Obama '08?

This is like the european delegation to the Democratic National Convention.

Why not? Clinton sold out to Europe, might as well continue the fine tradition!

Soz, and others interested in Obama-
I just bought The Audacity of Hope last night, and read about 40 pages. I think I can already qualify it as a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the man's political and philosophical foundations. It's fascinating so far.
I was a little disappointed in the other book, Dreams From My Father. It didn't as much deal with how and why he became the person he is politically and spiritually, as I had hoped. But this one has alternately enlightened and inspired me already.
I'll share more about it when I get through it.

Oh wow, Walter!

Yeah, the family issue -- I can see that being huge. I don't think he'd do anything halfway, and I know family is important to him (genuinely, not just as a soundbite, part of why I like him). Hmmm.

Snood, great, thanks for that and looking forward to more from you. I gotta read that book, don't I?

By the way that was another thing that bothered me about the Klein article -- he said that nothing in "Audacity of Hope" was very audacious. That's so not the point of the title -- the point is that merely being hopeful (especially as a politician today) is itself audacious. I agree.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Even David Brooks likes Obama and his book. So much for "no feedback from outside the midwest".

The chief problem in his book is that after launching off on some interesting description of a problem, he will settle back, when it comes time to make a policy suggestion, into a familiar and small-bore Democratic proposal. I'd give him an A for conception but a B-minus for policy creativity. Obama, who is nothing if not honest about himself, is aware of the problem, and has various explanations for it. And what matters at this point is not his platform, but the play of his mind. He is one of those progressives, like Gordon Brown in Britain, who is thinking about the challenges of globalization outside the normal clichés. Coming from my own perspective, I should note that I disagree with many of Obama's notions and could well end up agreeing more with one of his opponents. But anyone who's observed him closely can see that Obama is a new kind of politician. As Klein once observed, he's that rarest of creatures: a megahyped phenomenon that lives up to the hype. It may not be personally convenient for him, but the times will never again so completely require the gifts that he possesses. Whether you're liberal or conservative, you should hope Barack Obama runs for president.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html

I don't think Brooks is someone I'd use the qualifier "even" with (as in, "even he likes Obama"). His history includes once being a liberal himself, and his views break with the party line often - not a "culture warrior" believing the left is the root of all evil, in favor of same-sex marriage, even tempering with some wariness his optimism about the Iraq War.

I don't think it suprising or out of character for David Brooks to like Obama or his book. There is simply a lot there to like across all conjured demarcation lines, IMO.

HEY! Obama's on Charlie Rose (PBS) RIGHT NOW!!

I've been watching David Brooks since before the 2000 election when he began to appear on the PBS Newshour as an infrequent replacement for Paul Gigot on the regular Friday Gigot/Mark Shields political roundup. When Gigot got bumped up at the WSJ, that replacement at PBS became permanent. He's bright, quite witty (describing Whitman's posting to Interior as "keeping the forests safe for steeplechase") and more often than not allows rationality and honesty to trump partisan ideology. He only rarely parrots slogans or talking points, more often avoiding them or even derogating them. He's capable of learning and changing his mind. He's a very different sort of conservative/republican than foxfyre or just wonders, etc.

Given a substantial defeat for republicans in three weeks, we seem pretty certain to witness more disarray and dissatisfaction in the republican machine of the sort that follows...
much more here

This breakdown in message management (speaking with a singular voice) allows us a good peak into some of the disparate interest groups which the modern conservative movement had cobbled together to attain/maintain power. Since the Reagan era, the more temperate conservatives have warned about the growing influence of the radical religious right on the republican party. That discussion may well now come to a head and it is long overdue. People like Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Perkins and others are far too intellectually unhumble and far too authoritarian in personal psychology to comprehend what Brooks speaks of above... that what American democracy now needs more than anything else is a Presidential figure who represents - truly represents as opposed to being marketed as representing - inclusion, integrity, intelligence, democratic process and hope.

ps

McCain, over the next year or so, will likely provide a pretty good indicator of the religious right's power within the post-election republican party.

Good!

Saw Obama last night on Larry King. He is definitely not ruling out a 2008 run. I'm going to allow myself to dream for just one moment, but can you imagine how good it would be for the country if he won? Can you see the difference in the respect for us in the world if he was the face of our nation verses Bush as the face of our nation? The contrast is just huge.

I've allowed myself to dream just a little, also.

But when I dream a dream of Obama elected as pres, included in the dream are some nightmarish visions of what lengths some people would go to, to ensure he couldn't stay in that office.

Eek.

I know what you mean, though, FreeDuck. Man, it would be so great. It's looking more and more possible.

Was thinking of opening a new topic on this in Relationships & Marriage since it's not really politics per se, but will start it here I think -- what would you do if you were Michelle Obama?

It is, isn't it. There's rather a perfect trajectory in the impetus towards a run.

I'm still thinking of what I would do if I were Michelle Obama. I want to say I would encourage hime to run. But in the back of my mind all I can think of is Kennedy. And I'd be thinking it even more if I were her.

Eek again.

There is that whole aspect, but the more mundane one is the fact that they have two small children and Michelle isn't really the little wifey type. (One thing I like about her, and them as a couple.) If I put myself in her shoes I immediate start thinking "noooo...!" I mean, as public of a figure as he is now, if he runs for president...?! If he WINS the presidency..!?? (Well, Bush has set that bar low anyway with his monthlong vacations and such. I think Obama would be more of a workaholic, though.)

When Kennedy became president, there was an expectation that Jackie would do the kid-wranglin'. These days dads are expected to have more of a role, and it sounds like Obama does have a big role in his kids' lives. And Michelle seems to have a lot going on, herself.

But then there's the larger questions, putting yourself (or even your kids) ahead of the greater good of the world. (And yes, I feel that strongly about Obama.) I dunno what I would do there. Yikes.

Yeah, I definitely see that angle and I seem to recall Obama himself hinting at an acknowledgment of it. And yeah, I think he would be workaholic. Still, I wonder if it would be that much more difficult than their current situation. Or maybe I just don't have any way of quantifying the amount of work/time any of these jobs takes.

I'd like to think we don't have to worry about the safety of the candidates running for President and that 1968 was 'before' and now we are beyond those worries, but I know that's naive. Like Freeduck, I too have thought of Kennedy's assassination when thinking of Obama making a run for the Presidency. I'm sure she would think about it often.

On the other hand, there has been no secret that he has aspirations to run at some point, presumably with her support. Given that assumption, I don't know why she would be less supportive from a safety standpoint in 2008 than 2012. However, there might be other considerations that make waiting four years more appealing - the ages of their children, for instance.

How did Cherie Blair handle this? If there was trouble, I don't remember reading about it.

Secret Service protection has been provided to all presidential candidates since Kennedy's assassination and there have certainly been many candidates who have faced safety concerns since 1968. I think the parallel might be coming from the on-going comparisons to his dynamic appeal as, "the first democratic candidate since Kennedy...." that brings the safety issue into the forefront.