Obama '08?

THE TNR STRAW POLL
Response Roundup: Barack Obama

by T. A. Frank
Only at TNR Online | Post date 08.05.06

Just about everyone, whether Republican or Democrat, likes Barack Obama, except, perhaps, for Alan Keyes. (And Alan Keyes, to be fair, is mad.) Is 2008 the year, therefore, for Obama to run for higher office? TNR asked its readers to weigh in.

By our count, slightly over half our respondents favor an Obama presidential run in 2008. Some Obamists like the man for knowing his way around a phrase. "If anyone saw his UMass graduation speech," says jmehta, "what makes him captivating is his ability to tie his specific positions into a larger narrative that is convincing." Ldayan agrees and offers a Hillary Clinton-Obama comparison: "Whereas her speeches are formulaic, cliché-ridden and full of high school salutatorian bromides, his speeches always contain fresh ways of expressing thoughts and often fresh thoughts themselves." The guy's just go-o-ood, says dhhhk: "I challenge anyone who says Obama cannot win to witness him give a speech--it is magic and you can feel it in the room." Yes, but can he bend a spoon with his mind?

Others, who've seen Obama in person, say the guy does great up close. "I met Obama as a student of his at the University of Chicago Law School," recounts jhildner. "From where I sat, I can tell you that that is all the real deal. He's smooth but straightforward, smart but easy going, attuned to what's wrong but optimistic about the future." Reader shamharrison met Obama in New Orleans at a "Project for Humanity" (should that be Habitat for Humanity?) site and reports similar charisma: "[Obama] stayed around for a while and talked to most of the people there. They all loved him. What was interesting about the group of people working at the site was they were all from red state Christian organizations."

And many say political greenness be damned: The time is now. "[Obama's] brilliance, charisma, stately leadership and integrity are needed now," pleads dlojacono. "These dialogs about experience are irrelevant with our history of elected officials." Opportunity, they stress, doesn't wait. "The landscape is littered with people who waited past their moment," warns jmehta. "[A]nything could happen between now and 2016, but the law of averages says that [Obama] will come down from the stratosphere where he currently resides." Reader grm211 (punctuation has been tweaked for clarity) agrees but says so more bluntly: "I like Gore, but this kid is hot. And, I'm sorry, but when did the president need to be experienced, really? Dubya is friggin retarded, and people thought he was great." Fred Barnes still thinks he's great, actually.

Dissenters, on the other hand, are often equally passionate. Some consider the Obamania mystifying. "What, other than the man's race, explains the fascination with Obama?" asks teplukhin. "If national security is a key issue in 2008 ... then we will be at a huge disadvantage without the most serious foreign-policy heavyweight we can find." Reader d_linde is also left cold: "[Obama] gives a great speech, but then what? He needs to hunker down with a key issue, say health care, and get acclamation from serious sources such as Washington Monthly or the WSJ." The Washington Monthly, to whom some of us have rather close ties, thanks d_linde for the show of respect.

Not surprisingly, Obama's inexperience is what most naysayers view as the big disqualifier. "At this point, there's not enough substance," says haoledave, reflecting a widely shared view. JosephCuomo wants a proper fix-it man: "[A]fter the catastrophic mess Bush has made (and continues to make) of this nation and the world, I'd prefer someone with a lot more experience to come in and clean up after him." And Mickey Weinber has an unexpected take on the problem, viewing it less as a matter of fitness for office than as one of fitness for campaigning: "[Obama] is unknown in battle. Policy experience isn't the issue, battle experience is."

A number of side debates have also broken out in the thread. One concerns a historical analogy. "Arguably 2008 will feature the most volatile, dangerous world environment seen in an election year since 1952," writes teplukhin, invoking the ghosts of Ike and Adlai. "That was the year we nominated a well-spoken, charismatic Illinois senator beloved by our party's left wing, and he was crushed by a popular Republican ex-military hero." The comparison does little for vanwurs, however: "Barack ain't Stevenson. Not by a long shot. Stevenson was a cold, elitist, stuck up ************ who was essentially contemptuous of the American people, and they knew it." Other debates concern the role of race and Obama's stance on same-sex marriage. But, since they often take the form of numerous back-and-forth volleys among readers, we'll shy away from summarizing this part of the debate and instead encourage readers to check it out in the original.

So what, in the end, can we tell Obama? Well, maybe only that our readers are split. But even those who doubt his suitability for 2008 still like him, which is more than we can say about other candidates. And, if you buy the argument of some of our readers, Obama in 2008 isn't necessarily as risky a proposition for the Democrats as it seems, since Democrats don't really, at this point, have terribly much to lose. As mmaunula sarcastically asks, "Why should we go for fresh blood, charisma, and smarts from the heartlands? Our strategy of nominating seasoned Northeastern political veterans has worked so well. Let's not mess with it."

T. A. Frank is a consulting editor at The Washington Monthly.

Are you aware of the politics of the New Republic and its editorial board?

If I accept your poll will you allow me to post any articles from National Review or will you complain of its conservative bias?

"Vote against the madmen that were in power these least eight years" is not a message that will stop anyone from voting McCain or Giuliani.

So what, in the end, can we tell Obama? Well, maybe only that our readers are split. But even those who doubt his suitability for 2008 still like him, which is more than we can say about other candidates. And, if you buy the argument of some of our readers, Obama in 2008 isn't necessarily as risky a proposition for the Democrats as it seems, since Democrats don't really, at this point, have terribly much to lose. As mmaunula sarcastically asks, "Why should we go for fresh blood, charisma, and smarts from the heartlands? Our strategy of nominating seasoned Northeastern political veterans has worked so well. Let's not mess with it."

I couldn't help thinking of two phrases when I read this.

I'd imagine some attempts to revivify old claims that he was responsible for the reductions in crime in NYC and general cleanup of the city. But that's all very old now and there's nothing like a consensus conclusion that he was actually responsible (or how much he was) for the happy statistics during his tenure because the same statistical trends occured across the boards in US cities at that time.

blatham wrote:

I'd imagine some attempts to revivify old claims that he was responsible for the reductions in crime in NYC and general cleanup of the city. But that's all very old now and there's nothing like a consensus conclusion that he was actually responsible (or how much he was) for the happy statistics during his tenure because the same statistical trends occured across the boards in US cities at that time.

Not even the crazier Dems would try to squirm away from Giuliani's methodical renovation of a seedy, dangerous Gotham.

He set out a plan. He prosecuted the plan. The results were and are inseparable from his hand. The liberal New Yorkers were horrified at what had become of the city under poor Democrat "leadership," and put a no-nonsense, crusty Republican prosecutor in charge. They kept him there because of his success.

He had nothing to gain or lose from his magnificent handling of 911. He was on his way out, and not popular in the polls because of a messy divorce.

He proved to be brilliant in crisis--and if he runs, barring something unforeseen, he'll very likely be elected. He is a great administrator of state.

How or if this might translate over to administration of the nation, particularly now, isn't at all clear. Do we assume the mayors of San Francisco or Chicago are competent to this task?

I'm so unfamiliar/uneducated about Daley and Chicago that I don't even know if you might be joking.

Lash wrote:

blatham wrote:

I'd imagine some attempts to revivify old claims that he was responsible for the reductions in crime in NYC and general cleanup of the city. But that's all very old now and there's nothing like a consensus conclusion that he was actually responsible (or how much he was) for the happy statistics during his tenure because the same statistical trends occured across the boards in US cities at that time.

Not even the crazier Dems would try to squirm away from Giuliani's methodical renovation of a seedy, dangerous Gotham.

He set out a plan. He prosecuted the plan. The results were and are inseparable from his hand. The liberal New Yorkers were horrified at what had become of the city under poor Democrat "leadership," and put a no-nonsense, crusty Republican prosecutor in charge. They kept him there because of his success.

He had nothing to gain or lose from his magnificent handling of 911. He was on his way out, and not popular in the polls because of a messy divorce.

He proved to be brilliant in crisis--and if he runs, barring something unforeseen, he'll very likely be elected. He is a great administrator of state.

Well, lash, you've certainly bought the package.

More than a decade ago, the New Yorker did an extensive piece on precisely this matter. And, since moving here, I've talked to a lot of New Yorkers about the period when the city was much less safe than it is now (I feel safer on the streets where I live than I did in Vancouver) to get a sense of what folks think about this change. Pretty uniformly, there is attribution to Guiliani for the change.

Of course, at the time, Guiliani's people pushed the notion every chance they got because that was their job. And that same sort of mayoral re-electioneering happend not just in New York, but in a bunch of other cities where the crimes stats were also dropping. The problem is that more careful study didn't bear out the theses being advanced by all these mayors, and that was what the New Yorker piece addressed. Criminologists just could not back up these politicians claims...something bigger and more general was going on across the boards in these cities. I cannot recall now what, if any, empirically based conclusion they might have arrived at.

Which is not to say that Guiliani's policies had no positive consequences or that the claims made were all empty boasts and PR. At the very least, he chose policies that didn't make things worse - a fine accomplishment for any politician, as Iraq so clearly demonstrates. And it seems very likely that his policies helped.

That's not nothing but it is all, empirically, he can claim re crime.

His handling of New York during the WTC crisis was, however, probably about as competent as a mayor of a city like this might manage to achieve.

How or if this might translate over to administration of the nation, particularly now, isn't at all clear. Do we assume the mayors of San Francisco or Chicago are competent to this task?

And he's got some unsmall problems re Kerik and other related associates aside from the evangelicals' demands.

I confess I personally don't like the fellow. He's a bully and his veracity and judgement of character are both dubious. He'll use divisiveness and forward it in order to get to power and to keep power (as in his speech at the Republican convention). Wrong fellow entirely for America now.

Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, is probably too controversial to win a majority of American votes. His decision to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples would make that hard.