Obama formally kicks off presidential campaign

About a month ago, we talked about Barack Obama creating a presidential exploratory committee, and today, Obama made it official, giving a strong speech in front of what appeared to be thousands of very cold supporters in Springfield, Ill.

The Obama campaign’s website has the video, but it seems to be facing quite a bit of server strain right now. An NBC affiliate in Chicago has a similar clip posted, if you’re interested.

Obama’s campaign has, for quite a while, suggested that he’s not only bringing about political change, but more importantly, generational change. The point couldn’t have been more clear this morning — Obama used the word “generation,” by my count, 12 times in his announcement speech.

“Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what’s needed to be done. Today we are called once more – and it is time for our generation to answer that call….

“Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age…. And as our economy changes, let’s be the generation that ensures our nation’s workers are sharing in our prosperity…. Let’s be the generation that ends poverty in America…. Let’s be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis…. Let’s be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil…. Let’s be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here. Most of all, let’s be the generation that never forgets what happened on that September day and confront the terrorists with everything we’ve got.”

Obama didn’t come right out and say he’s picking up JFK’s metaphorical torch from the baby-boomers, but he came close.

It also gave a big hint about how Obama will draw a distinction between himself and Hillary Clinton.

This was the part of the speech that’s likely to generate the most attention:

“I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness – a certain audacity – to this announcement. I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.

“The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we’ve changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King’s call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

My take on this is similar to what Greg Sargent wrote this morning:

Obama’s deliberately Kennedyesque references to generational transformation accomplish more than they appear to. They allow him to subtly raise doubts about Hillary and his other opponents — he’s reminding his audience that their generation of leadership has had its chance — while maintaining a lofty tone. This is an important goal, given his criticism of “petty politics” and his promise to be a uniter and a healer. The message is, They had their chance and failed; we deserve our chance and will succeed — delivered without mentioning the “they.”

All in all, aside from the weather, Obama couldn’t have asked for a better kick-off. Moreover, everything I said a month ago still holds true. Obama enters the race in the top tier, which now appears to be a triumvirate of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Obama. Anyone who doubts whether the rookie senator can make a serious run for the nomination is underestimating a rare political talent who inspires supporters, can raise money with ease, can compete anywhere in the country, has a top-notch staff, picked up quite a few chits campaigning for other Dems throughout ’06, and enjoys rock-star appeal everywhere he goes.

And one last word about experience. Clearly, in his third year in the U.S. Senate, Obama enters the presidential race with the least federal experience among the leading Democrats. But I have a hunch this isn’t going to hold up as a credible knock on Obama’s candidacy, and here’s why:

Years in elected office:

* Obama: 10 years (7 state Senate, 3 U.S. Senate)
* Clinton: 8 7 years (8 7 U.S. Senate)
* Edwards: 6 years (6 U.S. Senate)
* Giuliani: 8 years (two, four-year mayoral terms)
* Romney: 4 years (one four-year gubernatorial term)
* McCain: 25 years (4 U.S. House, 21 U.S. Senate)

In this respect, Obama’s background doesn’t look that thin, does it?

Good point about the years in elected office. But if you’re crediting Hillary with 8 years in the Senate (through ’08), you should give Obama 4.

  • Given that Obama hasn’t declared that the bigotry of his childhood will determine his policy decisions – as Edwards has with his statement about gay marriage – and we have already seen with the “madrassa” business that he won’t go “squish” like Edwards did on the blogger controversy, I’d say he’s well on his way.

    Overall, I’d say there are two candidates who are top-tier, who have both shown they can stand up to the right and won’t go squish. Hillary and Obama.

    Edwards’ balloon has a pair of self-inflicted slow leaks in it. Which is just fine with me because I am sick and tired of Southern fuckwits for Democratic presidential candidates.

  • This generational pitch was predictable and it will be effective motivating a traditionally under-represented demographic. But this pitch cuts both ways and tells me that he is running for Vice President.

    The “Greatest Generation” had a – um- “Great” presidential run: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41). Even Nixon, the one unambiguous black spot in the “Greatest” presidential record can claim the opening of China as a moment of truly historical import. What do we boomers have? Bill Clinton and George W Bush. Give me a break. The first impeached president since Andrew Johnson, and arguably the “worst president in history”. That’s it? That is supposed to represent the boomer generation? After these two clowns we are going to skip the Boomers and move on to Generation X? I don’t think so. Let us not forget the impact of the Baby Boom generation: “Baby boomers presently make up the lion’s share of the political, cultural, industrial and academic leadership class in the United States… To date, baby boomers also have the highest median household incomes in the United States.” Some have claimed that the Boomer generation tends to be narcissistic. I prefer to think of us simply as “The Only Generation that Matters.” The fact is, it is only half-time in our generational political football game, and boomers are just not going to be satisified with “two and out” in the Oval Office. Won’t happen.

    Full Disclosure: I am a Boomer. We are not done with the the White House yet.

  • Among the Democrats you mention, the birth years are
    1947 Clinton
    1953 Edwards
    1961 Obama

    All three fit within the Demographers’ “baby boom” (1939-1961, see note), but Edward and Obama clearly share the maximum “surge” part of that boom and, especially given their backgrounds, probably identify more with it.

    demographic note: The press seems fond of proclaiming 1946-1964 as “the baby boom”. In fact, yearly births began rebounding from the Depression lows in 1939 as factories opened up in preparation for WWII. As the graph shows, they continued to climb (with the exception of 1944/5 due to overseas deployment) until the late ’50s, after which they began their dramatic downtown (“baby bust”) with the introduction of the pill in 1960.

    Following historic trends over 200 years, Demographers expected a slight increase when the troops returned and then a continued decline. They did not anticipate the continued additional growth long after WWII when extraordinary prosperity and suburbanization made “conspicuous fertility” possible among the middle class. The press referred to the “post war baby boom” (hence their beginning in ’46) and dyslexically figured the reversal must have come in ’64. Data show otherwise, but that has never stopped the press.

  • I agree wholeheartedly with #3 Tom Cleaver. I cannot stand John Edwards– he stands for nothing but his own political advancement, and it makes me ill to see so many people easily duped by his charm-’em-smarm-’em routine. Anyone who gets steamrolled by Dick Cheney in a debate is not the person who can step up and restore America’s credibility around the world. Edwards completely falls apart whenever he is off-script; he is the human equivalent of a Potamkin village. He was a disaster on Meet the Press, and his comment about gay marriage was as offensive as it was nonsensical. So, yes, I am very happy to see Obama on the rise while Edwards slowly deflates.

  • From Wikipedia:

    William Strauss and Neil Howe, in their book Generations, include those conceived by soldiers on leave during the war, putting the generation’s birth years at 1943 to 1960. Howe and Strauss argue that people born between 1961 and 1964 have political and cultural patterns very different from those born between 1955 and 1960 and fit into what those writers term the Thirteenth Generation or Generation X (also known as the Cold War generation) born between 1961 and 1981. The definition of boomers as born from 1943-1960 has become more accepted as the influence of Strauss and Howe has grown.

  • I really liked he symbolism of Obama declaring his candidacy in Springfield. Springfield is the “home of Lincoln” and what better way to take a gentle shot at the opposing party than by saying you’re running for president on their hallowed ground. Further, for a man with black ancestry to say he’s running for president in the hometown of the man who signed the Emancipation Proclamation is just beautiful. MLK must be proud.

  • Good post mw as it highlights your generational masturbatory enamorance with yourselves. You guys after all did coin the phrase “If It Feels Good Do it..”

    Just curious When and if you plan on reliquishing your entitlement as “the only generation that matters”™ do you expect any other generation to care about you as much as you care about only yourselves?

    In short: keep it up and we’ll see who supports you when you are unable to support yourself…but you and your self interests are all you care about anyway right?

  • #6 Indigent A-hole, it is true that Richardson has the most experience of any of the current candidates. And I think he’d be a terrific president . . . the only trouble is, the womanizer meme has already dragged him down. It is what has prevented him from becoming one of the hallowed “top-tier” candidates. Now, I personally don’t care whether or not it’s true– that’s an issue between Richardson and his wife, having nothing to do with his proven diplomacy and negotiation skills– but the sad fact is, the puritannical American public won’t abide another Bill Clinton (remember, they only love him in hindsight!) So, I’m all in favor of Richardson being SecState, but I somehow don’t think he’ll nab the nomination for President.

  • if you’re talking southern fuckwits, tom cleaver, hillary fits that mold as well. and i heartily agree. i’m sick of ’em too. it’s time for someone from the north to straighten this county out.

  • Thanks, Alex.
    I’ve got a few more links here for you, so you can continue your studies of my generation. Great reading, I never get tired of it.

    Census Bureau facts on Boomers
    A community you may enjoy (although they may not let you join)
    Some Demographic research (a little pricey, but well worth your investment).

    Or take your pick.

    Glad to help. BTW – Nice move on grabbing the TM. My people will be contacting your people.

    Barack will be a great Vice President.

  • Thanks Alex. And that’s coming from a 51 year old. The “only generation that matters”? Gag me with a f’ing joint. If we don’t start getting our act together in a way that crosses lines of age, income and ethnicity we’re screwed whatever generation we might represent.

    Nobody’s been showing me any particular deference out on the street lately because I’m obviously from the ONLY GENERATION THAT MATTERS! That and a quarter + tax will get me a paper at 7-11. Shruby’s demonstrated plenty of generational entitlement. I’ve had enough.

    I’m into ideas and rational projections into the future, not wallowing in some cosmically ordained privilege to run the show into the ground until the last boomer dies. Obama can have the G.D. torch. I’ll light my reefer from it and take a big hit and stand back and admire his youthful vim and vigor.

  • Full Disclosure: I am a Boomer. We are not done with the the White House yet.

    Comment by mw

    Sounds more like a threat than a promise.

  • I had a post very similar to “burro’s” – that I did not copy and got eaten during a reload. The only difference is that I am 60 and I would add the “north” and “south” to the divisiveness issues.

    By the way, my candidate is Al Gore and I would like to see Obama as the VP – but I would definitely take him over Hillary.

  • Quite honestly I think that Obama is the Dems only hope. I am sorry, but Hillary is unelectable. Corporate kiss-ass. When she speaks publicly, she talks down us, like we are children. I would rather Boxer or Pelosi run as our first female Prez, but Hillary reeks of Washington smarm and slime. She is way too “inside track” to middle America.

    Hey Dems! Why not get behind 1 person, pool your talent and personel, pick your cabinet AHEAD of time, so the country can see whose on the team . We are not so naive to think that only 1 person runs everthing, I want to know who a candidate has planned to run which agency and dept. Pick yer best team, an all-star approach as opposed to in-fighting, rhetorical backstabbing,and boring the electorate away from your party.
    Don’t make me vote for Ralph again…..

  • Hey Dems! Why not get behind 1 person, pool your talent and personel, pick your cabinet AHEAD of time

    If Bush had done that in 2000 he wouldn’t have stocked his cabinet with and we wouldn’t have been saddled with electoral losers like Ashcroft and Abraham, among others. So maybe you need to give your advice to the GOP

    Speaking of losers, I don’t think dems need to take advice from one

  • My $.02:

    I knew Barry Obama in college and am a strong supporter. While he and I were both techically born during the baby boom, (’61 and ’62) culturally there is a crucial difference between those of us born in the early 60’s and those before, namely that our teachers and the role models we had (which included rock stars, journalists, film makers) were hugely affected by the “sixties”. By the time I was 15 these elders were lecturing me daily in one form or another on how much better their generation was then mine because they were more political, less materialistic, and had brought women’s and gay rights to the fore. I don’t for a minute deny the importance of this work, but boomers’ Reagan-era embrace of materialism and (on the whole) passive acceptance of the right-wing’s reasserting itself back into politics negated a whole lot of that.

    I believe the change in political fortunes of the Democratic party is driven by energy from the younger half of the electorate. And as noted above, if Clinton and Bush II are the best they can do, let’s skip ahead.

  • Americans are so shallow that we apparently care much more about who’s “hot” than who’s qualified. But all that means is that none of the so-called top contenders is qualified, not that Edwards therefore IS qualified.

    I notice that the Democrats you mention have only legislative experience —none have the executive experience which one might think was essential in an office that is a part of the Executive Branch and which bestows the title, Commander in Chief.

    During thirty-four years of service in the United States Army Wesley K. Clark rose to the rank of four-star general as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.

    General Clark was the Commander-in-Chief, US Southern Command, where he was responsible for all US military activities in Latin America and the Caribbean. And from April 1994 through June 1996, he was the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy, J-5, in the Joint Staff, where he helped negotiate the end to the war in Bosnia.

    In his final military command, General Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, NATO’s first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and he was responsible for the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

  • The great inspirational figures of the past 50 years have been Kennedy (for us) and Reagan (for them). Without Kennedy, no Clinton; without Reagan, no wingnuts. I wouldn’t call Kennedy a great president, nor Reagan, but figures like them are worth their weight in gold. Obama has that rarest of chances to be another in that line, giving us not only this presidency but a generation of leaders inspired by his symbolism and charisma.

    When he talks of ‘generation,’ I take it to mean not only his (and mine, btw, being born in 1964) but those he’ll carry in on his coattails.

  • Obama could overcome the “inexperience” label with startling speed. It’s called Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. A watershed moment is coming on Iraq. Someone is going to stand up to this President and the nation will cheer. The dam will break and people will demand change. The moderate Republicans will finally abandon the president and the Dems will assert control. But someone must take the lead. That brave person may not be Obama. But if it is, he will leave the competition in the dust.

    Throughout most of American history, there has been no worse presidential candidate than the US senator. It’s fitting then, that in these crazy times we live in, there could be no better venue for campaigning for president than the floor of the US senate. Where else could you stand up and make empassioned speeches against an unpopular president and an unpopular war? Where else could you show leadership on Iraq now – not in 2008, but now?!? If you’re running for president, the senate is exactly where you want to be.

    Sure, Obama is inexperienced. But the nation is ready for a watershed moment. It is ready for someone to stand up and say, “NO!” to this president. And the person best able to make that statement is a US Senator. A senator will be heard. And a senator will be in a position to create change. Think Jack Murtha times ten. The opportunity is coming…

    The key is bravery, timing, and political savvy. Bravery, because the successful senator must take the lead and make the transition from symbolic resistence to real resistence. Standing up to the president will require a binding resolution to cut off funding in Iraq. It needs to be real. Timing, because as Howard Dean and Russ Feingold will tell you, the only thing worse than being wrong is being right too soon. A binding resolution must be perfectly timed. It doesn’t need to get 50 or 60 votes, but it must be something more than symbolic. It must make the White House scared and it must be real enough to create excitement. In hindsight, it must look inspired. It must look like a turning point. And political savvy, because it’s not enough to piggy back on Jim Webb or some other brave senator. If Obama wants to win this thing, he needs to make the big speech and put forth the binding resolution.

    The nation doesn’t just want a candidate. It wants someone to stand up to President Bush. It wants a leader to emerge.

    (cross-posted at TPMCafe)

  • A commentator I read in 2004 said the Dems needed to change their presidential campaign strategy, because the old one wasn’t working. What was the old one? “Sit around for three years, then wait for a charismatic leader to show up.”

    That’s why Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is so great. And, if Obama is the nominee AND he happens to be charismatic, so much the better. But not a good idea of the Dems to put all their eggs in one basket. Do the 50-state thing, build organization and loyalty, and see which leaders bubble up, whether or not they are charsimatic. Campaign on ideas and commitment to a better country.

  • aReader – I think the 50-state strategy is the best way to create charismatic Democratic leaders. A party’s presidential strategy is always going to depend, to some degree, on the mergence of a charismatic leader. These are the people who typically win elections, after all. But I think Dean’s system is good for this too.

    It’s like a baseball team. The old DNC leadership was addicted to spending all of its money on high priced, high profile free agents. And when they went bust, they had nothing on the bench except washed up has-beens. Dean, on the other hand, wants to build up the farm system. By building up the minor leagues, you ensure that charismatic leaders will have a place to get started.

    In other words, the 50-state strategy supplies you with a constant stream of charismatic leaders while doing all the other things you like. Overall, it’s just the right system.

  • “Experience” is somewhat overvalued. My vote for a candidate is based on who he/she is and not the experience they’ve had. I don’t vote for a resume. Lincoln had little elective experience and he’s thought of as one of the best Presidents we’ve had if not the best. The current Bush was a governor. Grant commanded the Grand Army of the Republic. Nixon had loads of experience, as did Ford. Do you still think experience is the make-or-break factor?

    I agree totally with the sentiment that it’s time to get smarmy, Southern white trash out of Washington. Edwards is a douchebag. Were he to actually win the nomination, I’d vote for someone else. We do not need another Clinton in the White House. Obama represents a real break from the shit of the last 19 years when the first Bush slithered into the Oval Office. I’m looking forward to the election of 2008.

  • Ethel-to-Tilly-
    I don’t understand, you like my idea of announcing a cabinet ahead of time, you see it’s advantages, but I am a loser for suggesting it?
    Troll??

    I like the Obama / Clark ticket, I’d vote for that!!

  • Tom Cleaver, Caped Composer, just bill and Timpanist:

    If you hate the South so vehemently and won’t vote for a Southerner, then you can’t vote for Edwards, Clinton, Clark or Gore. That leaves Richardson and Obama. Richardson is branded as a womanizer, so that leaves him out.

    I like Obama but have yet to hear anything from him to make me think he’s anything more than a pretty face like JFK. For all the press-love about JFK, he wasn’t a particularly good president. Big on idealism but Vietnam started under his watch. Like Bush, JFK had to act big to prove himself.

    Instead of basing my support on some regional bias, I’d rather vote for the best candidate.

  • As long as we’re throwing around fancy words like “douchebag”, Obama would be a real break. A break from including gays and lesbians under the “Dem umbrella.”

    After all, you don’t get eggplant-colored lips like that from sucking cock.

    Tiger Woods for president!

  • I don’t understand, you like my idea of announcing a cabinet ahead of time, you see it’s advantages, but I am a loser for suggesting it?
    Troll??

    No I don’t like the idea at all. It works in a parliamentary system because Cabinet members retain their seats in Parliament – that doesn’t work here. So a candidate is limited on who he can choose because he can’t really choose someone who’s running for re-election and he doesn’t know who’s available until after the election. It’s impractical in our type of system that has a strong executive but a relatively weak (until this Presidency) party system. It works in a Parliament/weak executive/strong party system.

    As far as being a troll – I’m not the Nader-supporter giving “advice” to Democrats, am I?

  • ya but…..
    Hilliary, while not actually holding an office, lived in the White House for 8 years. She might not have had any sort of voting powers, she definitely gained a greet deal of political experience as First Lady.

  • Hilliary, while not actually holding an office, lived in the White House for 8 years. She might not have had any sort of voting powers, she definitely gained a greet deal of political experience as First Lady. -ScottW

    I disagree with your experience via osmosis theory. I’ve been married to a graphic designer for several years, that doesn’t make me qualified to design.

    I may have a cursory knowledge of the job from talking with her, but for me to assume an expertise based on that would be presumptuous and potentially disastrous.

  • Heard Obama yesterday at a packed UIC Pavillion in Chicago & the speech (similar to the opening round in Springfield) was everything folks have talked about.

    A few observations – As noteworthy as the “new generation” Kennedyesque theme but more important, I think, is Obama’s powerful appeal to civic involvement & public duty, the “Ask not” theme. It’s great political rhetoric, of course, but anyone who has read Obama’s first book knows how deeply felt & lived the theme is in his life & career. Related is the Democratic version of “morning in America” – problems are “challenges” to be met & which can be met & overcome b/c of the basic decency of the American people. Again, I have no doubt this is deep within Obama’s own values, but it is also a brilliant rhetorical rebuttal to the wingnut accusation of Democrats as wanting to tear America down & always looking to Government for solutions. This is in addition to Obama’s classic ability to connect with a large crowd (some 7,000 yesterday) & make you feel as if he’s talking directly to you.

  • Comments are closed.