Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama considering a run for president

By

Hmmm.  Barack Obama has backed off his earlier statements that he’d serve a full six-year term in the Senate, and is now saying that he’s considering a presidential run in 2008.

I mean, I like Obama as much as the next guy, but does one good speech really make you presidential material?  What else has he really got on his resume?  Illinois state senate, and a gimme of a US Senate race because his first oppponent turned out to be a psycho and withdrew, and he ended up running against Alan Keyes?  Doesn’t exactly bowl me over…

UPDATE: Bob Herbert weighs in on this topic in Monday’s NY Times:

But the giddiness is crying out for a reality check. There’s a reason why so many Republicans are saying nice things about Mr. Obama, and urging him to run. They would like nothing more than for the Democrats to nominate a candidate in 2008 who has a very slender résumé, very little experience in national politics, hardly any in foreign policy — and who also happens to be black.

The Republicans may be in deep trouble, but they believe they could pretty easily put together a ticket that would chew up Barack Obama in 2008.

My feeling is that Senator Obama may well be the real deal. If I were advising him, I would tell him not to move too fast. With a few more years in the Senate, possibly with a powerful committee chairmanship if the Democrats take control, he could build a formidable record and develop the kind of toughness and savvy that are essential in the ugly and brutal combat of a presidential campaign…. He’s 45. There’s no hurry. He should take all the time he needs.

Hard for me to argue with that.  For one thing, things may get a lot better in the Senate in a few months, so it could be a pretty good place to be in the near term.  For another, well, “he’s 45. There’s no hurry.”

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. should really re-consider a presidential run for at least 8 years.  He is not ready and neither is the country….

  2. I heard Obama talking to Tim Russert who basically got him to admit that he had started to think about possibly running for president sometime in the future. 

    <

    p>
    I think he should wait.  I can see why some might want to push him into it, but I think he should resist that pressure.

  3. Oh yeah, what all the insiders said about Deval at the beginning.  No experience.  Needs to run for something else.  Will never make it.  Deval blew everyone away, not just at the convention where he first made it clear he was running, but at every event since.  Barack’s got that magic, and I couldn’t care less if he’s a first time Senator.  It’s about time we base decisions on the person, not what’s “acceptable”.  If we can do that for Deval, we can sure as heck give Barack the same courtesy and consideration.  I’d like to see someone take it away on a national level, just like Deval did in MA by being openly progressive, solution oriented and not afraid of change.  If Barack offers those things, he’s got my vote.  Good for him.

      • Law clerk to a federal judge, NAACP lawyer, law partner in major law firm, Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, corporate executive to some of America’s largest companies.

        <

        p>
        What a slacker with “no experience”.

            • with this troll.  In the lingo, s/he’s a shit-disturber, throwing the incendiary one-liner bombs for no purpose other than to inflame.  S/he’s not interested in dialogue, only in goading.  Responding only feeds its ego. 

      • we may all soon regret that he has  (0.00 / 0)

        no experience.

        <

        p>
        “No experience”??  Have you seen the guys resume?  So what if he’s never been elected, he’s still run large, geographically dispersed, organizations, dealt with complicated negotiations –legal and otherwise — , parsed, wrote and set policy and regulations and, most importantly, built consensus.

        <

        p>
        In terms of sheer depth, he’s got more experience that Muffy, His Expediency, Jane Swift and Paul Celluci put together. That’s before being elected.

    • “…They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

      <

      p>
      Sometimes even the “insiders” are right.  But then again, I keep getting flack for valuing experience in public service.

    • Deval is not talking about being the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world, so I think a little more experience would be nice. I like Obama a lot, but I’d like to see him run for prez a little further down the road when he has some more foreign affairs experience. “Magic” doesn’t exactly do it for me, in as much as it is true that he does have it.

      • the same sort of experience with foreign affairs that Bush had as a one-term governor of Texas. 

        <

        p>
        If Obama can convince voters that he’s up to the task, he should go for it.  That’s the way we do things. 

        • That;s exactly my piont, we need to stop electing presidents who have no experience in foreign relations, Bush is a great example of that.

          • there are two points.  One is the electability of a candidate with no foreign policy experience and the other is the wisdom of electing such a person.  Am I convinced that experience in FP will necessarily make a candidate more effective in the job?  No.  Certainly Bush is proof of that after his first year or two in office.  Is it possible that an inexperienced candidate with good instincts and a team of competent and thoughtful advisors will do a good job?  Absolutely.  Consequently, I don’t think the FP experience as a prerequisite is necessary; what is necessary is the candidate be thoughtful, intelligent, rational, and responsible.  The rest will take care of itself.

            <

            p>
            As a concrete example, I offer this.  I supported, and would still support, Howard Dean as President of the United States.  Did he have any foreign policy experience?  No.  Was he a thoughtful, intelligent, rational, and responsible candidate?  Yes.  Had he won, we’d be a lot better off. 

  5. Over on Mydd, Stoller says it better than I could have.

    <

    p>
    Obama has a great image now, and you never know when the media’s turning on you.  Given the depth of the long-range Democratic bench — Spitzer, Schweitzer, Ritter, Klobuchar to name four — better to go now than later, when’s he’s already been put too many times in the senatorial position of voting for something then voting against it.

    • I don’t know if Obama is a good choice or not.  I don’t know if a black man whose name sounds like Osama can win enough Dems to carry states which have been tight and a Dem would need to win — FL, OH, PA, NJ, NM, MI, etc.  Will race be a factor in the first presidential election including a black man?  Of course it will be.  What will the impact be?  I have no idea.

      <

      p>
      JFK was a senator for 8 years before entering the White House in 1960.  You hang around those halls too long, you develop some very unpresidential votes and characteristics.  Maybe that’s why most presidents come from corner offices… George Bush the elder was an exception to the rule.  GWB, Clinton, Reagan were all gub’ners.

      <

      p>
      Illinois will continue to re-elect Obama.  Why not make a run for the presidency now, before he’s stuck in the mud of the senate?

  6. the other question is whether he can win….I mean is the country ready to embrace a Black man as President of the United States?

    • Running for office =! having a stuffed resume.

      <

      p>
      Deval’s record goes from being the head of Civil Rights in the DoJ to being on the boards of more than one large corporation. The fact that he hasn’t won elected office doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a bloated resume – Deval’s resume is actually very impressive – even for a candidate for Governor.

    • You’re saying that the only “experience” that counts when running for office is previous runs for office?

      <

      p>
      I don’t get your point here. To put into concrete terms, I don’t see how Healey’s previous failed runs for state rep. has helped her at all.

      • At least she had been EXPOSED to the electoral – rather than appointive – process before.

        <

        p>
        Much of Patrick’s indignation over political disareement comes from his not having been questioned very closely.

        • She got blasted in her one run for state rep and then was appointed Romney’s running mate, because we all know Republicans don’t actually have primaries.  Kerry Healey has never been elected to anything.

          • The Rappaport/Healey primary was the worst since Cellucci/Malone, and was right up there with Weld/Pierce.

            <

            p>
            Many people still aren’t speaking over those babies!

            • Please, if you think that was a primary then it’s no wonder the Republican Party is on the verge of extinction in Massachusetts.  Romnney selected Sherry, the whole party establishment fell in line and she won by 30%.

              <

              p>
              Perhaps it would have been more accurate had I said she’d never been elected to anything of her own accord.  Mitt doesn’t hand-pick her and she’s still a career cubicleologist.

  8. Let’s analyze it:

    <

    p>
    He’s never really won a race (the only tough one he was in, he lost). Beating Alan Keyes for a Senate seat isn’t exactly what I’d call a win; I doubt the guy could get elected Town Selectman.

    <

    p>
    Despite the fact that he didn’t need to win anything and probably won’t have big competion for reelection in 4 years, he has refused to stand up on any contreversial issue I can think of, even worse, he’s been downright DINO-esque and been friendly with candidates like Joe Lieberman. The only Senator he’s stood up to, briefly, was John McCain – and even then, he didn’t really do much about it.

    <

    p>
    So, no, Barrack Obama isn’t about to get my vote. I don’t care about his lack of experience, that’s why Presidents get cabinets and literally dozens of assistants of some form or another. I care about his record – and there really isn’t much there.

    <

    p>
    Plus, I don’t even think he’s that great of a speaker. A guy like Deval is WAY better.

    • You don’t think he’s a great speaker? Have you ever seen him speak? Trust me, he’s a great speaker. He’s much better than Deval, he doesn’t sound all whiny.

      <

      p>
      And, let me make sure I got this right…you doubt that Barack Obama could get elected to town selectman?

  9. Ok, so its a given that Obama does not have the executive experience that previous successful Dem nominees have had…Clinton, Carter…and on the GOP side Reagan and Bush II. All governors

    <

    p>
    And its also clear that he doesn’t have the legistlative experience of even Kerry, Gore, Mondale, LBJ, or even Kennedy.

    <

    p>
    But while those may be cause some growing pains in office, the inexperience makes him the most viable Dem Political Contender in 2008.

    <

    p>
    In 2008, Obama will have served four years in the Senate. That means he will have less of a record than Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Dodd, Daschle, Gore, or any other possible candidate. Obama, especially with his great speaking skills, will be able to define himself on his terms, not anyone else’s. Obama is fresh face- literally and metaphorically. He has not been in Washington long, and as multicultural background reflects the changing demographics of America.

    <

    p>
    Moreover, an Obama nomination adds to the current buzz he holds now. As of today, Obama is at his political peak. If he doesnt run now, he runs the risk of being irrelevant in 2012 or 16, especially if a Democrat wins in 08. Politicians have a limited shelf life. Chris Dodd was seen as the vangaurd of a new generation when he was elected to the Senate in the 70’s. Now hes trying to parlay a Presidential run into national influence. Obama needs to keep the ball rolling by being as active as possible- and that means running in 08.

    <

    p>
    Furthermore, any experience deficit can be overcome by adding someone like Mark Warner to the ticket as VP. Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, Phil Bresenden, or an 08 rival could balance the ticket with experience.

    <

    p>
    Obama-Warner 08

  10. who the hell ELSE do we have that’s dynamic enough and engaging enough on the issues people care about?

    <

    p>
    Personally, the worst path to the presidency is the Senate or Congress…too many votes to twist around for ethically-challenged Republicans who want to distort a record.

    <

    p>
    I don’t know if he should run in 08 or 2012 or not…but I’m liking most of the other leadership options, either…

    • is the ‘dynamic and engaging’ part. I agree, there’s few in his league.

      <

      p>
      But the potential candidate who best personifies the issues I care about is Russ Feingold, hands down. Obama, who’s already showing signs of being another triangulator, doesn’t come close.

  11. right now I’m considered a wildcard in a party bereft of ideas and leadership.  So why the hell not say boo.” 

    <

    p>
    You must be kidding.  My understanding of his statement was far more vague than a pointed response to the possibility of an ’08 run.  Obama’s selling books.  He’s now (today) the hottest D on the planet.  He’s doing everything right to become huge over the next two years as the Ds try to figure out how to govern.  But a presidential campaign?!? 
    Based on what?  I haven’t done anything yet?  I’m multicultural?  I’ve made some good speeches?  I’m not named Clinton? 
    Congress is going to change hands in a bit over two weeks and will be led by a handful of people who can’t get out of their own way and can’t stand each other.  Howard Dean is dismantling the national party, which he leads.  The DCCC is running against him more than against the Rs.  And the Senate leadership will be spending 6 months of the year in the Nevada desert until Harry Reid is retired the old-fashioned way – in the trunk of a car. 
    Obama’s going to have to take a couple votes in the next two years that will piss someone off.  He will have to prove his leadership bona fides and align himself with someone (Kerry or Reid, Clinton or Bayh…).  Will he join Dingel in issuing subpoenas to who’s ever left in the White House?  Will Charlie Rangel drag him to the left so that he can distribute money and jobs to his state?  Will he be the antithesis of the next junior senator from Tennessee – Harold Ford, Jr. which will create something like a soap opera for political pundits.
    With Ds in control of Congress (or even if the House goes D and the Senate stays R) there will be a major reckoning for the Ds who want to lead the party and the country.  Obama has never had to deal with this world.  He’s never had to walk into the cloakroom behind the Senate chamber and look his leaders in the eye and tell them something they don’t want to hear.  What will he do when pushed to the edge?  What will the Ds, do for that matter?

    <

    p>
    It’s wonderful, wild speculation.  Obama in ’08.  Sells books.  Sends Timmy, George and Sam into a blathering lather for the next few months.  And keeps a handful of Ds, who are running, on their toes and sends a message to another group of Ds who are considering it, to reconsider it.  And no matter what happens, Obama becomes a player in the Hill and with the moneyraisers.

  12. Well lets see, does anyone think Hillary Clinton, Russ Fenigold, Joe Biden, John Kerry or Christopher Dodd can be elected? I strongly say NO. Might as well nominate Kucinich or Sharpton … or Dean.  Yikes.

    <

    p>
    Best chances we have I would say, in this day age, ESPECIALLY if the Democrats get the House and/or the Senate in a few weeks (people will more than likely vote Republican if the Dems control Congress), would be …

    <

    p>
    Evan Bayh

    <

    p>
    Wesley Clark

    <

    p>
    Barack Obama

    <

    p>
    Mark Warner (who sadly isnt running)

    <

    p>
    All these are centrist, and we need not just a a centrist Democrat, but a centrist PERIOD, to heal the exremism on both sides of the aisle in todays political climate, and any one of these men will look appealing on both sides, as Clinton did in 1992.

    <

    p>
    So bottom line is, when it comes time to vote in the primary, are you gonna pull the lever for Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama? Do we want at least a CHANCE to win?

    <

    p>
    Exactly, so stop bashing Obama, or we are gonna get another 8 years of Republican rule.

    • We need a centrist to win? I’d say we’ve given that choice between Republican and Republican-Lite, people’ll vote for the one who sticks to his principles at least.

      <

      p>
      Fact is, we need someone who’s upstanding, not a sellout, and who can honestly speak to the problems people are having. Washington-bubble Democrats don’t really often qualify. H. Clinton ESPECially. (I know you’re saying ABClinton there.)

      <

      p>
      But it’s not getting a centrist that matters. It’s the perception or reality that you’re principled. That can come from a centrist sometimes, but it can also come from someone more left. After 8 years of Republican lies and deceptions and incompetant government, strong principles are even more important a trait.

      <

      p>
      We also need someone who can speak their way out of a paper bag…again another reason not to elect Clinton…good lord all I can think is that how long has she been married to Clinton, and nothing has rubbed off??

      • I respect your view, and I must say, I am more of a centrist Democrat, which is why I think we need one to win! 🙂

        <

        p>
        But I think for me, bottom line is this.  The country has seen what has happened when you have someone too far too the right, and I think people will not want to go to far to the other side either, and sadly, people do think fine people like Clinton, Dean, etc are way too far to the left. 

        <

        p>
        So for my own personal belief, and just for the view of getting any Democrat to win, I think centrist is the way to go.

        <

        p>
        I respect your view and hear your points 100% as well.

        • “too far to the left” is not very far under the new “move to the right” thing we’ve been forced to go through (by very good but evil marketing by right wingers).

          <

          p>
          So I guess it depends on what you think is “centrist.” Even the moderate right-of-center Republicans like Chaffee are “too liberal.”

          <

          p>
          I would like to actually have a Democrat who is solidly left of center so we can stop the slide to the right. Correcting that slide means thinking bold, not timid. Timid is what got us here in the first place.

          <

          p>
          And in the case of Bill Clinton, he was definitely elected more because of his political charisma (likeability, connection to the voters, made you believe he understood your problems, and genuine caring) than because he had moved to far to the right/center. Moving too far to the right/center only empowers the jerks who’ve been dismantling our social programs and progressive tax structure.

        • Not a chance.  She’s as centrist as the man of the house.  She’s a suburbian soccer-mom.

          <

          p>
          Sure, she’ll be strong on so-called woman’s issues, but she’s pragmatic, not principled.  Don’t expect her to be a champion of any item in the Bill of Rights.  I don’t think she’ll flaunt them like GWB, but she won’t hang out much with the ACLU either.

          <

          p>
          She’s certainly no tye-dye wearing peacenik, and she’s no environmental champion either.  She might become a leader on health care, or she may let visions of the early 90s keep her out.

          <

          p>
          Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lot of things, but too far to the left she is not, unless you expect her to be a republican.

          • yup, i agree, shes is NOT far to the left, what i was saying is that she is PERCEIVED as far to the left, as that is what the GOP has painted her as, and it has stuck.

      • Two out of the three “electable” centrist candidate listed by the ghost, Wes Clark and Barack, qualify for your standards of ” upstanding, not a sellout, and who can honestly speak to the problems people are having…(not) Washington bubble Democrats…We also need someone who can speak their way out of a paper bag”.

        <

        p>
        And you wanted someone “principled”.  Both Clark and Obama are principled centrist, wouldn’t yuou agree?

          • …distingush between two seperate criteria–uptandingness and idealogy.  To often they are grouped together.

  13. Now, I’m not sure whether to believe the sensationalist “Obama says he’s running in ’08!” headlines, or the vague “Well, you know, after the election, I’ll think about the possibility of perhaps sitting down with some advisors to consider my options with regard to the feasibility of maybe running for president someday” statements from Obama actually quoted in that article, though if I were to guess, I’d guess that he’s talking to people about his chances of success, and trying to make a decision whether that’s worth breaking his promise about completing his term, because someone with the kind of popularity and charisma Obama has would be crazy not to be thinking about running for President.

    <

    p>
    And I’m not sure I think he’d be the best candidate in ’08, since only four years in the Senate isn’t very much (but as has been noted already, time served isn’t the only worthwhile criterion), though I don’t think he’d be the worst, either — and any Democrat (not counting, you know, Zell Miller) would be a welcome change.  I’m inclined to think that right now, Obama can do more good staying in the Senate, especially if it changes hands, than running for the White House, but I don’t claim to be an expert, and although there’s a wide field of possible Democratic candidates, very few of them are really exciting to me right now, which seems like it could be a problem.

    <

    p>
    But I have to say I’m surprised by the tone of a lot of the comments here, many of which seem remarkably vitriolic toward Obama.  Take a deep breath, folks.  He’s on our side, he’s a good speaker, he’s thoughtful, and I don’t see how it helps us to tear him down.

  14. Barack Obama is the only somewhat likely candidate for president I would get extremely excited about supporting. The only way the Democrats have the possibilty of competing against John McCain, who very justifiably is highly respected and will be able to run for something positive instead of against something, is to have a candidate who also stands for a positive, thoughtful, and hopeful vision of the future. The 2008 will not be as easy as 2004, and we lost that one somehow anyway. Wishy-washy uninspiring centrists are not the way to go: we need a leader with vision who stands up for our progressive values with an idealistic pragmatism and a pragmatic idealism.

  15. Hey, if a black man can get elected governor of Massachusetts, why not President of the US?

    • He was the first African-American to be elected to the Senate by popular vote. I don’t know why people feel it would be shocking to have an African-American governor.

      • It was before the real ugliness that occurred in Boston in the mid-seventies over racial desegregation in the Boston Public Schools, when Massachusetts got a reputation for being as racist as any Southern state, at least so far as the media stories went. There have also been very few African Americans elected to high public office in the state, outside of state reps/senators from the Roxbury area. There’s never been an African American mayor in Boston…unusual for a major city.

        <

        p>
        I have not lived in Massachusetts for about 7 years…maybe things have changed a whole lot, or maybe Deval is a really amazing candidate (I’m guessing the latter)…

  16. The Democratic pool of candidates is as about warm and cozy as a bucket of ice water.

    <

    p>
    There is no heat to keep people interested… do I really care what Bayh has for breakfast at the Rotary Club or to be “on the road with Vilsack”…no.

    <

    p>
    I didn’t like Kerry and Edwards the first time around and see no difference 4 years later…

    <

    p>

    Obama will keep the spotlight on the primaries and therefore keep the spotlight in Hilliary.

    <

    p>
    The way Obama has become the Clintons Black adopted child… I do not see him biting the hands that are feeding him. If he does run then it would be for VP… but still I can not see a woman POTUS and an AA VPOTUS winning…. even though these are the two largest constituencies of the Democratic party… it is a shame the the establishment Dems… have treated them so badly.

      • I would not have cared about the MA governors race if Deval didnt run, Reilly and Gabs would have been boring candidates to vote for, Deval electrified our state and his rapid ascendency makes me feel better about politics.

        <

        p>
        The 08 field has not excitement except for Barack.

        <

        p>
        Bayh, Dodd, Biden, are all boring white centrists who will eat into each others support

        <

        p>
        Warner aint running get over him

        <

        p>
        Feingold admittedly is too liberal to get nominated

        <

        p>
        Clark didnt really catch fire last time, wont this time

        <

        p>
        Kerry and Edwards already lost a national race, what makes you think they can win this time around?

        <

        p>
        Hillary will win the left coasts and Illinois, lose PA, lose OH, possibly lose MI and MN as well

        <

        p>
        No the only man that can win is Barack, if he waits another four years he’ll be running against an incumbent, another 8 years ppl will forget about him, he has time now, especially if Dems take the Senate to do some quick things to rapidly rise, and mind you at 45 hes older than three of our greatest presidents, T Roosevelt, Clinton, and Kennedy and I think youth, confidence, and renewal can save our party and our nation.

        • In another 8 years people will forget about him?  What would make him a forgettable senator but a good president?

          <

          p>
          I agree we need an exciting candidate.  I think one of the keys to that is someone who promises real change, who might be “too liberal”.  That was the knock on Deval during the primary.

          <

          p>  – Dan

          • Even out here in Chicago where I currently live in a “blue” state there are a ton of moderates who would support Obama who is just as liberal as Feingold on the issues and who consider Feingold a lunatic. And these are people in my classes, at UC Dems, and other organizations that arent from IL but from places like Nebraska, Iowa, Virginia, and other states that havent been blue in decades. Granted the GOP spin machine can make anyone look liberal, but it says something about Obamas charisma that moderate to conservative people Ive talked to like him just as much as I do.

            <

            p>
            I love Feingold and he would make a great nominee, but Im not sure if his campaign can get off the ground or if his narrower focus on civil liberties and the patriot act can translate into a national campaign.

Archives