Obama in ’08?

I’m not saying [tag]Barack Obama[/tag] is going to run for [tag]president[/tag] in [tag]2008[/tag] — he says he’s not interested, and I take him at his word — but I am saying that the past few days produced several reports that could spark a bit of a [tag]boomlet[/tag].

For example, the WaPo’s Chris Cillizza reported this week that Obama has “brought on two nationally known Democratic consultants as advisers in recent weeks, prompting renewed speculation that the freshman senator may be considering a 2008 [tag]White House[/tag] run.”

Anita Dunn, a partner with Squier Knapp Dunn, a media consulting company, and Minyon Moore, who is with the Dewey Square Group, are now serving as advisers to Obama.

Dunn is working with Obama’s leadership political action committee — Hopefund — through the end of the year. Hopefund’s political director recently left and Dunn, who is a close personal friend of top Obama aide Pete Rouse, was called in to oversee the committee until a full-time head can be chosen. Moore is serving as an unpaid adviser to Obama, working to build an African American outreach program.

Obama’s office argues that Dunn and Moore, both of whom have experience in presidential campaigns, are simply helping the senator manage his political responsibilities.

Example #2 comes by way of TNR’s Jason Zengerle who reported that [tag]Hillary Clinton[/tag]’s office believes Obama has the capacity “to toss the [2008] chessboard in the air,” which prompted Zengerle to suggest that [tag]Obama[/tag] may be “laying the groundwork” for a national campaign. Indeed, Zengerle pointed Obama’s traveling, his leadership PAC, his campaign donations to Dems nationwide, and an excerpt from Obama’s forthcoming book, The Audacity of Hope, which suggests Obama is disappointed with how the [tag]Senate[/tag] functions, or in most instances, doesn’t.

Except for the few minutes that it takes to vote, my colleagues and I don’t spend much time on the Senate floor. Most of the decisions–about what bills to call and when to call them, about how amendments will be handled and how uncooperative senators will be made to cooperate–have been worked out in advance, by the Majority Leader, the relevant committee chairman, their staffs, and (depending on the degree of controversy involved and the magnanimity of the Republican handling the bill), their Democratic counterparts. By the time we reach the floor and the clerk starts calling the roll, each of the senators will have determined–in consultation with his or her staff, caucus leader, preferred lobbyists, interest groups, and ideological leanings–just how to positions themselves on the issue. . . .

In the world’s greatest deliberative body, no one listening.

As Zengerle put it, “Spreading money around to Democrats all over the country, making noises about how the Senate maybe isn’t the best place for him to affect political change — sounds like a guy thinking about running for president to me!”

For that matter, Paul Waldman laid out some of the reasons Obama should consider jumping into the race.

1. It’s hard to run for president from the Senate – and the longer you’ve been there, the harder it gets.

2. If you’re a Democrat who’s considering when to run for president, there may never be a better time than 2008.

3. The press has half of their 2008 Democratic primary story written, and they’re waiting for the other half.

4. There is, shall we say, some unease about Hillary Clinton’s electability.

5. He opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

My hunch is none of this is going to matter. Obama may run someday, but he won’t be at the top of the ticket in two years. But I nevertheless agree with Waldman who described Obama as a rare politician who “gets it,” and who understands “what progressivism should be about and how to communicate it.”

Will Obama run in ‘[tag]08[/tag] probably not. If he did run, would he go far? I think he would. At a minimum, that chessboard would hardly be recognizable.

I’m a big fan of Obama, with some reservations (on more than just a few occasions he comes off sounding and acting too much like Jomentum for my tastes). Still, I suspect that a Gore for President/Obama for VP ticket would be unstoppable in the 2008 primaries AND in the general election.

Of course, I think the same of a Gore Clark ticket, or a Gore/Feingold ticket (yes, I think that Gore got the religion right in 2000 when he picked Lieberman — a Jew — he just picked the wrong Jew!! 🙂 )

  • I like the fact that there are Dem candidates that people get excited about, whether Obama or Gore or Feingold or others. There isn’t a similar candidate on he Repub side that is generating a similar positive buzz. McCain brings out a great sense of mistrust and Hagel is too honest to fit in with what’s now the GOP base. We need progressives that people want to vote for and not just an alternative to someone we want to vote against.

  • I still think Obama is too unseasoned, and actually his frustration with the Senate (while understandable) rubs me the wrong way. I also have little faith in my fellow countrymen-and-women and think electing the first black president will be very difficult. My conclusion from this is that Barak should be the VP candidate. It will help the top of the ticket, give him good training in the nature of a national campaign, let him learn some more in office, and he will be well positioned to give Dems 16 consecutive years. The only risk, of course (and one can ask Edwards about this) is if the ticket loses in 08, Obama risks being “damaged goods” for future campaigns, which would be a shame given his potential.

  • 4. There is, shall we say, some unease about Hillary Clinton’s electability.

    I’ve said it a dozen times and I’ll say it again-

    This is just made up by the press. Hillary had good numbers, the best of any candidate, before they started working on her. A lot of you are letting the SCLM do what they did w/ The Big Dog during monicagate: create an impression of unpopularity that only existed in their own minds.

    Whoever we get had better have really solid support + had better be strong.

    Needless to say Hillary’s candidacy would be good for women, too.

  • Hillary’s candidacy would not be good for this woman. She didn’t even have the “balls” to leave Bill during his many extra-marital affairs.

  • Swan,

    re: Hillary Clinton’s electability “This is just made up by the press.”

    I have trouble with that argument. Sen. Clinton is still a junior senator, her positions have reversed more than once on several issues including the war, her only national experience is as First Lady, her only major national policy initiative (universal health care) had a gruesome end, and she is a woman. I am not saying that last point is a bad thing, but just like Obama’s race, this will be a strike against her in the polls.

    The press is not the only group that has concerns about her electability.

    I would like to see Gov. Bill Richardson step up the plate in a big way…governor, ambassador, cabinet secretary, House member at the state and national level. How much more experience does he need?

  • Obama is not on my list of candidates, ever. He’s voted the wrong way too many times for my liking, and as the poster above mentioned, is too much like Joe Lieberman.

  • To many who are tired of old Democratic Party thinking (like me), Obama represents a breath of fresh air. I don’t know much about him beyond what I heard during his convention speech, but if that was any indication of who he is, I think he deserves a shot.

    Nominating Clinton, Gore, Kerry and so many other entrenched Democrats is like sending cannon fodder to the right. Their script for trashing old Dems is written, and unfortunately, has been quite effective at demonizing the very word “liberal.” Obama came across as something new, and for that reason some of the tried and true right wing tactics may not work.

  • I want someone in the White House who isn’t comfortable with playing games as usual on the Hill. Let’s toss more than the chessboard up in the air.
    We need to shuffle the deck, toss out the jokers and get a new deal.

  • I agree completely with Swan. The Democratic nominee will have very high negatives by November 1, 2008 and it absolutely doesn’t matter who the candidate will be. That’s how the Republicans play the game. The painfully honest Al Gore was portrayed as a dishonest crook, the war hero John Kerry was portrayed as a flip-flopping coward, and the next nominee will have his … or her … strongest characteristic turned into a “flaw” by the Republican noise machine.

    That being said, Hillary is a very smart woman, but a beginning politician. In addition to that, I like the Clintons and think that they have done good work — despite some mistakes — for us and I just don’t want to listen to any more anti-Hillary crap or hear even one more word about her marriage. Anyway, I don’t think she’s going to run, but the minute she admits that, her monster fund-raising machine grinds to a halt. Right now she manages to maintain a big coalition with her big pile o’ campaign cash.

  • Obama’s picture is in the dictionary next to the word ‘trimmer’.

  • Well, I hope he doesn’t run for pres at any time. His mentor in the Senate was Lieberman and he’s totally in Lieberman’s pocket. Obama has completely lost any support from me in every way.

  • Hillary is a ninja. I mean that in a good way.

    She’s the next best thing we have to The Big Dog. It’s really one of those things where the difference between it being a winner and a loser is just whether or not she has our support.

    Al Gore is a smart guy and I’m not saying he can’t win. But don’t even let a situation stand where the right can bash one of our most popular- if not the most popular- candidates (and most capable: went from being a First Lady to being a New York Senator: survived and thrived after her husband’s scandal; an essential and positive component of her husband’s presidency; a former law professor, practicing lawyer and Yale Law School student; a capable and strong person who stands up to her critics and makes decisions thoughtfully and wisely) without an overwhelming, resounding storm of opposition telling them: “No- you’re wrong. What are you, crazy? Hillary would be a great candidate, better than any of your candidates.” Don’t let them set the pace and the tone of this, anymore.

  • a capable and strong person who stands up to her critics and makes decisions thoughtfully and wisely

    This is true, if you define “thoughtfully and wisely” as “unprincipled and opportunistic.”

    Hillary Clinton has no principle except self-advancement. She’s wrong on issues great and small, from Iraq to flag burning, and has trimmed and triangulated on issues like welfare reform–she helped kill a “tri-partisan” compromise in 2003 that would have been far better than what Congress finally passed in February of this year, by agreeing to increased work requirements that many of her *Republican* colleagues rejected.

    She’s unelectable. Even moderate to liberal Republicans–those who voted for Kerry last times, and (more importantly) the millions more who’d do so today if they had the choice again–will run away from her. The only way she could win would be if a Perot-like candidate emerged to take votes away from the Republican, and even then, she couldn’t govern; how does four more years of Clinton Wars sound to you?

    Please, please, please find someone else to support. For myself, I’ll get behind whichever Democrat looks best positioned to stop Hillary–Obama, Gore, Clark (my first choice), Richardson, whoever.

  • She’s not unelectable, because she was the leader in the polls for the potential Democratic candidates- I don’t know if she still is, but she at least was for a while.

    Unprincipled? I doubt it. Are you measuring her against McCain? If you are, then McCain should be Satan, right?

    As for flag-burning, opposing a law against flag-burning may be a reactionary liberal position that isn’t really well-thought out, and hurts it more than it helps us. Maybe it’s the principle of defending freedom of speech vigorously in almost all contexts- real defense of freedom of speech- and then allowing one or two exceptions (i.e., you can’t burn or desecrate the flag, at least because our soliders, sailors, marines and airmen pledge allegiance to it and fight and die for it) that would really be an important, noble, worthwhile and unassailable position on freedom of speech- and one that would garner broad consensus of the people; truly democratic support.

    Thinks outside of the box, people. Hillary has a noggin, and she uses it. She may not be perfect, but she’s definitely not a poor candidate.

  • Clark-Obama fills in the shortcomings of both candidates (poor campaigner and lack of foreign policy experience respectively).

    It would be the genuine ticket that those say-anything, Shrum-hiring phonies Kerry-Edwards pretended to be. (Sorry John and John, if you’re reading. I did vote for you). A tough, smart-on-security soldier with a man of the people who knows domestic policy.

  • Swan, I agree that people underestimate Hillary’s electability, and I generally like her. I also agree with what I think you are saying — that the progressive left, and in particular the “blogging class,” needs to accept that a “blogosphere primary” would likely choose a candidate unelectable in a general election; the general election is more important and we have to make strategic compromises. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Where we part ways, however, is that there is anything noble, strategic, proper, etc. about supporting the flag-burning amendment. Your argument that what is important is the “principle of defending freedom of speech vigorously in almost all contexts- real defense of freedom of speech- and then allowing one or two exceptions” simply cannot be supported by the First Amendment. It does not say “A state shall make no law. . . unless it falls within one of these politically expedient exceptions.”

    The Democrats have long misunderstood the forced votes on flag burning as an opportunity to “show patriotism,” or “court moderate voters.” In fact, the only purpose those votes have is for the Rethugs to come up behind the Dems, and whisper in their ear “bend over if you’re still my bitch.” The Dems never fail to satisfy their Rethug masters. These votes do nothing but prove the Rethugs can yank the D’s chains anytime they want. We start acting a little too independent, a little too assertive, and they need to put us back in our submissive place? Call for a vote on the flag. It is easier (and lot more pleasant visual) than Rove or Cheney getting his black leather dominatrix costume on and taking the crop to a bunch of squirming D’s, but it has precisely the same effect. Including the fact that at some level the Senate Dems seem to enjoy it.

  • All right.

    Please cite for me Obama’s progressive credentials.

    Did Obama vote against the bankrupcy bill?

    DId Obama vote against scalito? hayden? That asswipe cavanaugh?

    Just what did Obama do that was (is?) progressive?

    Yeah – I can hear it now – the hillary defense. He can’t be his ‘true’ progressive self because he is a junior senator and can’t risk the wrath of the trogolodites.

    Spare me.

    Time to expect more from our ‘heroes’

  • Thor, as someone who is neither against nor yet convinced to advocate for Obama, my sense is that part of the attraction is that, for better or worse, Obama articulates the progressive message more effectively than most of the progressive officeholders who may have a better actual record than he does. He is unafraid to speak up for the role of government, and he forcefully calls on the country’s “better angels” in a way that is more effective and more energizing than pretty well all of the other viable options we could put forth as candidates or messengers.

    Having said that, I am not yet sold on the idea that he is either ideal or that he is ready in 08.

  • Zeitgeist,

    Yes, Obama is a talented orator.

    I guess I’m more interested in what he does.

    He has a long career ahead of him and he doesn’t want to get painted so early in his career.

    I understand his keeping his cards close to his chest.

    Part of my frustruation is that I keep looking for additional Feingolds to stand up and be counted.

    I was hoping Obama was one.

    Maybe he is and is biding his time.

    He is smart, I’m sure.

  • The First Amendment syas “Congress shall make no law respecting freedom of speech. . .” and so on, but the idea is really amending the Constitution to allow outlawing flag-burning, isn’t it?

    What really matters are things that effect peoples lives, like stopping the discrimination that is the gay marriage amendment.

    But anyway, under current constitutional law, you can’t burn the flag. And I guess that’s a reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment. And the constitution has to be defended. But the issue is whether outlawing flag-burning is a good idea.

    A lot of people probably want the flag defended. That’s an understandable feeling. Dems need to think about the extent to which that’s jingoism and the point at which it doesn’t really add up to jingoism. We shouldn’t over-react to anything. And especially with the way the Repubs are succeeding at misleading people, doing something like amending the Constitution to defend the flag just might be precisely the right way to leave no doubt in people’s minds that the Repubs have been lying all along.

  • Thor Likes Pizza writes: “Yes, Obama is a talented orator.
    I guess I’m more interested in what he does.”

    This is exactly my problem with getting all excited about Obama. (and, by the way, I like pizza too). Obama only talks a good game–so what? His voting record, short as it is, is extremely unremarkable from the progressive point of view. What is there to get so excited about? Personally, I think the same can be said for Hillary (sans the ability to orate effectively). She has a dismal record in the Senate–what progressive moves has she try to make? Votiing for the war and the burning flag stuff–please. Her health care work was many moons ago–before she became Senator. Now she’s a moderate to conservative as far as I can tell. And I liked the Big Dog very much and long to turn back the time machine.

    Give me someone who can govern, not just talk!!!! And someone with the balls to do it, not cave in to mush!!!!! Maybe Gore has learned his lesson. Wes Clark has balls. Finegold is trying to show he has balls. I’m open to hearing from any candidate (like Richardson) that I’m not that familiar with too. But no more patrician nice guys, or girls finding the middle of nowhere. We need to win, yes, and then we need to get this country back on its feet if we do.

  • Oops, I should have wrote:

    “But anyway, under current constitutional law, you can burn the flag.”

    (comment #21)

    I must have had some funky chocolate ice cream for lunch, eh? 😛

  • The thing about the flag-burning issue is it basically does no good for anyone except give conservatives something to paint us as bad guys with.

    You think 90% of conservatives really think about the shades between wanting a little bit more protection for workers and for the environment, and not, and what that really means, and how much of a difference it would make? They don’t know, they don’t want to know, they don’t think about it, they won’t read about it. Why else do you think they call Dems the names they do? If they really knew the issues they (the ones who are honest people) wouldn’t be able to say that we want the country to be very different than it is now.

    A lot of these people are just making their decision based on “Well, those guys want to let people burn the flag! They can’t be any good” and stuff like that. Seriously. They don’t know what conservativism and liberalism really stand for. It’s more about symbols for them. And they don’t know what you really stand for because they can’t get around the fact that you want to defend the right to burn the flag.

    You can say that that’s their problem all you want. But this is the real world. If things like our position on flag burning were really all that were standing in the way of, say, getting rid of this crazy marriage amendment, wouldn’t you think it’s worthwhile to make a trade off like that? If it’s not doable to change a bunch of people’s minds about something like the flag, is it really right to place that in our paths as an obstacle that we will not find a way around, no matter what?

    And another thing. Maybe the people who want to outlaw flag burning are right, just per se. Maybe you’re right on just about every other controversial First Amendment issue, but maybe their position is more fair and is a better compromise on just that one thing. It’s at least worth giving a fair consideration to when you think about the issue. At least, you shouldn’t decide where you come down on an issue before you really think about what the other side is arguing.

  • Obama’s keynote at the Dem’s 2004 convention was, indeed, inspirational. But, I am with those who say he has not lived up to the great promise of that moment. He would need to prove a lot more to me before I could advocate for his candidacy for the top slot in ’08. That said, I think he would be a strong contender in the second spot.

    Swan, I do not think that Hillary’s “electability question” is entirely a fabrication of the SCLM (although they certainly like to bang that drum).. Neither the pragmatic liberals nor the “centrists” that I know like her – at all. Naturally the wingers and harder lefties with whom I discuss politics have absolutely no use for her. The rationale of dislike among those whom one might reasonably expect to be won over to supporting her does not seem to be policy-based. It is more like the aversions that dajafi (#14) described along with the fact that her manner evokes a “fingernails on a chalkboard” response. Before learning that she would support a constitutional amendment to ban (that epidemic problem of) flag burning, I might have tried to convince them to give her a listen. But, this silly position – along with my own instincts against supporting another dynastic restoration in the Presidency – puts Hillary on her own in convincing these folks to drop their distrust and dislike of her.

    Hillary brings much to the table but, IMO, a good deal of it squares with the “She’s not electable” narrative.

  • Sorry, Swan. If I feel so much disgust with my government that burning a flag is the means by which I feel I can best express that disgust, I do not want that form of expression taken from me. I’ve never burned a flag, and I hope never to be moved to do so, but one never knows. I do not for a moment think the anti-flag burners are right per se (and as I alluded in my previous post, I think this is neither a big problem nor an issue on which national leaders should spend their time).. And I don’t believe compromising with them on this issue will change by an iota their position on gay marriage. I just don’t. It seems to me that meeting these bastards “half way” simply gives them the opportunity to say “By the way, NEXT TIME, half way is this much further over toward our way of thinking.”

  • I swear to God, if the Dems want to take over the House and Senate in November, what they should do is take over the flag-burning issue, support an amendment protecting the flag, and make the issue theirs. Do it now. Don’t wait for the “right person” to come along to point out what a great idea it is.

    If they did it, this is what would happen. The Dems would take over the House and the Senate. Then they would get the Amendment passed. In the aftermath,

    1) A lot of people would be relieved and thankful;

    2) A hell of a lot of people who used to be the most ardent supporters of outlawing flag-burning would experience “the Grinch effect.”
    They’d realize that maybe Christmas wasn’t about presents after all, so to speak.

    That’s to say, they’d realize that maybe it was kind of silly to take the flag burning issue as seriously as they did before.

    3) And after that, a hell of a lot of all those people who used to be real rabid about opposing flag burning would start thinking about politics in general a lot differently, I’m sure. They’d start reconsidering a lot of things.

    Not acknowledging how insulted flag burning makes people feel is kind of a “damned if you don’t- damned if you don’t” proposition. It’s like if you opposed some of the policies of the current Pope and the past Pope, and then you made friends with me. Then you decided that to show how opposed you are to the Popes, you would come over my house, but only if you could say “I hate Catholics” over and over again and tear up pictures of the Pope once a minute while you’re there.

    It’s like, yeah, be opposed to what the Pope or Mother Theresa did if you want, but we’re all Catholics here, my sister goes to a Catholic school and we go to a Catholi church. If you’re opposed to policies, why don’t you talk about the policies instead of tearing up pictures and saying “I hate Catholics.”

    When you burn a flag, or when you advocate for people’s right to burn a flag, the impression you’re mostly making on people- and almost exclusively- is that you want to defend people right to “hate America.” That’s all they see, a lot of people. They’re not going to talk to you about why you’re burning the flag. They’re not going to learn anything from what you’re doing. All you’re doing is turning them off more and more.

    It’s a total waste. It’s a bad cause. Freedom of speech, as such, on the other hand, is a noble and worthwhile cause.

  • Swan, sorry to say, I don’t think people give a rat’s ass about the flag burning issue. People just aren’t burning flags like it’s1969, let’s face it. So it’s not a burning issue (sorry for the pun) that will get the Dems elected. On the other hand, the country and the Constitution seem to be more than smoldering.

  • I would be less impressed if Obama ran for President (he would certainly raise the level of discourse, and possibly change the media narrative, though I suspect his first campaign would be quixotic) and more impressed if he did something about what he doesn’t like in the Senate. Corzine already jumped ship after a short stint in the Senate, and became NJ Governor, because he felt he “couldn’t get anything done there” (and now look at him, with New Jerseyans railing against him for his belt-tightening budget). There IS something very wrong with the Senate, and with the House…but we don’t need smart elected officials walking away from the Congress simply because they’re frustrated. Forget the race for President (and ENOUGH about Hillary! Geez, does every conversation have to come back to her?). We need fewer people who “lose faith” in the Senate (and the Congress) and more who have faith that they can fix what’s wrong with it…once they regain the majority.

  • Thor,

    Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill. Against Alito, Kavanaugh, and Hayden. Fought against the voter ID amendment that would discriminate against minorities, elderly and the poor. Was a leader on the immigration bill and wrote a strong employer sanctions section of the bill to prevent employers from exploiting workers.

    Check the facts and don’t believe the hype.

  • Frak, the Republicans have branded the Dems and the loss of popularity that Bush is suffering now may be a lot more temporary and a lot more connected to GOP mis-steps than to a deeper shift in public opinion for it to really make a difference. As far as we can see right now, the trend of success for the GOP might really be a long-term trend in this country. Hell, they own a TV channel. In these circumstances waiting for a pendulum to swing back and counting on faith as an answer may not be a practical course of action. Thinking about the problem and trying to actually do things that meet the demands of the problem might be a little better.

    Thinking that protecting flag-burning is more important than protecting the flag might just be “fighting the last war” for a liberal in America. It could be that a big part of the reason we are not finding more effective answers to our problems and challenges is the obstinate committment of a lot of our own people to what they have already been doing and the cheer-leading they have already been hearing for quite a while, and their concommitant refusal to continuously re-evaluate the situation that they are actually presently in.

  • I support Gore. Obama(who is my U.S.Senator) is OK,as a choice for VP,but he is to much of a “DLC moderate”,for my taste.I wish he would become a REAL LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.What the United States needs is someone with FDR type boldness and courage,NOT A SELF-STYLED MODERATE-aka REPUBLICAN LITE.

  • Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill. Against Alito, Kavanaugh, and Hayden.

    Yeah, but he did vote for Chertoff and Condi to be confirmed.

    Check out the voting records of our illustrious senators here.

  • Carrie’s got it:
    “Obama is not on my list of candidates, ever. He’s voted the wrong way too many times for my liking, and as the poster above mentioned, is too much like Joe Lieberman.”

    Do we really need another rich white-guy sell-out, even if he does happen to have black skin?

  • Is voting against Condi is a deal-breaker? I bet that if she been turned down, a real moron/maniac would have taken her place. That would make things much worse for Americans, Iraqis and pretty much the entire world.

    We NEED a president who understands the constraints of reality. Confirming the president’s choice of Condi does not ruin his liberal credentials.

  • Not acknowledging how insulted flag burning makes people feel is kind of a “damned if you don’t- damned if you don’t” proposition

    Swan, who’s been burning flags lately? Why do Democrats have to acknowledge anger about a non-existent problem? If you think the Dem’s pandering to the conservative base is a solution to their problems, you’re nuts. Why not “get ahead” of the Republicans on gay bashing? Why not propose execution for abortion doctors? Why not advocate rounding up all the illegals and throwing them in internment camps. The Republicans will always have another culture war issue to attack with. You’ll never win by playing that game.

  • Comments are closed.