coming months to show that he ought to be President. Indeed, a large part of me thinks he would be a far better VP candidate at this point.
That being said, I must register my virulent dissent from my co-blogger Andrew’s remarks on Obama. I think it is a rather disturbing recycling of the same attacks on anyone who has a “D” after there name, and does a disservice to the idea that we want to evaluate candidates impartially, on their own terms. Aside from the fact that I suspect there are those for whom every Democrat will be labeled “an extreme Democrat” (if Joe Lieberman had been nominated, I would have seen ads attacking his “extremist liberal agenda”), look at what issues he’s pressed on (unfortunately, junior Senators in the minority don’t get to pass legislation–but I think you’ll agree these are topics that should be getting more attention) since becoming Senator:
-Non-proliferation
-Avian Flu (before it was a hot topic!)
-Regulating genetic testing,
-Reducing Medical malpractice suits without harming the rights of legitimate plaintiffs.
-A “health care for hybrids” bill
-An Energy Security Bill
-Various bills on relief for Hurricane Katrina, including aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contracts by FEMA
-A public database of all federal spending and contracts
-Trying to raise CAFE standards
-Veterans’ health care
-Making certain kinds of voter intimidation illegal
-A lobbying reform bill (with Tom Coburn), which would do all sorts of good things, notably including one of my perennial favorites, requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them.
-A proposal to revamp ethics oversight, replacing the present ethics Committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations.
-Introducing legislation to make it illegal for tax preparers to sell personal information.
-Legislation on chemical plant security.
-Legislation on lead paint.
Progressive? Sure. But it’s the type of pragmatic progressivism that I can support. What it definitely isn’t is knee-jerk socialist. Or the type of issues “rock stars” tend to gravitate towards (Regulating Genetic Testing? I can feel the political reporters get sweaty from here). Obama’s a liberal–no question about it. But let’s skip the political hit jobs (“whacko extremist-left, borderline socialist….bright-eyed puppy dog from Illinois with the eagerly-wagging tail….more concerned with being a rock star than being my Senator in recent times; upon further consideration, he’s a skilled lip-syncher, not even a real virtuoso,” come on Andrew, this isn’t O’Reilly) about how he’s Sweden-lite until after he starts quoting channeling Marx on the stump.
In reality, it seems that Republicans are falling back on the old standby (He’s a Liberal! Liiiibbberrrallll!) because they’ve yet to find a negative frame they can typecast him in. People aren’t buying that he is the second coming of Lenin, because supporting Stem Cell Research (gasp!) and opposing the war in Iraq (him and a solid majority of the country) don’t put people in vapors. That’s why Mychel Massie (who’s stunned that WorldNetDaily doesn’t like Obama?) resorts to cheap shot tactics like the “Barack Hussein Obama” bit. It’s desparation, and to be blunt, nothing makes me think Obama would be a stellar president more than the fact that he’s got the WND crowd both pissed and spooked (pissed means he’s probably right, and spooked means he’s probably electable).
Meanwhile, contra the “rock star” claims, one of the lines on Obama in the Senate is that–as a legislator–he’s been the exact opposite of a “rock star,” working diligently on important but low-profile issues that haven’t got the attention they deserve. Check the list above–it’s not universal healthcare or gay rights or the Iraq war that’s capturing his policy agenda. Indeed, that’s what several liberal bloggers have rapped Obama about, as it happens–they say that he hasn’t really put his credibility on the line by going to bat for any controversial, hard-left agenda items. That might make them sad, but personally I like that Obama the legislator cares more about doing good (the “Healthcare for Hybrids” policy is particularly brilliant) than he does about throwing red meat to the base. This isn’t to say that Obama does not support some classic liberal positions (like gay marriage), but if Obama can lend his sizable political skills to getting a majority on that issue, I call that a feature, not a bug.
In a similar vein, I think that this anti-ideological, problem-solving, uniter persona doesn’t get the credit it deserves as a substantive matter. It shouldn’t just hold rhetorical pull–we should like it because it will likely lead to a solid President. As one of the Balloon Juice bloggers notes:
Another promising quality is that he seems comfortable defusing adversarial situations in a way that both parties benefit, which is as accurate a description as any of what a good president does. A great president, of course, builds an unstoppable mandate and shapes the country in his image. But that is also what a catastrophically terrible president does. We have had enough of those lately, so for now I’ll settle for good.
Finally, the experience question. By 2008, Senator Obama will have been in elected office for 11 years–four as Senator and 7 as State Senator. That’s not a huge amount–but it is more than John Edwards (6 years), Hillary Clinton (8 years), or George W. Bush (6 years) had/will have when they ran/run for President. His out-of-ffice credentials are similarly impressive–first Black President of the Harvard Law Review, community organizer in Chicago’s South Side, constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago. This just ties back into my preference for brilliant people running the country. With the threats we face, “it’s not enough for a would-be President to be someone we’d like to have a beer with.”
Does this establish Obama as the definite choice for the top spot? Of course not. Plenty of contenders have similar or greater experience (Brownback, Dodd, McCain, Gore). Plenty have demonstrated serious, respectable, policy agendas (Gore, Clark, Hagel). And if you really think, like Mr. Massie does, that what American voters want is someone who stop listening to those wuss Europeans and act like the unilateral hegemonic power we have the God-given right to be, then Obama probably isn’t your candidate. Obama does not deserve to be coronated. We should interrogate his positions with scrutiny and vigilance. But if we’re not to be partisan hacks, that requires honesty, candor, fairness, and a committment to step beyond the classic talking points and partisan agendas.