Obama watch — Iowa edition

September 18, 2006

I imagine that having a lot of people — senators, state officials, grassroots activists — urge you to run for president starts to have an effect on your perspective. On the Democratic side of the aisle, there are plenty of credible people who feel they are up to the job but have to work to convince others (Warner, Bayh, Biden, Vilsack), but Barack Obama seems to have the opposite problem — people keep trying to convince him to run while he questions whether he’s up for it.

Senator Barack Obama insists, as always, that he is not running for president. But there are compelling clues that he is not exactly not running, either.

The most obvious was his keynote appearance here on Sunday at Senator Tom Harkin’s legendary steak fry, a popular Democratic ritual in Iowa — and a prominent staging ground in this first presidential caucus state. The crowd rushed Mr. Obama when he arrived, then mobbed him for hours as other politicians wandered the fairgrounds introducing themselves and shaking hands.

It’s actually that last point that interested me most. At the event, Tom Vilsack, the current Democratic governor of Iowa and a likely presidential candidate, strolled around casually, watching everyone chase after Obama. Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D), a serious candidate who’s been to Iowa before, made some brief remarks at the start of the event — but he was “barely audible from the back of the crowd amid the frenzy over Mr. Obama.”

My interest here is not about my personal choice in candidates — as far as 2008 is concerned, I remain completely open minded — but I’m intrigued with Obama not just because of his talents, but because I want the party to have a candidate that the voters can be excited about. Someone who inspires some passion. Someone who Democrats down-ballot would want to campaign alongside, no matter which part of the country they’re in.

Donkey Rising reminds us today that when it comes to voting behavior, emotion trumps reason. If that’s the case, why not pursue a possible candidate that stirs strong, positive emotional responses?

For what it’s worth, this year, Obama is the most sought-after Democratic speaker in the country and he’ll be traveling quite a bit more next year to help promote what will likely be another best-selling book.

As for Iowa, Obama’s future seemed to be the number one topic of conversation.

“When I was asked the day after I was elected to the Senate … ‘Are you running for president?’ I said, ‘Guys, give me a little time,’ ” Obama said in an interview, mobbed by the cameras as he hacked at a steak and sipped beer in a plastic cup. “There’s nothing that changed my mind so far.”

Whether that “so far” was a hint or not remains to be seen, but Obama did tell his receptive audience, “What a wonderful reception; I’m going to have to come to Iowa again.”

I’m going to have to come to Iowa again.”

Now that is a telling comment.

  • An Obama VP nomination will surely bring out the AA vote, if only we could be sure that it would be counted or even allowed to be cast.

  • While Obama was genuinely exciting to me in 2004, since his election he has sounded too much like a desperately triangulating DLCer to move my heart out of neutral.

  • Obama has been pandering a little too much for my likes.

    He keeps harping on the ‘we’ don’t have a plan non-sense. I get the general feeling that he is already finding that happy ground that all presidential hopefuls seems to end up at. He’s for this, or against that, but never committed.

    He has lost his luster in my eyes.

  • I have real problems with Obama, though I was initially very excited about him. He’s got charisma, at least, and he’s a Democrat.

    But look at this:

    Recently, the Democratic Party’s rising “progressive” star Barack Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran.

    As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point … if any, are we going to take military action?”

    He added, “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in” given the ongoing war in Iraq. “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent Islamic extremists” were to “take over.” http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521

    I just don’t think Democrats need to jump on Bush’s “eternal war” bandwagon and oughta’ be developing plans for diplomacy and negotiations with Iran instead.

  • My problem with Obama lately is that he keeps adding fuel to the strawman fire. He’s given speeches about how the Democrats need to be more friendly to religions and now he’s giving speeches about how we need to be tougher on national security and defense.

    His stumps speeches are doing nothing to reinforcing the strawman arguments from the right. It’s time for Obama to stop nit-picking the Democratic party and start attacking the failure that is the GOP.

    I still like him and have respect for them, but the more he becomes a pawn in Rovian chess, the less good I think he does for the party.

  • His stumps speeches are doing nothing to reinforcing…

    Of course, I mean “His stump speeches are doing nothing but reinforcing…”

    Sigh, one of those days.

  • Obama makes one mistake over and over again: process talk.

    e.g., “Democrats need to _____ (start, stop) _____ (doing, talking about)_____ (fill in issue of choice).

    How about going out there and saying it, Barak, rather than chiding us for not saying it? Howard Dean did this a lot in 2004 and it drove me nuts

  • Tough crowd.

    Seems to me that all the contenders have flaws:
    Clinton is Clinton;
    Feingold (my personal favorite) is twice divorced and too liberal for the general election;
    Warner isn’t charismatic;
    Bayh – what’s he done in the Senate?

    For people who don’t follow politics on a daily basis, Obama is a likeable person. I think he has the best chance of rallying the democratic and independent votes.

  • Once again – as a determinedly non-religious person – I find myself offended by all you “easily offended” types who claim to be on my side of the religious question, who are so obviously full of doubt about your own beliefs that you crap your pants when a guy like Obama – who legitimately believes what he believes – raises the issue of the role of progressive religion in the field of progressive politics. I suggest you people go back and do some serious reading in American history, to see the role of progressive religion in campaigning for and enacting much of what you would all claim as the icons of progressivism, from aboltion to child labor law, to women’s rights, to the civil rights movement, to you name it – those people have “been there” and frequently they have “been there” getting their heads beaten for those things when “progressive intellectuals” like you all were sitting back laughing at them, as your contribution to “progress.”

    If you don’t like what he says, how did you support Martin Luther King? Or did you?

    Face facts: if you want to win the elections, keep your mouths shut on this subject, because stepping on your tongues not only alienates the people you need to reach, it makes you look stupid.

  • The reason he has itchy pants about national security:

    Obama bin Laden.

    He was gifted with the wrong syllables for a first name.
    And yes… image is nearly everything in Presidential politics.

    To have any hope of being President he is going to have to use the “kill” word more than even Kerry did in ’04.

    We got to KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL terrorists.

    But don’t fret all this:
    I am sure Obama will get used to playing the brute…

  • Obama is a gifted speaker among the mediocre many on both sides of the aisle in public life today. Much of his rhetoric is inspiring, and if I don’t listen too closely to some of what he says (already noted in comments above) in the DLC mode, I am drawn to him. But, alas, I must pay attention to the substance of his stands that is sprinkled in amongst the high notes of inspiration. I watched his star turn in Iowa on C-Span. People respond to him because he sounds so good. “Please run for President!” “You’ve given us hope!” I heard these calls to him time and again as he moved through the crowd signing autographs and posing for pictures. I am suspicicious of his caution and his apparent willingness to accommodate with a Republican party that would love to roll him up in a carpet and pitch him off a high place. So, until he demonstrates a willingness to be much bolder in his advocacy of liberal policies and much tougher on the BS that the Republicans are peddling, I am not among those calling for him to run. I hope he learns that inspirational speaking does not preclude being bold and tough and willing to differentiate yourself sharply from the opposition. I do not think he’s there yet, and more significantly, I don’t know that he wants to be there.

  • I agree with comments # 4,5,7 & 13. Obama comes off as too much of a politician. He needs maturity to gain stature and to leave the pandering behind. He’s got to get “real” to feel real; that is, risk his popularity with how he really feels. With Al Sharpton–given his past–I know who he is, and I am comfortable with him knowing his shortcomings. Obama has a certain “Manchurian candidate” feel to his political persona. In contrast, Ted Kennedy is Ted Kennedy! Enuf said.

  • Obama will be in VA soon, pitchin’ in for Webb, and I think it’s wonderful, because he’s full of charisma and enthusiasm (something our candidate is lacking to an extent).

    Running for President? Not yet; he needs some years of growing up/maturing. Running for Vice President? Iffy, but a possibility.

  • Remember that Republicans didn’t choose W to run for president because he was so deep in the facts and so capable. They picked him because he could be elected, he had name recognition, he had connections with “normal people” (who presumably would like to have a beer with him.) and on and on. The “everyday guy” is going to be more and more electable as time goes by. Obama is as everyday and “connecting” as you’re gonna get.

  • Remember that Republicans didn’t choose W to run for president because he was so deep in the facts and so capable. They picked him because he could be elected, he had name recognition, he had connections with “normal people” (who presumably would like to have a beer with him.) and on and on. The “everyday guy” is going to be more and more electable as time goes by.

    But look what America GOT with the Bush “electable” character. A disaster. A “fact-lite” and inexperienced president is just what we DON’T need this time around. We need someone with a vision for America that is far removed from the Bush vandalism of our country and who has the strength of character to stand up to the crazies who have taken over the government at all levels, get rid of them, repair the damage, and bring America back to its former greatness. It is not a job for a substanceless president.

    Obama needs a lot more “tuning” before he can actually lead America, even with all the charisma in the world.

  • “Remember that Republicans didn’t choose W to run for president because he was so deep in the facts and so capable. They picked him because he could be elected, he had name recognition, he had connections with “normal people” (who presumably would like to have a beer with him.) and on and on.” – Don B

    The Republican’ts choose Boy George II for their presidential candidate because they are under the control of the Texas Mafia and Boy George II was the choice of the Texas Mafia because they controlled him. Surely this was not the best the Republican’ts could do in 2000?

    These are the people who thought it would be a great idea to put two Texas Oilmen on the same ticket, and couldn’t win the popular vote with them. Now gasoline prices are merely twice what they were in 2000, and you have to wonder why we were spending that extra 50 cents for the last two years.

    Remember, in 2000 a plurality of Americans voted for Policy Wonkiness and a majority for Environmentalism. Due to the Supreme Court we got neither.

  • Lance and Anney, you’re right – we got a disaster. We got misery. We got what we deserved as a country

    But W got elected.

    For whatever reason, he’s the president. Standing on ideals and waiting for the perfect candidate is preferable to regime change? If we all gaze at our navels at the next dem candidate and say “well, he’s OK, but he needs a bit of work” then we can prepare now for another 4 years of republican presidency. Count on it. The repubs do no such navel gazing – they pick the person who will win and then do everything they can to make him win. Period.

  • It doesn’t matter, Don. There are other qualities in human beings that make for better government than charisma.

    The presidency of GW Bush has been the most destructive and threatening to America of any administration in my lifetime and probably the lifetime of most here. A huge effort must be made to turn the damage around, and to propose an unqualified presidential candidate on the basis of his or her charisma alone just doesn’t show any understanding of what has to be done.

    If Democrats were to get a charismatic president elected who couldn’t do the job, don’t you think the Old Guard Republicans would come roaring back in 2012 even stronger than they are now? America would be lost forever then I fear.

  • Are you seriously arguing that because Obama is charismatic, he is therefore as shallow or incapable of governing as Bush?

    I’m pretty certain he would have the seriousness and smarts to be a capable leader. I do think that more political experience at the national level could help him, but I have no doubt that he’d be infinitely superior to Bush. And as Don B says, we have to win. Anyone that the dems put up is going to take the country in a dramatically better direction. We tend not to produce ‘leaders’ like our current pResident.

  • The average voter isn’t going to vote for Obama Bin Laden. I’m not saying that’s how I think, it’s how the average beer drinking voter thinks. He doesn’t have a chance. The Manchurian Candidate thing will bury him.
    Unfortunate name that will cost him the pickup truck votes.

    • Comments are closed.