It's official: Obama is thinking about running. Of course the knock against him -- the only one that will stick, I imagine, but a big one -- is his lack of experience. For my part, I tend to think that character and circumstance define a presidency. Presidents are out of their depth the minute they walk into the office. No one is ever prepared to become the world's most powerful human being. It's how they react, who they hire, what kind of people they are, and above all, what happens in the world around them that ultimately matters.
John Kerry thinks he deserves a second shot at the presidency. The theme of his run, which is all but inevitable, is that he learned his lesson during his last run. He's ready to get tough, fight back, etc. My guess: not a chance in hell.
Also, as you've probably heard, Mark Warner took his hat out of the ring, which leaves an opening for a non-ideological moderate -- expect the fortunes of Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh to rise, at least in the short term.
On the Republican side, unless something or someone powerful intervenes, I'm assuming the candidate is going to be John McCain. He'll be tough to beat, not least thanks to his charisma and the incredible myth he's built around himself. He's bamboozled the press and a good chunk of the public into thinking he's a maverick and a free-thinker and a "reasonable" conservative. But while he would almost certainly be an improvement over Bush on the domestic front -- how could he not? -- he is, if anything, more enamored of war and foreign aggression than the neocons.
If it comes down to McCain vs. Hillary or Kerry, McCain will win. McCain vs. Gore or Obama would, at the very least, be a far more interesting race.
Comments
View as Flat
willa Posted 10:14 pm
22 Oct 2006
Maybe someday. Just not this time. Please, Hillary?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:17 am
23 Oct 2006
In Hillary's defense, she has always been a straight-laced, rigorist, activist Mid-Western Methodist. No way is she a flaming liberal. As desirable as it is that a woman finally be at the top of a presidential ticket (I would have much preferred to be supporting the magnificent Teresa Heinz Kerry in 2004 than her stiff husband), Hillary would probably do better by settling in as NY's Senator, for the duration. But OK, if she runs for president, fine, worse things could happen. It will be historic. It is definitely a good thing that for the first time a woman is being taken seriously as a candidate. (Sorry, Senators Dole and Moseley Braun.)
Of course, I would prefer that Kaela, or Willa, or Sarah v.S., were running ...
On Obama's alleged lack of experience: Consider the pathetically ill-prepared George W. Bush in 2000. If and when he steps up, Obama will do just fine. Of course he is no "miracle elixir," to quote Frank Rich. But there is nothing wrong with cultivating him, right now.
And it is better that he not hang around too long in the Senate. Look at what happened to poor Joe Biden, clearly intelligent and energetic, definitely admirable, but probably unelectable. (Frank Rich unfairly referred to him as a "blowhard.") I could easily see him as Secretary of State in a Democratic administration. Of course, knowing him, the president would have to make it quite clear to him who is the boss.
And John Edwards as Attorney General, and Wesley Clark at the Pentagon. I like them both, they are outsiders, they are talented, but their presidential hopes look pretty dismal.
And Dennis Kucinich: He could have any domestic job he wants. I love that man.
And Dr. Dean? Hmmm. Maybe.
The astute reader will have noticed that I said nothing yet about Al Gore. I guess that is because I want him to go for the top job, and I cannot help dreading what the primary campaign will be like, with him as a candidate, and then what the general campaign will be like.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:32 am
23 Oct 2006
Honestly though, it's kind of difficult to imagine the kind of defenses you must have to erect around your ego in order to run for President. Just think of the vitriolic emails David got for one simple, (somewhat misconstrued) statement on an Internet blog. I'm kind of amazed that anyone survives running for President, let alone would do it more than once.
What would be really interesting would be a Obama vs Hillary contest... kind of negates the "first" issue as it would be first black president vs first female president. And can you imagine an election that didn't come down to the lesser of two evils? Ah, someday.
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 1:58 am
23 Oct 2006
Wow. Is that even possible?
Permalink
midnightowl Posted 2:29 am
23 Oct 2006
Global Business Watch
http://www.gbwatch.com
Permalink
Tod Brilliant Posted 3:10 am
23 Oct 2006
Our only hope is the third party. Mark my words, it will happen. Sooner rather than later. . . may not be the Greens (so poorly organized in the U.S.), but the demand for a liberal party is too strong to not force an alternative. Remember, Eugene Debs and the Socialists not only nearly captured the White House years ago, but they forced Teddy and the Dems into adopting child labor laws, social security, the 40-hour work week, welfare and much more. And Perot, crazy loon, he came within a nationally-televised meltdown of removing Clinton/Gore from the history books.
" . . . because the world doesn't matter anymore if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
Permalink
marswiss Posted 6:26 am
23 Oct 2006
I don't think it is Obama's time yet...his time will come, as will the time of a woman, a Jewish person, a Latino/a, but it won't be their time because of those identifiers. It will be their time because they are the right person for the time who happens to be (____ fill in the blank here).
Permalink
mysticalfemme Posted 6:51 am
23 Oct 2006
Lisa Williamson
Permalink
nixau Posted 7:04 am
23 Oct 2006
Permalink
ACougar Posted 7:44 am
23 Oct 2006
Permalink
ggmurray Posted 10:20 am
23 Oct 2006
gg murray
Permalink
Tod Brilliant Posted 1:21 pm
23 Oct 2006
Face it, Dems: Unless Gore runs, you're pretty much fucked, no matter who you toss out there. Your party has done almost nothing to galvanize support, has shown zero leadership in rallying against Bush (instead, they've toed the line meekly for six years now). No Gore, no White House. The war and Foley aside, you guys are pretty much dead in the water and have been for years. Personally, I'm happy about this because it means we just may see the birth of a liberal party for the first time in the United States.
" . . . because the world doesn't matter anymore if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:55 pm
23 Oct 2006
If there were ever a viable third party, representing the majority viewpoint, its economics would be crudely protectionist and populist and it would be moderately-to-highly conservative on social issues. That's where all the surveys show the center of American opinion lies.
I won't claim to know your politics, Tod, but I'm guessing that party wouldn't hit your sweet spot.
You want your own party, basically, because neither of the two parties completely agree with you. You feel shut out of the system. But guess what, everybody feels that way. You get your little sliver of the left party, and your job is to fight to increase the salience of that sliver. You fight to make it so that Democrats are rewarded when they play to that sliver. That's what every political faction does in a democracy. No third party's going to descend from the heavens to make it easier for you, and no, you can't have a pony.
www.grist.org
Permalink
GristUser Posted 3:18 pm
23 Oct 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:56 pm
23 Oct 2006
If the Republicans lose the House (seems very likely) and/or the Senate, expect some bloodletting in their ranks. There is a chance such a loss could lead to the long expected/suggested social conservative/business conservative split. If that happens, McCain may be in trouble, because the social conservatives who dominate the primaries may prefer one of their own.
Otherwise he is likely. But who will he pick? Will he go for Romney? Or Allen, or someone else?
Hillary is the 600 pound gorilla, if she wants it (which looks likely), the nomination is almost certainly hers. The rest will have to wait. The "Revenge of the Clintons" will be the top story, and will activate people who hate GW if only because GW hates the Clintons. The others will be in the second tier.
In a Clinton vs. McCain election, anything can happen. The Clintons don't lose elections. Remember that. (They are not Gore or Kerry.) And with a sinking economy and terrible war, there is a lot of nostalgia for them. And people will vote for Hillary because they liked Bill's economy. (Some of them).
The hard core Hillary haters are people who don't vote for Democrats anyway. Hillary can mobilize the voters and up the turnout more than any of the others.
The real contest will be for vice presidents.
patrick
Permalink
kmp Posted 11:37 pm
23 Oct 2006
Permalink
willa Posted 12:04 am
24 Oct 2006
Kaela,
I think the Al/Hil ticket would be the most deadly boring yet. Plus neither of them is good-looking enough, and they're too interested in talking about actual issues. I mean, I'd vote for them, but the American public, in case you hadn't noticed, is easily distracted and wants a president who represents what they wish they were like. GWB is "just like" a lot of sheep--excuse me, voters--except for the huge piles of money and all, so people can suppose that if they had huge piles of money, they could be just like him. I can't imagine anyone ever aspiring to be "just like" either Al or Hillary, and the voters who actually think, and don't have any wish to be "just like" their candidate, are never going to get anyone elected.
You and I, though, might be able to get people's attention. I'm a divider, though. You a uniter? :) Seriously, though, I agree with you about the horror of being a candidate, and I'm amazed anyone does it. I couldn't survive a day of what they go through. And if the vicious criticism from all sides isn't enough, then you have to actually assume office and be bored absolutely stiff trying to pay attention to everything all the time. I could never be a politician because I truly just don't care enough about people and their problems.
Whoops, did I just say that?
Permalink
Tod Brilliant Posted 2:19 am
24 Oct 2006
You are way off on this one. Research the history of third parties in the United States. In fact, research the birth of your own Democratic party for starters. Please, spare me the "but that was so long ago" retort. Time means little with regard to this debate. Human foibles, temperment and politics are constants in this equation. Men like Nader, Debs and even Teddy Roosevelt (He was a third party man, remember? Do you?) pushed liberal agendas very effectively. Your dismissal of third parties as a fantasy dispenses, in a rather empty flourish, with centuries of contradicting facts.
Take a look at the people who are doing real good in the environmental movement and you'll find that they are non-partisan and would embrace ANY party that seeks to move the ball the farthest and fastest. Dave, your denial reminds me of what Leggett says at the beginnning of "The Carbon War": (roughly) "Pundits never saw the fall of the Berlin War and would have laughed at anyone predicting it. They are doing the same thing with advance predictions of massive climate change." You're doing the same thing, Dave, with third parties. You're falling victim to the unique myopia of "It's never happened, so it won't happen" - and what's worse, it HAS happened, unmasking your tunnel vision as entirely self-imposed!
Aside from this narrowness (which you will shed in time, I'm certain), your vantage point and your perspective has been quite enlightening and I do enjoy your posts here/at Huffington.
Cheers,
Tod
" . . . because the world doesn't matter anymore if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
Permalink
M Posted 6:29 am
24 Oct 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:14 pm
30 Oct 2006
We should remember that there is no love lost between the Clintons and Gores. Neither would ever pick the other. Also, neither can "bring" a very useful homestate with them.
Democratic VP candidates? Someone from a red state with ten or more electoral votes (grin). Assuming the Dems decide to play "let's barely win this next one." (which they may not!)
patrick
Permalink