« What Present Republicans Can Learn From Ronald Reagan
Will Dick Cheney Be The Stumbling Block After The Elections? »
Guest Voice: The Case For Barack Obama In 2008
The Moderate Voice occassionally runs Guest Voice posts from readers. This is by Kevin Anderson, a 23 year old college student in Ohio.
By Kevin Anderson
Barack Obama.
Just uttering those two words, especially in Democratic Party circles, can get many hearts fluttering. And why not?
His speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was the stuff of rhetorical greatness. His general avoidance of Rovian-style partisanship has endeared him to many non-ideological Americans. Of course, he also has a truckload of charisma, no small matter in modern American politics.
Combine these positives with a compelling life story and a genuinely liberal worldview (and brief voting record), and, well, you’ll have to forgive those crazy Democrats who want him to run for the White House in 2008. Given the recent litany of lackluster Dem. nominees (other than one William Jefferson Clinton), many in the party would like to nominate fresh blood that could, you know, actually win.
One supposes that compared to John Kerry and, going back a bit, Michael Dukakis, literally anyone with a pulse would make for a far better choice. Obama, on the other hand, might, right now, be the most popular Democrat in America (She may soon become Madame Speaker, but Rep. Nancy Pelosi will never be terribly popular.). For a party that has seen the White House for only 12 of the past 37 years, there is quite a temptation to nominate Sen. Obama now.
The realities of modern American politics, of course, have a way of destroying such fanciful notions. Let’s begin with the obvious problem: experience. By November 2008, he will have been in the U.S. Senate for a mere four years. Considering the fact that he was previously a state senator in Illinois, the electorate would wonder if he should be vaulted to the Presidency. After all, the war on terror will continue, there will likely be massive repercussions from whatever becomes of Iraq, and, oh yes, Iran and North Korea will have to be dealt with.
Do we really want to vault a first-term senator to such a perilous position?
Oh sure, you could, I suppose, correctly point out that the “experienced� men and women have done a spectacular job of screwing things up (esp. the last six yrs.). You could point out that too much time in Washington just ruins a person. All of this is true, but Karl Rove will likely inform us that if we elect Sen. Obama, the terrorists will win! Hmm, who to believe?
Then, there is the issue of accomplishments.
As prominent liberal blogger Ezra Klein wrote in an October 8 op-ed in The Los Angeles Times, Obama “has refused to expend his political or personal capital on a single controversial issue.� This is a good point, as is Klein’s correct assertion that Obama has not had a difficult race to deal with. Of course, had he taken Klein’s advice, he would have been painted as an arrogant, over-ambitious politician. Freshmen senators are not supposed to make waves. But hey, I’m sure Americans are just waiting to elect an arrogant, over-ambitious politician! I mean, just look at how enthusiastic we all were for Sen. Kerry! Oh, wait a minute…
In all seriousness, these issues are concerns. I’ll leave it up to readers to decide for themselves if these concerns are weighty enough to stop a presidential run, but these drawbacks just do not strike me as that dire. Of bigger concern might be his ideology. Obama is indeed a liberal. Yes, I said it. Liberal has become, unfortunately, something of a dirty word in this country, which could hurt Obama. Still, his appeal to non-partisanship, while angering some Democrats who want confrontation, resonates in a country seemingly run by childish leaders.
So, where does that leave us, other than about 15 months before the first primary? Well, yes, there are concerns. Recent precedent would suggest he may not be ready for this. Then there are still, sadly, some racial concerns. Is America truly ready for an African-American President? I think it is, but, either way, isn’t it time we found out? This country is at a crossroads. The partisan division helps no one and only serves to make us all more cynical.
No, Barack Obama will not magically solve everything. No politician can do that. But I’m tired of choosing between conventional candidates who offer very little. I’m ready to give Sen. Obama a shot. If that makes me a “crazy Democrat,� well that’s fine. It has to be better than being a diehard Republican right now anyway.
FOOTNOTE: Kevin Anderson’s Guest Voice post is VERY TIMELY.
15 Responses to “Guest Voice: The Case For Barack Obama In 2008”
Obama is bright, attractive and highly capable. He probably exudes more charisma than the rest of Senate Democrats combined. Obama might just make a successful presidential candidate, maybe even a good president. At this point there’s no telling.
Is he a liberal? Strikes me as more of a moderate Democrat than full bore liberal, but who knows?
Democrats eager to generate excitement, especially among young voters, and regain the White House might find Obama irresitible.
It seems to me Obama now and for the next few years lacks sufficient experience to be a great president. He also probably lacks sufficient ties to create a great administration. Democrats will make a terrible mistake, one sure to dog them for a long, long time if they set America up for yet another failed presidency or even just a lackluster one.
Maybe a better and more-workable scenario would be for the next president (hoping and assuming it’s a Democrat) names Obama attorney general late in the president’s first term or at the beginning of a second term. Then, Obama would gain important executive experience, on top of having had more of a chance to earn his stripes as a senator.
Then, long about 2015, watch out.
He did not come off as a liberal to me either, he made the statement that we had to stop talking like the radical 60’s. His proposal for ending the use of paper forms for Medicare showed insight as to the problems with some of the governmental agencies as far as efficiency. If these agencies become more efficient then that would logically mean the loss of some jobs, that did not strike me as a position a liberal would take.
I agree that it is too early, but watch out for the future, he is great candidate.
But I think Obama has just the right personality and rhetorical skill to undo that long-standing perception, initiated by Reagan and magnified tremendously by the right-wing noise machine. He’s the sort that will be able to say, “Yes, I’m a liberal, and proudly so, and it’s time to stop pretending it’s a dirty word.” He can do this not only because of his personality, but precisely because his political positions *are* mainstream. He can eliminate the straw-man caricature of “liberal” as a pinko-commie-gay-agenda-tree-hugging-
granola-eating-Hollywood-San-Francisco (did I forget anything?) wacko, and get people talking about a legitimate, reasonable version of liberalism.
There is an excellent list of the legislation that he has done during his two years. Not show stuff. More policy and nuts and bolts stuff to help people. Alot of his bills were never premitted to be introduced by the gop leaders. They only way he could do anything was to have it co sponsored with a republican. this is a major problem for all democrats. They were not allow to present any legislation by the republican.
That said, I liked his keynote speech but, was much more impressed with his speech at the Harkin Steak Fry. It really catches a person up. And afterwards when he was greeting people the looks on thier faces were amazing and haunting. Hungry.
I voted for him for Senator. He is an extreemly intellegent person and frankly, I think he can handle himself just fine.
I think he should run and I would vote for him. I really think if given the chance, he could do alot of good for the country.
It would be great to find the perfect Presidential candidate, but I don’t think anyone believes such a person will emerge, and while it would be nice if Obama was more experienced I don’t think it’s a bigger disadvantage to him than some of the shortcomings of other candidates. The guy has shown he knows how to work with politicians on both sides, he inspires people, and he seems to have the intangibles needed to lead. In addition, he can (and I suspect would) overcome his own lack of experience by appointing experienced people to key roles in his cabinet.
Most people don’t know enough about Obama yet, but from what people do know there’s a lot of optimism that he could potentially be the type of person that election after election we WISH was in the running.
Isn’t there an equally compelling case to be made for someone like Russ Feingold? This buzz about Obama sounds like a “flavor of the month” thing to me. I do think there are enough in the public who are wondering if this buzz about Obama is about a political contest or a popularity contetst.
I don’t believe I’m the only one thinking: he’s a nice guy…BUT…
Speculation about him in 08 doesn’t elevate politics; it lowers it.
Once again, I’ll just say this. He would be a great candidate. If he were nominated, it’s very possible I would vote for him, although I’d have to know who he’s running against and get all those pesky little issues taken care of before committing to a vote.
However, for as good of a candidate he could be in 2008, I think he would be a much better candidate and President in 2012 or 2016. Why push him into this before he’s fully ready? Charles Jordan mentioned Feingold. He is actually much like Obama, much less “liberal” than the Rove wing would have you think, and more experienced. There are other candidates out there who could make very good candidates and have the experience to step right in. Warner comes to mind as one option but there are others.
Personally, I hope Obama does run for the Presidency but I hope he waits until 2012 or 2016. If a Democrat other than Obama did win in 2008, they could let him serve out his first term as Senator, then bring him into the cabinet in the 2010/2011 timeframe and groom him as an heir apparent, setting him up for a successful 2016 campaign.
Barack Obama is a bright guy with a bright future. But nominating him for president in 2008 would be a dangerous roll of the dice for the Democrats.
I’ve written several times in recent weeks about Obama and 2008.
Mark Daniels
http://markdaniels.blogspot.com
Of course, had he taken Klein’s advice, he would have been painted as an arrogant, over-ambitious politician.
Wait, you think a sitting Senator would be attacked as being overambitious when taking a stand on important issues, but don’t think a freshman Senator with 2 years experience will be considered arrogant and overambitious when he declares his candidacy for U.S. President?
That’s a ridiculous argument.
Ezra Klein asks Obama to take a stand and demonstrate that he’s a leader, not someone who hides in the shadows lest he be criticized by the opposition. Every Democratic candidate will be criticized by the Republicans, Obama had better get used to defending himself now. Until he does, he’s at the bottom of my list.
And did you really cite a quote from Robert Novak to prove Obama’s the real deal? Novak wants the Democrats to nominate losers. He never praises strong Democrats and certainly not liberals.
“Liberal” has come to mean the belief that it’s primarily up to the government to solve society’s problems. Obama is not a liberal in this sense of the word. I heard him on Tavis Smiley’s show and he said that with the amount of money we’re paying on health care, every American should be getting it (which is a no brainer) BUT then he went on to say he didn’t care how that got implemented. If he could be convinced it could be done entirely free market — although he was dubious, but he was open to it — then he’d be perfectly happy with that. He also said that a lot of racism against blacks was due to the poor state of the inner cities and black culture and that leaders should focus on that first instead of treating all blacks like victims (with the implication that it was up to society as a whole to help improve the situation instead of complaining how since they aren’t being responsible we don’t have to do anything).
I’m young but to me he sounds like RFK where he is definitely progressive but knows that the real solutions lie in enabling people to succeed through their own hard work while helping those that need a hand. For example, read why he oppossed CAFTA. In my experience this is the real key. There is a huge sense of malaise and despair amongst both the middle class and the poor; I think this is primarily because it’s getting harder and harder to get just the “basics.” However, I don’t think it’s a huge gulf that needs to be conquered. A little reworking of health insurance and educational opportunities would do wonders, but the biggest thing is to help people realize how easy it is to save for your own future and help them start doing this. (And actually guide instead of just setting up a myriad of programs that no one uses except those that already know the system.)
Obama said in Meet the Press that he thought great Presidents helped change the culture and I agree. I have no idea how the Presidency turned into the policy producing branch, in my mind it should focus on steering the country in broad cultural strokes and merely provide a check to make sure the implementation is realistic. I am glad that Obama doesn’t have a 100 point plan on every policy detail and I hope he keeps the same spirit if he’s going to run. I’d call him a progressive that’s agnostic about how his ideals are achieved rather than a liberal.
Nick wrote about Obama:
No matter how good Obama might be as a candidate and maybe even as a president, I doubt he could or would do that. First, I don’t think Obama is ready to take up the fight in a way that says, “Your darned right I’m liberal; here’s why I am and why you should be too!”
Secondly, the term “liberal” has been so twisted and abused by so many right wingers for so long that for many millions it’s come to mean, literally: “anything or anybody I dislike, fear, resent, envy or don’t understand.” It will probably take a couple of generations of really excellent liberal leaders — people willing to call themselves liberals — to wring those notions out of the public consciousness.
Mikkel, I think the term you’re trying to come up with is “pragmatist.”
Pragmatists are seen as not necessarily having an ideological foundation — something Obama definitely does. For example I think he would demand “universal healthcare” even at the expense of economic growth. He just happens to believe, as do I, that if properly implemented it would actually benefit the economy. He believes in liberal values, just is open to the implementation.
Mikkel, you sort of disagree, then go on to make my case. It appears to me you and Obama are both pragmatists.
Well, I’m the author of the piece (Joe can confirm), and while it may be too late for anyone to read, I’d like to make a few points.
One, for the record, the Novak article was a footnote added by Joe to show relevance.
Second, mikef, yes I understand that, but its a catch 22 b/c, unlike RFK, he had not previously served in a prominent NATIONAL office. As such, he has little room to just instantly insert himself into every issue. Furthermore, we’ll see what he does in the 110th Congress.
Finally, Mikkel and S.W. Anderson (great last name!), Obama seems to be a solutions-oriented person, not an ideological child, dogmatically tied to awful policy. Mikef, its not that I don’t get your point (and that of Klein’s), but it seems to be premised on the meed for “ideological strength.”
We’ve had strong ideologues for the last six years. How’s that worked out?