Obama '08?

Maybe it's right time for Obama to run . . .
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/miller/164861,CST-EDT-MILL08.article)

December 8, 2006

BY RICH MILLER
I've known Barack Obama since he was first elected to the state Senate in 1996, and I've been mostly wrong about him from the start.

In the beginning, I thought Obama had too much "Harvard ambition" about him, but others pointed out to me that his loss to Rep. Bobby Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary seemed to humble him a bit.

Sometime after that loss, I ran into Obama in Jackson Park, a city golf course on the South Side. We chatted pleasantly and he said some brief words to my female golfing companion and we moved on.

Afterward, my friend, who is not easily impressed, had a look of pure joy on her face. She talked excitedly about Obama, but I dismissed him as someone who had screwed up his future by running against Bobby Rush. She said I would eat those words one day.

I took my father to hear Obama speak in January of 2004, at the beginning of his U.S. Senate campaign. My father was a lifelong, conservative Republican, but he had broken with George W. Bush over the Iraq war and was open to change.

My father sat transfixed during Obama's speech, soaking up every word. I had never seen him react that way to anyone or anything in all my life. I got quite a chuckle out of it.

Afterward, Obama approached our table. My dad grabbed his hand and with a look of awe gushed, "Never change. Never change." I remember feeling embarrassed for his exuberance.

My dad has been pushing for an Obama presidency since before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. I agree that Obama should probably strike while the iron is hot, but I have some troubles with his lack of experience and the recent revelations about that questionable land deal with noted political bad guy Tony Rezko.

The experience issue is less of a problem for me. Abraham Lincoln's sole governmental experience was eight years in the Illinois House and just two years in Congress, yet he was one of our greatest presidents. Besides, more "experience" wallowing through the disgusting cesspool that is Washington may only hurt Obama, not help him.

According to Tom Schwartz, the Illinois state historian, 19th century voters didn't view politics as a profession, so they didn't expect presidential candidates like Lincoln to have extensive political experience. The issue never came up in the 1860 campaign, Schwartz said.

After telling Schwartz that I was trying hard not to add to the hype by comparing Lincoln to Obama, Schwartz shared some surprising thoughts.

''What Lincoln brought to the presidency, which was very much needed at the time . . . [was] a very fine ear for listening to the public's concerns and then being able to articulate responses that created consensus that was able to move the country forward in positive ways,'' Schwartz said. Schwartz then said that he saw a direct comparison to Obama's calls for unity and the way Obama had sparked so much interest from people who normally don't care for politics.

Back in the 1800s, the Illinois Legislature was opening up the state to development and railroads, so legislators were aware of profit potentials before they became public. State Rep. Lincoln got in on some of those deals -- one of the rare strikes on his integrity before being elected president. Ironically, they were all busts.

I've been wrong about Obama for so long that, after talking to Schwartz, I'm tempted to just throw in the towel and join my dad's cheerleading squad. If Obama can prove that Rezko's way-too-convenient purchase of a yard next to his South Side mansion was an aberration, then I may be sorely tempted. Until then, I'm going to resist the hype as best I can.


Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com.

... ... The air was thick with ambition. "I don't know why we're here, Bernie," Rep. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) quipped to a fellow senator-elect, Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), as the guests walked into the dining room.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has formally declared a candidacy, but their rivalry is already the talk of the chamber, an amusing sideshow for Democrats and Republicans -- at least the handful who aren't weighing their own White House bids.

Kennedy (Mass.) tried not to play favorites on Wednesday, seating the two superstars on his right and left at dinner. But the dais of his committee will be another matter next year, after Obama joins the panel in January: According to seniority rules, the two are likely to be seated next to each other, toward the end. There they will vie for prominence on major issues such as stem cell research, the minimum wage and college tuition subsidies. ... ... ...

''What Lincoln brought to the presidency, which was very much needed at the time . . . [was] a very fine ear for listening to the public's concerns and then being able to articulate responses that created consensus that was able to move the country forward in positive ways,'' Schwartz said. Schwartz then said that he saw a direct comparison to Obama's calls for unity and the way Obama had sparked so much interest from people who normally don't care for politics.

I admire the optimism, but I think there may be a great underestimation going on about the intensity of the opposition that will be mounted against an Obama candidacy. And yes, I think it will mostly be about his race, although it will take on other guises.

snood, You know what? There are too many in this country that will support Obama, and those who attack him for his race or anything else will only help him. Not to worry.

Obama complained of an American culture that "discourages empathy,"

I think we're mostly past race issues as qualifications

Finn,
I follow your "it's not always the most popular guy who gets the job done" logic on this one... but submit that on occasion; it is (See: Ronald Reagan). The attributes you scoff at may well prove to be the defining qualities of a great President.

Perhaps, but what are the odds?

1. As you know; it is in no small part his inexperience that attracts me, being quite tired of watching business as usual. I can't be alone in desiring a change from the bipartisan old guard BS I've watched since birth.

So your logic is here is a babe in the woods may f**ck everything up but at least it won't be because he his an old fart? Since when does youth = performance or inexperience = virtue? You are allowing a credible disatisfaction with the Old Guard stampede you towards an incredible affection for the New and Unproven Guard.

2. Those same attributes, even if they only serve to garner popularity, can still be used to force handshakes across the aisle and maybe even get something meaningful done. If, and it is a big IF, he could get approval ratings from the nation as high as he does in Illinois, you would see bipartisan cooperation, whether his adversaries liked his prize winning smile or not.

Bipartisan cooperation is a canard. To the extent it has ever happened, it has been within a government controlled by the (White Male) Establishment. Take a look at the Baker/Hamilton Commission. It revels in its bi-partisanship and it takes comfort, behind the scenes, in its Establishment origins. Except for his Houston roots, Baker is the quintessential Establishment magnate. The difference between today and 40 years ago is that Southerners can compete with Rockefellers and Cabot-Lodges for primacy in the Establishment. Baker is The Establishment Man!

3. One need not be a world traveler to realize the consensus of world opinion of our current leader is just about as bad as it could be (though I'm crossing my fingers that statement doesn't jinx us :wink:). This has to be considered when accessing the relative lack of global cooperation we currently receive. Again; these same attributes could play a major role in reversing this trend.

What? Who gives a flying f**k about the world consensus on our leader? Frankly, the more Europeans support an American candidate for President, the more I believe they should never be given the office. The interests of these fools is only partially aligned with our own, AND there is no shortage of European idiots who don't care about common interests and want to dis America because it is America.

Sony's Betamax was considered by many to be a superior technology to JVC's VCR. Doesn't help, if you can't sell it. Sometimes it is the most popular guy, who gets the job done.

This is such an inconsidered and superficial reason to support Obama that I cannot believe that you have advanced it. Even assuming that "sometimes" it is the most popular guy who gets the job done, is this a reason to support the most charasmatic guy? The very use of "sometimes" suggests that you appreciate that popularity equalling effectiveness is a crap-shoot. Is that how you intend to cast your vote?