Run, Barack, run

It’s easy to make the case that Barack Obama shouldn’t run for president in 2008. He hasn’t quite finished his first year in the Senate, he has no foreign policy experience, and not incidentally, he’s said he doesn’t want to.

But that’s no fun at all. TNR’s Ryan Lizza today makes a surprisingly compelling argument that Obama not only should run for president in ’08, but must run.

Lizza’s point is not necessarily about finding the anti-Hillary or taking advantage of Obama’s unique personal traits, but rather emphasizes the significance of timing. As Lizza sees it, Obama needs to run immediately before the Senate ruins his chances forever. As he sees it, 2008 may be Obama’s only shot at the job.

Obama, you may remember, is the lanky 44-year-old from Illinois elected to the Senate last year. He is the most promising politician in America, and eventually he is going to run for president. The case for running now is not that it is the perfect moment for him to run. It’s not. It is just that it may be the best chance he will ever get.

The main objection to an Obama run is his obvious lack of experience. He needs at least a full Senate term before he is taken seriously, the argument goes. On the one hand, each day spent in the Senate gives Obama more experience and stature for his inevitable presidential campaign. But each day also brings with it an accumulation of tough votes, the temptations of bad compromises, potentially perilous interactions with lobbyists, and all the other behaviors necessary to operate as a successful senator. At some unknowable date in the future, remaining in the Senate will reach a point of diminishing returns for Obama. The experience gained by being a good senator will start to be outweighed by the staleness acquired by staying in Washington.

There’s no way for Obama to know when he will reach this point. That uncertainty makes 2008 look like his best opportunity.

If Obama waits until 2012, he faces the challenge of taking on an incumbent Republican or facing an incumbent Dem in primary. By 2016, he may have to face the 2012 winner. In either case, as Lizza notes, Obama will still have built up the kind of record that has made it so difficult for senators to even win their party’s nomination, better yet the presidency.

In a nutshell, Lizza’s argument can be summarized in six words: strike while the iron is hot.

The kind of political star power Obama has doesn’t last. My favorite law of American politics is that candidates have only 14 years to become president. That is their expiration date. The idea was conceived by a very smart political junkie who happens to be a senior aide to Vice President Cheney (don’t hold that against him), and the law was popularized in a column by Jonathan Rauch of National Journal. As Rauch put it, “With only one exception [Lyndon Johnson] since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president.”

As Rauch showed, the majority of presidents since 1900 have fallen on the low end of this zero-to-fourteen-year spectrum: zero (Dwight Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft), two years (Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt), four years (Franklin Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge), and six years (George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding). The lesson is that Obama must strike while he is hot or risk fading into obscurity.

Lizza concedes the biggest obstacle to an Obama presidential campaign would be his lack of experience on national security. Fair enough. Reagan, Carter, and Clinton won without significant experience in world affairs, but it’s a post-9/11 era. But then again, did you happen to notice Obama’s excellent op-ed, co-written by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Dick Lugar, on surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East?

Is Obama too young? In 2008, Obama will be 47. In 1992, Bill Clinton was 46. In Obama too inexperienced? In 1998, when George W. Bush decided to run for president, he’d held public office for a total of four years. And considering the fact that the Texas Legislature is in session only once every other year, Bush had only really worked in government for two years before deciding he should be the nation’s chief executive.

It’s open to debate, but many see Obama as the most exciting senator since Bobby Kennedy — who ran for president after just four years in the Senate. Hmm.

What have you been smoking?

Does the name ‘Checkers’ mean anything to you?

Wasn’t some obscure Congressman picked to run for VP in 1952? Are you saying that being elected VP puts the 14 year rule on hold?

How can Nixon be 6 years? Because a former VP ran for Governor?

  • I see the point. There is just one sticking point – what if he doesn’t want to be president? Sure we can say all these Senators, governors, politicans have huge egos, and want to be president and there is a good case for that, but we know that all of them don’t necessarily want that. Considering what Clinton and Bush have gone throught – it is a wonder if anyone who is mildly interested isn’t scared off.

  • And, ET, don’t forget the likely financial shape of the country that the next president will be inheriting. That person will have one hell of a mountain to climb, with a whole lot of unpopular decisions to make.

  • bubba – amen

    Any dem wanting the job better be ready for the GOP ranting about raising taxes (which will have to be done at some point) and the other usual trip the spew like the deficit (which the will “conveniently” ignore when it blew up and who helped).

  • If Dean can’t run, I agree.

    Most of the old-line Dems were “fooled” by Bush, so do THEY have any “national security” credibility? No.

    The current Democratic field is weak, and full of people who made dubious votes in the past. Obama would kick the Republican’s asses. Get him a solid VP to check off the “national security” requirement (as Bush did with Cheney) and he’s all set.

    When has the country needed fresh leadership more than now?

  • And don’t get me wrong–I think it will take a person of intense integrity and rock-solid conviction to overcome the problems which will be faced.
    And Obama might be such a person, particularly if he pools together a qualified and partially bi-oartisan group to advise him. But I have a funny feeling that whomever wins in 2008 will be sort of a sacrificial lamb regardless of talent or conviction.

  • The other thing going against Obama is the fact that only two sitting U.S. Senators in the last century have been elected President: Harding (1920) and Kennedy (1963). The voting records of Senators make it very difficult to run without one’s opponent making often spurious claims about prior Senate floor votes.

    Consequently, we see that holding a governorship often leads more successfully to a run for the White House. Recent presidents who went to the White House from the statehouse include Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter.

    So, whether it’s John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama or anyone else sitting in the Senate, you may not want to bet your life savings on a 2008 victory. It’s a tough row to hoe.

  • Racerx,

    The current Democratic field is weak, and full of people who made dubious votes in the past.

    Yep, you knew I wouldn’t let this go. Clark is neither weak nor possiing a past full of dubious votes.

    Go Wesley Clark!

  • Doesn’t someone in the progressive blog world have comments about Dean’s “we’ve lost in Iraq” speech? I can’t find any comments even though it seems to be something that will haunt Dems for years if we don’t drop Dean immediately.

    Unlike Murtha’s plan, Dean’s gaffe really does corrode what little morale is left in our soldiers, and it panders to a simplistic worldview.

    I’m drafting my letter to my Democratic reps to plead for the replacement of Howard Dean.

    Sorry if this is off topic.

  • Owen,

    Sorry to break it to you, but we’ve lost in Iraq. The Iraqi government is openly saying “leave now,” we’re engaged in urban guerilla warfare, and we don’t have the support of the population. The situation is untenable. Do you need more reasons why it is so?

    Murtha doesn’t say as much but I think he believes it, too.

  • “The main objection to an Obama run is his obvious lack of experience.”

    Okay, I know we’re all well-intentioned people here, but from a political perspective – and I stress in advance that this is not something I’m happy about – the main objection to an Obama run in ’08 is the fact that he’s black. And the sad proof of that is how neither this blog nor Lizza (whom I respect a great deal) is putting that obvious issue forward.

    Lizza’s quotes read as if he’s writing about a white candidate. That’s fine as far as being color-blind goes, but it’s also stupid. If the Dems run an unqualified candidate for President simply because he’s hot, and then on top of that run a black candidate, aren’t a lot of voters going to think the worst of the party, and not the best? Why should a white male or female swing voter vote for Obama? Seriously? Why? Because of his domestic credentials? Because of his skin color?

    Put Obama up against McCain in your mind, then think of all those people who voted for Bush last time. Who are they going to vote for?

    Steve, I think you’re a smart guy. I think Lizza is a smart guy. But running Obama in ’08 would be proving that the Dem party is as out of touch as the Reps have made us out to be. We need a candidate in ’08 who is first and foremost strong on defense. Whatever that means to you, that’s what we need. Obama may be on fire, but he doesn’t know anything about foreign policy or national security, and the Republicans would have him looking like a coward and an incompetent in a few short weeks.

    Really, this is probably the worst analysis I’ve read on this site in a long time. It’s exactly the mix of bleeding-heart-liberal blindness and unrealistic progressive optimism that the right is always making fun of. We have to be smarter than that.

    Running Obama would take the focus off the Republican Party’s failings in national security and foreign policy and concede those issues back to the Republicans. Voters who care about those issues would have no where else to turn. It would also make the race about race, instead of being about the post-9/11 issues we face. And it would turn presidential politics back into a beauty contest instead of making it about competence, which the Republicans have made themselves vulnerable on as never before.

    Personally I am blown away by Obama. But he can’t win. And if he runs we give away the best chance we’ve ever had since Vietnam to take defense issues away from the Republicans, which would mean their own power base would be crippled for decades. (Think about how critical it is to their strength.) Find me a black Dem Collin Powell and I’m aboard. But don’t tell me an unqualified minority candidate is just what the country is yearning for right now, because it isn’t

    What the country wants is someone who can make them feels safe. Not good about themselves, but safe. Don’t ever, ever forget that.

  • I’d love to see Obama run in 2008. But … isn’t he kind of an unknown as a campaigner? The Republicans did essentially forfeit the race when they chose that fruitcake Alan Keyes as their Senate candidate.

  • Rauch’s thesis sounds awfully cooked to me — for many of the good reasons elucidated above, as well as the fact that the relatively small number of data points and constantly changing historical circumstances make comparing presidential elections across eras hugely problematic.

    In any event, I think Obama’s most promising path is to complete 1 or 2 terms in the Senate (focusing on both “big-picture” Dem econ issues and defense/security/military issues), and then follow Corzine from the Denate into the gubernatorial ranks.

    The biggest reason Obama’s thin electoral cv won’t hold up in ’08 is the MSM. A Dem will not be allowed to be thin on experience (esp w/the military/foreign affairs). Witness the ’00 campaign, where Gore (the most qualified VP ever to run for the presidency) was ridiculed by the MSM in favor of the “plain-speaking” Bush, with less than zero foreign affairs credentials and the virtually work- and responsibility-free Texas governorship behind him.

  • Interesting questions:

    1. Does being young and inexperienced make you “soft” on defense?
    2. Would 3 or 4 years of serving as a U.S. senator, all during a time of war, not help to overcome that “inexperienced” label more so than 8 or 10 years of serving during a time of peace?
    3. Would nominating a black presidential candidate serve to show that the Democratic party is out of touch with mainstream America?
    4. What if that black candidate was a Christian?
    5. Who would be first to point out the race issue: the party of inclusion, hoping to promote his/her race…or the party of Christians, hoping to deter voters?
    6. Would history name it irony or poetic justice were the NEXT President of this country be both black and Christian?

    Since when was it mandated that true leadership comes from experience, or from heredity, or from faith?

  • What the country wants is someone who can make them feels safe. Not good about themselves, but safe. Don’t ever, ever forget that.

    Oy sums it up nicely. My only quibble is that its not necessarily “the country” its the swing voters who will decide the next election. THEY want someone who can make them feel safe.

  • I just don’t get it. What’s all the excitement
    about? I think we are so desperate for a
    real leader, with principles, to come forth from
    the pack of lackluster, spineless and visionless
    Democrats that we’re recklessly coronating a
    man who lacks the experience and maturity
    of office to assume the presidency. Because he
    has lofty ideals? Because he sounds good?
    He hasn’t been through the meatgrinder yet.
    Who knows what kind of man will emerge from
    a couple of terms in the Senate?

    What did Churchill say about the difference
    between a man aged 20 and 40? This guy’s
    only 44 years old. What did he do before? I
    don’t know.

    He’s certainly got a lot of potential, we think.
    Let him develop it. He’s not ready, and we’ve
    no assurance that he will be. I agree with those
    who say running him in 2008 would be an
    unmitigated disaster, similar to some recent
    bad choices by the Democrats, like Mondale,
    Dukakis and McGovern.

    I, personally, don’t see anyone who can win in
    2008, and I’m not sure I’d want them to. I’ve
    been deeply disappointed by Hillary, Kerry
    and Dean. Right now, I’d sit the damn thing
    out. The only guy I’d vote for is Al Gore, and
    he’s not going to run, dammit. He’s got a
    fire in his belly now. What a team he’d make
    with Clark. But it ain’t gonna happen.

    Barring a miracle, say the Dems winning in
    2006 and impeaching Bush, ain’t no way
    for 2008. It’s a hopeless crew of Dems.

  • The comparison with Bobby Kennedy is a bit scary. Especially as we are talking about an African-American.

  • My vote would be to pair him with Clark as his VP nominee. Clark has outstanding credentials on defence while Obama can bring up the home front.

  • Sure he’s got talent. But I think Mark Warner is going to perform as a candidate in such a way that will quiet most doubters. The guy is the next Clinton, without the sex, with the brain, with added realness and regular guyness. Plus a good record to run on and excellent geography. He’s the next 2 term President. Obama will become President some time after 2020. After he’s served a couple of terms in the Senate, retired, and been governor for a term or two. Or, serves in a preceding administration. Maybe as a Veep.

    Yes, I’m out on a limb, but so what? George Allen is the Republican nominee in 08, coasting to a surprisingly easy finish. He loses handily to Warner in the general, though, Warner gets nearly 300 EV’s. The media loves the VA angle. The economy stays stagnant for about a decade, lending public impetus to shoring up health care costs and retirement. Higher taxes and a ‘mini new deal’. Moderate R’s go along for the ride. They have to, because people are going broke post housing bubble and their lives are falling apart.

  • I’ve been giving this some thought for the very reasons pointed out in the post regarding the trouble that members of the house and senate have in gaining the executive office. I think that he should run for governor of Illinois at the next opportunity.

    That’s how I see it from the cheap seats…

  • As usual, I agree with hark. I don’t see what the big deal is about Obama, except for our longing to get behind someone. He made a good speech and, since, he’s done nothing of note in the Senate for the short time he’s been there. Suddenly, he should be President? Let’s let some time pass and see what he does of substance.

  • PRM: Maybe the definition of “losing” in Iraq needs to be defined, just as “victory” does. I’d say “we’ve lost” when a full-blown civil war breaks out, which we may be approaching but have not yet reached.

    Congressman Murtha’s plan does not imply that he believes Iraq is hopelessly headed for civil war. Instead, he says that further troop presence is impeding the accomplishment of our final goal at the needless expense of our soldiers. His plan calls for both the creation of a quick reaction force in the region, and an over-the-horizon presence of Marines. This seems to say that he is against abandonment of Iraq to civil war.

    Regardless of how Dean defines “losing” in Iraq, a man in his position should not be telling the troops that from today forward they are fighting a lost cause. That is not leadership, and the head of the DNC should know that.

  • Sometimes I just don’t understand you people. I almost suspect that half of you are Republicans in Dem clothing trying to manipulate and obfuscate. Obama is too black to be elected? Those for which this is an impediment, would have voted Republican regardless. How many decades have we been watching and waiting for the first black president? Two? Three? More. And now we see someone with intelligence, charisma, compassion, and faith… and we want to dump him BECAUSE he’s black and thus can’t win? You people only want an absolutely guaranteed win? You don’t want to support a man made possible by the intelligence, charisma, compassion, and faith of another “outsider” President named Lincoln? And Obama’s from the same damned state even? How dare you try to squelch Obama’s chances (in your own tiny way) before he’s even decided to run or not. And just because he’s a black man. You should be ashamed.

    The 2008 Democratic primaries look to possibly field the most remarkably competent slate of presidential candidates ever seen in the history of this country: Obama, Clark, Richardson, Warner, Edwards, Clinton, perhaps even Gore, Dean, Kucinich, and Russ Feingold for God sake! Against whom representing the red states? McCain, Guiliani, and Allen? Please.

    If Gore decides to run — I know, I know, he’s still digging his modest toes in the sand — but if he runs, he’ll be nominated. Then he’ll have a heckuva choice to make. Obama would be the bold AND smart choice — yes, including for reasons of race. If that bothers you, then perhaps your sock puppeteer days at Carpetbagger are over…

  • Barack Obama is highly intelligent, charasmatic, one of the best speakers/debaters I have ever seen and someone who makes you forget about race and rather just see him as an incredible human being. People respond to him like no other candidate for any office in the last 40 years. Please get to know the candidate before making a decision on him, like America would if he did run for President. While in Illinois I saw hard core senior citizen Republicans pledge their allegiance to him.

  • Owen,

    Three things:

    First, I don’t think our troops’ morale is closely tied to the utterances of Howard Dean or any other Republican or Democratic blowhard. Many have probably reached the conclusion from firsthand observation. More than a few reports I’ve seen from troops on the ground report the situation is hopeless.

    Second, Murtha also noted that the troops have accomplished what they can with what they have. I’m no military expert, but I know you don’t call for the withdrawal of troops when you have the upper hand.

    Third, can you provide a link for Dean’s comments? Context really is everything here. For example, you say he’s made a “speech,” I’ve read elsewhere he made the comment during an interview with a Texas radio station. Which is it? And where can I find his full comments?

  • “How dare you try to squelch Obama’s chances (in your own tiny way) before he’s even decided to run or not. And just because he’s a black man. You should be ashamed.”

    I am ashamed. I’m ashamed I live in a country in which there are so many racists that a Democratic Obama candidacy for president would polarize the electorate and doom his candidacy. I’m also ashamed of people like you, who prefer to play the race card rather than look at the reality of racism and bigotry in this country, and how it would affect the Democratic Party’s chances in ’08. Moral victories are losses. The gay marriage amendment crowd forced the Democratic Party to deal with its issue before the ’04 election, and that helped put Bush back in office, which means he’s picking the supreme court nominees who may ultimately decide the issue. Is that progress?

    I don’t think so.

    Go ahead and stick your head in the sand, or wherever you’ve stuck it. Obama is a brilliant man. He’s also completely unqualified to be president by almost any measure. And the fact that he’s black is the main motivation for both supporting him and opposing him. Which means his candidacy, and the entire ’08 race, would be off-topic. We’ve got qualified and strong candidates — including Kerry, whom you notably left off your own list — and that’s enough. As I said before, give me the Dem version of Collin Powell for president and I’ll sign on. Until then, if we can only find white versions of the same, then that’s what I want, and that’s what I think the majority of the American people want. Race per se has nothing to do with it. Obama’s race does.

  • PRM: Dean isn’t just any blowhard, he’s the chairman of the DNC. He gets quoted and media pundits use his message for talking points.

    Dean’s framing the Iraq debate into simplistic “we’ve lost” vs. “we’re winning” terms, rather than “stay the course” vs. informed alternative strategies such as Murtha’s.

    Dems need to propose real alternatives for the sake of our soldiers and the sake of beating the Bushies, not just grandstand with declarations of defeat (which do no one any good).

    You’re right though about my comments referring to his radio comments and not a speech. But he is too gaffe prone for a DNC chairman. This is hardly the first time he’s done this sort of thing.

  • Oy, you finally said something that made me want to comment. Two things actually…

    “the fact that he’s black is the main motivation for both supporting him and opposing him.” – You have GOT to be kidding. The main reason for supporting Obama is because he is a moral, principled man who knows how to reach out to Americans and inspire them with hope. Much the same way that Reagan did with “morning in America”…maybe more so.

    “He’s also completely unqualified to be president by almost any measure.”

    Unless you measure him against the current occupier of the office. Please enlighten me…how is W qualified to be president??? Because his daddy was???

    Oy – seems to me that you are nothing but a Repug in Dem clothing. As for the “dem version of Colin Powell”, gee….where are dems going to find a man with who is willing to compromise his own principles to serve as the “token” minority for an admin that will do nothing but exploit him?

  • If anyone, Republican or Democrat, raises “lack of experience on national security” as an issue against Obama, he can just say, “Hey, could I do any worse than Bush?” thus insulating himself from both Republicans, who can’t admit Bush did badly with no experience, and Democrats, many of whom also can’t admit Bush did badly, or claim they’d do better, now that they (e.g., Hillary, Biden, Lieberman, etc.) have tethered themselves to Bush’s War in Iraq plan.

  • Gridlock:

    “Unless you measure him against the current occupier of the office. Please enlighten me…how is W qualified to be president??? Because his daddy was???”

    This is a talking point that comes up a lot from lefties. Clearly Bush isn’t qualified to be president, but when he ran the first time (and got the election handed to him) he didn’t have to contend with 9/11. That’s the difference, and it’s embarrassing to me how often the left elects to ignore the fact that 9/11 happened. I know it’s hard for you, but the seminal moment in modern American politics wasn’t when Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, it’s when we were attacked on 9/11. That’s what the average voter is still concerned about. Like it or not (and I hate it), Bush was already president when that happened, and in the short term most of the country applauded his response and rallied around him.

    “Oy – seems to me that you are nothing but a Repug in Dem clothing.”

    And it’s that kind of comment that makes me think you’re a left-wing non-Dem Deaniac. There’s never any room in the Democratic Party for people who don’t think like you, even though you don’t really support the party at all.

    “As for the “dem version of Colin Powell”, gee….where are dems going to find a man with who is willing to compromise his own principles to serve as the “token” minority for an admin that will do nothing but exploit him?”

    I think it’s really terrible of you to hate Colin Powell because he’s black. If a white person had done what Powell did — and there are plenty of them around Bush still doing so — you wouldn’t even comment on it, because that’s politics. Can’t blacks be fuckups and sycophants too?

  • I would like to see him become governor of Illinois first. The experience would help him and IL. I think voters in 2008 will want experience over anything else – after 8 years of the Bush gang running amuck.

  • Comments are closed.