Hey, why not wade into idle speculation about Prez ’08? Everyone else is doin’ it.
I’m a little amused, and yet quite encouraged by Obamamania. I like the guy a lot. I think he catches a little too much grief from the blogosphere for trying to be, you know, a dignified Senator. But I really do think his heart is in the right place most of the time; he works across the aisle where he can, without compromising his integrity (indeed building on it); and he seems to be a cool customer, a smart guy and a quick learner. And most of all, he can make our case: I think the Democrats have traditionally put far too little emphasis on the power of persuasion, the ability to clearly make one’s case in a positive, inspiring, elegant and self-consistent way. Obama’s got that all day and twice on Sunday. If you speak with conviction, if you ground your positions in strongly held values, you can persuade people — even those who don’t necessarily agree with you — because they like your temperament and trust your judgement. This is a big deal.
On the minus side:
1. He’s a senator, and senators don’t get elected President, at least not recently. Voting records give your opponents tons of oppo-ammo.
2. Not enough of #1: He’s only been a senator for two years, for crying out loud.
3. Too much of #1: he doesn’t have executive experience in government.
Do these drawbacks count him out entirely? Nah. If I have to, I’ll take smarts and temperament over experience. But going up against McCain (whom I’m pretty sure will be the eventual GOP nominee), Obama would have to make up for the gravitas gap one way or another.
Now, the other name that sets netroots hearts a pitty-pat is Al Gore — Guilty! I’ve been a big fan of Gore … but only since late 2000. An Inconvenient Truth is a remarkable project which I think is having the intended effect. He was right on Iraq. Former anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke says that of all the Clinton-era folks, he was most impressed with Gore. No one eligible in ’08 has Gore’s résumé, his totally comprehensive experience in government. I think his heart is in the right place, too. But …
Gore’s already had a chance, and gosh-golly did he ever blow it. For instance, I remember watching him on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, who asked him kind of a sleazy question: “How much credit do you get for the state of the economy [which was good, then, remember?], and how much do the people get?” This was a question that put Gore on the defensive because of the media narrative that he was an exaggerator, that he took too much credit for things … like the internet yadda yadda yadda. Gore, having internalized all that specious criticism, booted what should have been a softball question. Such was his entire 2000 campaign.
Now, I teach singing for a living. And I know that if someone’s already learned how to sing a particular song badly, it’s hard as hell to break bad habits in situ, even if their technique improves away from that song. Muscle memory, you know. Does Al Gore ’08 retain all the lousy muscle memory from 2000? Or is he the basically charming, self-deprecating, funny, passionate — and hell, occasionally angry guy from An Inconvenient Truth and the recent GQ interview?
So that’s what keeps me from going all-in for Gore or Obama. To win, we need someone who can make the case effectively and eloquently; To govern, we need someone with governing chops.
Now, there’s also John Edwards, another fellow who gets “heart in the right place” points, as well as being a basically effective communicator. I voted for him in the (meaningless at that point) 2004 primary for exactly that reason: He was the best guy to make our case.
That being said, his “Two Americas” riff never really resonated for me: If there are two, you certainly don’t want to identify yourself as the one getting the shaft. Furthermore, it’s an essentially negative idea: “What’s happening is bad.” As a progressive politician, I think it’s more effective to invoke what could be at every opportunity; creating a compelling contrast with the status quo. (cf. Deval Patrick.) Furthermore, Edwards was wrong on Iraq before he was right, so he’s on his third chance at this point, too.
Edwards is thought to be the stealth front-runner in some camps, an idea that sounds plausible to me. Certainly he’s got a high ceiling. Will he simultaneously toughen up and refine his rhetorical riffs? Does he seem principled or eager to please? Does he have the knack for verbalizing what folks are already feeling? Or does it go down too smoothly? I’ll be interested in hearing more from him in the next two years.
obama and edwards believe in sub-citizenship status for gays. that is, civil unions (maybe), reserving marriage for heterosexuals only. they claim that marriage should be a state-level issue.
<
p>
gore has also been a civil unions person, although he was hinting this past spring that he might have graduated to a higher plane of thinking that all citizens should be treated equally under the law. sadly, he hasn’t “come out” to say anything pro-marriage equality directly.
<
p>
i am underwhelmed by all three. any person running for president should not enter office believing they are entitled to legal protections that they will deny to a minority of their equals.
2008 sometimes feels like a political equivalent of a “rebuilding year” to me. Our team is a mix of veterans of past campaigns (Kerry, Gore, and Edwards) who have had their chance for the ring, exciting young kids on the bench (Obama, Spitzer, Ritter) who’ll be awesome if they work out right, and solid workhorses who you can’t really build a team around (Richardson, Clark and B. Clinton). No Michael Jordans or Larry Birds (Clinton) leap out at me.
<
p>
Now that I’ve dismissed everyone’s favorite candidate, I really have a problem with Obama. It’s because it seems that he was told the best way to make himself palatable to the ‘center’ is to run against secularists like myself. If I want to vote for someone who scores points off my religious beliefs, I’ll just pull the lever for the Republican. His recent church speech in California sounds like a declaration to out-Falliwell Falliwell in some places — “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.” I just don’t like the sound of that. This American Spectator article does a good job laying out some of my concerns.
Thanks for the link on his recent speech. As a secularist myself (to be more specific…I’m a recovering Catholic) I don’t see what you’re annoyed with. The full context of his speech was about bridging common moral values we all have…like social justice, concern for the poor and fighting discrimination. Values that both religious and secularist alike can share.
<
p>
Sure he had some pointed comments about secularist who shun religious moralists…but he was equally critical of religious factions that condemn secularist views simply because it does not originate from the Bible. You can take lots of that speech out of context and spin it anyway you want.
<
p>
Obama wants to make the Democratic tent bigger and wants to bring into the tent religious folks who have a broader moral agenda than being against aborition and gays (ie, the agdena of the Christian Right). He wants religious progressives—and that is not a contradiction in terms and if you feel it is, I suggest you examine your moral belief system for eliminates of prejudice–to know that you can be a Democrat and be a active church goer.
<
p>
Is that so bad?
Fellow former Catholic here…didn’t really take.
<
p>
I’d like to take a look at your own description of what Obama is doing. On one end, he’s criticizing secularists, and on the other going after Dominionists. I think there’s a large difference between the intent of those two groups (one wants to uphold the Constitution, to begin with) and I don’t like being lumped in the same category. It’s like saying “I don’t agree with Richard Dawkins, or Ayatollah Khamenei.” Think Dawkins would be insulted by that statement?
<
p>
I never said it is a contradiction in terms to be a religious progressive — otherwise, I wouldn’t pick up the occasional copy of Sojourner’s or National Catholic Reporter. I frankly hope those folks are the future of organized religion in America. But it is notable that even questioning Obama’s sustained embrace of politicized faith communities for his own ends leads to being suspected of having prejudices and ignorance. That is the state of the debate today — calling out Obama on trying to have it both ways is a sign of my prejudice even as he implies that strong morality and secularism are mutually exclusive.
The first link you provided contained ample evidence that Obama seeks an inclusive path that brings together secularist and religious elements…what do you base your ascertian on that Obama feels morality and secularism are mutially exclusive? That is a pretty hefty charge and I’ve seen no evidence of that.
<
p>
Secondly, I simply said that if someone felt “religious progressives” was a contradiction in terms, than they should self-examine their own values when it comes to making prejudice comments. If you can, then don’t be so sensitive.
<
p>
Well I’m off for the day to do a little XMass shopping and to catch the Obama Tour in NH today.
You wanna write that up?
AP did a pretty good job capturing what I saw (I went to both the Portsmouth and Manchester event.
<
p>
Admitedly, I’m punting a little because it’s late. Maybe tomorrow…but really, AP did a good job.
This strikes me as a narrow, position-paper sort of view of equal marriage. When conservative values reign, gay men and lesbians appear as “other” and underminers of a traditional world. When liberal values reign, they/we return as neighbors and as humans who, when fulfilled, can most enrich our society.
<
p>
In short, it is in the interest of those of us who advocate — or whose lives need — equal marriage to help return America to her liberal heritage. Take Edwards. Even though he is not so very good on equal marriage, if he turns the country away from the “us” vs “other” divisiveness that is so central to conservative values, he sets the stage for winning the battle for equal marriage.
<
p>
Charley, by way, this sort of argument is part of what I mean about the need for partisanship, liberal partisanship.
KBusch, you may be right that a dem in office would lay off Bush-style us v. them rhetoric. At the least, a dem would find a softer way of stating it. But why should any of us be content with a president who, at best, would allow civil rights advances to happen in spite of them? Why aren’t we pushing candidates hard to be real advocates? Not one of the current group of contenders is willing to lead in civil rights. Why? Because they apparently feel they don’t have to because “we” are letting them off the hook yet again. Well, I’m not satisfied with letting them off the hook again. I think we progressives need to act like progressives, and make dedication to civil rights a required hoop that candidates jump through.
<
p>
I don’t think putting emphasis on equality under the law is a narrow position paper view. It is, at the very least, making our government live up to the constitutional protections that already exist.
By “us” vs “them”, I meant a whole style of thinking that conservatives push on many issues.
In an atmosphere that spews forth that sort of toxin daily, winning equal marriage is a steep uphill battle. Supporting liberals means putting a stop to that because even liberals who are only behind domestic partnership will not feed into an us v. them narrative.
I’m not aware of any Dem Presidental contender that supports a federal law legalizing gay marriage…I’m under the impression that most they go is for civil unions and keeping it at a state level issue. But you may have a better sense of their positions.
and my point is that that is unacceptable. see my response to KBusch above.
This points out a bigger issue: Pro-marriage folks like us need to do a better job of making our case to the public. We can’t wait for Obama or Gore or John Kerry or whomever to make the case for us. They’ll tag along when it seems politically beneficial to them, either by showing “guts and principle” or actually following the majority view.
<
p>
Politicians are not up there to be moral leaders, in spite of our mythologizing of various figures. Democracy just doesn’t work that way. For example, MLK was a real moral leader. JFK waited around until he couldn’t avoid the issue anymore, and then made a speech in 1963 that made him sound like a moral leader. Even the best politicians follow a pre-existing Zeitgeist for moral issues.
Despite all the dire warnings from Massresistance and Jeff Jacoby, gay marriage has not destroyed civilization or heterosexual marriage in this state. We need to let people know.
<
p>
The fact of the matter is every organization fighting gay marriage in this state today was out trying to eliminate homosexuality from the public arena three years ago. The names have changed a little, but the agenda and methodology are the same. So the “Parents Rights Coalition” is now “MassResistance” and “No Special Rights” is now “Let The People Vote” — it’s still all about simple slogans and spreading fear.
<
p>
Back then the gist of their argument was how disgusting gay people are. Now it’s (weirdly) about the children.
<
p>
Unfortunately, the other side is more than willing to lie about the effects of gay marriage in Sweden, just as they lie about gay male life expectancy (and black male life expectancy, for that matter). To paraphrase George Orwell, it’s easy to hate in the abstract.
<
p>
The cure is still the same: educate, agitate, organize. For each year of gay marriage that goes by here (and in Canada, South Africa, Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, …) without the would ending, the weaker the arguments against gay marriage become. And the more people stand up and say “don’t write discrimination into our constitution” the more responsive our politicians will become.
The goal is to gain marriage rights; it is not to have a delicious feeling of moral correctness. My argument was about what it takes to change the country on this.
<
p>
Do you really think it is possible to win on equal marriage in isolation? That, with conservatives in every nook, we would somehow find a magic argument to convince all of them? Is this issue unlike, say economic justice or health care, more “fundamental”?
<
p>
Please don’t be wedded, as it were to a narrow view, but think about the environmental movement for just a moment. They have made a virtue of non-partisanship, of only pushing their important policies, of looking for that magic argument. Result? They have only lost ground in the last dozen years. They lost ground while Greenland and West Antarctica melt, while corals disappear, while invasive species pop up faster than mushrooms after a storm, while hurricanes rage. Please think about this lesson: Single issue advocacy has proven a failure. I’m sure those guys at the Sierra Club felt a delicious feeling of moral correctness even while losing. But don’t we urgently need those guys to win?
<
p>
So I’m saying equal marriage will not win until liberalism does. Neither, by the way, will environmental protections or the preservation of abortion rights. So that means helping liberals — even occasionally ones that have not come around yet.
<
p>
P.S. Of course, though, we should pressure Kerry for trying to appeal to what Pablo calls Ohiowa. Likewise, Edwards and the rest. But as Charley points out, they will move just as some Massachusetts legislators have moved when they see it is safe to move.
i dont got room for teeth. so i will respond only to your last phrase in boldtype “equal marriage will not win until liberalism does”. Bingo! Cha-ching! That is what I’m saying. You evidently see the current crop o’ dem candidates as liberals. I don’t. To me PART of the definition of liberal is real belief (not pandering double-speak) in equal protection of the laws. You know, a belief in our Constitution and a willingness to say so unequivically. I can only hope that one of these candidates (or one yet to come) sees that, for example, Deval’s unbudging stand on equal rights did not hurt him one iota in the MA race. My guess is some who disagreed with him on the details actually admired him for the firmness of his convictions. And when it came to voting, most reallized that other issues were more important to them than taking swipes at gays. That can work nationally too.
Huh, I put words into your mouth? I don’t get it. Bingo? Cha-Ching? Whatever.
<
p>
Let me try to take you more seriously than you take me. You seem to be saying, “Yes, Equal Marriage won’t win until Liberalism does. That’s because Liberalism is Equal Marriage.” That explains, I think, why you understood my “us v them” stuff as applying just to sexual orientation. Maybe your view of being a liberal extends only that far. I’m not sure. In that case, I don’t know what to say.
<
p>
IMHO, the reason Patrick’s stand did not hurt Patrick is because Patrick communicates effectively: he derives his positions from his values. People with whom his values resonate support him despite his positions and because of his values. By contrast, Kerry rarely states his values. So from Kerry, the same position just makes everyone — supporters and opponents — uneasy. But this is a political not a moral observation where “effective” is the keyword not “acceptable”. It had nothing to do with discomfort over details.
<
p>
Please think, though, about the environmental movement. (Important reference: The Death of Environmentalism.) It has none of the emotional baggage of equal marriage. One could say equally that to be liberal is to be pro-environment. Yet, the fortunes of environmentalism now depend on the electoral strength of imperfect liberals. Contrast Chairman Imhofe to Chairwoman Boxer.
<
p>
*
<
p>
Are you saying, by the way, that if Edwards wins the Democratic nomination you’d oppose him, you’d vote for him reluctantly, you’d vote for him but not contribute, you’d contribute but not volunteer, or you’d volunteer for him?
Just heard he’s running in ’08. Will officially announce Tuesday.
Given that he’s an incredibly popular/charismatic Governor from a state right next to New Hampshire, plus he has tons of eager progressive grassroots just itching to do some more canvasses…
<
p>
It’ll be especially interesting to see what happens if/when the Clintons, Obama and Kerry all call in their dues. Obama basically helped jumpstart Deval’s campaign way back — I remember his endorsement being a major big deal in recruiting early volunteers — and followed through. And Bill Clinton came to stump for him in the last few weeks, not to mention their friendship/work together in the Clinton Adminstration. Incidentally, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Clinton stumped for Patrick during a point in the campaign where that time might have been more useful in a swing district… And Kerry (should he run) would probably want a united MA front and it would be a big annoyance if his own home state governor didn’t endorse him. Patrick’s best bet is to either pick one of them really early (probably Obama or Clinton) and work his ass off to make sure they win NH or just stay out of it completely.
If “stay out of it completely” means actually govern Massachusetts, then I vote for that option.
Most of our recent presidents have been governors, and if we look at the results they aren’t all that positive (except for Clinton). Jimmy Carter, while he tried hard, ended up being ineffective, with many of his best initiatives immediately stomped out by his successor. Ronald Reagan presided over an economic boom from which he managed to produce the greatest peacetime deficit ever (until the current president, whose prime resume item in the 2000 campaign was that he was a Governor). The onetime governor of Texas (which evidently has a sort of “weak governor” system, incidentally) has been an unmitigated disaster as President. Frankly, we’ve had enough governors. Governors don’t have to deal with foreign affairs, and we are entering a period in history where we can’t afford to ignore the rest of the world, much as many of us would like to.
<
p>
I like Edwards, but I hope he comes up with a new schtick (not saying don’t make the case for the poor, but adopt a broader populist theme).
candidates are also senators, so perhaps this is a moot point.
It should be noted that Obama has more or less the same amount of experience that Abraham Lincoln did before he became President. Our 21st century troubles are complex, massive and requires leaders of vision. But I think you’d be hard pressed to find somebody who thinks that because of Lincoln’s lack of experience he was a bad president.
that lincoln didn’t play it safe with his speeches. and he was highly partisan. or am i missing something obama may have said on the senate floor?
Oh yes…wasn’t Dan Quayle as young as Kennedy when he ran for VP? I think Quayle liked to use that comparison actually…for a while at least.
<
p>
Lincoln learned many lessons while losing several federal elections before his nomination. Has Obama learned those?
Two words-Tom Vilsack
<
p>
I heard this guy speak and i was impressed. I know of his record in Iowa, and of his centrist themes.
<
p>
I have a very strong feeling that HE will be the nominee for the Democratic Party in 2008. I want to remind you all-the last TWO Democrats elected for President were President Carter-in 1976, from Georgia-a rural-ish state, in 1992-with President Clinton-from another Southern/Midwestern State. It is 2008 in two years, and it will be 16 years since a Democrat was elected-and I believe history will repeat itself in 2008, with Gov. Tom Vilsack being elected President-this is a gut feeling. I think this guy is a good guy, smart, down to earth, and not afraid to know where he comes from. Remember, Jimmy Carter-got started in 1974, and two years later -HE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. And remember, Clinton was no dummy, either. If not the presidency, I would think he has a great shot at Vice-President.
<
p>
Whaddya Think?
I don’t know much about Vilsack, but until your comment just now, the words “strong feeling” and “Vilsack” haven’t come in the same sentence.
And got the plurality of the vote and probably really won in Florida, if not for Harris, Jeb, et al.
<
p>
Obama will not have my support. He’s never won a real election (beating Alan Keyes does not count), he wouldn’t stand up to McCain in the Senate when he had his chance, and is too Lieberman-esque for me. I don’t want a President who gets along well with Joe Lieberman, I want one who thinks Lieberman’s a vile traitor to the party.
I take him to be a bright person. Bright enough to know that he shouldn’t run in 2008. He will not seek the presidency, he is just too green and he knows it. After the Bush administration I think people are looking for someone who is strong and has a record of accomplishment. I don’t think the, who would you rather have a beer with crap is going to fly in ’08. To me, the only person who fits the bill is Gore. My ticket is Al Gore and Wes Clark.
Someone upthread mentioned that Senators have a difficult time running for President because of opponents using their voting record against them. This is exactly why Obama should run, and he is smart enough to know it. A polititian has to be an opportunist. Obama is hot now. He should take advantage of that. Refresh my memory, Wasn’t JFK a first term Senator when he ran in 1960? Wasn’t he the last sitting Senator elected president?
I don’t have a comment on ’08 as yet, but Jim Gosger was one of my favorite Sox when I was growing up. Nice one!
<
p>
JFK was elected to the Senate in 1952, so he was a second-term Senator when he ran for the Presidency.
<
p>
I agree with you about Obama, though — this is the time for him to run because he’s hot now and his lack of Senatorial record is a plus. He won’t get a second chance if he doesn’t run now.
“Who do we support now?” still seems like a question we’re asking a year too early. The question for now, it seems to me, is
Why did we not win landslides in 2000 and 2004?
In 2000, Democrats faced an obviously underqualified candidate and narrowly won. (I’m thinking ballots.) In 2004, Democrats faced the worst President in anyone’s memory and lost.
<
p>
Europeans were incredulous.
<
p>
We are incurious.
<
p>
“Perhaps,” we wonder, “if Obama rolled around in some gravitas, or Gore shook off his stiffness, or Kerry showed some passion or clarity, the nightmare will end and things will work out just fine.”
<
p>
And maybe if I paint my car the color of green cheese it can take me to the moon.
Clark or Obama.
<
p>
I think Gore will jump in, but not until long after the field of nobodies, essentially, tries to carve a niche. Only Clinton has any real heft until Gore jumps in, and I think that he will. Obama just won’t hold up to scrutiny. Besides, I think he’s really running for VP as he has to know he lacks critical experience. If he doesn’t know that, well, then, he’s just shown us all he doesn’t have good judgment–case closed.
<
p>
Gore has everything going for him and blows all the other candidates out of the water in experience, gravitas, and heart-string tug. It’s his if he wants it, and he doesn’t have to be in any hurry to say so. And he’d win–big.
…none of these potential Democratic candidates is perfect on every issue, but it is crucial that we find a Democrat who will win in ’08. Any of these Democrats – Gore, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Clark, Vilsack, Bayh and others – is far, far better than any of the Republicans being mentioned. I would gladly support any of the above if and when they become the nominee.
<
p>
That being said, we all have our favorites among the primary field. My first choice was Russ Feingold, but he has opted out. So, for now, I like Obama, Clinton, or Gore. But, we need to be careful not to attack and weaken any of the potential Democratic candidates…the real enemy, it seems to me, is another potential Republican President in ’08.
The two public appearance I’m aware of are soldout…1,000 free tickets for a Portsmouth event and 1,500 $25 tickets (preceeds going to the NH Dem Party) for the ’08 Victory party. That is a lot of interest.
Right now, I’d put Obama in the middle of the pack for my choices, with Edwards as my number one. Obama’s ‘change the tone’ and civic engagement rhetoric remind me in a way of Patrick, but Patrick never used Democratic activists as his foil to do it.
<
p>
Edwards, to me, has the right message. Democrats have always stood for the groups getting the shaft. I also think his 2008 will be more focused on positive prescriptions than his ’04.
<
p>
I contrasted my take on Obama and Edwards over here:
<
p>
http://eyeopener.typ…
We don’t deserve Al Gore.
<
p>
As for the senator/executive thing, I did a little study on presidential resumes a few weeks ago:
<
p>
http://curudin.blogs…