Obama speculation kicks into high gear

I’ve noted on several occasions in recent months that [tag]Barack Obama[/tag] says he’s not planning to run for [tag]president[/tag] in 2008, but when the Washington Post runs a front-page item on the possibility, the political world can’t help but notice.

Obama, a first-term Democratic senator from [tag]Illinois[/tag], seems to be hitting the right notes these days. During Senate recesses, he has been touring the country at breakneck pace, basking in the sudden fame of a politician turned pop star. Along the way, he has been drawing crowds and campaign cash from [tag]Democrats[/tag] starved for a fresh face and ready to cheer what Obama touts as “a politics of hope instead of a politics of fear.”

His office fields more than 300 requests a week for appearances. One Senate Democrat, curious about Obama’s charisma, took notes when watching him perform at a recent political event. State parties report breaking fundraising records when Obama is the speaker.

The money he is bringing in for fellow Democrats is shaping up as an important influence on 2006. And the potential Obama is demonstrating as a political performer — less than two years after his elevation from the Illinois state legislature — is prompting some colleagues to urge him to turn his attention to [tag]2008[/tag] and a race for the [tag]presidency[/tag]. Obama has made plain he is at least listening.

“I think he is unique,” said Illinois’s senior senator, Richard J. Durbin (D). “I don’t believe there is another candidate I’ve seen, or an elected official, who really has the appeal that he does.” As for the 2008 presidential race, “I said to him, ‘Why don’t you just kind of move around Iowa and watch what happens?’ I know what’s going to happen. And I think it’s going to rewrite the game plans in a lot of presidential candidates if he makes that decision.”

Charles Schumer called him a “[tag]phenomenon[/tag]” and noted that Obama is “more requested than anybody else” in the party’s hierarchy for fundraising and campaign appearances on behalf of congressional candidates.” Obama is not only as welcome in Nebraska as he is in Connecticut, he also draws presidential-size crowds.

All of this, of course, comes just a month after Obama hired two nationally known Democratic consultants as advisers both of whom have experience in presidential [tag]campaign[/tag]s.

And then there was Obama’s speech at the Take Back America conference last week.

Mother Jones’ Art Levine noted that the conference featured some of the top leaders in the Dem Party, many of whom offered laundry lists filled with the issues they find important. Now, there’s nothing particularly wrong with laundry lists; they help highlight a person’s priorities and values. But when Obama spoke, the junior senator from Illinois offered a [tag]vision[/tag] and a broader understanding of what it means to be a progressive in 2006. After explaining the principle of “social Darwinism,” Obama said:

“Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on self-reliance and individual initiative and a belief in the free market. But it’s also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, our sense that we have a stake in each other’s success. You know, that everybody should have a shot at opportunity.

“Americans understand this. They know the government can’t solve all their problems, but they expect the government can help because they know it’s an expression of what they’re learning in Sunday school, what they learn in their church, in their synagogue, in their mosque, a basic moral precept that says that I have to look out for you and I have responsibility for you and you have responsibility for me; that I am your keeper and your are mine. That’s what America is.

“And so I am eager to have this argument with the Republican Party about the core philosophy of America, about what our story is. We shouldn’t shy away from that debate.

“The time for our identity crisis as progressives is over. Don’t let anybody tell you that we don’t know what we stand for.”

Obama added, “I guarantee you America is looking for us to [tag]lead[/tag]. And if we do it, it’s not going to be a Democratic agenda or a liberal agenda or a progressive agenda, it’s going to be an American agenda.”

I have to admit, my opinion about an Obama presidential campaign is in flux. Whereas a couple of months ago I thought it was a non-starter, I’m beginning to think there’s something to this. A fresh face, with rock-star appeal nationwide, and who can articulate a progressive vision of government as well as anyone I’ve seen in a long while, may be the best hope for bringing excitement and passion into the next presidential campaign.

Put it this way: if I’m a [tag]Republican[/tag] consultant, there are a lot of Dem presidential contenders I’m not afraid of. But if I’m that same Republican consultant, I don’t want to see Obama throw his hat into the ring. Something to think about.

The Congressional Democratic Party’s yearning for a heroic standard bearer for 2008 is fascinating. And I suppose Obama could be just that sort of standard bearer. His fund raising prowese can not be denied, though I would like it EXPLAINED. He has a clear physical appeal after the doughy Clinton and Gore. I suppose Kerry is as fit, but doesn’t come off as well.

But I agree that his best appeal is his articulate message. It’s clean, clear and (dare I say) almost Republican in terse tones.

I’d vote for him. I’m not sure he is my first choice. But we have two years to decide that.

  • I’m with Lance–open, and have the better part of two years to decide. I would particularly want to see how well he will be received in certain parts of the country.

  • Agreed… he is still wet behind the ears.

    Even if Obama were to shout about “killing” terrorists from now until 2008, the American people will still find him lacking “gravitas.”

    Face it: we live in “red meat” times.

    That’s why the democrats have got to run a self-made southern General who likes to hunt.

    Yep… it really is that simple Virginia.

  • Listening to Obama’s speech, I had the same kinds of feelings I used to have 45 years ago, listening to JFK say things that inspired his listeners. Having watched all the presidents since, and knowing the outcomes of all, I really think Kennedy was the last one who inspired the country to try and do things they wouldn’t have thought possible. That’s really the thing a president can do that no one else can, and that none of the others have since (outside of LBJ in 1964 when he took up the call for civil rights). I also thought as I listened to him of FDR’s speechs and the speechesof Theodore Roosevelt. If you listen to the speeches of FDR, he too inspired his listeners to believe themselves capable of things they wouldn’t have thought they could do. TR brought a sense of thirsting for justice in his better speeches.

    It’s interesting to me as a student and participant in politics that when I listened to that speech by Obama, those were the names that came to mind as his predecessors.

    Go read that speech. It’s inspiring to read as well as listen to. His use of the story of the 105-year old little old black lady, and what she’s seen in her life, and what good has come to her from the things progressives have done in those years, really lays things out.

    While I would love, in my lifttime, to be able to vote for the first woman president, Hillary ain’t it. My other great political desire has been to be able to vote for the first Black American for President, and I really do think Obama has what it takes to go that distance.

    Other observers have noted he trims his sails politically, but I see that as being a realist about what he can do. Note all three of the names I mentioned above – they too knew there were times to sail with the wind as well as to tack against it.

  • To me, this is really pretty simple.

    When’s the last time you were really inspired by a nationally prominent Democrat who was a viable presidential contender?

    Yeah, I thought so.

    Obama/Clark ’08.

  • Is it too early to put out a stalking horse?

    The question, then, is ‘for whom?’

  • Vision, passion, and a clear and exciting agenda is what will win in ’08. I’m not sure who I would favor as a VP candidate, but looking at the rest of the field Obama is the only one who has what it takes for president as far as I’m concerned. Go, Barack!

  • In an ideal world, our candidate would have more experience, more seasoning, more proven progressive credentials. There is one hard to ignore fact, however: most of the truly established progressive candidates (like Feingold, and I’ll reluctantly include “I ran as the right-wing Dem in 88” Gore) have more than a little trouble inspiring a crowd.

    Whether Obama reliably votes progressive, he nonetheless sells the progressive philosophy better than anyone else. Rhetoric can matter if the differences are stark enough. In most politicians, they aren’t. But in a few — the Kennedys, to a large degree Bill Clinton, and (unfortunately) Reagan — they are in such league above their contemporaries that their rhetoric becomes a compelling beacon.

    I have long resisted the siren call of the Obama ’08 supporters, believing he (and we) were better off if Obama waited a few more years. But I am increasingly becoming convinced that timing is everything in life. It may be that we would be foolish to ignore the hot commodity we have and instead run another bland, long-established politician. I’m beginning to change my view. . . (of course, backing him up with a more traditional, more established running mate would be wise – which is why I do not think Obama/Clark works – so you dont have the Carter Administration’s inability to work the levers of government).

  • Zeitgeist, I think Clark’s presence on the ticket would partially innoculate Obama from the inevitable attacks that he’s insufficiently hawkish or well-traveled or familiar with military/foreign issues. He can avoid the Carter trap–which to me (granted, I was 3 when Carter took office) had as much or more to do with failure to manage Congress as “not knowing the levers”–by bringing in some of the old Clinton hands to serve as chief of staff, OMB director, etc.

    When you have a vision, it’s easier to figure out the minutiae. Message, values and vision win elections. Obama has the message: it’s “Dream Bigger” progressivism. While I like Warner for his nuanced and insightful take on education and economic development issues, and I respect Feingold as a man of principle, I don’t think either of them have either the salable vision or the star quality now demanded, unfortunately, in national US politics.

  • Warner for his nuanced and insightful take on education and economic development issues, and I respect Feingold as a man of principle, I don’t think either of them have either the salable vision or the star quality now demanded, unfortunately, in national US politics.

    Feingold also suffers from being a sitting senator. I think your Warner comment may be a bit premature. I think we’ll see Warner articulate a more saleable vision as the primary season unfolds. Its awfully early to count him out.

    Having said that, I’m a big Clark supporter. I think Clark/Obama would be a great ticket and would be a great position from which Obama could get to the Presidency. I’m not convinced he can do it from the Senate. VP or Governor of Illinois is a much better place from which Obama can rise to the Presidency.

  • if obama runs, the republican smear campaign will begin with the slogan: “let’s keep the white house white.”

  • “A fresh face, with rock-star appeal nationwide, and who can articulate a progressive vision of government as well as anyone I’ve seen in a long while, may be the best hope for bringing excitement and passion into the next presidential campaign.”

    May?

    To all the doubters, to all the “We have to run the candidate that appeals to Repubs,” to all the “not enough experience,” remeber two things:

    1) Bush Jr. is an inexperienced, dry-drunk coke-head draft dodging little toy cowboy so wet behind the ears you could wring out his head and fill the Grand Canyon; he got elected purely on presentation.

    2) Dems chose Kerry over Edwards to lead the ticket because he was a vet with 30 years more experience and looked old and had “gravitas.” He lost. Dems were debating whether we could run the younger, charismatic guy as the pres with an older VP four years after Georie had already won doing the same thing. See # 1 above, and stop arguing losing ideas.

    Great changes, great moments, great men and women are never made by analyzing trends we already recognize and accept. Especially when recent history shows that those trends do not reflect what voters want. HEnce, HBO and cable is coming to devour network TV because network TV is still arguing in the past.

    Obama/Who the Hell Cares ’08.

  • VP or Governor of Illinois is a much better place from which Obama can rise to the Presidency.

    The only thing anyone can win from the Illinois Governor’s seat is a trip to federal court. Current occupant and GOP contender included.

    I’ve been saying all along that Obama is the only choice.

    Progressive?? Hell yes. He worked along with Paul Simon when Simon was in office and he carries those same values with him now.

    Experienced?? You mean like W’s experience as governor of Texas? The man has more education in his pinky finger than The Decider and more organizational talent than anyone else in the Dem party.

    If he goes to Iowa and ‘moves around’, the state will tilt toward his center of gravity.

    Obama 2008.

  • I’ve got a Gore sticker on my car, but an Obama picture on my refrigerator. I’d be happy as could be with either one of them, but then again I’d vote for a Biden/Lieberman ticket, if I had to.

  • He certainly does have charisma and knows how to give a speech. His comments about “why would you become a politician?” raise is well-taken. I like this part the best:

    “You know, we all remember that George Bush said in 2000 campaign that he was against nation-building. We just didn’t know he was talking about this one.

    Now, let me say this – I don’t think that George Bush is a bad man. I think he loves his country. I don’t think this administration is full of stupid people – I think there are a lot of smart folks in there. The problem isn’t that their philosophy isn’t working the way it’s supposed to – it’s that it is. It’s that it’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.”

    I never have been a big believer in the “incompetence” critique of the Bush, et al. (as in USA v. Bush, et al. – hey, a man can dream, right?) administration, but rather that they have been doing exactly what they wanted all along and that, thrown in abortion, flag burning, gays/marriage, and the American people will stay preoccupied long enough for them to make millions.

    Why do bank robbers rob banks? Because that’s where the money is. Who has more money than the US government?

  • I agree: Bowdown/Lieberbutt is truly a scary thought.

    I favor Edwards, for a number of reasons, but I’d be happy with either Clark or Obama as well.

  • My ideal ’08 ticket is still Gore/Obama. I think Obama needs a few more years of experience, as senator, governor, or VP, because inexperience in the White House worries me (e.g., Bush). Also, I actively distrust charismatic leaders – many of the worst leaders in history were very charismatic, and crowds rushing blindly in agreement with their leader scare me. However, Obama trips none of the danger signals for me.

    I really love Obama’s speeches (thanks for the link to the latest – that was great). He seems to be able to fire people up in a very positive way, and he’s saying all the right things, and I’m a bit starved for some of that. And what the heck, he can always hire experts (even if that only sort of worked for Kennedy). All in all, if Gore doesn’t want to run, I’m not going to have much trouble getting very excited about an Obama/anybody ticket.

  • Why do bank robbers rob banks? Because that’s where the money is. Who has more money than the US government?

    That’s good stuff, Homer.

  • Obama is a trimmer.

    It’s not due to inexperience, it’s due to cold calculation. His instinct for the safe middle is inerring, better even than Sen. Clinton’s. Presentation isn’t everything, and a Biden with pop-star appeal is still a Biden.

  • Let’s not forget another eloquent Illinois state senator with little experience that became President during a rough time in American history (I don’t think I need to tell you all who he is)… Obama has that an a term in the U.S. Senate. Add a heavy hitter to his ticket and we may have something here. Add Edwards and you have the best-looking ticket since McKinley/ Teddy Roosevelt.. just kidding!

  • Davis X – a “pure” non-trimmer (if there really is such a creature – I suspect I could easily find instances where even Feingold has trimmed to some degree) simply cannot, will not win.

    I was a Deaniac. I do not believe electability is the end-all of critieria, and even if it was Democrats have shown no competence at playing that game (after all, Kerry was chosen because he was just so darn electable), but it must be part of the game. Clinton was the consumate trimmer and god knows i’d take a repeal of the 22d and 8 more years of Bubba than any more of Dumbya and his ilk. The downsides are all relative — i’ll take a trimmer who can kick Republican’t ass (the kicking ass part being what I liked about Dean) over a non-trimmer (also known as “someone who can’t politic their way to add up a majority coalition”) who results in President McCain, Giuliani or Romney.

  • DXM: I’ve respected you for years, but in this case, I do believe that you are wrong. Obama is no Biden. Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing. Although W pretends that he has a mandate to represent only the views of the far right and the business class, he actually represents you and me as well as Jerry Falwell and Donald Trump. A good president would provide leadership and persuade us to follow him where necessary and find compromises between the extremes where necessary. Obama, like Clinton, is very smart and sees the world in nuanced shades rather than in partisan black and white. Biden, OTOH, is just compromised.

  • Obama / Feingold, perhaps?

    But definitely Obama. The man moved me, and I am damned hard to move. He is the best shot we have, period. It would be insane not to go with him.

    With a country sick to death of the status quo and looking for a radical new direction, what could be more radical than a young, brilliant, Black, maverick “outsider” not afraid to speak his mind? Obama / Clark– I like that. Do we really want Gore / Obama? Stunning as his comeback could be, I think we have all had too much Gore for too long. We need someone new. We need Obama.

  • I have always been moved by the man. What made me fall out of my chair was when my sister, a bible-thimping red meat lifelong Republican not only said she really liked Obama, but that she had already been to his website to check out his platform (the first time I have ever known her to do this for ANY candidate) and would gladly vote for him. From that point on, I have taken his candidacy very seriously.

  • *wonders how many conservatives are saying “we don’t want that dumb n****r as the president!”*

    i do have a feeling conservatives are more bigoted than liberals (not that liberals are any better than …but then again this is amerikkka so i wouldn’t be surprised.

    OBAMA/CLARK ’08!!!

  • Anybody still reading and posting needs to go here.

    I am not alone in my belief that there is less to Obama than meets the eye….

  • Comments are closed.