As a kid, I was fairly accelerated in math. When I came home one day with a test score that was just fine but not great, my parents were pretty upset and suggested that I withdraw from the advanced course. This seemed totally bewildering to me at the time since I was comfortably passing the class, but their claim was that you don’t skip ahead in order to just get by. You skip ahead only if you can still be exceptional.
I think this is an important thing to keep in mind when evaluating the putative Obama candidacy. If he runs, he’s running really early in his career. This is a great thing for him to do if you believe that he’s a special kind of leader who we need to fix our system as soon as possible (and like I said before, I see this as a possibility, but as far as I’m concerned the jury’s still out). It’s a less good–but still sort of okay–thing for him to do if he’s doing it just because he believes that the way the potential field lines up in this cycle is advantageous to him and maybe this is his best chance. And it’s a bad, cowardly thing for him to do if he’s doing it just because he doesn’t want to build up a long record in the Senate that can be used against him one day.
This last line is somewhat controversial, but I think it’s right. People often say that he needs to run now or else he’ll have too much Senatorial baggage, but that’s not really true. For one thing, he could easily end up as a vice president or governor if he really wanted to get out of the Senate soon. For another, as a friend recently said to me, if he turns out to be as great as we all hope he is, then he should be able to build up a record that helps him, not hurts him.
As for the middle option, where he runs now because it just seems convenient, well that’s what made me open with the story about the math class. I mean, I’m pretty sure he’d be a good candidate and good president, but when you’re talking about accelerating the career path that aggressively, it should be because you’re truly extraordinary, not because you’re just good enough.
Which brings me back to the first option, the Obama-as-transformational-leader option. That’s what the country really needs, and that’s what Obama needs to demonstrate he has to offer. Because if he can offer that, then we’ll all agree that we need him, we need him badly, and we need him now, and it will make all the talk about inexperience disappear.
So, Obama supporters, when you’re asked about your candidate’s inexperience, don’t bristle. We’re asking you because we need to be convinced that he’s the guy who can usher in a new era of government. It’s a helluva a high bar, and it sure is a double standard. But if Obama wants to be treated like the rest of the candidates, he should sit in the senate for a term or two and then run. Until then, we have no choice but to expect him to be something special and unique.
ArchPundit
Another important point, if Obama runs now and loses (either the primary or the general), can he be the Golden Boy a second time?
I am not a political novice. I have seen alot of politics. I have seen some of the so-called charismatic ones like Reagan and Clinton.
I know Obama said if he ran it would be with the seriousness the office deserves. he wouldn’t do it because of something lightly. Because he is the hot hand. He is very introspective and a serious thinker.
With this in mind I got to tell you I have not seen anyone like him. I voted for him for senator. I have been drawn to his words. When I caught him on cspan at the harkin steak fry I knew he was someone superior. To see the faces of those Iowa people was amazing. To see thier eyes…
haunting.
I don’t think he is the next Kennedy. I think he is himself. But, I try to be the adult I am and try to think it out who I will support and everyone else pales. Edwards phoneyness just seems highlighted and Hillary’s crass pandering is revolting.
I think it goes to more than just charisma because I sense someone who is much deeper than expected. Much wiser. I sense someone who is a person who excells and has something very special to offer. I feel he is beyond many senators who have been there for along time.
We will see.
I like Obama a lot.
But I don’t about all this ‘transformational leader’ mumbo jumbo. It seems like an impossibly high bar to set for anyone. What is that, anyway? Seems like David Sirota is obsessed with the concept and knocking it down in regards to Obama.
I don’t think that Obama will change the world, but I do think he’ll make it significantly better. This country is in horrible shape. To fix the things that are wrong, you need someone with FDR’s vision, but there aren’t any FDR’s out there. No one who’s even close.
What Obama is…well, he’s a strong politician. He’s someone with strong beliefs. He doesn’t always say the right thing, but his intentions are right. He wants to build the Democratic Party. He wants to right America’s course.
I’ve been reading his book. The thing that bleeds through, despite Obama being politically correct in how he talks about it, is that the Republicans poisoned our political discourse. He knows they aren’t going to reverse course, but he doesn’t want to go down that road. He wants to remove the poison. He wants to set forth a vision that people can get behind, and so far, I like his vision.
When he says bi-partisan, or slams partisanship, he’s not doing it in the way Lieberman does. He slams that kind of ‘bipartisanship’ early in the book. He recognizes that it just functions to pull us further and further to the right. When he says it, he’s talking more about being above the fray. Plotting the course of what’s right, and then communicating with others, and taking their concerns into consideration, and then plowing forward.
But, he’s also a cipher. He knows that. He says as much in his book, that people are hoisting their ideals upon him, when they don’t know much about him.
I’ll check back in once I finish the book, but I like what I’ve seen so far, both in terms of his record in the Senate, and in terms of what he has to say. My biggest complaint is with the use of strawmen, but I think that he recognizes that that isn’t helping (I haven’t seen much in the way of “some democrats this or that” in his recent speeches), and is modifying his message appropriately. He’s also very bright, very careful, and very deliberate in how he crafts his message.
Anyway, this is longer than I planned. Obama’s still up in the air. We’ll see what comes. But so far, barring Gore jumping in, he’s my slight favorite (Edwards is #2)
I don’t know if he’s the best candidate but he’s the only democrat that can win. No other all star dem is likable in the least bit. I’m from the middle of Kansas, conservative as hell, and people like Obama here. He’d still never take Kansas in million years but I’ve never heard anything good about Hillary, Gore, Edwards, or any other dem back home. He would definately win Ohio, and Missouri and maybe another midwest state. Experience is b.s. anyways. The less you have, the less rich evil bastards you have to pay back when you get to power.
There’s the rub: what is the ideal of the transformed nation that the “transformation” leader presents?
As Mr. Bliss states, disillusion in our politicians pervades our body politic. And to remedy this, apathy, distrust, and contempt, as a physic to providing us with a healthy, vital national existence, perhaps we require a gentle, caring doctor, of sorts.
Yet, as many of the comments posted, and Mr. Bliss’s own acknowledgment, have and has made clear, the charisma and the presentation and the star-power of Mr. Obama does not explain where he would substantially lead this country to.
Perhaps we should content ourselves with a president putting this nation on the mend. Assuaging and ameliorating. But, again, to what state do we seek our state, how will we know our convalescence will result in a robust political life?
I argue that a disease, that predates Johnson, causes the symptoms of our attitudes toward our governments. After all, should we be satisfied with the hobbled democracy of the Truman administration, initiating our atomic weapons age for no damn good reason? Should we be satiated with the gluttonous economy of our “Manifest destiny” expansion rout? Should we be connived and co-opted by any number of ”National interests” that despoiled our integrity while profiting some few individual investors?
Could this diagnosis be opined by any candidate?
Perchance to dream.
Hi Daniel, interesting questions and observations on Barack, I’ll answer as a former staffer of his (and an obvious partisan).
I fully expect him to do something unique and special as you, rightly, have asked of him. To have the “audacity” to contemplate such a job simply requires you to be a big dreamer and to offer something bigger than what the usual crowd can offer.
I will also postulate that the current state of our nation and the challenges ahead have set the stage for his ascendancy more than anything else. If politics was not so poorly thought of (read in his book about how he bristled at old ladies saying, “you’re such a nice boy, why are you in politics?”), if our economy wasn’t in such a precarious position (deficits, China holding so much of our foreign currency), if our foreign policy wasn’t such a disaster, if our healthcare system wasn’t broken and if our environment was properly kept up he would not be receiving such the attention he is now.
People wouldn’t be looking for something so drastically different. They wouldn’t be looking for “change, versus more of the same” (that line’s going to come back to haunt you Mrs. Clinton).
So to that, I say thank you auto companies for fighting café standards, thank you big energy for polluting our nation, thank you PHRMA for putting profits over people, thank you Grover Norquist for valuing your tax return more than a working stiff’s family bills, thank you pundits for slicing and dicing us into red states and blue states and, most tragically, thank you Mr. Rove and Mr. Cheney for a war that has cost us so dearly in blood.
You’ve set the stage for Barack. You are the reason he is here.
I merely feel like making this observation instead of answering why I think he is extraordinary. I’ll let him prove that to you guys himself.
best,
TOM B.
Experience isn’t a big deal for me… but Rezko, Giannulious, Stroger…. he didn’t try to transform Illinois a wit… c’mon… he’s an Illinois Pol… more of one then I realized when I voted for the guy.
All Presidents are sui generis; there is no real template by which one can predict future success. Unlike every other elected office, the single most important characteristic one can have in a President is good judgment. Obama has shown thus far that on the national stage, he has the best judgment of all the major Democratic contenders, save possibly Gore.
This is the single best reason he should run right now. Career considerations and the like are all secondary or tertiary in importance.
Obviously other characteristics are necessary to have a successful Executive; it just so happens that Obama excels in most of those areas as well (charisma, communication skills, fundraising). The only thing he really lacks IMHO is a track record of accomplishment in an executive type job. But I think that is somewhat overrated anyway; just look at the CEO / Governor who has that job right now. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
It’s impossible to do as you suggest. People don’t get politically damaging records by voting for terrible things. They get them by voting for incredibly good things that have unpopular riders attached to them. That way, he’s damned if he does for for it (he voted to let. child molestors get DNA tests!) and if voted against it, he was against funding for therapy for sexual abuse victims.
Hi everyone — thanks again for all the great responses. A few quick new year’s day thoughts:
Nicholas: yeah, that’s definitely a concern.
jerry 101: I think Tom B answers your question about what the mumbo jumbo means. We have big structural problems right now and tweaking things within the status quo isn’t good enough. We need someone who can change the status quo.
Soullite: I’m gonna disagree here. Of course you’re right to a point, but I think those attacks only work when they reinforce existing impressions that people have of the candidate. John Kerry didn’t get branded a flip-flopper because the oppo research team dug deep into his voting record to find contradictions. He got branded a flip-flopper because his position on the main issue of the day (the war) made him seem like a flip-flopper. Once that was the case, Bush was able to play up small inconsistencies in his voting record to reinforce the already-present negative image.
By contrast, people aren’t talking about running against John McCain (who’s been in the senate for decades) by picking apart weaknesses in his voting record. This is because, rightly or wrongly, folks are already convinced that he’s a straight shooter, and digging up esoteric votes isn’t going to change that.