In unusually high demand

July 26, 2005

The AP had an interesting feature the other day about Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) status as both a six-month veteran of the Senate and a rare rock star in American politics. One issue, the inevitable issue, was the lede.

The line forms the moment Sen. Barack Obama is done speaking, a procession of admirers clutching copies of his book, magazines, scraps of paper, disposable cameras and one homemade American flag. It doesn’t take long before someone pops the question.

An elderly woman, dressed in bubble-gum pink, looks up with wide eyes. The lanky senator leans in to hear her amid the din in the stuffy library meeting room.

“In 2008 or some other time,” she says, “will we get a chance to work for you for president?”

Obama grins, but demurs. He is not running for president. Not in 2008, at least.

I’m curious; when was the last time a political figure, who has expressed no presidential ambitions at all, was so frequently asked to run for president? I saw Obama a month or two ago on Oprah when the subject came up. She asked if he’d ever run — and the crowd burst into enthusiastic applause at the very suggestion. (He said his sole interest, right now, is serving in the Senate.)

This just isn’t normal. Political figures with presidential ambitions usually go to great lengths to try to get people even thinking about their possible campaigns. Obama, meanwhile, with hardly any political experience at all, has been people asking — sometimes, begging — him to run.

To his credit, Obama seems to sidestep the questions and focus on his current job.

In the Senate, the seniority system is still a reality and powerful committee chairmen and party leaders jealously guard the perks and prerogatives that come only with time. Obama knows he has to wait.

So he’s taken on the age-old role prescribed for Senate freshmen: He’s the diligent, shirt-sleeves-rolled-up, state-oriented lawmaker, devoted to the unglamorous issues that often matter most to folks back home.

He has pushed to spend money to modernize locks and dams along the Mississippi and Illinois rivers, squeeze out more dollars for Illinois highways and create tax credits for ethanol fueling stations a plan dear to the hearts of corn and soybean growers.

He also has focused on reported inequities in disability compensation for veterans in Illinois. And with South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, he successfully proposed providing free meals for soldiers and Marines in military hospitals for extended stays while recovering from injuries received in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still, Obama has ventured out a bit as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he recently visited the United Nations to press for an end to the slaughter in the Darfur region of Sudan. And he will travel to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan next month.

Obama, in other words, is doing what he’s supposed to be doing. But that doesn’t seem to interfere with the constant questions about his presidential plans.

Just to be clear, I consider myself an admirer of Obama’s. I thought his convention address was among the best speeches I’ve heard, his campaign was brilliant, his policy positions largely in tune with my own, and his recent speech at Knox College should be used as a blueprint for the party. I have high hopes for this man’s almost limitless future.

I’m just not quite sure what to make of the pressure the political world is putting on this guy, not only to be senator, to prepare himself for a presidential campaign. At a minimum, I think people should stop asking him about it.

Yes, people should probably give the guy a break in terms of expectations but I’d still vote for him in a second if he was on the presidential primary ballot.

I guess that proves the point about high demand doesn’t it.

  • I’m from Illinois (though I’ve spent the past 9 years in MN), so I’m especially proud of Obama. My sisters worked on his state senate campaign as well as last year’s, and they say he’s the real deal.

    His convention speech was the highlight of the week, and you’re right, CB, the Knox College speech was brilliant. The party would do well to embrace his message. Like Gary, I’d vote for the guy in a heartbeat. He embodies everything I’m looking for in a candidate. I hope I have the privilege of helping to send him to the White House some day.

  • “I’m curious; when was the last time a political figure, who has expressed no presidential ambitions at all, was so frequently asked to run for president?”

    I recall Clark for the ’04 election, Powell in the ’96 election, and Cuomo in, uh, ’88?

  • I am also from Illinois, and I think Senator Obama is a very charismatic and worthy politician. It will take more than that, though, to persuade me to support him in a Presidential race.

    If he is truly committed to doing his job as a Senator, than why didn’t he, or any other Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee for that matter, about her appointment and involvment in covering-up the outing of Valerie Plame.

    It can be considered nothing short of a missed opportunity. To be a rockstar, you have to preform.

  • Eeek. That didn’t work out quite so well.

    That should read:

    If he is truly committed to doing his job as a Senator, than why didn’t he, or any other Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee for that matter, show up to grill Karen Huges about her appointment and involvment in covering-up the outing of Valerie Plame.

    And should link to:

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4775.html

  • If Obama is going to go right on being a person that common citizens feel they can trust and that they can turn their back on without being taken advantage of, then he won’t get much of a break. People are craving some honesty and real answers. They know they are being lied to and taken for a ride but don’t have any idea how to stop the train.

    Obama is doing his job with intelligence, diligence and without a lot of B.S. It’s sad that such an approach comes across as so unusual right now that people are begging this one man to be their leader.

  • I still think a Clark/Obama ticket in ’08 would be a real deal maker. John Edwards only did one term in the Senate before he became Kerry’s running mate, so why can’t Obama do the same?

    Of course, he may genuinely not want to yet, which only makes me like him more. Integrity and devotion to duty over mere personal ambition…..how refreshing it is!

  • Doubtful-

    Often what politicians spend their time learning is how to work over a broken system. Why would he wade into a situation like that, with little experience, when the jury is still out? I just don’t think he wants to get caught up in any partisan battles during what is a vitriolic and chaotic period. Bush is out in ’08 and, with the way things are going, so are a lot of the neo-cons.

    Aren’t you asking him to live up to a standard he doesn’t yet need to meet? He isn’t the party leadership; grilling witnesses is their job, and more importantly, their missed opportunity.

  • Karen Hughes is an appointee to the position of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, which requires Senate confirmation first by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then the whole senate.

    As a member of that committee, it is Obama’s job to ask her questions, and determine if she should serve in the position. Only two Republicans and no Democrats showed up because it was Friday afternoon.

    Biden, Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Nelson, and Obama all serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and were not in attendance of the hearings on Friday, July 22.

    I have no tolerance for public officials who start the weekend early. They are elected to do a job and get compensated well for it. We should all expect them to do that job.

  • We have a possible woman contender – Hillary Clinton – and an African American Barack Obama – being mentioned for the 2008 presidential election. I think that this speaks well of the Democratic party that we would run candidates based on their qualifications and not let gender or race be an issue. Of course then there is the party of white Christian guys -you know those sexist racist bigots called Republicans. I think that Howard Dean was on to something.

  • Just to be clear, I consider myself an admirer of Obama’s. I thought his convention address was among the best speeches I’ve heard, his campaign was brilliant, his policy positions largely in tune with my own, and his recent speech at Knox College should be used as a blueprint for the party. I have high hopes for this man’s almost limitless future.

    I, too, have high hopes and loved the two speeches you reference above. Having said that, the road to the presidency is through the VP or a state Governor slot.

    Thus: Clark/Obama ’08 (or Warner/Obama ’08, I like both tickets, but think the former is stronger given the current level of fear in the country)

    or

    Obama, Governor of Illinois ’06 (or whenever)

  • Admittedly, I’m not a political aficionado as most of
    you are, but on the other hand, that might just be
    the point. I don’t understand where the excitement
    is coming from. And I think a presidential bid in
    2008 is out of the question for Obama. He has no
    record.

    It’s too soon to decide upon a candidate to run
    against an unknown in the Republican Party.
    It’s too soon to write off the neocons – Iraq is
    still the joker in the deck. Should the insurgency
    subside dramatically in the next 12-18 months,
    Bush will be an American hero again. If the
    economy surges ahead finally, with jobs, supply
    side economics will be America’s darling. If
    the Rove scandal doesn’t go very far, there’s
    simply no surface for progressives to claw
    their way back into the action.

    From the little I know, I think this man has a lot of
    promise. I say, let’s let him demonstrate it
    with deeds and action and performance, before
    putting him on a dream ticket.

    I also don’t see a liberal on the Democratic
    ticket in 2008. Not at this time. That’s why
    the current leaders are running to the right.
    Bush has to fall hard for liberalism to rise
    again in time for 2008.

  • Hark,

    I also don’t see a liberal on the Democratic
    ticket in 2008. Not at this time. That’s why
    the current leaders are running to the right.
    Bush has to fall hard for liberalism to rise
    again in time for 2008.

    you may “not be a political afficianado”, but you nailed this. Much to the chagrin of our more liberal brethren (myself included). We have to nail the national security side. And a vietnam war vet clearly isn’t enough. Hence, my support for General Wes Clark.

  • Senator Obama is a hopeful figure for the left. He is an appealing person, and his address to the Democratic National Convention was a marvelous mixture of progressive inspiration and aspiration. It was moving and spoke to what unifies us as Americans- particularly when juxtaposed with the spit and vitriol of the Republicans’ key note, Zell Miller. Through that speech, I believe Obama floated a promise of unity and respect for values that are both progressive and “American.” Many claim to cherish these values and to value unity, but so few who are elected to office seem able neither to practice nor deliver these things. I think it is the promise inherent in Senator Obama’s speech (and perhaps others he has made but that I did not witness) that gives people the hope (based upon a need) that a gifted leader can emerge from their ranks. It is that promise that causes them to ask Obama if he will run for president. It is that promise that causes me to want to watch the Senator, to see if he is, in fact, for real and not simply a mirage.

  • Edo, do you really believe that Rovian tactics won’t be used against Clark just as much as they were used against Kerry? Remember Max Cleland too. No level of credentials will protect you from them. They can smear a general as easily as any other veteran — perhaps more easily. It’s about how you respond, not your résumé.

  • KCinDC,

    Edo, do you really believe that Rovian tactics won’t be used against Clark just as much as they were used against Kerry?

    Absolutely not. That’s the only thing the GOP knows how to use. I fully expect it, as does General Clark.

    No level of credentials will protect you from them. They can smear a general as easily as any other veteran — perhaps more easily

    Here’s where we disagree. The smears against Cleland and Kerry were effective because they were Vietnam War veterans, not career officers. They also had long legislative careers that could be twisted to suit Rove’s purposes. Not so with Clark.

    It’s about how you respond, not your résumé.

    And now we’re back to agreeing. The response is critical. However, as supreme NATO commander, General Clark can look any other GOP candidate in the eye (and all the viewers on TV) and unequivocably refute the notion that he is incapable of defending our national security or understanding our unique position vis-a-vis foreign relations. This was simply not the case for Lt. Kerry or Lt. Cleland. Yes, they served admirably, but they were not at the Genearl Staff level. That is a big difference.

    • Comments are closed.